Providing For Consideration Of U.R. 1905, District Of Columbia House Voting RIghts Act Of 2007 And Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 1906, Estimated
Floor Speech
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 -- (House of Representatives - April 19, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source