[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9378-9387]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1905, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE 
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007 AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1906, 
              ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT SAFE HARBOR ADJUSTMENT

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 317

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1905) 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 the bill and against its consideration are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1906) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax 
     payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in 
     the case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater 
     than $5 million. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. (a) If either H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 fails of 
     passage or fails to reach the question of passage by an order 
     of recommittal, then both such bills, together with H.R. 
     1433, shall be laid on the table.
       (b) In the engrossment of H.R. 1905, the Clerk shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 1906, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1905;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 1905 to reflect the addition 
     of the text H.R. 1906 to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (c) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 1906 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 1905, H.R. 1906 and H.R. 1433 shall be 
     laid on the table.
       Sec. 4. During consideration of H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of either bill to such time as may be 
     designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 the consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             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 materials into 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 317 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and 
H.R. 1906, a direct spending offset bill.

[[Page 9379]]

  Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it is 
patently unjust to require free men and women to pay taxes to a 
government within which they have no direct involvement; a principle so 
important that the Founding Fathers knew if they were unsuccessful they 
would become outlaws and probably forfeit their lives.
  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. How can the United States deny democracy 
in its Capital while it promotes democracy abroad?
  These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes, have 
sacrificed their lives in Iraq and other wars since the American 
Revolution.
  However, when you look at the text of the 16th amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution, which states, ``The Congress shall have the power to lay 
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without 
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any 
census or enumeration,'' you might ask yourself: Since there is no 
mention of the District of Columbia in this amendment, and it only 
refers to ``the several States,'' then how is it that D.C. residents 
are required to pay Federal income taxes?
  The answer is that Congress, by statute, specifically, enacted the 
District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, which 
imposed Federal income taxation on the residents of the District of 
Columbia.
  And when the law was challenged in the courts in 1970 in the case of 
Breakefield v. D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit upheld both the tax and Congress's constitutional 
authority to levy it. Further, the Supreme Court later denied even to 
hear the appeal.
  This is taxation without representation at its worst, and it is 
completely undemocratic. Furthermore, what is clearly evident from the 
Court's review of Breakefield is that if Congress can levy taxes on 
D.C. residents without a constitutional amendment, then surely Congress 
can give D.C. residents a full voting representative within the House 
of Representatives without a constitutional amendment. This notion that 
there is a binding precedent for Congress to legislate on all matters 
related to the District of Columbia is further supported by decisions 
in such cases as Tidewater, and Adams v. Clinton.
  Our actions today would correct this injustice by granting the 
citizens of our Nation's Capital a full voting representative in the 
House of Representatives.
  Some of my colleagues have suggested that the D.C. House Voting 
Rights Act is unconstitutional and that we in Congress will be acting 
outside the power enacting this bill. This is not true. Article I, 
section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of 
Congress. And among the powers listed, 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 the 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 that right 
away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of 
the District. In the political battles that followed, District 
residents were denied a vote in Congress. Now, certainly, if Congress 
can grant the right and then remove that right by statute, so too can 
it reinstate the right by statute if it so chooses.
  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 consistent with the letter and spirit of the 
Constitution, they 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 the Founding Fathers, that ``taxation without representation is 
tyranny.''
  Too much time has passed. Every day that we fail to act is one more 
day that we deny democracy. It is time to correct this grave injustice 
and provide the citizens of the District of Columbia 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 rise today for the second time in a 
month in strong opposition to this closed rule, to these two closed 
amendment processes, and to the blatantly unconstitutional underlying 
measure that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor 
today.
  I would like to say that I am surprised by the lack of respect for 
regular order and procedural gimmickry that the Democrats have used to 
bring this rule to the floor today. Unfortunately, in what has become 
an all too familiar scenario in the Democrat Rules Committee, respect 
for minority party rights and regular order are, once again, being 
trumped by political expediency and the Democrat leadership's 
willingness to abuse power for their own narrow political ends.
  Last month, when this unconstitutional bill was first brought to the 
House floor, the Democrats sunk to an unprecedented new low by pulling 
the legislation from the floor just before it passed the House, using a 
provision that was intended to give the Speaker flexibility in 
scheduling votes, not to give her an escape valve when things were not 
going her way.

                              {time}  1100

  Today, the Democrats seem committed to outdoing that shameful effort 
by waiving the ``Pay-For'' rules that they imposed on this House floor 
just less than 4 months ago, after committing themselves to honor their 
pledge to increase taxes on the American public every time they 
increase spending.
  They have also split the bill into two pieces, one that tries to 
skirt the Constitution and one that skirts their own ``Pay-For'' rule, 
all in the name of preventing the minority from offering the popular 
notion that a majority of the House was on the brink of passing just 
weeks ago.
  And as if the process that brings us here today weren't bad enough, 
there is little to celebrate in this deeply flawed underlying bill, the 
same words that the constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan 
Turley has called ``the most premeditated unconstitutional act by 
Congress in decades'' either. Thankfully, President Bush has made it 
clear that this cynical political exercise is destined for his veto 
pen, if it even makes it that far.
  My opposition to this matter 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 several States.'' And as any fourth grader in the 
country can tell you, Washington, D.C., is simply not a State. There is 
simply no one that has moved into or lives in Washington, D.C., that 
thought that they would be given this ability. Washington, D.C., is not 
a State.
  Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District 
Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's 
seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member of Congress. 
But this same clause makes it clear, by its very nature, that 
Washington, D.C., is not a State, which brings us back to the original 
problem of this bill's being completely unconstitutional.
  But don't take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership won't 
listen to reason, one would hope that they

[[Page 9380]]

would at least 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, I know we all 
don't know this, but his 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 government, as they 
had an 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 
the apportionment of congressional representatives.'' It seems pretty 
clear to me, but I guess not to every single 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 was attempted in 1978 and failed? Well, 
it would create a precedent that Congress would give the District three 
votes next year or they could perhaps give them 10. The way that this 
legislation is currently drafted, it gives the District two votes in 
the Committee of the Whole, more than any other voting Member, as well 
as a vote in the House.
  But rather than discuss the facts or the logic of this approach, I 
suspect that supporters of this legislation will come to the floor and 
talk about ``fairness.'' But I fail to see how it is fair to give 
Washington, D.C., super-representation, two votes for amendments, or 
every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes also, one for their 
Congressman and one for a new at-large Member, keeping the ``one man, 
one vote'' principle in every other State. Perhaps a Member on the 
Democrat side will be kind enough to come down to the floor and explain 
this logic to me; but I am not going to hold my breath.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and 
protect the Constitution, not to trample on it. No matter what the 
supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary, the Constitution is 
not a cafeteria. You cannot pick and choose which parts you are going 
to respect and which ones you are going to ignore. That is why our 
Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an orderly, lawful process 
for amending the Constitution. And despite the best efforts of the 
Democrat leadership, I am sure that the Framers' legacy to our country 
will prevail and will prevent this poorly drafted and ill-conceived 
measure from becoming law.
  I urge each of my colleagues to reject this outrageous rule and the 
underlying assault on the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but I 
could not disagree with him more.
  First of all, this bill does not attempt to create statehood for the 
District of Columbia. In fact, as I said just a few moments ago, the 
legislation that has been passed in prior occasions, the one, in fact, 
with respect to requiring residents of the District of Columbia to pay 
income tax, despite the fact that the 16th amendment says that it is 
for the residents of the States, indicates very clearly that the 
District of Columbia is not a State and, rather, that Congress has the 
authority and the ability to make legislation with respect to the 
District of Columbia. In the Tidewater case, again Congress came 
forward and said that diversity jurisdiction applies to the District of 
Columbia even though it is not a State, and clearly that was upheld by 
the Supreme Court.
  So this is not without precedent. This is something that Congress has 
done in the past because under article I, section 8, they have 
exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.
  A couple of other points that I just would like to respond to. My 
colleague said that the majority just won't listen to reason, and I 
can't help but think that maybe that is what was said about the 
Founding Fathers by the members of parliament, that the people in 
America just won't listen to reason. How dare they talk about being 
represented just because we tax them?
  This issue is critical. We tax the people in the District of 
Columbia. They are citizens of the United States. They fight and they 
die in our wars. They should be able to have a voting Member in 
Congress.
  He also said that the majority has sunk to an all-time low. I am very 
troubled by that. If giving the right to vote to Americans, giving the 
right to vote to people who live here in the District of Columbia, in 
our capital, is sinking to an all-time low, then that is where I want 
to be, because clearly that is what we should be doing. We spend 
billions of dollars in other places in the world to ensure that 
citizens in other places in the world have the right to vote. We 
certainly should be able to do that here in our own country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a new Congress. This is a Congress with respect 
for the Constitution and the principles for which it stands. This is a 
Congress that respects the underlying principle that people in this 
country deserve the right to be represented and to have a voice in this 
great democracy of ours.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of 
this legislation that is long overdue and which will correct an anomaly 
in our democracy, an anomaly which denies representation to 
approximately 600,000 residents of this country.
  Residents of the District of Columbia have had to wait over 170 years 
to vote in this country's Presidential election. They have had to wait 
for over 180 years for the right to exercise home rule. They have had 
to wait for over 200 years to have a vote in the House of 
Representatives. And we should not make them wait one day more.
  These residents live in the shadow of our great Capitol, pay taxes to 
our Federal Government, serve in our military, fight and die to protect 
the very representative rights that we have in this country, but yet we 
deny these citizens the right to have control over the laws that govern 
our country. They have no Representative who can vote in this House of 
Representatives.
  This past Monday, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District of 
Columbia engaged in an act of grass-roots lobbying in its purest form. 
Thousands of these unrepresented residents marched down Pennsylvania 
Avenue to the Capitol on the city's annual Emancipation Day, marking 
the day that slavery ended in the District. They marched to the Capitol 
to ask this legislative body to recognize and rectify the injustice 
that they experience every single day. They marched for the right to 
have a say in this legislative body. These citizens, these students, 
these senior citizens, workers, activists, and church members marched 
to have a vote.
  This is a Congress that respects the Constitution. And my respect for 
the Constitution goes back to very early days. And one of the greatest 
things that I have ever received was recognition, even in law school, 
by the Federal Bar Association for outstanding performance in 
constitutional law.
  The Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the right to make laws 
concerning the District of Columbia, and it is under the power of the 
District clause of the Constitution that I join today in supporting the 
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act.
  This is long overdue. The last Congress earned the distinction of 
being called the ``worse than the do-nothing Congress.'' This is a 
Congress that is going to get the job done, and this is a Congress that 
is going to respect the Constitution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 
minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member 
of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the rule, recognizing 
full well

[[Page 9381]]

that there are a wide range of views on the constitutionality of this 
question.
  I have listened to Mr. Arcuri, the gentleman from New York, make his 
argument that he believes very much in the right to representation, 
which I obviously completely concur with. And the people of the 
District of Columbia, I think, are very ably represented here right now 
by our distinguished friend, my Delegate who represents me very well, 
since I seem to spend more time here than I do in California, Ms. 
Eleanor Holmes Norton. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this 
question, Thomas Jefferson was the one who said ``Two thinking men can 
be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.''

                              {time}  1115

  And so I recognize that there are some who come down on the side of 
believing that it is constitutional for us to proceed with this. I read 
the Constitution in a little different way. When I see those two words, 
the ``several States'' as being the criterion for representation here, 
or at least one of the criteria for representation here in the House of 
Representatives, it says to me that there need to be changes to the 
U.S. Constitution if in fact we are going to proceed with the action 
that the majority in this House, the majority leadership in this House, 
wants to take on.
  So I recognize that there are disparate views on this, Mr. Speaker. 
The thing that troubles me most is the procedure around which we are 
considering this measure. And what I would like to do, I would like to 
engage my good friend from New York, Mr. Arcuri, the manager of the 
rule, in a colloquy, if I might, just to consider this procedure around 
which we are going to be debating this question.
  Actually, from what I can tell, in our analysis of this rule, we are 
blazing completely new ground here when it comes procedurally to this 
institution. I have heard a lot of criticism over the years of the 
tenure that I had as chairman of the Rules Committee, and one of the 
points that I would like to make is it wasn't really about what we did, 
but it was about promises that were made about fairness, promises that 
were made about the way every Member of this House, Democrat and 
Republican, was going to have an opportunity to participate.
  So the question that I have is, I know that under regular order, if 
the House agrees to a straight motion to recommit the bill to the 
committee, or such a motion with instructions that the committee 
promptly report it back with an amendment, the bill then, when that 
motion to recommit prevails, does in fact go back to the committee and 
it must naturally assume that the committee will follow the House's 
instructions. And I wonder if the gentleman could tell me if that is in 
fact going to be the case under our consideration of this rule that we 
are going to be voting on, the one that we are debating right now.
  Mr. ARCURI. The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each 
bill.
  Mr. DREIER. The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each 
bill.
  My question is whether or not the success of a motion to recommit 
would in fact send this measure back to committee, or would it in fact 
do something that has never, ever been done before, based on my reading 
of the rule: Would it in fact kill the bill itself?
  Mr. ARCURI. If either bill is not passed, then both bills are 
defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. Yes. But the point is if, for the first time ever, this 
rule actually takes a motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, and it basically 
submits it to be laid on the table potentially, the bill to be laid on 
the table, therefore preventing the House from having the opportunity 
to work its will, never before in the history of this institution, Mr. 
Speaker, has this kind of sleight of hand been used. We know, Mr. 
Speaker, why it is that we are here considering this measure again. It 
is very simply due to the fact that a bipartisan majority, Republicans 
leading with Democrats voting along in support of the motion to 
recommit on this bill, led to what is clearly sleight of hand, 
undermining the long-standing tradition.
  We, as the minority, on 47 different occasions in the years leading 
up to our winning the majority in 1994, were denied the opportunity 
have a motion to recommit. We were denied that time and time again, Mr. 
Speaker. Not every time, but we were often denied it.
  So that is the reason that we made a decision when we won the 
majority in 1994 that we were going to guarantee that the minority had 
a right to offer a motion to recommit, at least one bite at the apple, 
and in most cases a substitute; so at least two bites at the apple in 
most cases. But we very, very firmly made that commitment to the motion 
to recommit.
  Now, what is it that's happened? We lost the majority in last 
November's election.
  Mr. ARCURI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a moment when I am done with my 
statement. I know the gentleman has plenty of time. I look forward to 
yielding to the gentleman, but I would like to explain why it is that 
we're here and how outrageous this rule is.
  What happened last November, when we lost the majority, we got 
ourselves in a position where we figured, gosh, we will have only one 
bite at the apple, only one opportunity to allow the majority of the 
House to come together and address these issues. And what happened, Mr. 
Speaker? What happened is very clear. On seven occasions so far in the 
110th Congress, the House has worked its will. A bipartisan majority of 
Republicans and Democrats came together and succeeded in passing 
motions to recommit, including on a District of Columbia bill that we 
are addressing here.
  So what is it that happened? Because of the fact that the Democratic 
majority leadership, not a majority of the House, but the majority 
leadership decided they did not want us to do this, they have resorted 
to a procedure which unfortunately creates a scenario whereby if the 
House succeeds in passing a motion to recommit, the opportunity to have 
a bill laid on the table, which basically kills the bill completely, is 
put before us. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very, very 
unfortunate precedent that the new majority is looking at, and they are 
doing it simply to subvert the will of this House.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, sir.
  This rule ensures that neither of the two bills can achieve passage 
in the House without being subject to a motion to recommit. Now, you 
talk about fairness. My colleague talks about fairness, and he believes 
in fairness as we all do. But that is what this bill is about; this 
bill is about fairness.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, since I'm managing the time 
here, Mr. Speaker, I could reclaim it by saying I have already spoken 
about the fact that I recognize Mr. Arcuri's belief that this is a 
constitutional bill, and I share his commitment to fairness of the bill 
itself.
  I am not here talking about the bill. I am here talking about the 
procedure, which is blatantly unfair, that is undermining the 
opportunity for this House to work its will on this issue. When I 
yielded to the gentleman, it was to talk about our procedure here. I 
think that it is very, very unfortunate that for the first time in the 
over 200-year history of this institution, we are going to be taking 
this very precious right of a motion to recommit and killing 
legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, again, talks about fairness, 
and fairness is why we are here today.
  He talks about what we are trying to do today. What we are trying to 
do is give the residents of the District of Columbia their long overdue 
right to vote. That is why we are here today. The procedure that we are 
following is fair, it is just, and the important thing for us to 
remember is why we are here, and that is to give the right to vote to 
the residents of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

[[Page 9382]]


  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman 
for his strong advocacy for the rights of all Americans.
  I must begin by saying when you hear people come to the floor and 
invoke the word ``fairness'' in a debate where they oppose the basic 
right to vote, they drain that word of all of its meaning.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the rule proper. I would like 
to offer some thanks during this rule period. And I would like to say a 
word about Utah, our very strong partner about whom we hear little 
because they are so far away.
  The other side, after the last vote on this bill, clucked that they 
had actually stopped our people in the Nation's Capital from getting a 
vote. Imagine how that was received all around the world. Now they come 
to the floor with the nerve to object to the procedure. Mind you, the 
substance is really what they are after. If in fact the District of 
Columbia was a largely Republican city, these Members would be on the 
floor arguing for voting rights for the District of Columbia just as 
the radical Republican abolitionists gave us the vote, which was then 
taken from us, and gave us home rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I will not yield, sir. The District of Columbia has spent 
206 years yielding to people who would deny them the vote. I yield you 
no ground, not during my time. You have had your say, and your say has 
been that you think that the people who live in your capital are not 
entitled to a vote in their House. Shame on you.
  Then they want an open rule. They want an open rule so they can deny 
the vote. The American people will have nothing but praise for the 
Democratic leadership because the Democratic leaders have found a way 
to observe two cardinal principles, the principle most basic of all, 
the right to vote, yes, and the principle of fiscal responsibility.
  Now, the Democrats could never have thrown the foul ball that was 
used to delay this bill, and the reason is, of course, that the other 
side spent 12 years building a deficit and didn't observe the PAYGO 
rule, and so there would have been no germaneness issue. I don't think 
that was so smart.
  The bill was open to an outrageous attempt to repeal our gun laws. We 
are a free people. We are entitled to have the same jurisdiction over 
our gun laws they have, and we are going to insist on it. And the 
Democratic leaders did not bow to that trick. Instead, they went back 
and found a way to keep to the principle of finally paying for what we 
do, as you should have done for more than 10 years.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask those that are debating on the floor 
to address their comments to the Speaker, and that is according to 
House rules. I ask you to enforce those rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their comments 
to the Chair.
  Ms. NORTON. I would be glad to do it. If the Member doesn't want to 
face me face to face, I will address the Speaker, you will get the 
point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their comments 
to the Chair.
  The gentlewoman is recognized.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, for more than 4 years, thousands of 
Americans and others around the world have sought this bill and 
contributed ideas, time and effort, beginning with Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi, who added to her long and unequivocal push for full rights for 
District citizens, her personal attention and intervention when it 
counted most to move this bill forward. And majority leader Steny 
Hoyer, whose outspoken dedication to our rights overcame procedural 
malevolence to bring today's bill forward. However, the idea originally 
came from the Republican side. When I was in the minority, moved by his 
personal sense of right and wrong, Congressman Tom Davis smartly and 
doggedly started us down the bipartisan path to equal votes for the 
District and for Utah.
  Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, since his election in 1964, 
has robustly argued that rights for D.C. residents must match their 
burdens. Henry Waxman, first as ranking member, now as Chair, began 
leading a principled effort for equal rights for D.C. citizens long 
before I was elected to Congress.
  Utah Governor John Huntsman, and the Utah delegation, Representatives 
Bishop, Cannon and Matheson, forged a unique partnership on their 
understanding that Utah and D.C. residents felt the same sense of loss 
and should obtain these precious rights together.

                              {time}  1130

  The local and national civil rights organizations formed themselves 
into a formidable D.C. voting rights coalition, led by D.C. Vote, which 
gave the effort, organizational know-how and boundless dedication, and 
the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, which has carried D.C. 
voting rights as a major civil rights cause for decades.
  The official international human rights entities abroad have gone on 
record to ask the United States of America to conform with 
international law by granting voting rights to the citizens of its 
capital. My own colleagues of both parties, who passed this bill in 
committees by overwhelming votes, 29-4, 24-5 and 21-13, especially my 
Republican colleagues, have joined this effort for the District of 
Columbia and for Utah out of principle.
  The District of Columbia's four home rule mayors and city councils, 
particularly current Mayor Adrian Fenty and City Council Chair Vincent 
Gray, and, most especially, the residents of this city, living and 
dead, have fought for equal citizenship over the ages.
  Today, we will get the vote I predict, at least in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I give great praise to a State which is the most 
Republican State in the Union for having unabashedly and continuously 
joined with us out of a deep sense of grievance of its own, that its 
missionaries, temporarily abroad in the service of their church, were 
not counted in the last census, and, thus, the State was deprived of a 
seat that they believed they were entitled to.
  I would like to quote Governor John Huntsman, the Governor of the 
State, who came and said, ``I have not extensively studied the 
constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, but I am 
impressed and persuaded by the scholarship represented. The people of 
Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for 
the last 6 years. I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must 
be like for American citizens to have no representation for over 200 
years.''
  We will pass this bill today. We will put it in the hands of two 
Republican Senators from Utah, Senators Hatch and Bennett, and there I 
believe it will fare well, because the people of Utah want this vote, 
their vote, as much as we want our vote.
  I ask, in testament to that, that two editorials from the Salt Lake 
Tribune be included for the Record.

              [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 13, 2007]

 Utah's 4th Seat: One Quibble Aside, New Bill Would Do the Right Thing

       It's back. A bill before Congress would give the District 
     of Columbia its first voting member of the House of 
     Representatives and Utah its fourth seat in that body. We 
     favor it because Utah's rapidly growing population is 
     entitled to a fourth seat. There are things about the bill 
     that could be better, but the overriding principles are 
     right. The 600,000 people of the District of Columbia have a 
     delegate in the House but she cannot vote on the floor, 
     That's a cruel irony in a nation that fancies itself a beacon 
     of republican democracy.
       That situation is an accident of constitutional history. 
     The founders fashioned D.C. so that no state would have the 
     advantage of being the seat of the federal government. But it 
     is the states, under the Constitution's language, that elect 
     U.S. representatives and senators. For more than 200 years, 
     that circumstance has denied the people of D.C. votes in 
     Congress.
       This bill would rectify that by treating D.C. as a 
     congressional district for purposes of representation in the 
     House. At the same time, it would increase the membership of 
     the House from 435 to 437. One seat would go to D.C. The 
     second would go to the next state in line for another seat 
     because of population growth, i.e., Utah. The reason for this 
     second provision is to preserve the existing partisan balance 
     in the House. D.C. presumably will elect a Democrat. Utah 
     presumably will elect a Republican.
       Our major quibble with the bill, H.R. 1433, is that it 
     would have Utah elect its new

[[Page 9383]]

     member-at-large, that is, statewide, rather than by 
     congressional district, until after the 2010 census and 
     reapportionment. We believe that is a mistake because it 
     would allow every Utah voter to vote for two members of the 
     House while every other voter in the U.S. could vote for only 
     one.
       Besides, the Utah Legislature last year created four equal 
     congressional districts in anticipation of an earlier version 
     of this bill which failed in the last Congress.
       The at-large proposal would spare Utah's sitting members of 
     the House from running in special elections to fill the four 
     new seats. While that is a real hardship in terms of 
     fundraising, it would be worthwhile to preserve the principle 
     of equal representation.
       The quibble: The bill would have Utah elect its new member 
     at large, that is, state-wide, rather than by congressional 
     district, until after the 2010 census and reapportionment.
                                  ____


               [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 7, 2006]

     Captive Capital: No Constitutional Bar to D.C. Representation

       How can it be unconstitutional to give some 600,000 
     American citizens--tax-paying, military-serving citizens 
     literally living in the shadow of the Capitol dome--the right 
     to vote for some representation in Congress.
       Only a tortured, neocolonial reading of the Constitution 
     would conclude that we should exclude the people who live in 
     the Federal City from the representation that all other 
     Americans take for granted.
       OK, so that's the reading that has carried the day for 200 
     years. That doesn't make it right.
       A last-gasp effort to stick to that thinking, if it hadn't 
     quickly died on the floor of the Utah House Monday, could 
     have jeopardized the deal to give Utah its well-deserved 
     fourth seat in Congress by denying the quid pro quo of the 
     first-ever seat for the District of Columbia.
       The deal is dead for now anyway, lost in the crush of last 
     minute, lame-duck congressional business. The Utah 
     Legislature's approval of four prospective congressional 
     districts still matters, though, as the issue may arise next 
     year.
       Either way, people who claim to live by the U.S. 
     Constitution should read past its third paragraph.
       Sticking to the notion that people in Washington can't be 
     represented in Congress because they don't live in one of 
     ``the several states'' places text above meaning.
       Other constitutional provisions, ranging from the vague 
     clause that gives Congress exclusive power over a federal 
     district to the equal protection and voting rights provisions 
     of the 14th and 15th Amendments, also matter. Read together, 
     they leave little excuse for the taxation without 
     representation that D.C. residents have suffered almost since 
     the beginning of the Republic.
       In arguing for an independent federal zone for the national 
     capital, something that was thought necessary to ensure that 
     no state would gain an unfair advantage over the others by 
     having the seal of federal power in its back pocket, James 
     Madison's Federalist No. 43 simply took it for granted that 
     the rights of that district's inhabitants would be protected. 
     They weren't.
       A 2000 Supreme Court ruling held that the situation was 
     unfair to D.C. residents, but that the courts had no power to 
     remedy that, it was up to Congress, with its exclusive power 
     over the District, to grant relief.
       Congress should still consider just that.
       Only 200 years late.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we simply are on the floor today to say 
that the means do not justify the ends. It should be done properly and 
constitutionally; just as it was done in 1978, it should be done today. 
We think the way that the Democrat majority is doing this, to give 
super-voting powers to the District of Columbia and to the State of 
Utah, is unconstitutional. So I make no apologies for standing up for 
the way I read the Constitution and what I believe.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that I am happy to yield 
to my friend from the District of Columbia at any time whatsoever, and 
I want to once again praise her representation and the passion that she 
shows in her commitment to this issue.
  As I said, I spent a great deal of time residing here in the District 
of Columbia, and I feel she very ably represents the District of 
Columbia and I am proud to have her as a colleague, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, let me say this. I feel that the passion that she has shown in 
arguing in behalf of the legislation itself is something that I 
recognize and revere.
  I said to Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there can be 
recognition that there are diverse views on this question. I have come 
down on the side of recognizing that those words in the Constitution, 
``the several States,'' mean that if we are going to do this, we should 
do it through a different route than the one that we are pursuing.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman, who indeed has, as 
always, given me and the city respect, and I know he understands what 
it must be like to be in the Congress for 17 years and come to the 
floor and see people debating your budget and your laws and you can't 
even vote on them.
  I appreciate that the gentleman came to the floor on procedural 
matters. If the differences between the gentleman and me are on 
procedure, would not the better side of valor be to allow people on 
both sides to understand that you favor voting rights; and if your 
problem is constitutionality, I am sure the gentleman will understand 
that there is a third branch of government who can decide this matter 
for us both, particularly since he concedes that opinion on the 
constitutional question is divided.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that 
obviously it appears, and the gentlewoman has already stated what she 
believes the outcome will be in this House; it be will be in the hands 
of those two Senators of whom she just referred, and we will see what 
happens, whether it is within the first branch of government or within 
the third branch of government. Obviously, the second branch of 
government will have a role in determining this.
  The argument that I believe needs to be made, and Mr. Sessions just 
touched on this and has been arguing it throughout his management of 
this, the passion that is shown for the rights of the District of 
Columbia are very, very important, and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, recognizes those and represents them 
extraordinarily well.
  But an equal passion for the Constitution of the United States and, 
Mr. Speaker, an equal passion for the job that Mr. Sessions and I and 
Mr. Arcuri and the other members of the Rules Committee have for 
democracy in this institution is something that is very, very 
important.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from the District of Columbia, 
who argues so strongly on behalf of the need for representation here in 
the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, that if we 
look at this rule, which is subverting 200 years of precedent in this 
institution, by saying that if a motion to recommit on either of these 
bills in fact prevails, the motion is laid on the table, never before 
in the history of this institution, Mr. Speaker, has this been done.
  So I have to say that we have an equal passion for our commitment to 
the precedents and the responsibility of the greatest deliberative body 
known to man; and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are troubled with 
the procedure around which we are about to move ahead with this very 
important debate.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues about an unprecedented 
procedure. What about the unprecedented procedure that the other side 
used to delay this bill, sending the message around the world to delay 
this bill when it was delayed the last time?
  This procedure is legal. Therefore, if you want to use procedure to 
stop the bill, you should say so. The fact is you have raised a 
constitutional point. You are not a constitutional scholar, and no 
Member of this House is, even I, who was a constitutional lawyer.
  Therefore, when in doubt about something as precious as the right to 
vote, when the people we are talking about have paid taxes and have 
gone to war since the birth of the Republic, surely we should err on 
the side of encouraging everybody to vote for the bill, send it to the 
Senate, and let the

[[Page 9384]]

one institution that can decide constitutional questions, the Supreme 
Court, make that decision.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say the thing that is most troubling is the 
decision to pull this bill was not a decision made by the minority. It 
was made by the majority leadership when that happened before this 
break. The reason that decision was made was that there was a sense 
that a majority in this House, a majority in this House might have been 
supportive of that motion to recommit that we were about to vote on.
  Never before, never before had we seen, as general debate, as the 
debate had been completed, all of a sudden the bill was pulled from the 
floor.
  Ms. NORTON. Reclaiming my time, it is certainly true that the vote 
was delayed and it was legal to delay it. By delaying the vote, do you 
know what the leaders of this House did? They saved the reputation of 
this House throughout the world. No one knows what would have happened. 
But no vote on guns occurred.
  You don't know what would have happened.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). Members are reminded that the 
rules require that comments be directed to the Chair, and Members 
should not address one another in the second person.
  Ms. NORTON. I can understand why the Members on that side don't want 
to be spoken to directly.
  Nobody knows what would have been the result of that vote. The least 
of all who know is the other side.
  One thing we do know is that it was a perversion. It would have been 
a perversion to even allow a vote about guns, a vote about guns that 
would have deprived the District of its own right to decide the issue 
in order to decide whether it should have a vote.
  The decision therefore to pull the bill was legal and the delay saved 
the principle that we should be voting on one basic right, the basic 
right that is before us today in the House Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are engaged in a very serious debate. It is a 
constitutional debate. Having served on the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, we actually passed this bill. I opposed it in 
committee on constitutional grounds. I offered amendments to actually 
fix what I feel are constitutional problems in this legislation, and 
there are constitutional ways to achieve what my colleague, the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia, seeks to do.
  There are constitutional ways to do that. Just as in the 19th 
century, the part of the District of Columbia that was part of Virginia 
was ceded back to the State of Virginia; likewise, the part of the 
District of Columbia that was Maryland could be ceded back for 
representation purposes to the State of Maryland. So there are 
constitutional ways to achieve what the Delegate seeks to achieve.
  But the Constitution clearly provides how Congressmen and Senators 
are allocated, and they are allocated to the States. The District of 
Columbia was provided for. The District of Columbia is a Federal city 
and it is not a State.
  Presently, D.C. has a Delegate who votes in committee. Actually, 
under the new Democrat rules, they also vote here on this House floor. 
I believe that is unconstitutional as well. But what this bill does is 
allow the District of Columbia to keep that Delegate vote and 
supplement it with another vote.
  Now, what I would submit is that the new Democrat majority is trying 
to pad their numbers on this House floor. That is why they gave 
Democrats who are nonvoting Members of this body the ability to vote on 
the House floor. That is also why, I submit, that this Democrat 
majority is submitting this bill for approval on this House floor, and 
keeping not only the Delegate vote, but adding another Democrat vote to 
this House floor.
  I don't oppose it for personal reasons. I oppose this legislation for 
constitutional reasons, and I would submit to the Delegate from the 
District of Columbia that we all must make a judgment on the 
constitutionality of legislation that we see before us on the House 
floor, and in that way, we must be constitutional scholars and study 
it.
  So, beyond that, let's think about what the Democrats are doing, Mr. 
Speaker. They are looking for a raw power grab. They not only want to 
add another seat in Democrat hands to this body, but they want to allow 
nonvoting delegates the ability to vote on this House floor. I think 
that is wrong and unconstitutional, and I think the American people 
need to understand what is happening here. It is a raw power grab by 
the new Democrat majority.

                              {time}  1145

  Now, I think there are a lot of valid reasons for us to look at ways 
to allow the people in the District of Columbia to vote for Congress 
and for Senate, and I think the way to do that is to cede that part of 
Maryland that is now the District of Columbia back to the State of 
Maryland for voting purposes. And if they truly seek to do what they 
seek to do today, they could propose a constitutional amendment which 
has previously been rejected. I urge us to vote down this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield, with Mr. Arcuri's 
concurrence, 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. And I am opposed to this rule for specific reasons about the 
process and about the unique and unheard of change that would state 
that if a recommital motion passes, that that is laid upon the table. 
That strips completely the authority of the minority to have input into 
the process. And I would think, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the 
majority party would be ashamed. I would think that that would be the 
appropriate course of action, and that they ought to rethink what they 
are doing.
  But I came down to the floor to talk about the substance of the bill, 
because I believe passionately in representation. I believe 
passionately in the importance of members, of citizens, residents of 
the District of Columbia to have representation, voting representation 
in this House. I believe passionately in the Constitution. And I 
believe that those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
  There is a particularly appropriate way to proceed, and that is 
through the issue of retrocession, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, 
provides that that portion of the District of Columbia that has 
residents in it, citizens in it, could be moved back into the State of 
Maryland and thereby obtain appropriate representation.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that facts are troubling things, and the supreme 
law of our land, the Constitution, requires us to do certain things and 
one of them is to follow the Constitution.
  Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states: ``The House of 
Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year 
by the people of the several States.'' It doesn't say, and the District 
of Columbia. It says: the people of the several States.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that, along with the next paragraph 
which states: ``No person shall be a representative who shall not, when 
elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'' 
It is clear that this action will be unconstitutional if it moves 
forward.
  Even Peter Rodino, former Democratic Chair of the Judiciary Committee 
in the 95th Congress, when confronted with this issue said: ``If the 
citizens of a district are to have a voting representation in Congress, 
a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will 
not suffice.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this action that is being proposed 
by the

[[Page 9385]]

majority party is indeed unconstitutional, and I would agree with the 
delegate from the District of Columbia that there is a body in our 
system of government that will determine that. That is the judiciary 
branch. I am hopeful that it will occur rapidly.
  And I would be happy to yield to the delegate from the District of 
Columbia to see whether or not she would support, along with this, a 
demand for an expedited review of this legislation and would it move 
forward.
  Ms. NORTON. I will support that, if the gentleman will support this 
bill by voting for it on the floor.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for 
supporting it because I think that is important. I think it is 
important that if this in fact moves forward, I am not certain that it 
will move through the other body, but if it does move forward, that it 
gets the expedited review that is so imperative for our Constitution to 
be followed appropriately.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Has he agreed therefore to support the bill when in fact 
the vote is taken?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my oath tells me that I am not to 
support anything that I believe to support anything to be 
unconstitutional. I believe this bill to be unconstitutional. I also 
believe that others may have a different perspective, and I appreciate 
that, and that the place to decide that is in the court. And I would 
hope that we would have an expedited review.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by agreement, I believe Mr. Arcuri and I 
are going to be the final two speakers. He has agreed that I will offer 
my close and then yield back my time, and the gentleman will have the 
remaining time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Agreed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the minority believes that the means just 
don't justify the ends. We believe that there is a process for getting 
this done constitutionally and appropriately. We believe the way the 
rule is written, we believe that the supermajority that this would give 
to Washington, D.C. two voting Members as well as a super-Delegate 
Member who would be from Utah would violate the one man-one vote 
clause. We believe that the way that this is written is wrong and not 
correct, and we should not proceed under that matter.
  Related to the gentlelady's comments about us delaying tactics 
several weeks ago, I find that curious because we were following 
regular order rules, rules that had been established. And I find it 
interesting that regular order would be called a delaying tactic.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members to vote against the previous 
question so that I might be able to offer an amendment to the rule 
which would strike the obvious attempt to nullify and mute the 
minority's ability to recommit a bill.
  The provision says that if the minority has a valid motion to 
recommit and the majority of the House agrees to it, the bill is 
tabled. The majority has taken away the House's ability to send 
something back to the committee for further consideration.
  The distinguished majority leader has spent a great deal of time 
telling Members in the press that the motion to recommit offered on 
March 22 would have killed the bill. Well, that just wasn't true. It 
would have sent the bill back to the committee.
  The egregious provision makes the minority leader's wishes come true 
now. It causes any motion to recommit the bill other than a forthwith 
motion to effectively kill the bill. Why would the Democrat majority 
want to limit the minority's opinion in such a manner? Would it be so 
that they might be able to say with a straight face that a vote to 
recommit actually kills the bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and the extraneous material be printed 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. Speaker, I yield back my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Texas and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for their spirited 
debate in this issue. I would also like to thank my distinguished 
colleague from the District of Columbia for her leadership on this 
issue and her passion. She has shown such incredible focus in terms of 
what she feels and what she believes, and it is contagious and I 
commend her for it.
  This is an issue that is not only important to the residents to the 
District of Columbia, but it is important for the residents of the 
entire country because it is about giving the right to vote to people 
who deserve it. And that is what our country was founded on and that is 
what we are all about.
  In my closing, I would just like to mention several points that were 
discussed in the previous debate, and one of them was brought up by my 
colleague from North Carolina. And I am troubled by the fact that he is 
attempting to talk about power grabs and talking about turning this 
issue into a political issue. This is not a political issue. It never 
has been. That is what the American people don't want out of their 
Congress. They want debate on issues that are important to the people.
  This is something that is important to all of America. It is 
important to the residents of Utah, and it is important to the 
residents of the District of Columbia. It is not about a power grab. It 
is not about politics. And that is what the American people don't want 
to hear their Representatives in Congress talking about. They want to 
hear about why we support a bill. And the reason that this bill is 
important, the reason that this bill is critical is because it is 
constitutional.
  My colleague from Texas said that the end doesn't justify the means, 
and I agree with him; the end cannot justify the means. This bill is 
not about that. This bill is clearly constitutional.
  And I remind my colleague from North Carolina that if he looks at why 
Congress originally set up the District of Columbia, it was because the 
capital was in Philadelphia, and they were not able to do the kinds of 
things in Philadelphia that they wanted to because Pennsylvania was a 
sovereign State and they couldn't tell the State of Pennsylvania what 
they wanted done. So they came upon this idea to create a district, a 
district which they would have control over. That is why the District 
of Columbia was set up. That is why we are debating this bill today.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. The gentleman used my name in his speech, so I would 
certainly like to yield for a question.
  So when the Founding Fathers created the District of Columbia, why 
then did they not grant the District of Columbia two Senators and a 
Member of this House?
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. When the Constitution was written, first of all, Senators 
weren't popularly elected; they were appointed, not elected, number 
one. Number two, when the Constitution was written there was a 10-year 
period during which the District essentially had all the same rights it 
had always had because the Framers guaranteed to Maryland and Virginia 
they would not lose those rights. So when the seat moved over and it 
became the jurisdiction of the Congress, only the Congress could 
fulfill the mandate now that the city was under its jurisdiction to 
grant the city the right to vote.
  We are asking for the right to vote only in the House. And the 
Senate, somebody would have had to appoint Senators at the time. So 
that could not have been done.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as I said, about fairness. 
They are talking about everything but what is important. They are 
talking about every fact except the important fact, and that is that 
this bill is about giving the right to vote to citizens of the United 
States. That is what is important.

[[Page 9386]]

  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 and paid their fair share of taxes. 
We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide to 
the citizens of our Nation's Capital the most important right of all, 
and that is the full right to vote.
  I want to commend again the Delegate from Washington (Ms. Norton) for 
her tireless efforts that have brought us here for this historic day. 
It is this 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. 317 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

       Strike section 3.
                                  ____

       (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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 196, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               YEAS--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     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)
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     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)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     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
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton

[[Page 9387]]


     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boehner
     Brown, Corrine
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Lampson
     Marshall
     Millender-McDonald
     Oberstar
     Rohrabacher
     Sali
     Stark
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1222

  Mr. HUNTER and Mr. FERGUSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  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.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 196, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               YEAS--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     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
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     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
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     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
     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

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     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
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     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
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boehner
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Duncan
     Engel
     Fattah
     Flake
     Higgins
     Israel
     Lampson
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Millender-McDonald
     Rohrabacher
     Stark
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1229

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, on the last vote, rollcall 229, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________