[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7276-7289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1433, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE 
                       VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 260

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of 
     Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of 
     representation in the House of Representatives, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour and 
     twenty minutes of debate, with one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1433 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Arcuri) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 260 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, under a 
closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, 
with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides that the amendment printed in the report shall be considered 
as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The 
rule waives all points of order against the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it was 
patently unjust to require people to pay taxes to a government within 
which they had no direct involvement, what came to be familiarly called 
``taxation without representation.'' The fact that approximately 
600,000 U.S. citizens live under taxation without representation within 
the United States today is repugnant to our very notion of democracy 
and to those who fought and died in creating this great Nation. How can 
the United

[[Page 7277]]

States deny democracy in its capital while it promotes democracy 
abroad?
  These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes and have 
sacrificed their lives in Iraq and every other war since the American 
Revolution. This is taxation without representation at its worst, and 
it is completely undemocratic. No other democracy in the world denies 
to its citizens in its capital city the right to vote. We here in 
America, the symbol of democracy to so much of the world, must not deny 
that right to our citizens.
  This bipartisan legislation would correct this injustice by granting 
the citizens of our Nation's capital with a voting representative in 
the House of Representatives.
  Some of my colleagues have suggested that this legislation is 
unconstitutional, that we in Congress will be acting outside our power 
in enacting this bill. To this, I must respectfully and strongly 
disagree. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates 
the powers of Congress. Among the powers listed in Article I, section 8 
states that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever over'' the District of Columbia. 
Article I, section 8 also gives Congress the power ``to make all laws 
which shall be necessary and proper'' to execute its enumerated powers.
  Further, in 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, giving residents 
of the new District of Columbia the right to vote. Since the capital 
was still being established, citizens were allowed to continue voting 
in their States, Maryland and Virginia. Congress then took this right 
away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of 
the District of Columbia. In the political battles that followed, 
District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Certainly, if 
Congress can remove the right by statute, so too can it reinstate that 
right by statute.
  In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief 
Justice John Marshall said: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be 
within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are 
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not 
prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, 
are constitutional.''
  Extending full representation in the House to residents of the 
District of Columbia is a legitimate end. It is within the scope of 
Congress' power to exercise exclusive legislation in matters concerning 
the District of Columbia and consistent with not only the letter of the 
Constitution but also the spirit in which the Constitution was written 
by our Founding Fathers, that is, ``taxation without representation is 
tyranny.''
  I, for one, want to correct this grave injustice and provide the 
citizens of Washington, D.C. with the same rights afforded to every 
other citizen in this great Nation. Our actions today will do just 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule 
and to the blatantly unconstitutional measure that the Democrat 
majority is bringing to the House floor today.
  There is not much to celebrate in this deeply flawed legislation that 
constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called 
``the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

                              {time}  1030

  But I am an optimist, and I have found a very small silver lining in 
what I think is a cynical political exercise that is designated for 
President Bush's veto pen, that is, if it ever makes it that far.
  Today, the American taxpayer can be grateful that at least this week 
that the Democrat majority has trained its sights on simply trampling 
on the Constitution rather than propping up the fledgling ranks of big 
union bosses for the fourth week in a row. While this may not seem like 
much, it seems to be the best that the Democrat majority is willing to 
do at this time.
  My opposition to this measure stems from its incompatibility with a 
pretty basic foundation of American Government, the Constitution. 
Section 2 of Article I clearly states that ``the House of 
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year 
by the People of the several States.'' The way I see it, any fourth-
grader in the country can tell you that D.C. is simply not a State.
  Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District 
Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's 
government seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member 
of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear that by its very 
nature, D.C. is not a State, which brings us back to the original 
problem of this bill being completely unconstitutional.
  But do not take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership will not 
listen to reason, one would hope that at least they would listen to one 
of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who offered an amendment 
to the Constitution that would have provided D.C. with a vote in the 
House. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated on July 22, 1788.
  But if neither my word nor the Constitution nor the actions of our 
Founding Fathers is good enough, I wonder if the Democrat majority 
would be willing to listen to an equal branch of our government for 
their opinion on this matter.
  In 2000, the Federal district court in Washington, D.C., concluded 
that ``the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may 
serve as a State for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional 
representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but perhaps not every 
Member of this body.
  So, for a moment, let us ignore my word, the Constitution, the 
actions of our Founding Fathers, and the decisions of the Federal 
judiciary.
  What would it mean if Congress simply gave D.C. a seat in the House? 
Rather than going through the necessary process of passing a 
constitutional amendment, which, by the way, was attempted in 1978 and 
failed, it would create a precedent that said Congress would give the 
District three votes next year, or they could give them 10. It would 
mean that if Congress did not like the way the new Member from D.C. was 
voting, it could simply take the seat away, because if Congress has the 
power to create a seat, it certainly has the power to take that seat 
away, which it cannot do under the Constitution, the same Constitution 
that gives States those rights.
  It would mean that Congress could deny D.C. voters the protection 
from, let us say, racial discrimination, given by the 15th amendment to 
the Constitution, or deny them protection from discrimination based on 
sex given to them in the 19th amendment. Is this the kind of precedent 
that we should be setting?
  But rather than discuss the facts or logic of this approach, I 
suspect that the supporters of this legislation will come to the floor 
and simply talk about fairness. But I fail to see how it is fair that 
this would give every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes, one for 
their Member of Congress and one for a new at-large Member, while 
keeping the one man, one vote principle in every other State.
  Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side would be kind enough to come 
down to the floor and explain this logic to me, but I am sure I will 
not hold my breath.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and 
support the Constitution, not to trample on it. Personally, I think 
this is a fairly low bar that has been established. So last night in 
the Rules Committee, Congressman McHenry and I offered a commonsense 
amendment to have this new Member from D.C. act to preserve the 
individual right to keep and bear arms of the residents of the District 
of Columbia as also provided in the second amendment to the 
Constitution and upheld on March 9, 2007, by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit.
  No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, 
the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You

[[Page 7278]]

simply cannot pick and choose which part you are going to respect and 
which part you are going to ignore.
  That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an 
orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution, if you so 
choose. So despite the fact that this underlying bill is designated for 
history's trash can, I am attempting to improve it slightly by forcing 
this entire body to recognize that the rights given in the whole 
Constitution, not just certain parts, should be recognized by anyone 
who claims to uphold and defend our government's founding document.
  Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line vote in 
the Rules Committee, which is fast becoming the graveyard of good ideas 
in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this rule and the 
underlying assault on the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague 
from Texas. I think he is trying to characterize this bill as an 
attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia, which is not 
what this bill does. This bill attempts to do what the Constitution 
says that Congress can do, and that is, exercise exclusive legislation 
in all cases whatsoever over the District. That is what we are doing 
here, and there is precedent to that.
  In 1949 in the Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld a decision 
which allowed Congress to give diversity jurisdiction to the District 
of Columbia, and now, generally, diversity jurisdiction only can occur 
between States, and despite the fact that clearly the District of 
Columbia was not a State, they were able, through an enactment by 
Congress, to be given that status of diversity jurisdiction.
  The District of Columbia is not a State. It is not being treated as a 
State, but rather as a district for the capital, for the Federal 
capital. So it does have a special and unique treatment, and I think 
the Founding Fathers realized that it would be different, that it would 
not be like a State, and, in fact, it was part of the history why they 
came and created a capital.
  When they were in Philadelphia, they were not happy with the fact 
that they had to constantly appeal to the Pennsylvania Legislature for 
the right to do different things, so they intended to create a capital 
that they would be able to have jurisdiction over.
  That was the historical reason why the District of Columbia was 
created. So the fact that Congress then gave itself, or the 
Constitution gave Congress the right to make laws and make rules for 
the District of Columbia is the reason why today we are introducing 
this bill.
  So I believe that we are not attempting to give D.C. statehood, but, 
rather, to give it a right to vote in this body, which is exclusively 
within the jurisdiction of Congress and within the right of Congress to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the ranking member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this bill was 
unconstitutional for the reasons stated by my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), but I am afraid that the way this bill treats the at-large 
seat in Utah makes it even more unconstitutional.
  Not since the Supreme Court issued its string of one person, one vote 
decisions in the 1960s has Congress seen fit to amend the law to allow 
both at-large and district elections for Members of the House of 
Representatives. This bill does that and, in effect, gives the citizens 
of Utah the right to vote for two Representatives, one in the district 
and one at-large, which is something that is denied to every other 
citizen of the United States.
  Even if this is not a violation of equal protection under the law, I 
think that it is extremely bad policy because it is in derogation from 
what those of us who have fought to enact and reenact the Voting Rights 
Act have attempted to do, and the Supreme Court has said on numerous 
occasions that at-large elections are in derogation of giving 
minorities effective representation not just in Congress, but for local 
legislative bodies like city councils and county commissions.
  I fear that if this act is held constitutional with an at-large seat 
in Utah, that precedent will be used in jurisdictions covered by the 
Voting Rights Act to once again go back to at-large elections and to 
diminish the votes that minorities have enjoyed ever since the 1982 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
  Finally, having an at-large seat in Utah is going to make it probably 
more difficult to uphold this law, and the reason I say that is that if 
this law is held unconstitutional with four Members from Utah being 
elected by district, effectively a quarter of the people of Utah will 
be disenfranchised since the bill has a nonseverability clause, and 
thus, if D.C. brings the bill down, one-quarter of the people of Utah 
will have no representative in Congress. That would be a powerful 
argument to uphold the constitutionality of this bill, and one that 
cannot be avoided.
  Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to play 
partisan politics. They are jeopardizing the litigation of this 
legislation. I would hope that they would think twice, and they would 
vote this rule down.
  I was prepared to support this legislation both in this Congress and 
the last Congress if Utah had four Representatives elected by 
districts. What you have done here, you have lost me. There is still 
time to correct this, and I would hope that the rule would be rejected.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop), a former member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I come here with a sense of disappointment, but, admittedly, not 
surprise. Last night in the Rules Committee, I had the opportunity of 
listening to a brilliant amendment that I thought was brilliantly 
presented. I did it, so it was brilliant. Unfortunately, that 
amendment, which was a new issue to this debate that has not been 
discussed in other venues or has not been discussed in another 
committee, is a technical amendment that was designed neither to 
inhibit nor to promote the passage of the underlying bill.
  If Utah becomes part of this bill and it is passed, we would be 
required in some way, shape and form to have a special election, which 
would cost the State of Utah about $7 million and require the 
legislature to come into special session to create new rules for a 
special election, as well as to appropriate money that does not now 
exist for that.
  We all know there will be lawsuits on this bill, and it will take 
time for those lawsuits to work the court. My amendment, a technical 
amendment, was simply to say let us start the process of the election 
in the 2008 election cycle, which would simply say there would be no 
extra cost to an entity for performance. There would be regular 
process, and that would give plenty of time for the lawsuits to have 
their way work through the courts. It seems ridiculous for the State of 
Utah to have to spend $7 million on a special election that may then be 
invalidated by a court action later on.
  I have to admit that in some respects I feel frustrated the way the 
State of

[[Page 7279]]

Utah has been treated in this entire process, forced to have a special 
session to draw a map, a map in which the criteria was for incumbent 
protection, never before done, and now forced to spend money on a 
special election, when an alternate is completely there.

                              {time}  1045

  Not to allow that to even be discussed on the floor does not help the 
body politic that is here.
  I also notice that my friend from Georgia has come down here. Mr. 
Westmoreland had an amendment that was discussed in the committee and 
passed in the committee. Yet this Rules Committee has stripped his 
amendment and offered a closed rule, so they deny him the opportunity 
to even discuss the amendment that has already been passed.
  Time after time in the last few years I sat where the gentleman from 
Texas sat and was denigrated by people who said we denied amendments 
that had failed in committee and were therefore stopping the democratic 
process. Here we have an example of someone who passed an amendment in 
committee that has now been stripped out and is no longer being allowed 
to discuss it on a bill that is purported to be expanding the concept 
of democracy in the first place.
  I realize that when we talk about process, that is extremely boring 
to the American people. It's boring to us. Actually, most of what we 
say on this floor is boring to almost all of us.
  But the real inconvenient truth is that poor process equates to poor 
policy. We will see another rule that comes out here today as well that 
would clearly illustrate how poor process, in an unprecedented fashion, 
would clearly result in poor policy.
  When I was a young legislator, I one time was somewhat of a rebel, I 
redeemed myself and eventually became speaker, but in my second session 
I had a position that was at odds with my own leadership and was 
numerically outnumbered. But they allowed the process in Utah to work 
so I stayed at the table, and eventually we designed and came up with a 
product that was actually before for all of us. That is what we should 
be doing here today.
  Somehow I heard, over the past 10 years, how the Rules Committee, 
when a different party was in charge, is where democracy goes to die. 
Unfortunately, this day the Rules Committee is once again where 
democracy goes to die. Mr. Westmoreland, who will be speaking in a few 
minutes, is living proof of how that happens.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time that 
remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New York has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire from the gentleman from New York if 
he has any additional speakers, with the understanding that he has the 
right to close.
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir, we have two additional speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You do anticipate two additional speakers?
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to run down his 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out, in listening 
to the debate, that when one looks at some of the decisions from the 
Supreme Court with respect to the steps that Congress, the powers of 
Congress, you can't help but think of Marbury v. Madison, which is one 
of the first great cases considered by Justice Marshall in the early 
Supreme Court.
  In that case, the Supreme Court basically outlined what was the 
framework for the separation of power between the different branches of 
government. Basically, it set forth to Congress that it could not 
dictate to the Supreme Court or to the justice branch of government 
what the jurisdictions of or what their jurisdiction was.
  Basically, what that decision came to recognize is the fact that 
within the particular branches of government, each branch has exclusive 
power and that only the Constitution can set jurisdiction.
  Clearly, that is what we are doing here today. The Constitution makes 
it very clear that Congress has exclusive legislative right over the 
District. That is exactly what we are attempting to do today. We are 
attempting to give the District of Columbia the right to vote, as we 
are entitled to do, as the Constitution clearly enumerates that 
Congress has the right to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York was making a great argument 
for the bill itself, but we are talking about the rule. We are talking 
about the ability of every Member of this body to be able to amend the 
bill. We go through a committee process here, well, I shouldn't say all 
the time, because in the 110th Congress, it has been very rare that we 
have gone through a regular order. But in this particular case we did 
go through a regular order as far as the bill going to Government 
Reform.
  I had an amendment. The amendment was pretty simple. It said, 
notwithstanding the fact that the District of Columbia would get a vote 
on the floor of this body, but that the intention, and the end result, 
was for them not to have representation in the United States Senate.
  Now, that was fairly simple. In fact, I believe it passed Government 
Reform unanimously. My 700,000 people that I represent in Georgia had 
an opportunity to amend this bill.
  But because of the closed rule that we have today, an amendment that 
was passed, agreed to by both sides, put in the bill in Government 
Reform, has come to the floor without it.
  You know, this was hyped up to be the most ethical Congress. I 
haven't seen any proof of that. It has been hyped up to be the most 
open Congress where all Members would have an opportunity to 
participate. We certainly haven't seen that.
  This is government almost by gradualism. We are gradually getting to 
where the leadership of the majority party wants to go. I believe that 
is to give D.C. the ability to have Members of Congress.
  Now, this little book right here, the gentleman from New York was 
quoting parts of the Constitution, but he didn't quote all of it. 
Because in here I think it lays out very plainly who is to vote on the 
floor of this House and who is to have representation in this House, 
and who is to have representation in the United States Senate.
  I think this is the first step. I think my amendment made it clear 
that the intention of this bill was not to gradually give them the 
ability to have seats in the Senate. But because it made it so clear 
and described so clearly the legislative intent of this body, they 
won't allow it to be in the bill, because their intention is to go 
further.
  I would hope that one day we would. I hear people's lips, I hear 
things coming out of people's mouths. I see lips moving, talking about 
bipartisanism: we are going to be bipartisan; we are going to let 
everybody participate.
  I haven't seen that in action. Let me say this, I don't think anybody 
has ever written a perfect bill, a bill that couldn't be adapted or 
expanded or explained a little bit better, a bill that couldn't be made 
better, a bill that couldn't be perfected.
  In fact, if you read the rules of this House, it talks about 
amendments and perfection and perfecting the amendment, perfecting the 
bill. That is all we want an opportunity to do. I think everybody in 
this body, all 435 of us, I think the people that we represent, all 
they want us to have is an opportunity to try to help perfect the bill 
or make it better.
  So far, we have been shut out of that process. I think it is a shame. 
As my friend, Mr. Bishop, said, a lot of people don't pay any attention 
to the process up here. But when the process is broken, the product is 
flawed.

[[Page 7280]]

  I think the closed rule on this important bill is an example that 
this is a very broken process.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks. He 
talks about bipartisanship. Frankly, I can't think of an issue that is 
more bipartisan than giving each and every American the right to vote. 
That is exactly what we are attempting to do here today.
  You know, I can't help but think as a new Member of Congress that 
when we came down back in January to be sworn in, and my daughter and 
my family were here, one of the first things that my daughter said to 
me was noticing on a license plate ``taxation without representation.'' 
She asked me what that meant and why they were talking about that 
because she remembered studying about it in school.
  It is critical. It is so important to us as a Nation to practice what 
we preach. We are in other places in the world. We are fighting wars 
for freedom, and we talk about how important it is to give people the 
right to vote and to be free, and that is exactly what we are doing 
here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could please inquire upon the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from New York has 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to try to get us 
back to a balance if we could. I would encourage the gentleman to run 
his time down.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. We anticipate having our Speaker, and we continue to 
reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman, the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee from San Dimas, California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I want to express appreciation to my very good friend 
from Dallas and my new friend from New York for their management of 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that to me it is very clear. Mr. Sessions' 
very able assistant just gave me a copy of the Constitution. Article 1, 
section 2 says: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''
  Until we change the Constitution and make the District of Columbia a 
State or include it as a State or as a part of Maryland, it seems to me 
that this is unconstitutional.
  I mean, I am not a constitutional expert, but I know that Mr. 
Sensenbrenner stood here. We had a wide range of other people who have 
been arguing. I listened this morning to that great constitutional 
scholar Jonathan Turley from George Washington University on National 
Public Radio. He was talking about this exact line that I just read, 
arguing that it is unconstitutional.
  I don't exactly understand why it is we are here. But there is 
something that hasn't been discussed at all in this debate, and that is 
how are we going to pay for this thing. We do know that we have got 
this structure that is put into place, PAYGO, as it's called.
  Well, there was mandatory spending in this to establish a new Member 
of Congress; and under PAYGO, the rules that are adopted, the costs 
clearly have to be offset. The offset that is self-executed into this 
bill, by the rule, raises the requirement for income tax withholding by 
three one-thousandths of a percent. It's a pretty tiny one. But it has 
the potential for some real problems. Think about the self-employed 
computer programmer who earns $80,000 a year.
  This computer programmer would have to calculate their estimated tax 
themselves and make quarterly payments to the government. If that 
computer operator misses that new three one-thousandths of 1 percent 
increase in withholding and underwithholds by as little as 6 cents per 
month, that person is subject to the Internal Revenue Service 
prosecuting them and seeking interest and penalties as if they were 
trying to evade paying their income taxes.
  Basically, I concluded that if the government is going to require 
that they are going to take money that they say you could potentially 
get back from this, it is a tax increase, because if the government 
holds money that is mine, no matter how small it is, and I am not 
getting interest on that money, that, to me, is a tax increase. That is 
exactly what we are going to be doing when any Member votes to pass 
this rule that allows us to proceed in this matter.
  I don't understand why it is that we are here. It is, to me, a very, 
very unfortunate thing. We now see how the Democrats intend to close 
the so-called tax gap, and it's on the backs of the average taxpayer in 
this country, and it is just plain wrong.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. If, by chance, we pass this rule, 
which, from my perspective, self-executes a tax increase on the average 
hard-working taxpayer in this country, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill 
itself.
  One of the most ridiculous aspects of this rule is the mechanism used 
to pay for the mandatory spending in this bill.
  The bill provides for a new Member of Congress, and as a 
constitutional officer, that Member's salary is a mandatory expense.
  Under the PAYGO rules adopted by the House, those costs must be 
offset.
  The offset self-executed into the bill by the rule raises the 
requirement for income tax withholding by three one-thousandths of a 
percent.
  What does that mean to the average taxpayer? Well, for a married 
couple who both happen to be firefighters earning $80,000 a year, their 
interest-free loan to the government just went up by about $1.60. 
That's right, $1.60. But they do have to send approximately 13 cents 
per month more to the government to pay for a new congressional seat.
  That's not the worst part, though. Take the self-employed computer 
programmer who earns $80,000 per year. She has to calculate her 
estimated tax herself and make quarterly payments to the government.
  If she misses that new .003 percent increase in withholding, and 
under-withholds by as little as 6 cents per month she is subject to the 
IRS prosecuting her and seeking interest and penalties as if she were 
trying to evade paying her taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, we now see how the Democrats intend to close the so-
called ``tax gap''--on the backs of average taxpayers, all to pay 
another Member of Congress.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from California, my colleague from 
the Rules Committee. And he points out that, yes, I think a legitimate 
question, how are we going to pay for this? I can't help but think that 
when it comes to giving people freedom and the right to vote, we must 
find a way to pay for it. In fact, we have spent $400 billion 
attempting to give the people in Iraq freedom and the right to vote. 
And if we can spend $400 billion in Iraq, then we can spend some money 
here to give the 600,000 people here in the District of Columbia the 
right to vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply argue, 
based on the point that has been made by that great expert Mr. Turley, 
we need to look at amending the U.S. Constitution before we go down 
that road. And we also have to look at how it is we are going to pay 
for this. Are we going to pay for it by basically imposing a tax on the 
average taxpaying citizen of this country by withholding dollars of 
theirs? I just think it is plain wrong.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just ask my friend from California, 
what about the constitutional expert Ken Starr who has testified under 
oath that this is constitutional; or Viet Dinh, who was a chief counsel 
in the Justice Department under President Bush; and John Ashcroft, who 
wrote the PATRIOT Act and has written an opinion that this is 
constitutional? Aren't their views worth consideration as well?

[[Page 7281]]


  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield so I can respond to my friend?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. And I will tell you that when the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee last night began his 
testimony before the Rules Committee, he quoted both Kenneth Starr, and 
frankly I will say that it was with a great deal of pain and it was 
precedent-setting that our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman 
Mr. Conyers and he said this, quoted for the first time, and I suspect 
maybe the last, Kenneth Starr, and he went on to refer to the fact that 
Viet Dinh had clearly concluded this.
  There are conflicting views as to the constitutionality of this. I 
recognize that. And, in fact, Mr. Sensenbrenner, when he was addressing 
the Rules Committee last night, said that he believed that this was a 
50/50 call.
  I think that there are a lot of different opinions on it. Jonathan 
Turley is one that has spent a great deal of time looking at this, and 
I just happen to think that he is right. And the way I read the 
Constitution, that is the way I see it.
  Mr. ARCURI. I would just like to point out that the gentleman from 
California says that he is not clearly not an expert on the 
Constitution, but I think he has a much better understanding of the 
Constitution than he admits.
  You sound like you are strictly attempting to interpret the 
Constitution, a strict constructionalist. And that being the case, I 
think it is clear, a close reading of the Constitution gives Congress 
under Article I, section 8 exclusive legislation over all aspects of 
the District. So I think that it is clear in a strict reading of the 
Constitution that Congress has this ability.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield to me for a moment. I thank 
my friend for yielding, and I really do appreciate him, and he is my 
new friend on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that it is Article I, section 2, to 
which I point where it refers to the fact that this body, according to 
the Constitution, is to become comprised of Members elected from the 
several States. And that is why I argue that if, in fact, we are going 
to do this, we should look at a way in which the District of Columbia 
becomes a State so that it can, in fact, comply with the Constitution.
  Mr. ARCURI. I just would point out what I stated earlier. In the 
Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld the ability of Congress to 
designate the District of Columbia, for purposes of diversity 
jurisdiction, as a special creature, as not a State, but standing in 
certain respects in the same way that a State does. I think it is 
clearly within the power of Congress to do this, and I yield.
  Mr. DREIER. Again, this description of the District of Columbia as a 
special entity is absolutely right. That is what the Framers of our 
Constitution wanted to do in establishing the District of Columbia to 
ensure that it is not a State. That is the uniqueness of the District 
of Columbia. And I am arguing that if, in fact, we need to make this 
change so that it complies with Article I, section 2, it seems to me 
there needs to be a modification to the Constitution.
  Mr. ARCURI. Reclaiming my time. And I think I just have to answer 
that by saying if you look at historically why Congress actually 
created the District, it was so that it would have jurisdiction over 
the area which it sat, not for the reason that you indicate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
rule, and as well as I am in opposition of the underlying bill that we 
are considering today, and I do so because I am a strict 
constructionist. I am a believer and I am a defender of the 
Constitution. In fact, when I came to Congress, like all of us did, I 
took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I intend to do so. And I 
believe that what the House is considering passing today in this 
legislation is simply unconstitutional.
  Let me just say, I am not against the citizens of the District of 
Columbia having the right to vote for a Member of the House of 
Representatives. In fact, before I came to Congress, I had the 
privilege and pleasure to serve as the Michigan secretary of state for 
8 years, and that is the chief elections officer in my State, and a 
principal advocacy of mine then as it is now was registering as many 
citizens who were eligible to vote, and then trying to get as many who 
were registered to actually participate in the elections process.
  However, under the Constitution of the United States, it explicitly 
declares that representation in Congress can only be granted to States. 
Article I, section 2 states clearly that: Representatives shall be 
apportioned among several States.
  Interestingly enough, even the District of Columbia recently argued 
that it was not a State and shouldn't be treated like one. And I am 
referring to the recent District Court of Appeals case about the long-
time D.C. gun ban when the District argued that the second amendment 
did not apply to them because they are not a State. And I am not sure 
if the District actually believes that other parts of the Constitution 
don't apply to them for the same reasons. For instance, they might 
think that the first amendment doesn't apply to them. I am not sure.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution applies to every American wherever 
you live, the first amendment, the second amendment, and the section 
that precludes the District from having a vote in this Chamber.
  And if we are going to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of 
politics, why are we stopping with just giving D.C. a vote in the 
House? Why not give them two Senators like every other State has? How 
about a Governor? A statehouse? A State senate as well as all the other 
constitutional officers that other States have, like the attorney 
general or secretary of state or whatever?
  Also, by trying to buy a few votes by saying that we will expand the 
membership of this Chamber by giving D.C. one Member and Utah one 
Member so that we will hopefully have one Democratic vote or one 
Republican vote; since we are being completely political and arbitrary, 
how about just one vote for the District, and then give whatever Member 
has the most Republican district in the Nation, give them two votes?
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a bill that clearly violates the 
Constitution. It will never be upheld by the courts. The District 
should either go back to being a part of the State of Maryland, as they 
were at our Nation's founding, or we should amend the Constitution. 
Asking Members to vote to violate our Nation's Constitution, I believe, 
is absolutely the wrong approach. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this 
rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 16 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Davis.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say, a strict reading of the 
Constitution, if you look just at its face, if you read that, D.C. 
residents wouldn't have a right to a jury trial because that is only to 
residents of States. D.C. residents would have no right to sue non-D.C. 
residents in Federal courts under diversity jurisdiction, which is 
reserved to residents of States. The full faith and credit clause 
wouldn't apply to D.C. under the Constitution, because that only 
applies to States. But Congress, under the District clause, has allowed 
the District to be treated as a State for those purposes.
  The previous speaker says, well, if they can do this, why can't they 
be treated as a State for other purposes? The city argued under the gun 
ban that they weren't a State because Congress hadn't specifically said 
they were a

[[Page 7282]]

 State, but the District clause is all-inclusive and gives Congress the 
power to determine what the rights are. We have that right. It is not 
an inherent right to vote in the House of Representatives, but we have 
that right under the District clause.
  The difference between the House and the Senate in the constitutional 
reading is the Senate represents States. Individuals represent States, 
and each State gets two Senators. And the District of Columbia is 
clearly not a State. But the House of Representatives is of the people 
among the several States, a different wording. In fact, at the time the 
Constitution was created, the people in the District were among the 
several States, and, in fact, the residents of what are now the 
District voted for Congress the first 12 years of the Republic.
  But this is not a right that goes to the District of Columbia. This 
is a right that goes to the people of the District of Columbia, and 
Congress has the right to determine whether they have it or not. This 
was taken up in 1800 when the anti-Federalists won the Presidency by 
one electoral vote, if you remember, and in a lame duck session this 
was debated, and, as usually happens, they punted it to the succeeding 
Congresses.
  I think the constitutionality of this thing is very, very clear that, 
under the District clause, we have the ability in Congress to determine 
if they get a vote in the House or not. And I just want to set the 
record straight on that. All of these other rights, jury trial, right 
to sue, full faith and credit, even the Federal Government would not be 
allowed to impose Federal taxes in the District under a strict reading 
of the Constitution. But under law and under the District clause, we 
have expanded it to the District. I just think the record should 
reflect that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire of 
the gentleman from New York if, due to the imbalance of time, if he 
would like to perhaps have some more of his speakers. If so, I would 
reserve the balance of my time if he chose to go that direction.
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. And I 
really had not intended to come forward since I will be managing in a 
few minutes but I must say that I have been virtually driven to the 
floor by the abstractions of the discussion. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Would the gentleman from Virginia engage in a colloquy with me?
  I will have more to say about the specific legal and constitutional 
issues, but I do want to say something to those who are such 
literalists that they would deny us of the right to vote citing the 
Framers and the Constitution. Is it not true that the State of Virginia 
and perhaps as many as half the Colonies were not States, but 
Commonwealths? And is ``Commonwealth'' mentioned anywhere in the 
Constitution?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. That is correct in the case of Virginia, 
if the gentlelady would allow me.
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. The District of Columbia portion that came 
from Virginia went back to Virginia in 1846. And I think it is 
important for Members to understand the reason for the Virginia section 
of the District petitioned to go back to Virginia was because they were 
afraid that Congress was going to enact a ban on slaveholding in the 
District.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman. And the gentleman has clarified 
something further concerning the right to vote in the people's House.
  The reason I come is not, frankly, to engage early in the discussion 
we will be having on the bill itself; but because the discussion has 
been such an abstraction. I have come because that discussion has been 
as if the Framers set up a place, not a city with real people. It is as 
if you can discuss these rights without referring to whom these rights 
would belong.
  Members have come to the floor with the hubris to believe that the 
Framers intended their constituents to have full rights under the 
Constitution, but not my constituents because we happen to live in the 
Capital of the United States created by the Framers.
  I do want to let you know who you are talking about so that this 
discussion will not be all about constitutional and legal abstractions 
that can only be settled by the courts of the United States. You are 
talking about Kathryn Ray, who lives here and is a mom and a librarian 
and a PTA president. You are talking about Larry Chapman, who is a D.C. 
firefighter, putting his life on the line for emergency response here 
and throughout the city. You are talking about Liz Allen, an attorney 
who has had her first child and has decided to raise this son here in 
the District of Columbia even though her family is denied a vote.

                              {time}  1115

  You are talking about Wade Henderson, like me a native Washingtonian, 
president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who has fought 
every day for civil rights around the world but has never had a vote in 
Congress. Like me, he is an African American who grew up in this city 
when it was a segregated city. Like me, he understood that the 
composition of this city then and for centuries has had much to do with 
the denial of voting rights in this city. And so, like me, he has 
argued in these Halls that all citizens of the District of Columbia, of 
every background, finally have the rights that all other Americans now 
take for granted.
  This bill is about Evelyn Curtis, a nurse at one of our hospitals, 
who would love to have a say on health care issues. She can talk to me, 
but I can't talk to you about what she believes by voting.
  This bill is ultimately about 650,000 American citizens. When you are 
asked to vote on this bill in the middle of a war, when our citizens 
are among the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember 
that you will be voting not for my vote but for the votes of the people 
who live in the District of Columbia and especially for the votes of 
those Washingtonians who as I speak are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan 
and throughout the world in service to the United States of America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and 
to have an opportunity to address this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill. The first premise is that we all stand here on the floor of this 
Congress and take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Even the 
strongest advocates for this bill before the hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee testified that if we believe that a bill is unconstitutional 
before us, we are obligated to uphold our oath and vote ``no'' 
regardless of how much we might support the underlying policy. That is 
the stand that I take on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
  I would declare this to be the first round, one step along the way in 
the D.C. statehood bill. But the discussion that has been here on the 
floor and the exchange and the colloquy with Mr. Dreier on Article I, 
section 2, article I, section 3 and then the reference was brought up 
also of article I, section 8, to address those, it works just like 
this: Article I, section 2 reads: ``The House of Representatives shall 
be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the 
several States.''
  Now, if D.C. is not a State, we can't have Members that come from 
places that are not States. It's a pretty simple analysis here. Read 
the Constitution. It also says in the bill that this doesn't include 
Senators. That was an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland). Statutory provisions aren't constitutional 
restraints. By the same rationale, and I mean exactly the same 
rationale that you can come to a conclusion that there could be a 
Member

[[Page 7283]]

in this Congress that votes in full representation for D.C., you have 
to also conclude that there is a constitutional provision for two 
Senators as well, because I will argue that Article I, section 3, after 
the 17th amendment is applied to it reads this way: ``The Senate of the 
United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State elected 
by the people thereof.'' So the only distinction between a District 
Representative, a Member in the House, and two Senators is the phrase 
``by the people of the several States'' as applied to the Member and 
``elected by the people thereof'' as applied to the Senators.
  This is imperative and compelling. So if you accept a Member here 
constitutionally, you also accept two Senators here by the same 
constitutional rationale.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman that if 
something is unconstitutional, certainly I would not support it, but I 
believe that this bill is constitutional, and I believe again Article 
I, section 8 makes it constitutional for Congress to pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me first of all add my appreciation to 
Congressman Tom Davis; maybe the constitutional teachers at the 
University of Virginia law school are owed a debt of gratitude as well; 
and, of course, the gentlelady who has persisted throughout her, I 
think, legal and legislative career, the Honorable Congresswoman 
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  This is a historic moment and an historic day. I think the crucial-
ness of this debate should not be lost on the American people. I rise 
to support this rule, this structured rule, that allows an amendment by 
Mr. Waxman and Mr. Conyers, and I would like to give comfort to those 
on the other side of the aisle to read their Constitution and explore 
even some of the Supreme Court cases that document that the District of 
Columbia under Supreme Court law has been held as a State in certain 
purposes.
  Now, what is lost in this debate is that this is not a singular 
legislative act that excludes a balance. Out of this provision comes a 
seat for the State of Utah, which has requested a seat for many, many 
years. Just recently, we added a seat for North Carolina so that 
citizens of the United States could vote. So it is being defined by my 
opponents on the other side, this rule that it is unconstitutional 
because they are not giving you the whole story. This, because of 
population concerns, adds a seat to Utah. But, more importantly, this 
is a constitutional approach. They are right. Article I, section 2 
indicates that the House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members from every State. But then there is an enunciation of the 
powers of Congress that goes under section 8, clause 17, that ``the 
Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatever over such district that has been established as the capital of 
the United States.'' The Congress has all power.
  Now, let me say this. We are not all powerful. We represent the 
people of the United States. But would you ask the question as we are 
debating soon the crisis in Iraq, where the policies of this Nation 
have been to export democracy, create an opportunity for those citizens 
of Iraq to vest in their country, to vote for their leadership, does it 
make any sense for individuals paying taxes, who are on the front lines 
of Iraq, Afghanistan, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the 
Korean conflict, and any conflict around the world, to be denied the 
right to vote if the Constitution gives us the authority to do so?
  I commend the Constitution to my colleagues. I might say that we 
welcome the distinguished gentleman from Iowa's amendment to work with 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to get Senate provisions, if he 
desires to do so. It seems like he was concerned that the other body 
was not represented. But when we debate this question as we will soon, 
let us have the facts. You cannot quote one part, as one would say in 
the church, of the Bible and exclude the other part. You can't quote 
one part of the Constitution and ignore the powers of this Congress 
that has a right to exercise authority over the District of Columbia.
  I think the other question that should be asked and answered, who 
will it harm? Who will be hurt by recognizing the voting rights of 
people that are here in the United States paying taxes and shedding 
their blood? Who would argue against the place that thousands and 
millions of Americans come as their capital that they love, and they 
leave behind those who care for and take care of this capital, the 
residents of the District of Columbia, and they leave them with no 
right to vote.
  So I believe that this rule is the right rule. I have disagreed with 
rules, both Republican and, frankly, Democratic rules. Later today I 
will disagree with the rule that will be put forward. But frankly I 
think this rule that is structured makes a great deal of difference and 
it is important that we make sure that we abide by this book and we 
read it consistently with its language and that is to say that Congress 
has the power to move forward.
  I would ask my colleagues to be reminded that there are citizens in 
this country that cannot vote, and I hope that you will view the work 
of the Congress as it is constitutional and right to give those 
citizens the right to vote, for they too are Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my friend for yielding.
  We have Republicans quoting liberal professors and Democrats quoting 
conservative professors in support of where they are. At the end of the 
day I believe that if the District were a Republican enclave, our side 
would be getting up screaming for voting rights and the other side 
would be saying, no, the Constitution is strict. We are trying to take 
the politics out of this.
  In the last Congress, both committees with jurisdiction under 
Republican chairmen cleared this bill for the floor and the Republican 
leadership denied it an opportunity to come to the floor. We could have 
had a full and open debate at that point. I think it would have been 
helpful to the process. Now the Democrats are in control and they are 
bringing this up, not for a full and open debate, unfortunately, but 
under a closed rule. We should have an open rule on this. At the time 
when we are spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of 
lives to bring democracy to Baghdad, to Afghanistan and around the 
world, shouldn't we look right next door to our friends and neighbors 
here in the Nation's capital and give them the essence of democracy, 
the right to vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives? I 
think we should.
  There are different views as to how we should do this. The former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it's constitutional, but 
doesn't like the at-large aspect of the Utah seat but we are not able 
to debate that on the floor today. My friend from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) who has long been a champion of voting rights here has a 
different mechanism under which this could be established.
  I wish we could have a full and open debate on this. I think it would 
be helpful to the process. And I am really torn. Because on the one 
hand our side doesn't want the bill to come up at all, and the other 
side wants this to come up under very closed rules where we can't have 
full and open debate. I look forward to a spirited colloquy as we move 
through this. I am going to support the bill in its final form, of 
course, as it moves through because I think this is something that is 
long overdue for citizens of the Nation's capital and with a long line 
of legal precedents which treats the District of Columbia like a State 
when Congress says it can be treated like a State. Things like the 
right to trial by jury, paying Federal taxes, other issues that apply 
only to States under the Constitution but which under the District 
clause to the Constitution when we apply it to the District, it is 
treated like a State.
  And once again, looking at such conservative jurists as Ken Starr, 
Viet

[[Page 7284]]

Dinh who wrote the PATRIOT Act for the Bush administration testified 
under oath as to its constitutionality. This shouldn't ultimately be 
locked up in this. This should be about basic voting rights for the 
capital of the Free World.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes. 
The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for inquiring. I would like to 
save my 2 minutes for my close and would like to ask if the gentleman 
would allow me 1 additional minute for a speaker that I have.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I just want to say, I will not object. I will not object, 
out of the sense of fairness that I hope that every Member will bring 
with them to the floor when the time comes to vote on this bill. I will 
not object, because Mr. Rohrabacher, who may disagree with my bill, has 
at least understood that the Republic will not go on as long as the 
residents of the Nation's capital are denied a vote in the Congress and 
has himself introduced his own version of a voting rights bill.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, this is all about fairness. And in the 
spirit of fairness that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) talks about, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for debate only.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my friend was very correct when she 
said we should all be concerned about the rights of the people who live 
here in the District of Columbia, the fact that they have taxation 
without representation and then lack the voting rights other people do. 
However, what is being offered today is clearly unconstitutional. If we 
just go through this whole procedure and it gets thrown out by the 
Court, what have we accomplished?
  There is an alternative. Unfortunately, that substitute was not made 
in order. There is an alternative which would give the people in this 
State not only the right to vote for a Representative in the House, but 
for a Senator and 11 congressional electors as well. The substitute, 
which would be constitutional, simply grants the citizens of the 
District of Columbia their State citizenship rights in Maryland, which 
is what happened in Virginia, of course, in the past, 100 years ago. My 
substitute would give the people of this city the right to vote for two 
Senators as well as a Representative as well as electors, and yet this 
was not permitted to come to the House here today. It is a substitute, 
and we were not allowed to vote on it here or to even consider it.
  I would say there are some political considerations that have limited 
this debate at the expense of the people of this city. I would like to 
place in the Record a further description of the substitute legislation 
that I have in mind. And I would suggest that what we do is get 
politics out of this. Let us give these people a right not only to vote 
for a Representative, here but for two Senators. We have it within our 
ability to do that.

       The Rohrabacher substitute, essentially the text of H.R. 
     492, restores the full House, Senate, and Electoral College 
     voting rights enjoyed by residents of the District of 
     Columbia as citizens of Maryland from creation of the 
     District in 1790 to the enactment of the Organic Act of 1801. 
     By restoring the state citizenship rights of D.C. residents 
     to vote for, run for, and serve as U.S. Representatives and 
     Senators, the Rohrabacher substitute complies with the 
     literal reading of Sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the 
     Constitution requiring that Representatives and Senators come 
     from states.
       Like the base bill, the Rohrabacher substitute adds an 
     additional Representative for the next state in line in the 
     2000 census (i.e., Utah), and permanently increases the 
     membership of the House of Representatives to 437. The bill 
     provides an additional Representative for Maryland, which for 
     census purposes will include the population of the District 
     of Columbia. Until redistricting is accomplished, D.C. would 
     constitute the additional Maryland district by itself. When 
     Maryland redistricts its congressional districts, its 
     districts would have to be equal in population, but the 
     District of Columbia could not be divided into more than one 
     congressional district. Federal elections in D.C. would be 
     conducted pursuant to Maryland election law, with the D.C. 
     government treated as a local jurisdiction in Maryland for 
     this purpose.
       To avoid double counting in the Electoral College, the 
     substitute exercises Congress's powers in both sections of 
     the 23rd Amendment to provide that the D.C.'s own 
     presidential electors not be appointed or cast votes. The 
     bill would take effect with the 2008 election, with the new 
     Representatives from Maryland and Utah taking office at the 
     beginning of the 111th Congress, at which point the offices 
     of D.C. delegate and D.C.'s shadow Representative and 
     Senators would be abolished. Utah would be required to hold 
     its 2008 and 2010 congressional elections in accordance with 
     the four-district plan the state adopted in 2006.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, before I really begin, 
extend my thanks to the Members of Congress, including Mr. Arcuri, who 
has taken time and been very gracious in his professional nature today 
on the floor, as well as the other Members who have been here, and I 
want to thank them for working together with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to oppose the previous question 
so that I may offer an amendment to the rule which would make in order 
the constitutional amendment offered by Representative Dana 
Rohrabacher, as described today, which was presented to the Rules 
Committee last night. At a minimum the House should be allowed to vote 
and debate on a practical, legal alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the previous question. If 
the previous question is agreed to, I urge Members to reject the closed 
rule and the unconstitutional underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the 
amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the nearly 600,000 citizens of Washington 
D.C. have waited far too long for equal representation in this Chamber. 
They have sacrificed their lives defending this great Nation, paid 
their fair share in taxes, and helped to build and run this great 
Nation.
  We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide 
the citizens of our Nation's capital with the most important right of 
all, and that is, of course, the right to vote.
  I want to commend the Delegate from Washington, D.C., for her 
tireless efforts that have brought us together on this historic day. It 
is that type of passion and commitment that further strengthens our 
democracy.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 260 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the 
     bill it shall be in order without intervention of any point 
     of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if offered 
     by Mr. Rohrabacher of California or his designee. The 
     amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Voting 
     Rights Restoration Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:

[[Page 7285]]

       (1) There is no reason, either historically or by virtue of 
     law, why the people of the District of Columbia, the capital 
     of the United States of America, should not have full voting 
     representation in the Congress of the United States.
       (2) Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of 
     the United States, which authorized the creation of the 
     District of Columbia, provides only that the Congress shall 
     have ``exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over 
     that District.
       (3) The same clause of the Constitution provides that 
     Congress ``shall exercise like authority over'' other Federal 
     territories that have been purchased from the States for 
     Federal purposes. Residents of other Federal enclaves, though 
     also denied voting rights after becoming subject to exclusive 
     Federal jurisdiction, have had restored their right to vote 
     for and serve as elected Federal officials from their 
     respective States which ceded the Federal enclaves to the 
     United States.
       (4) Congress has exercised its authority to regulate 
     Federal elections under article I, section 4 of the 
     Constitution to set the legal requirements that States must 
     follow in establishing Congressional districts. Congress has 
     also exercised this authority to require States to allow 
     United States citizens who are former residents, and their 
     children who are United States citizens, who are living 
     overseas to vote in Federal elections in the previous State 
     of residence, notwithstanding the fact that such former 
     residents and their children may have no intention of 
     returning or establishing residence in that State, and 
     notwithstanding the fact that such citizens are not subject 
     to the laws of that State, including tax laws.
       (5) The entire territory of the current District of 
     Columbia was ceded to the United States by the State of 
     Maryland, one of the original 13 States of the United States. 
     The portion of the original District of Columbia ceded to the 
     United States by the Commonwealth of Virginia was returned to 
     the authority of that state in 1846, and the people who now 
     reside in that area vote as citizens of the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia.
       (6) The Supreme Court of the United States has found that 
     the cession of legislative authority over the territory that 
     became the District of Columbia by the States of Maryland and 
     Virginia did not remove that territory from the United 
     States, and that the people who live in that territory are 
     entitled to all the rights, guarantees, and immunities of the 
     Constitution that they formerly enjoyed as citizens of those 
     States. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933); 
     Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Among those 
     guarantees are the right to equal protection of the laws and 
     the right to participate, equally with other Americans, in a 
     Republican form of government.
       (7) Since the people who lived in the territory that now 
     makes up the District of Columbia once voted in Maryland as 
     citizens of Maryland, and Congress by adoption of the Organic 
     Act of 1801 severed the political connection between Maryland 
     and the District of Columbia by statute, Congress has the 
     power by statute to restore Maryland state citizenship 
     rights, including Federal electoral rights, that it took away 
     by enacting the Organic Act of 1801.

     SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF RIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                   RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE AS MARYLAND RESIDENTS 
                   IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for purposes of representation in the House of 
     Representatives and Senate, the right of the people of the 
     District of Columbia to be eligible to participate in 
     elections for the House of Representatives and Senate as 
     Maryland residents in accordance with the laws of the State 
     of Maryland, is hereby restored.
       (b) Eligibility To Hold Congressional Office.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     determining eligibility to serve as a Member of the House of 
     Representatives or Senate, the right of the residents of the 
     District of Columbia to be considered inhabitants of the 
     State of Maryland is hereby restored.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to elections for Federal office occurring during 2008 and any 
     succeeding year.

     SEC. 4. RESTORATION OF RIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                   RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE AS MARYLAND RESIDENTS 
                   IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the right of the people of the District of Columbia to 
     be eligible to participate in elections for electors of 
     President and Vice President, and to serve as such electors 
     as Maryland residents in accordance with the laws of the 
     State of Maryland, is hereby restored.
       (b) Eligibility To Serve as Electors.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for purposes of determining 
     eligibility to serve as electors of President and Vice 
     President, the right of the residents of the District of 
     Columbia to be considered inhabitants of the State of 
     Maryland is hereby restored.
       (c) Termination of Appointment of Separate Electors by 
     District of Columbia.--In accordance with the authority under 
     sections 1 and 2 of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution 
     and the authority under article I, Section 8, to legislate 
     for the District of Columbia, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, Congress directs that no electors of 
     President and Vice President shall be appointed by the 
     District of Columbia and that no votes from such electors 
     shall be cast or counted in the electoral vote for President 
     and Vice President.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking section 21.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 21.

     SEC. 5. COMPOSITION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Number and Apportionment of Maryland Members.--For 
     purposes of determining the number and apportionment of the 
     members of the House of Representatives from the State of 
     Maryland for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress and each 
     succeeding Congress, the population of the District of 
     Columbia shall be added to the population of Maryland under 
     the decennial census.
       (b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
       (1) Permanent increase in number of members.--Effective 
     with respect to the One Hundred Eleventh Congress and each 
     succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be 
     composed of 437 Members.
       (2) Reapportionment of members resulting from increase.--
       (A) In general.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial 
     censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives 
     in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is 
     amended by striking ``the then existing number of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``the number of 
     Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred 
     Eleventh Congress''.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A) 
     shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census 
     conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial 
     census.
       (c) Revision of Apportionment Prior to Next Census.--
       (1) Transmittal of revised apportionment information by 
     president and clerk.--
       (A) Statement of apportionment by president.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the 
     most recent statement of apportionment submitted under 
     section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide 
     for apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved 
     June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this 
     section and the amendments made by this section.
       (B) Report by clerk.-- Not later than 15 calendar days 
     after receiving the revised version of the statement of 
     apportionment under subparagraph (A), the Clerk of the House 
     of Representatives, in accordance with section 22(b) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 2a(b)), shall send to the executive of the 
     State (other than the State of Maryland) entitled to one 
     additional Representative pursuant to this section a 
     certificate of the number of Representatives to which such 
     State is entitled under section 22 of such Act, and shall 
     submit a report identifying that State to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Composition of congressional districts for affected 
     state.--Until the taking effect of the first reapportionment 
     occurring after the regular decennial census conducted for 
     2010, the Congressional districts of the State identified by 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the report 
     submitted under paragraph (1) shall be those districts 
     established under a law enacted by the State during 2006 
     (without regard to any amendments made to such law after 
     2006) which established Congressional districts for the State 
     but which did not take effect because the number of districts 
     provided under the law was greater than the number of 
     districts to which the State was finally entitled after the 
     regular decennial census for 2000.
       (d) Prohibiting Division of District of Columbia Into 
     Separate Congressional Districts.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in 
     establishing Congressional districts after the effective date 
     of this section, the State of Maryland shall ensure that the 
     entire area of the District of Columbia is included in the 
     same Congressional district (except as provided in paragraph 
     (2)).
       (2) Special rule if population of district equals or 
     exceeds average population of maryland congressional 
     districts.--If the population of the District of Columbia 
     equals or exceeds the average population of a Congressional 
     district in the State of Maryland under the decennial census 
     used for the apportionment of the Members of the House of 
     Representatives from the State of Maryland, the State of 
     Maryland shall ensure that at least one Congressional 
     district in the State consists exclusively of territory 
     within the District of Columbia.
       (3) Special rule for initial district.--Until the State of 
     Maryland establishes Congressional districts to take into 
     account the

[[Page 7286]]

     enactment of this section, the Congressional district of the 
     additional Representative to which the State is entitled 
     under this section shall consist exclusively of the area of 
     the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Application of Maryland Election Laws.--
       (1) In general.--Federal elections in the District of 
     Columbia shall be administered and carried out by the State 
     of Maryland, in accordance with the applicable laws of the 
     State of Maryland.
       (2) Treatment of district as unit of local government.--For 
     purposes of the laws of the State of Maryland which apply to 
     Federal elections in the District of Columbia pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the District of Columbia shall be considered 
     to be a unit of local government within the State of Maryland 
     with responsibility for the administration of Federal 
     elections.
       (b) Treatment of District of Columbia as Part of Maryland 
     Under Help America Vote Act of 2002.--Section 901 of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15541) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the District of Columbia'';
       (2) by striking ``In this Act'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General._In this Act''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Special Rule For State of Maryland and District of 
     Columbia.--For purposes of this Act, the following shall 
     apply:
       ``(1) The voting age population of the State of Maryland 
     shall be considered to include the voting age population of 
     the District of Columbia for purposes of sections 101(d)(4) 
     and 252(b).
       ``(2) The District of Columbia shall be considered a unit 
     of local government or jurisdiction located within the State 
     of Maryland.
       ``(3) An election for Federal office taking place in the 
     District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the 
     State of Maryland.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to Other Federal Election Laws.--
       (1) Uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act.--
       (A) In general.--Title I of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 108. SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA.

       ``For purposes of this title, the following shall apply:
       ``(1) An absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter 
     who is a resident of the District of Columbia shall be 
     considered to be a resident of the State of Maryland.
       ``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the 
     District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the 
     State of Maryland.
       ``(3) The State of Maryland, and the election officials of 
     the State of Maryland, shall be responsible for carrying out 
     the provisions of this title with respect to voters who are 
     residents of the District of Columbia.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 107(6) of the Uniformed 
     and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--
     6) is amended by striking ``the District of Columbia,''.
       (2) National voter registration act of 1973.--
       (A) In general.--The National Voter Registration Act of 
     1973 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is amended--
       (i) by redesignating section 13 as section 14; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 12. SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       ``For purposes of this Act, the following shall apply:
       ``(1) The District of Columbia shall be considered a 
     registrar's jurisdiction within the State of Maryland.
       ``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the 
     District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the 
     State of Maryland.
       ``(3) The State of Maryland, and the election officials of 
     the State of Maryland, shall be responsible for carrying out 
     this Act with respect to the District of Columbia, except 
     that--
       ``(A) section 5 shall apply to motor vehicle driver's 
     license applications and the motor vehicle authority of the 
     District of Columbia in the same manner as that section 
     applies to a State, and the State of Maryland shall provide 
     the District of Columbia with such forms and other materials 
     as the District of Columbia may require to carry out that 
     section; and
       ``(B) the District of Columbia shall designate voter 
     registration agencies under section 7 in the same manner as a 
     State, and the State of Maryland shall provide the District 
     of Columbia with such forms and other materials as the 
     District of Columbia may require to carry out that 
     section.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(4) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. gg--1(4)) is amended by striking ``and the District of 
     Columbia''.
       (3) Voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped 
     act.--
       (A) In general.--The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly 
     and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.) is amended--
       (i) by redesignating section 8 as section 9; and
       (ii) by inserting after section 7 the following new 
     section:


     ``SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       ``Sec. 8.  For purposes of this Act, the following shall 
     apply:
       ``(1) The District of Columbia shall be considered a 
     political subdivision of the State of Maryland.
       ``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the 
     District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the 
     State of Maryland.
       ``(3) The State of Maryland shall be responsible for 
     carrying out this Act with respect to the District of 
     Columbia.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 8(5) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1973ee--6(5)) is amended by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment to Home Rule Act.--Section 752 of 
     the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1--207.52, D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting the following: ``, except to the extent 
     required under section 5 of the District of Columbia Voting 
     Rights Restoration Act of 2007.''.
       (e) Other Conforming Amendment to District of Columbia 
     Election Law.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of 
     1955 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 18. APPLICABILITY OF MARYLAND ELECTION LAW FOR 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or other 
     law or regulation of the District of Columbia_
       ``(1) any election for Federal office in the District of 
     Columbia shall be administered and carried out by the State 
     of Maryland, in accordance with the applicable law of the 
     State of Maryland; and
       ``(2) no provision of this Code shall apply with respect to 
     any election for Federal office to the extent that the 
     provision is inconsistent with the applicable law of the 
     State of Maryland.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall apply with respect to elections for 
     Federal office occurring during 2008 and any succeeding year.

     SEC. 7. REPEAL OF OFFICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE.

       (a) Repeal of Office.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91--405; sections 1--401 
     and 1--402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the 
     provisions of law amended or repealed by such sections are 
     restored or revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     Maryland who is elected from a Congressional district which 
     includes the District of Columbia takes office for the One 
     Hundred Eleventh Congress.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to District of Columbia Elections 
     Code of 1955.--
       (1) In general.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of 
     1955 is amended--
       (A) in section 1 (sec. 1--1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by 
     striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives'';
       (B) in section 2 (sec. 1--1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (6), and
       (ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to 
     Congress for the District of Columbia'';
       (C) in section 8 (sec. 1--1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) by striking ``Delegate'' in the heading, and
       (ii) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1);
       (D) in section 10 (sec. 1--1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3), and
       (ii) in subsection (d)--

       (I) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in 
     paragraph (1), and
       (II) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph 
     (3) as paragraph (2);

       (E) in section 15(b) (sec. 1--1001.15(b), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``Delegate,''; and
       (F) in section 17(a) (sec. 1--1001.17(a), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``except the Delegate to the Congress from 
     the District of Columbia''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring during 2008 
     and any succeeding year.

     SEC. 8. REPEAL OF OFFICES OF STATEHOOD REPRESENTATIVE AND 
                   SENATOR.

       (a) Repeal of Offices.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4 of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979 (sec. 
     1--123, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking 
     subsections (d) through (h).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Statehood commission.--Section 6 of such Initiative 
     (sec. 1--125, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

[[Page 7287]]

       (I) by striking ``27 voting members'' and inserting ``24 
     voting members'',
       (II) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (III) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and redesignating 
     paragraph (7) as paragraph (5); and

       (ii) in subsection (a--1)(1), by striking subparagraphs 
     (F), (G), and (H).
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 8 of such 
     Initiative (sec. 1--127, D.C. Official Code) is hereby 
     repealed.
       (C) Application of honoraria limitations.--Section 4 of 
     D.C. Law 8--135 (sec. 1--131, D.C. Official Code) is hereby 
     repealed.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     Maryland who is elected from a Congressional district which 
     includes the District of Columbia takes office for the One 
     Hundred Eleventh Congress.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Elections.--
       (1) Application of campaign finance laws.--Section 3 of the 
     Statehood Convention Procedural Amendments Act of 1982 (sec. 
     1--135, D.C. Official Code) is hereby repealed.
       (2) List of elected officials.--Section 2(13) of the 
     District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955 (sec. 1--
     1001.02(13), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking 
     ``United States Senator and Representative,''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring during 2008 
     and any succeeding year.

     SEC. 9. NONSEVERABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

       If any provision of sections 3, 5(a), or 5(b) of this Act, 
     or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is 
     held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act shall be treated as invalid.

     SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed--
       (1) to permit residents of the District of Columbia to vote 
     in elections for State or local office in the State of 
     Maryland or to permit nonresidents of the District of 
     Columbia to vote in elections for local office in the 
     District of Columbia;
       (2) to affect the power of Congress under article I, 
     section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution to exercise 
     exclusive legislative authority over the District of 
     Columbia; or
       (3) to affect the powers of the Government of the District 
     of Columbia under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (except as specifically provided in this Act).
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to restore the 
     Federal electoral rights of the residents of the District of 
     Columbia, and for other purposes.''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 260 will be followed 
by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on adopting House Resolution 260; and 
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Concurrent Resolution 66.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)

[[Page 7288]]


     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Radanovich
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1156

  Mr. CARDOZA and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 180, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               AYES--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Lewis (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Taylor
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1205

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 7289]]



                          ____________________