Michael Arcuri

Mr. ARCURI

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. ARCURI. Agreed.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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).

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. ARCURI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ARCURI. If either bill is not passed, then both bills are defeated.

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).

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. 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. 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.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 12, 32-year-old Utica police officer Thomas Lindsey was shot and killed in the line of duty during a routine traffic stop in Utica, New York, my hometown. A 5\1/2\-year veteran of the Utica police force, Tom served for more than a year with an elite squad tasked with handling special assignments. Tom was the kind of guy that, as a teenager, he traveled to Mexico one summer just to build churches. And prior to his tenure as a Utica police officer, he served our Nation honorably as a U.S. Marine as an embassy guard. As a former district attorney, I had the distinct privilege of working hand in hand with the dedicated men and women of the Utica Police Department. This loss affects those brave men and women and their families hardest of all. Tom put his life on the line in the Marines and as a police officer, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect his country and the community. Losing someone like Tom is a great tragedy, but in this tragedy there is a lesson. We must learn from the way Tom lived his life and his commitment to public service, his community and his country. My prayers are with Tom's mother, Carmella Lindsey-Schisler, his girlfriend, Lisa, and his family and coworkers. I hope everyone can take a moment today to thank the men and the women in their local police departments who serve them so well.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. Improvements in medical technology over the years allow for more servicemen and -women to survive injuries sustained in battle. During World War II, for every soldier that was killed, two were wounded. Now, this ratio is up to 16 to 1. These incredible medical developments allow many more men and women to return home to their families, but their injuries tend to be much more serious and, in many cases, require additional care for the rest of their lives. Last month, I had the opportunity to visit with wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Medical Center. I met several young men wounded in Iraq, one a constituent of mine from upstate New York. As I stood next to the mother of one of the soldiers, I saw a look of sadness on her face, and at that point it struck me, what if one of my two teenage children were lying in that bed? I know that I would want the absolute best treatment and care for my children, and our brave troops deserve nothing less. Sadly, the administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq has extended to the home front as well. The selfless men and women who volunteered to defend their country have been callously neglected and were not only sent into battle without adequate resources, they also returned home to inadequate resources. When they asked for help, no one answered. We make a promise to our soldiers to provide for them when they return home from battle, and it is absolutely unacceptable that this promise has been broken. The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act will ensure that more than 25,000 servicemembers who have sustained injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan receive the world-class treatment and care and services they have so bravely earned and deserve. This bill creates an efficient system for the transition of records from the Department of Defense to the Veterans Administration. It establishes a support system of counselors, advocates and case managers to ensure timely, comprehensive care; and it establishes a number to call to report problems in facilities so that when a soldier asks for help someone answers. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform deserve the absolute best care that this Nation has to offer. I urge my colleagues to renew our promise to our veterans by supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act, would address an important issue surrounding our Nation's efforts to expand electric power to major urban areas, and that is, of course, the safety issue. On the morning of March 12, 2007, a CSX freight train derailed approximately 34 cars near Oneida, New York. Reports indicate there was an evacuation covering a 1-mile radius. Luckily, there were no reported deaths or injuries. However, a large fire occurred at the scene, and residents and emergency responders reported hearing secondary explosions. CSX provided information that there were 40 tank cars carrying liquid petroleum gas in the train. What's more, the derailment closed the New York State Thruway for several hours, requiring traffic to be detoured miles out of the way. Prior to this incident, there were 18 train derailments in western New York between January, 2005, and September, 2006, which further suggests the condition of New York State's freight railways are in need of serious attention and repair. While this concern continues to trouble the people of New York, a private company is seeking to build a 190-mile high-voltage direct current transmission line from the town of Marcy in Oneida County, located in my district, to the town of New Windsor in Orange County in Mr. John Hall's district. The company estimates that more than 90 percent of the proposed primary and alternative routes will follow existing rights-of-way, both along railroad tracks and natural gas lines. The transmission line would consist of 135-foot-tall towers and be operated with a rated power flow of 1,200 megawatts. A portion of the proposed route follows the New York Susquehanna & Western Railway right-of-way, which would run through some of the more heavily populated cities and towns in upstate New York. This is a situation where the consequences and risk are not only unknown but wholly unnecessary. For these reasons, my amendment to H.R. 1401 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct an assessment of the safety and security vulnerabilities of placing high voltage direct current electric transmission lines along active railroad rights-of-way. The assessment shall, at a minimum, evaluate the risks to local inhabitants and consumers of electric power transmitted by those lines, associated with a train collision or derailment that damages such electric transmission lines. It is no secret that as our cities continue to grow they will need more energy, and I fully support addressing that need; but meeting that need must be done in a safe and a responsible way. To this end, my amendment simply requires the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to take a hard look at our existing rail infrastructure and assess the security vulnerabilities so that we can avoid further electric power interruptions and preserve the safety of our constituents. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. If the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman, yes.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, as I said, my amendment simply requires the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to take a hard look at our existing rail infrastructure and assess the security vulnerabilities so that we can avoid further electric power interruptions, while at the same time ensuring the health and safety of our citizens residing near high voltage power lines. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. ARCURI

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee and fellow New Yorker for yielding. Mr. Speaker, for months I have said that our country needs a plan to ensure the timely redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. The previous Congress failed in their duty to provide oversight and refused to ask the tough questions regarding the management of this poorly planned and ill-conceived war. To say, as some of my Republican colleagues have, that passage of this legislation would somehow embolden our enemies or send the wrong message to our allies is just a blatant distortion of the truth. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act lays out for the first time a responsible and realistic strategy for completing our mission in Iraq and bringing our brave troops home as soon as possible. This is a responsible and deliberate plan to change the direction in Iraq without jeopardizing the safety and well- being of our soldiers. The legislation sets a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq with a date certain by August 2008 at the latest. The war in Iraq increasingly strains our military, creating a crisis in the U.S. troop readiness and decreasing our ability to respond to new threats. With more than 3,200 troops dead, more than 24,000 troops wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars spent, we have paid too high a price. We have a choice: We can continue the administration's open-ended commitment to a civil war in Iraq, or we can finish the job and begin a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act goes beyond a new direction for Iraq. It begins a new direction for our country, one in which veterans are taken care of, families provided for, and brave men and women in harm's way have the resources they need to get the job done. The legislation provides $1 billion to fight the global war on terror by putting the focus back where it should have been all along, Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The legislation would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding to ensure our troops are properly equipped. I would recommend a ``yes'' vote. The legislation would also provide $2.5 billion in additional funding to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained; $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care; and $1.7 Billion for veterans' health care--including millions to address the maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities like Walter Reed--ensuring our veterans and troops get the care they need and deserve. I am proud to associate myself with this legislation because it will change our direction in Iraq, and provides the new direction for our country that the American people demanded last November. My constituents did not send me to Washington to serve as a rubber stamp for the Administration. I was sent to Washington to stand up against the mismanagement of this war and misplaced priorities of the Administration. True victory will be achieved when we bring all of our brave troops home--alive and uninjured. I would ask that if my children were serving in Iraq, and we as a nation should ask nothing less for our brave troops.