[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5501-5530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 160, which the clerk will report 
by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 160) to provide the District of Columbia a 
     voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the 
     House of Representatives.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.

[[Page 5502]]


  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the majority 
leader for his statement on this bill, S. 160, the DC House Voting 
Rights Act. I think he got right to the point. This measure has been 
before Congress for quite a long time. The bill before us is the result 
of a bipartisan compromise that was worked out in the House of 
Representatives last year between Delegate Norton and then-Congressman 
Tom Davis.
  There are questions about the bill. Obviously, there are different 
points of view. I am very grateful that yesterday 62 Members of this 
body, including 8 Republicans, voted to stop a filibuster to invoke 
cloture to get to this bill. I think people are ready to debate it on 
its merits.
  I feel very strongly that this bill rights a historic injustice. It 
is hard to believe, when you stop to think about it; maybe we become 
accustomed to things and forget how unacceptable they are and how 
unaccustomed we should be, but 600,000 Americans are deprived of having 
voting representation in the Congress of the United States because they 
happen to live, of all places, in the capital of this greatest 
democracy in the world.
  There are a lot of historic reasons for this originally, but then 
they became political reasons, frankly partisan. But none of them holds 
any real sway against the ideal that animates our country. This is a 
representative democracy. And finally the residents of the District got 
a delegate in the House, but the delegate cannot vote.
  Think of it. If any one of us, the 100 of us who are privileged to be 
Senators were told for some reason that we could be Senators, we could 
represent our States, we could participate in debates, but then when 
the roll was called, we could not vote--it is unbelievable. This is 
what we have done to the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia 
and to their Delegate in the House.
  This bill would right that wrong. I would say that few, if any, of 
our colleagues would argue that somehow the status quo is acceptable; 
that is, that 600,000 people do not have a voting representative in 
Congress.
  We are the only democracy--and, of course, we believe we are the 
greatest democracy in the world. Historically, we began the moment of 
democracy throughout the world. We are the only democracy in the world 
where the residents of our capital do not have any voting 
representation in Congress.
  So I think, generally speaking, Members of the Senate understand and 
accept the injustice of the status quo. The objections are primarily 
constitutional as I have heard them. I believe the arguments on behalf 
of the constitutionality of this proposal are strong and convincing, 
certainly to me.
  My cosponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, Orrin Hatch, who has, generally speaking, been acknowledged as a 
wonderful lawyer, a great constitutional scholar, in fact, has written 
an essay for the Harvard Law Journal, making the case for the 
constitutionality of this proposal. I commend that to all of our 
colleagues, particularly those who have doubts about the 
constitutionality of this measure.
  But I honestly think that most people have accepted the injustice 
question. The constitutionality, okay, let's have some amendments. As 
Senator Reid said, we have got today, tomorrow. We are here. Let's have 
some amendments and put it in issue, give the Senate the choice that 
deals with the constitutionality. Some think there ought to be a 
constitutional amendment to achieve voting representation in the 
Congress. I do not think that is necessary.
  Some think the District of Columbia, the residents should, for 
purposes of representation in Congress, become part of Maryland or 
Virginia. There is some historical precedent for that argument, way 
back. Let's debate it. But let's get it done. This measure has strong 
support and it has the urgency of justice delayed about it.
  So the question before the Senate, as it so often is, are we going to 
face the differences here and debate them and then have a vote so we 
can conclude this debate and go back to our States Thursday evening and 
have a good weekend with our constituents at home or are we going to 
delay this and use this as a vehicle for unrelated matters that will 
achieve nothing? That, as usual, is the challenge before us.
  I am here, and I look forward to colleagues coming as soon as 
possible to speak, and hopefully to offer amendments, with the goal 
that Senator Reid has set--we can finish this goal by tomorrow, 
Thursday. Senator Reid has made it clear that if he gets the sense 
during the day today that there is going to be delay, and there are 
amendments that are not relevant to the bill, he is going to file 
cloture. That will mean we will have to stay here on Friday to vote on 
cloture, and we will not be able to finish this bill presumably until 
the first part of next week. I hope that does not happen. Please come 
to the floor and let's talk about it.
  I do want to, while I have a moment--I am sure Members are rushing 
from their offices right now to come to the floor to offer amendments--
I do want to talk for the record about the interesting compromise that 
Delegate Norton and Congressman Davis achieved last year, and this 
answers the question of: Why Utah?
  This bill would increase the size of the House of Representatives to 
437, adding two new Members to the House. This is quite historic both 
in terms of righting the injustice suffered for now more than two 
centuries by the residents of our Nation's capital, but also that we 
are adding Members to the House of Representatives. That does not 
happen too often in our history.
  One of those seats would go to the District of Columbia, the other as 
part of the compromise would, for the next 2 years, until the 
reapportionment of the House that will follow the 2010 census, go to 
Utah. I would say to clarify, that after the 2010 census, the District 
would retain its seat because of the injustice that we are correcting. 
But the second seat would go to whichever State deserves it; that is, 
according to the population found in the 2010 census.
  So let me explain why Utah now. Utah has had an objection to the 
outcome of the 2000 census and the Congressional apportionment that 
followed it. According to the 2000 census, the State of Utah missed out 
on getting a fourth seat in the House of Representatives by 857 people.
  This was a very thin margin of error, particularly when one considers 
the methodology of the count and the way it uniquely affected Utah. 
Remember, 857 people short of getting a fourth seat as compared to 
another State. According to officials of the State of Utah, somewhere 
between 11,000 and 14,000 members of the Church of Latter-day Saints, 
Mormons, missionaries living abroad but citizens of the United States, 
residents of Utah, were not counted. It is true, however, that members 
of the military who are abroad are counted.
  In two separate court cases, the State of Utah argued that the 
methodology of the count of the census was flawed because government 
officials, including military personnel, were counted in the census, 
while other Americans, including the LDS missionaries, were not. Our 
colleagues in the House had an insight. It was one of those moments of 
compromise. Perhaps it seems we are combining apples and pears, but--
and I will stop the metaphor and not go on to a sweet fruit salad--the 
fact is, this made a lot of sense. Our colleagues in the House 
recognized that in these two sets of complaints--the historic one for 
the District and the one for Utah, more current--there was a potential 
solution to the longstanding impasse on DC voting rights.
  Let's state what is implicit. Over time, I fear people concluded, 
notwithstanding the justice of the argument made by residents of the 
District that they deserve voting representation, it clear, and we must 
acknowledge what is clear, the registration of voters in the District 
is overwhelmingly Democratic. So in terms of partisan balance in the 
House, the feeling, obviously, was that when the District of Columbia 
gets a voting representative in the House of Representatives, that 
representative will almost always be Democratic. Utah tends to be 
Republican, though not totally; there is one

[[Page 5503]]

Member of the House from Utah today who is a Democrat.
  There was another judgment involved, an interesting one which we tend 
not to think of. If we just added one seat for the District of 
Columbia, a voting representative, we would end up with 436 Members of 
the House, an even number, and no constitutional mechanism for breaking 
a tie. Obviously, presumably a motion that resulted in a tie would 
fail, but it seems an unsatisfactory resolution to the problem. Without 
an odd number of Members of the House, gridlock would ensue in too many 
cases. How would the House, for instance, organize itself if the split 
between the political parties was even? Clearly, the Vice President 
does not serve as a tie-breaking vote for the House, as is the case in 
the Senate. It could be impossible to elect a Speaker or appoint 
committee chairs. So the solution devised by our colleagues in the 
House in the last session of Congress increased the size of the House 
by two Members to 437, which pairs a new seat for the District of 
Columbia with a new seat for Utah. That simultaneously gives the 
District the representation it deserves, keeps the House as an uneven 
number of seats, and balances a likely Democratic seat from the 
District with a likely Republican seat from Utah.
  This is the balance that resulted in the legislation that is before 
us. It is a compromise but, as in so many cases--and it is a pragmatic 
compromise--it results in a good solution, frankly, to two problems, 
one longstanding for the District, the other more current and brief for 
Utah.
  In submitting this legislation from the committee, we are not judging 
the manner in which the 2000 census was conducted or the outcome of 
legal disputes that followed. That is a matter of record. However, it 
is a statistical fact that Utah was the next State in line to receive 
an additional seat in the House of Representatives. Given that fact, it 
is a reasonable bipartisan compromise to create the two voting seats 
proposed in S. 160. I stress, again, that Utah only receives this seat 
under this bill for 2 years. The bill has no impact on the conduct of 
the next census in 2010 and subsequent reapportionment. Once 
reapportionment is conducted for the 2012 election, the Utah seat will 
be awarded based on population increases to the State that thereby has 
earned it. It could be Utah. It could be another State. If Utah's 2010 
population does not entitle the State to a fourth congressional seat, 
it will not retain the seat it will receive under this bill.
  The bill offers an opportunity to right the wrong Utah believes it 
suffered in 2000, the closeness of its numbers and also the fact that 
Mormon missionaries, way beyond the 857 gap between Utah and the State 
that got the additional seat, way beyond that number, 11,000 to 14,000. 
I think this is a very fair compromise that ensures, bottom line, every 
citizen of the country is given the most precious right democracy can 
provide, the right to vote for someone who can represent him or her 
with a vote in Congress. When one doesn't have that, as is the case 
with the District of Columbia, apart from the frustration I described 
earlier that Delegate Norton must experience every time the roll is 
opened in the House, we have the inequity of residents of the District 
volunteering and being sent to war. Yet the Delegate of the District in 
the House has no vote on questions of war or peace. We have soldiers 
returning as veterans, and yet the representative from the District has 
no vote on the benefits we will confer or not confer on veterans. The 
residents of the District are not only taxed without representation, 
which is, as our Founders asserted, a form of tyranny, but they are 
taxed very heavily. They pay the second highest rate of Federal 
taxation per capita. Yet they have no voting representation in Congress 
on the rate of taxation, the manner of taxation or, of course, where 
the revenue goes.
  They are the only governmental entity, outside of a Federal agency, 
that has to have its budget approved by the Congress. When we are tied 
up in gridlock and the budget doesn't pass, it means the District of 
Columbia is in a terrible predicament because it can't get the money it 
needs to operate. Yet the District has no voting representation on 
matters of appropriations in Congress. This is the moment to end this 
antiquity, a profoundly unjust and, frankly, un-America antiquity.
  I urge colleagues to come to the Chamber. Let's have some amendments 
and debate, and let's get this done by tomorrow afternoon.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in consultation with the managers, the 
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona, I make a 
constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it 
violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the precedent and practices 
of the Senate, the Chair has no power or authority to pass on such a 
point of order. The Chair, therefore, under the precedent of the 
Senate, submits the question to the Senate: Is the point of order well 
taken?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand that now the motion is 
debatable.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a statement on this issue, and I 
look forward to debating it and a vote at the wishes of the majority 
and Republican leader on this constitutional point of order.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much that Senator 
McCain came to the floor to raise this point of order. As I said 
earlier, this is a matter that concerns people. I feel strongly that 
the measure is constitutional. But this is exactly what we should be 
debating. I look forward to his arguments and to responding to them.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, through whose committee this legislation is 
proceeding.
  I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of the District of 
Columbia at the absence of a vote in Congress. I fully understand and 
appreciate that. I also believe it is important that we look back at 
both the Constitution itself and the intention of our Founding Fathers, 
which was to create the District of Columbia as a base of Government.
  According to many experts, the District of Columbia is not a State, 
so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to 
raise the obvious question: If the District of Columbia is entitled to 
a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, then why isn't 
it also entitled to two Senators? If the District of Columbia is 
entitled to a Member of Congress, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would 
probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? Why are other territories 
of the United States not entitled to full-fledged Members of the U.S. 
House of Representatives and, indeed, the U.S. Senate?
  After great deliberation and debate, our Founding Fathers enshrined 
in the Constitution, 222 years ago, a unique form of government that 
proposes a distribution of power and checks and balances on each 
branch. So, too, the Founding Fathers considered and provided for a 
unique Federal city to serve as our Nation's seat of government. No 
single Member would represent the interest of the District but all 
Members of Congress would share responsibility for the city's well-
being. I believe that when you look at distribution of tax revenues and 
when you look at other measurements, the District of Columbia has been 
well represented by all Members of Congress.

[[Page 5504]]

  The Framers specifically limited voting representation in the House 
of Representatives to States. Article I, section 2, of the Constitution 
provides unequivocally:

       The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
     chosen every second year by the People of the several States.

  If they had wanted the District of Columbia to have the 
representation, they would have designated so in the Constitution. 
Asked to opine on the meaning of the word ``States'' in the context of 
House representation, Federal courts have consistently accorded that 
word its plain meaning, concluding that the word ``States'' does not 
include territories or possessions or even the District of Columbia.
  Again, I express my sympathy for the residents of the District of 
Columbia. But to now act in direct contravention to the intent and 
words of our Founding Fathers, I believe, is a violation of the 
Constitution of the United States. And to somehow work a deal that 
includes the State of Utah having an additional seat in return for that 
is an incredible violation. I will talk more about that.
  First, I wish to say that it is very clear the Congress simply cannot 
amend the Constitution by legislation--no matter how noble the cause. 
Congress has once before pursued an appropriate constitutional 
resolution to this issue. In 1978, Congress passed a joint resolution 
proposing to amend the Constitution to provide for the representation 
for the District of Columbia in Congress. Seven years later, that 
resolution failed to obtain the required approval of the 38 States 
necessary for ratification under article V of the Constitution. There 
is no reason proponents of voting rights for the District can't pursue 
this process again. There is a process for amending the Constitution of 
the United States. There is no reason why those residents of the 
District of Columbia, and other supporters, should not pursue the 
legitimate process of amending the Constitution of the United States. 
It should not be done and, in my view, cannot be done. The courts will 
decide, if we don't decide here, that it is unconstitutional to do so. 
I welcome such a process, rather than the consideration of this bill, 
which is clearly unconstitutional--not only in my judgment but in the 
overwhelming body of legal opinion.
  In addition to being unconstitutional, as I said, I am concerned that 
this bill is more a product of politics than of principle. Look at what 
this legislation before us does. It doesn't simply grant the District 
of Columbia a voting seat in the House; it adds another congressional 
seat for the State of Utah. The obvious question is, Why Utah? Why not 
Arizona or Nevada or New Jersey? As a representative of the people of 
the State of Arizona, who, I believe, legitimately and continuously, as 
one of the fastest growing States, have been deprived of additional 
seats because of the way the census was conducted--and now we are going 
to give a seat to the State of Utah on the grounds that the census was 
not accurate. I don't know of any fast-growing State in America that 
doesn't believe we were undercounted--and legitimately--in the census.
  Now, as I understand it--and maybe the proponents of an additional 
seat for Utah can more eloquently and convincingly describe it than I 
can--they are saying it is because they came closest in the census to 
being eligible for another seat in the Congress. The State of Nevada is 
the fastest growing State in America. Arizona has been among those that 
are fast growing. But why Utah? What in the world does an additional 
seat for Utah have to do with representation for the District of 
Columbia? It can only be interpreted in one way, and that is an attempt 
to buy votes. We are talking about the Constitution of the United 
States here, about representation in the Congress of the United States 
of America, not some political deal.
  I have sympathy for the State of Utah if they think they were 
undercounted in the census. I have sympathy for all States that were 
undercounted in the census. What some supporters of the bill argue is 
that Utah is the next State in line to receive a House seat after the 
last census in 2000 and reapportionment. Nevada was the fastest growing 
State from 1986 to 2004, until Arizona overtook Nevada as the fastest 
growing State in 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nevada, 
once again, regained this title for its high growth between 2006 and 
2007. For the first time in over 25 years, Utah was listed this year as 
the fastest growing State, as its population climbed 2.5 percent, with 
Arizona being second, with a population growth of 2.3 percent. Despite 
this percentage growth, Texas, California, North Carolina, and Georgia 
added more people than Utah, Nevada, or Arizona between 2007 and 2008. 
Mr. President, we are getting on a slippery slope here. Do you judge it 
by percentage of growth, numbers of votes?
  It brings us back to a final question: What in the world would 
awarding an additional seat to another State have to do with voting 
rights for the District of Columbia?
  I have provided those statistics to illustrate there are other States 
that have experienced far more phenomenal growth than Utah. I love 
Utah. It is a wonderful State. But the wheels were greased for Utah to 
receive an additional seat well before it was listed as the fastest 
growing State this year. And if the State of Utah or any other State 
was undercounted, that should be taken into consideration; we should 
fix the census in the year 2010 and make sure any injustice is 
corrected. But to somehow say we are going to award a State an 
additional seat not in keeping with the process of how reapportionment 
is conducted every 10 years is remarkable and certainly 
unconstitutional.
  In 2004, lawmakers began floating an idea of a compromise bill to 
balance a House seat for the District of Columbia, which obviously we 
assume would be won by a Democrat, with a seat for a congressional 
district in Utah, which most assume would be won by a Republican. The 
May 3, 2005, editorial in the Washington Post called this a ``win-win 
situation.'' While this may be a win-win situation for Washington, DC, 
and Utah, it is hardly a win for the millions of Americans who are 
living in high-growth States.
  In fact, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, 
if the District was considered to be a State during the last 
apportionment, North Carolina would not have gained a seat. According 
to a study by the Republican policy committee, if this bill is enacted 
and the House of Representatives is expanded to 437 seats, then New 
Jersey would keep a congressional seat it would otherwise lose. Again, 
this illustrates there are winners and losers in an apportionment, but 
these districts should be chosen based on concrete data from the 
census, not by political parties attempting to craft legislation that 
flies in the face of our Founding Fathers' intentions.
  In a February 6, 2009, editorial, the Los Angeles Times states:

       This is obviously partisan horse-trading.

  The Los Angeles Times is right. Yes, partisan horse trading happens 
all the time, but this time partisan horse trading would do grave 
violence to our Constitution.
  A commentator wrote in the February 13, 2009, edition of the 
Washington Times:

     . . . the enactment of blatantly unconstitutional legislation 
     to bypass the constitutional amendment process and give the 
     District of Columbia a seat in the House of Representatives 
     in a crass triumph of raw political power over the rule of 
     law.

  I couldn't agree more.
  Again, I regret I am unable to support this legislation to provide 
the residents of the District voting representation in the House of 
Representatives. However, I took a solemn oath to defend our 
Constitution as a U.S. Senator. In testifying before the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2007, Professor Jonathan 
Turley described this horse trading as ``the most premeditated 
unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''
  We, as Senators, cannot avoid the constitutional issue. While the 
Supreme Court may be the final arbiter of constitutionality, Congress, 
as the first

[[Page 5505]]

branch of Government, has an independent duty to consider the 
constitutionality of the bills we pass, especially where, as here, our 
own independent Congressional Research Service advises that ``although 
not beyond question, it would appear likely that the Congress does not 
have authority to grant voting representation in the House of 
Representatives to the District of Columbia'' as contemplated by this 
bill.
  We really have two aspects of this legislation. First of all, does 
Congress have the constitutional authority to grant voting rights or an 
additional seat in the House of Representatives by legislation rather 
than amending the Constitution of the United States?
  As I pointed out earlier in my statement, the fact is, it was tried 
in 1978 in the proper fashion and did not receive the approval of the 
38 States necessary to amend the Constitution. So now we are trying to 
basically amend the Constitution of the United States by legislation. 
That is not in keeping with the authority and responsibility of the 
Congress of the United States of America.
  The second is, of course, what in the world does granting voting 
rights to the District of Columbia have to do with granting another 
seat to another State? One can only interpret that, as one of the 
editorials did, as political horse trading. There is no constitutional 
basis for granting a seat to any State in the United States of America 
without it being backed up, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, by the 
results of a census.
  I will agree, as I have said before, coming from a State that has 
been consistently undercounted in our population, the census needs to 
be fixed to more accurately reflect the true population of every State 
in America, and that has not happened with the fastest growing States. 
But to grant a seat to a State because they were ``fastest growing'' 
and maybe closest to the requirement for an additional seat turns 
everything on its head.
  What kind of a precedent would we be setting by legislation allowing 
a State to have another seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, with 
thousands of votes that would be taken?
  I also would like to mention, again, if the District of Columbia 
deserves a voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
doesn't the District of Columbia also deserve two U.S. Senators? How 
intellectually do you make the argument they deserve a vote in the 
other body, a coequal body--although we certainly do not recognize that 
very often. But the fact is, it is a coequal body. They are going to 
have a vote over there, but they are not going to have representation 
over here.
  Finally, I would like to point out that we have territories in which 
citizens of the United States reside. Those who were born in those 
territories, according to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, are citizens 
of the United States. In fact, they are even eligible to run for 
President of the United States if they are born in a U.S. territory.
  What about Puerto Rico? What about the Virgin Islands? What about the 
Marianas? What about other territories that are part of the United 
States of America and in which our citizens also reside who then vote 
for Representatives in the other body, but those Representatives 
obviously do not have voting power?
  I conclude by saying this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue. 
It has been clouded by the understandable concern that Members of 
Congress have for the people who reside in the District of Columbia. We 
see their license plates every day: ``Taxation without 
Representation.'' But the way to give them those voting rights is 
through amending the Constitution of the United States, not a 
legislative act that clearly is not within the constitutional authority 
granted by our Founding Fathers to the Congress of the United States.
  I look forward to a spirited debate on this issue. I think it is an 
important one. If this DC voting rights bill does pass and this 
constitutional point of order is rejected by a majority of the Senate, 
I have very little doubt that the courts of the United States of 
America will reject this proposal.
  Again, I appreciate and admire and respect the manager of this bill, 
the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and the 
senior ranking member, the Senator from Maine. But I think there is a 
huge credibility problem when you add on a provision for adding a seat 
to a State for which there is not any factual or, frankly, rational 
argument for except that perhaps this measure will gain more support.
  I urge my colleagues to take a very close look at what we are doing. 
The most sacred obligation we have is to respect and preserve the 
Constitution of the United States of America in everything we do. I 
have very little doubt this legislation before us violates the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his 
kind words and also for the serious constitutional questions he raised.
  As I said earlier, this is exactly what we ought to be debating on 
this bill. I take it as a given that neither he nor anyone else I heard 
speak in this Chamber would say that it is fair or just or consistent 
with the first principles of our representative democracy, this great 
Republic of ours, that 600,000 Americans be denied the fundamental 
right to be represented in Congress by somebody who can actually vote. 
Pretty much everybody will agree that is wrong, all the more 
unacceptable because these 600,000 people happen to live in the Capital 
of this great democracy of ours.
  The question is, in one sense, the constitutionality of S. 160, the 
House District Voting Rights Act that is before us, and in a second 
sense, which the Senator from Arizona has raised, the wisdom, if you 
will, of combining the voting rights for residents of the District with 
an extra seat, in the short run, for the State of Utah. I wish to take 
some time to respond to these serious arguments.
  As I understand it--and I think I do--what the Senator from Arizona 
and other opponents of the constitutionality of this bill say is that 
the question of the District of Columbia's voting rights in the House 
should be settled by section 2 of article I of our Constitution, which 
says the House shall be made up of Members chosen ``by the People of 
the several States.'' And they argue that because the District of 
Columbia is not a State, its residents cannot have representation in 
the House, presumably at least not without a constitutional amendment.
  Those of us who feel strongly that this measure before the Senate is 
constitutional base our claim on the District clause of the 
Constitution which states that the Congress has the power ``To exercise 
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District,'' 
referring, of course, to the Federal District that was created at the 
time of the Constitution as the National Capital.
  Our courts have described in the centuries since this authority in 
the District clause as a ``unique and sovereign power'' and ``sweeping 
and inclusive in its character.'' Unlike many congressional powers, it 
is not balanced against the countervailing rights of the States.
  As former, I believe he was Associate Attorney General, maybe Deputy 
Attorney General during the previous administration, the Bush 
administration, Viet Dinh, stated in his testimony before the House of 
Representatives on this matter:

       [W]hen Congress acts pursuant to the District Clause, it 
     acts as a legislature of national character, exercising 
     ``complete legislative control as contrasted with the limited 
     power of a state legislature, on the one hand, and as 
     contrasted with the limited sovereignty which Congress 
     exercises within the boundaries of the states, on the 
     other.''

  That is a very interesting argument about the unique powers of 
Congress pursuant to this District clause.
  Then Mr. Viet Dinh concludes in support of this legislation and the 
constitutionality of this legislation:

       In few, if any, other areas does the Constitution grant any 
     broader authority for Congress to legislate.


[[Page 5506]]


  That is what we are doing here.
  Those who question the constitutionality of the legislation, as I 
mentioned, rely on section 2 of article I. They rely uniquely and 
almost totally on the word ``States,'' that the Members of the House 
shall be chosen by ``the People of the several States.'' So they say 
the District of Columbia is not a State; therefore, without amending 
the Constitution, we, in Congress, even under the powerful District 
clause, do not have the power to grant voting rights in Congress to the 
Representative of the District of Columbia.
  But there is a very clear and powerful line of Supreme Court cases in 
which the High Court and other courts have upheld Congress's right to 
treat the District of Columbia as a State and to treat it as a State 
for matters that are extremely consequential: for Federal taxation; in 
other words, the right to tax residents of the States might free the 
residents of the District from this obligation.
  Yet the courts have said the District itself can be treated as a 
State for purposes of Federal taxation, for purposes of Federal court 
jurisdiction. This was the question of diversity of jurisdiction. I 
don't have to go into the details. The courts have said it would be an 
anomaly to say because you happen to be an American living in the 
District, you cannot gain access to the Federal courts because the 
Constitution says the various States with regard to diversity and 
jurisdiction. The same with the right to a jury trial and, very 
powerfully, the same with regard to interstate commerce. There it is 
interstate commerce. We have the interstate commerce clause of the 
Constitution which has given birth to probably thousands of pieces of 
legislation, a very active role of oversight for the Government. And 
even though it is the interstate commerce clause, the courts have said 
very clearly that the District should be considered a State, 
notwithstanding the literal words in the Constitution. Because 
effectively, if you don't, you will create an enclave where people 
can't be taxed, people can't gain access to the Federal courts, people 
don't have a right to a jury trial, and people can't be protected by 
generations of legislation and regulation passed pursuant to the 
interstate commerce clause.
  For instance, as long ago as 1805, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 
Justice Marshall--the great Justice Marshall--ruled that the District 
of Columbia could not be considered a State for purposes of diversity 
jurisdiction under the Constitution, which allows Federal courts to 
hear disputes between residents of different States. His opinion, 
nonetheless, remarked on the incongruity of such a result, and Justice 
Marshall invited Congress to find a solution. Many years later--
unfortunately, many years later--Congress did so, and in 1949 the 
Supreme Court, in the Tidewater case, upheld a congressional statute 
that said the District should be treated as a State for purposes of 
diversity jurisdiction.
  Citing such cases, former Federal Circuit Court Judge Patricia Wald 
has testified--and again she testified on behalf of this legislation 
and its constitutionality:

       The rationale of the courts in all these cases has been 
     that Congress, under the District Clause, has the power to 
     impose on District residents similar obligations and to grant 
     similar rights as the States claim power to do under the 
     Constitution itself.

  So Congress is saying because the States get certain powers from the 
Constitution, if we don't treat the District as a State, its residents 
will be deprived of protections, or the Federal Government will be 
deprived of the right to tax them, for instance. And Judge Wald 
continued:

       Given that the District is in reality what I might call a 
     City-State of 600,000 people--

  Where the population, as I indicated in my opening statement 
yesterday morning, is just about equal to or greater than four States--

     engaged in a multitude of private businesses and occupations, 
     there is realistically no other way that a federalist union 
     can do business under the Constitution.

  It is also true that Congress has already extended the right of 
Federal representation, voting representation in Congress, to those who 
are not citizens of any State. I know this is an unusual statement and 
an exception, but there is the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting 
Act. And in that, Congress authorized American citizens overseas to 
continue to vote for Members of Congress in their last domestic State 
of residence, regardless of whether they had been citizens of that 
State and no matter how long they stay overseas. Indeed, as I mentioned 
yesterday, these people would lose this unusual right to voting 
representation here in Congress, in States they no longer reside in--
and they may not have been there in quite a while--by absentee ballot 
from elsewhere in the world, only if they renounced their American 
citizenship or they returned to the United States and came to live in 
the District of Columbia. Now, that is an anomalous and unacceptable 
result. Citizens of Federal enclaves within a State are also free to 
vote in Federal elections held by the State--a right upheld by the 
Supreme Court.
  Notably, Congress has already used this vast authority that I have 
referred to under the District clause to extend voting rights to 
residents of the District of Columbia. Between 1789 and 1800, Congress, 
acting under the District clause, granted residents of the new 
District--the Nation's capital--the right to vote in their former 
States of Maryland and Virginia, even though they were actually no 
longer residents of those States--the land having been formally ceded 
to the Federal Government to form the new capital district.
  Let me now address a few of the other arguments that have been raised 
by Members, constitutional arguments that have been raised by those who 
oppose the bill on constitutional grounds.
  It has been argued that because the constitutional amendment XXIII 
was required to grant the District Presidential electors in the 
electoral college, likewise a constitutional amendment should be 
required to provide the District with voting representation in the 
House. But these two issues are distinct. The XXIII amendment worked a 
fundamental change to the electoral college under Article II of the 
Constitution. As such, Congress could not legislate with the same 
latitude it has within Article I, where the District clause is found 
along with the clause governing composition of the U.S. House.
  Some opponents of our proposal also cite the 1990 case of Adams v. 
Clinton to argue that it would be unconstitutional to grant DC citizens 
voting rights in the House. That is not the case, in my opinion. In 
Adams, the DC Government and residents brought a case alleging it was a 
denial of their constitutional rights to exclude them from 
representation in Congress. The majority opinion of the three-judge 
court stated, ``We are not blind to the inequity of the situation 
plaintiffs seek to change,'' but concluded that the court itself could 
not grant the District residents voting rights in Congress as a matter 
of constitutional right. But the court did not address whether Congress 
was empowered to provide voting rights through exercise of the District 
clause.
  As former Solicitor General and Federal Circuit Court Judge Kenneth 
Starr testified before the House in 2004 on legislation similar to the 
one before us now, S. 160:

       While the Constitution may not affirmatively grant the 
     District's residents the right to vote in congressional 
     elections, the Constitution does affirmatively grant Congress 
     plenary power to govern the District's affairs.

  In fact, the majority opinion in Adams arguably invited such an 
approach by stating that for plaintiffs to obtain Federal 
representation, ``they must plead their cause in other venues.'' And 
presumably that meant the Congress.
  Another concern raised by opponents of the bill is that it is a 
slippery slope, as the Senator from Arizona said. If Congress has the 
authority to grant the District a voting representative in the House, 
what is to stop it from adding two Senators or extending full voting 
rights to the U.S. territories? I respectfully suggest that these 
concerns are unfounded. The legislation before us only addresses DC 
voting rights in

[[Page 5507]]

the House, and the legal case for this action and its validity is 
unique.
  First, with respect to the Senate, this bill could not be clearer. In 
Section 2(a)(2) it states:

       The District of Columbia shall not be considered a State 
     for purposes of representation in the United States Senate.

  But our colleagues have argued: Could some future Congress, using the 
arguments used on behalf of this bill, pass similar legislation to give 
DC full voting rights in the Senate? To me, that is a very debatable 
argument at best. Even some of the legal experts who support this bill 
believe a different and much more difficult analysis would apply to a 
bill regarding Senate representation because of the distinct language 
and history of the constitutional provisions governing composition of 
the Senate and the greater emphasis on the States as such.
  The territories are also a distinct and different case. Different 
constitutional provisions provide for the creation of the District and 
the Federal territories. The District enjoys a unique legal and 
historical status, and one that largely mirrors the rights and 
responsibilities of the States. Its residents pay full taxes and face 
military conscription. The same is not true of the residents of the 
territories. Amendment XXIII extended the right to vote in Presidential 
elections to residents of the District but not to residents of the 
American territories.
  As legal expert Richard Bress concluded in testimony on our 
legislation last session:

       Taken together, these differences between the territories 
     and the District render highly unlikely the suggestion that 
     granting voting rights to District residents would lead, as a 
     legal or policy matter, to granting similar privileges to 
     residents of the U.S. territories.

  Finally, in his comments, Senator McCain questioned: How do we put 
together voting rights for the District of Columbia with an extra seat 
for Utah; isn't this just a pragmatic political agreement? Well, in 
some sense it is. But in another sense, like so many pragmatic 
agreements around here--and this is one of the best of them because it 
is bipartisan--it achieves a just result: Finally, after all these 
years in which this outrageous anomaly has been allowed to exist, 
District residents will get voting representation in the House, and it 
also corrects what I think was an injustice done to the State of Utah 
in the last census--and which is one that I referred to earlier--when 
it came just 857 votes short of another seat, but the census did not 
count what was estimated--or proven in the court case--between 11,000 
and 14,000 Mormon missionaries who were clearly residents of Utah but 
were elsewhere in the world on their years of missionary service.
  The truth is that for too long now partisan concerns have stopped 
Members of Congress from doing what they knew was right, which is to 
give residents of the District voting rights. And the partisan concerns 
are understandable, even if they should not have blocked the result. It 
is a matter of fact that the residents of the District are 
overwhelmingly registered as members of the Democratic party. So in the 
normal course, it would be extremely likely that any Member of the 
House from the District would be voting and organizing with the 
Democrats. And I suppose if the shoe were on the other foot and this 
was a largely Republican voting population, to be fair about it, 
Democrats would probably have a similar feeling.
  Last session, acknowledging the inequity of the District's case and 
the understandable if ultimately unacceptable partisan concerns, two of 
our colleagues in the House--Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the 
District and Tom Davis former Republican Congressman from Virginia--
tried to work this out. Acknowledging the inequity that I referred to 
which Utah felt it suffered, and actually went to court on in the last 
census, a decision was made to put these two together.
  There was also an institutional necessity, if I can add to this. It 
wasn't a kind of apples and oranges--two problems, let's bring them 
together and have a bipartisan result, because the new Member of the 
House from Utah is likely to be a member of the Republican Party. If we 
only added the one seat for the District, the House would have an even 
number of Members. One can imagine the gridlock that you would not want 
to see in the House. You could have an equal number of Members of both 
parties and a failure to organize, failure to be able to select a 
Speaker, or a failure to be able to organize committees. On a tie vote, 
there is no one in the House to exercise tie-breaking authority, 
similar to the Vice President here in the Senate. So legislation could 
fail as a result of a tie vote, and that is not a good result either. 
There was that institutional benefit that if you are going to add one, 
you really should add two to bring the total back to an uneven number 
and avoid the problems we have talked about.
  I do want to make clear that this kind of equitable grant of an 
additional seat to Utah, based on what happened after the last census, 
is only for 2 years. Obviously, if we give the District voting rights, 
it will go on forever, but it is only for 2 years because another 
census is coming in 2010 and there will be a reapportionment following 
that census. If Utah is next in line for that extra seat based on 
population, of course Utah will hold that extra seat. But if there is 
another State that, based on population, has a greater claim for that 
extra seat, then they will get it as well.
  I am happy to acknowledge that the bill before us is the result of a 
political compromise, a bipartisan compromise in the House, but I am 
not embarrassed by it. I do not think it taints the result because the 
result is so profoundly just in the case of the District, and I believe 
also just in the case of Utah, and it only lasts for this one time.
  I have tried to argue here, No. 1, on the constitutionality of this 
measure under the District clause; No. 2, that, yes, this is a 
bipartisan political agreement, but it is done for good reasons, and 
that does not taint it at all; and No. 3, I would say that in the bill 
before us there is provision for an expedited appeal to the courts on 
the constitutionality. We know there are constitutional differences 
that have been argued by the Senator from Arizona and myself this 
morning. We assume they will be tested in court. In the interests of 
efficient functioning of our Government, we provide in this measure for 
an expedited appeal.
  This is not the first time this would happen. The most significant 
case I remember, and I am sure it is one of many, is the landmark 
campaign finance reform legislation that bears the name of my friend 
from Arizona and our friend from Wisconsin, the McCain-Feingold 
legislation. Some argued vociferously on the floor that it was 
unconstitutional. So within the legislation, in a way quite similar to 
what we have done here on this, it was provided that there be an 
expedited appeal. That was a way of saying, even if you believe this 
legislation may be unconstitutional, we are a legislative body, we do 
not know, really. I believe this legislation is constitutional, but 
ultimately--I feel that very strongly, I said that it is, but the 
ultimate arbiter of that, of course, is the courts.
  So I urge my colleagues who have constitutional questions about this 
legislation but really want to stop the inequity imposed on the 
residents of the District, that they do not have voting representation 
here, to vote for this measure because it contains with it an expedited 
appeal which will occur on the constitutionality of the legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from 
Connecticut--in particular, his comments at the conclusion of his 
remarks about the appropriateness of an expedited appeal. We are both 
very certain of our constitutional judgment on this. We are both 
lawyers. We each come to a totally different conclusion about what is 
constitutional or not. Fortunately, we have the courts to resolve the 
issues. As with previous legislation, we had the good sense to include 
an expedited appeal to the courts so that the issue can be resolved one 
way or the other. I would note there is one thing

[[Page 5508]]

that is needed to effectuate this--to be sure that, as it was in the 
McCain-Feingold legislation, an appeal can be facilitated by ensuring 
pro bono counsel can represent plaintiff in the case.
  Let me also reference a fact that my colleague from Arizona is 
usually quick to point out. He likes to say he is unburdened by a law 
degree. That certainly can be a burden for those of us who have the 
degree, but what he has argued illustrates not only the sensibility of 
our Constitution but also his extensive knowledge of it. I always 
appreciate his point of view on these issues because of his wide-
reaching experience which helps us understand the reasons for the 
constitutional provision. I support the constitutional point of order 
he has raised because I do deeply believe the action the Senate is 
being asked to take here is unconstitutional.
  The creation of a House seat for the District by legislation rather 
than constitutional amendment is what is before us here, and we believe 
that only by constitutional amendment can the additional representation 
be appropriately granted.
  I would like to respond briefly to the comments of my colleague from 
Connecticut. They are all well stated. They are the arguments in 
opposition to the proposition. I referred to a couple of them 
yesterday, but let me refresh those and then discuss one other matter.
  The primary argument of the proponents of the bill is to rely on the 
so- called District clause, which is article I, section 8, clause 17. 
The District of Columbia Circuit Court actually interpreted this clause 
in a case called Neild v. District of Columbia in 1940. What the court 
noted in that case was that the District clause does indeed allow 
Congress to legislate within the District for ``every proper purpose of 
government'' and gives Congress ``full and unlimited jurisdiction to 
provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of 
Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem 
conducive to that end,'' subject, of course, to the negative 
prohibitions of the Constitution.
  But proponents argue that because the District clause allows Congress 
to do things in the District of Columbia that States themselves cannot 
do, then it must also follow that Congress, with regard--that it must 
also allow Congress to do things with regard to the District that only 
States can do. For example, article I, section 10, of the Constitution 
bars States from doing things such as coining money, entering into 
treaties, and keeping troops. But none of these restrictions apply to 
Congress in the exercise of its power to govern the District.
  Proponents of this bill argue that it follows from this sweeping 
power that Congress may also grant District residents the rights of 
citizenship in a State, including the right to congressional 
representation. But this argument does not follow. Congress has some 
powers in the District that are broader than the powers of a State, but 
this does not mean that every power of a State must also extend to the 
District. States and the District of Columbia are different under the 
Constitution, and each has some rights and powers that the other lacks.
  I note in this regard that the Senator from Connecticut quoted from 
an opinion of Justice Marshall in a very early case in which Justice 
Marshall saw a problem with the commerce clause and, because of his 
view that the District of Columbia was not equivalent to a State, 
invited Congress to solve the problem, which, many years later, as the 
Senator noted, Congress did do. But, of course, what this case stands 
for is the proposition that Justice Marshall, who was there at the time 
and well understood the intent of the Framers, appreciated that he 
could not do it from the bench. He could not say that the District was 
the same as a State and therefore he had the ability to fix the 
problem. That had to be done in another way.
  There is a big difference between those kinds of problems dealing 
with adversity jurisdiction or the commerce clause, and so on, and the 
fundamental status as a political entity, which would change the 
representation of the House of Representatives. Moreover, it would make 
no sense, in the same document where the Framers specifically composed 
the House of Members of the several States and then specifically 
designated the District of Columbia as something other than a State, 
that the Framers then forgot to give the District representation in the 
House. The Framers had the opportunity to provide the District with a 
Representative in the House but, of course, declined to do so.
  The text of the Constitution on this matter is clear. It says 
Congress shall be composed of Representatives from States and States 
alone. Here is the exact wording:

       The House of Representatives shall be composed of members 
     chosen every second year by the people of the several states, 
     and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications 
     requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the 
     state legislature.
       No person shall be a Representative who shall not have 
     attained to the age of twenty five years . . . and who shall 
     not . . . be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be 
     chosen.

  And finally:

       [E]ach state shall have at least one Representative. When 
     vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the 
     executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to 
     fill such vacancies.

  So any act by Congress purporting to grant a seat in the House of 
Representatives would contradict this plain text and would be 
unconstitutional.
  My colleague from Connecticut also noted that we have, for Americans 
residing abroad, enabled them to vote. But, of course, it is tied to 
their last domestic residence to a State. It is the State to which 
these votes go. So, even in those situations where there has been a 
need to accommodate the fact that Americans are not all residing at 
that moment in a State, we have tied their vote to the State from which 
they have come.
  I mentioned one case, but I would also like to briefly discuss some 
other cases because judicial precedent has accumulated over the years 
and strongly supports the point my colleague from Arizona makes with 
regard to the constitutionality of this legislation.
  In Bolling v. Sharpe, the companion case to Brown v. Board of 
Education, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly recognized that when it 
came to the application of the fundamental constitutional principles, 
the District could not be considered to be the same thing as a State. 
The Bolling petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of racial 
segregation in the DC public schools. The Court held that such 
segregation was unconstitutional in the District, but the Bolling Court 
was very careful to make clear that the District was not equivalent to 
the States and not subject to the same legal strictures.
  Brown v. Board of Education was based on the 14th amendment, which by 
its own terms applied only to the States. Because the District is not a 
State, the Bolling Court reasoned different rules had to apply to this 
case.
  Here is how the Court explained it:

       We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of 
     the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from 
     maintaining racially segregated public schools. The legal 
     problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat different, 
     however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the 
     District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection 
     clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies only 
     to the states.

  So the Court obviously had a dilemma. It went on to reach the same 
result as in Brown v. Board of Education and strike down racial 
segregation, but on different grounds. It was careful to emphasize that 
the law that applies to the District is different because the District 
is not a State.
  Other courts have also emphasized that the District is not a State.
  My colleague mentioned Adams v. Clinton. DC residents there argued 
that they had a constitutional right to elect a Representative to 
Congress but the three-judge district court, examining the text and the 
history, determined that the District is not a State under article I, 
section 1, and therefore the plaintiffs did not have a judicially 
cognizable right to congressional representation.
  In another case from the DC Circuit Court, Michel v. Anderson, the 
court

[[Page 5509]]

affirmed the constitutional principle that Congress cannot grant voting 
rights to citizens of the District. The court considered congressional 
rule changes that will allow Delegates from the District and U.S. 
territories the right to vote in committees and even the committee of 
the whole in the House. Some Members of Congress sued, claiming these 
rules went too far. Although the District of Columbia Circuit Court 
upheld the new rules, it noted that the rules passed constitutional 
muster only because they did not give the essential qualities of 
representation to the Delegates; namely, according to the court, it was 
acceptable to allow the Delegates to participate in deliberations and 
secondary votes--for example, in committees and the committee of the 
whole--as long as their votes would not be decisive in the final vote 
on final passage of the bill. There was a reason for that. The bottom 
line: The District has a voting Representative in the House to the full 
extent that it can be granted by the Congress short of a constitutional 
amendment. At that point, for full representation there would need to 
be a constitutional amendment.
  In a similar vein, in United States v. Cohen, then-Judge Scalia 
explained, again in a DC Circuit Court decision, that the District 
clause ``enables Congress to do many things in the District of Columbia 
which it has no authority to do in the 50 States.'' But Judge Scalia 
went on to emphasize ``[t]hat there has never been any rule law that 
Congress must treat people in the District of Columbia exactly as 
people are treated in the various States.''
  Finally, in Banner v. United States, the DC Circuit, in a panel that 
included now-Chief Justice Roberts, rejected a constitutional challenge 
to congressional legislation that prevents the DC government from 
imposing a ``commuter tax'' on people who work in the District but 
reside in Virginia or Maryland. The Court stated that Congress had 
broad authority to legislate under the District clause but also noted:

       None of this is to say that Congress can legislate for the 
     District without regard to other constitutional constraints.

  And of particular relevance to the present debate, the DC Circuit 
panel stated:

       [T]he Constitution denies District residents voting 
     representation in Congress.

  These cases are all clear, and they all reach either the same result 
or are all based upon the same reasoning. The final constitutional 
argument was also addressed by the Senator from Connecticut. This has 
to do with the 23rd amendment. Let me discuss that.
  When Congress in the past has addressed the District's special 
status, it has acknowledged that status is dictated by the 
Constitution, and it recognized that a constitutional amendment was 
necessary to change the status, as we have just seen. So when Congress 
sought to give the District a vote in Presidential elections, it passed 
the 23rd amendment to the Constitution. When Congress dealt with this 
issue before, it dealt with it correctly. Congress does have the power 
to grant the District representation in the House if it deems that it 
is necessary and desirable. But the proper way to do this is through 
the mechanism that the Framers provided in the Constitution: the 
amendment process in article V.
  Prior to the ratification of the 23rd amendment in 1961, District 
residents could not choose electors for purposes of choosing the 
President and Vice President; but because of this amendment, District 
residents are now able to select electors ``equal to the whole number 
of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would 
be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least 
populous State.''
  Congress thus recognized in the 1960s that it did have the authority 
under the District clause and without amending the Constitution to 
allow District residents to choose Presidential electors.
  The 23rd amendment to the Constitution itself recognizes that the 
District is not a State and cannot be treated as one. First, it ensures 
that the District, even if otherwise entitled by population, may not 
appoint a number of electors greater than that of the least populous 
State. As a consequence, even if the District grew enough in population 
that as a State it would be entitled to three Representatives and two 
Senators, let's say if a smaller State than was not entitled to three 
Representatives existed, the District's electors would be limited to a 
number equal to those of the smaller State.
  Even under the 23rd amendment, for the purpose of selecting 
Presidential electors, the Constitution recognizes that the District is 
not the same as a State and is not entitled to be represented in the 
National Government in the same way.
  So where does that leave us? What is next were we to pass this 
constitutional amendment? There has been an argument made, I think, 
that the proponents of this legislation would perhaps try, for example, 
to extend this to representation in the Senate as well. My colleague 
from Connecticut has said: No, there are totally different historical 
reasons that would not be so. I accept that there are, in fact, 
historical reasons that would preclude us from doing that. But I would 
also suggest the very reasons which caused Congress, the political 
reasons which caused some in Congress to change from the previous 
position--which has also been a constitutional amendment is required--
to a legislative proposal here, would be very likely to occur in the 
future on this particular issue as well. I think the same thing could 
occur with respect to representation in territories, such as the 
Territory of Puerto Rico, for example.
  So if, in fact, today we say, no, that could not possibly be because 
of tradition and the historical understanding, that is not necessarily 
the case given the fact that we have now at least some in this body who 
have thrown over the historical tradition and case law and 
understanding that only by constitutional amendment could the 
Constitution--could there be an amendment to allow the District 
representation.
  So I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution. I 
am going to urge them to vote to sustain the point of order that my 
colleague from Arizona has made. There is a constitutional issue, and 
we need to be on record as to what we believe to be the correct 
decision. If we believe it is constitutional, then there will be an 
opportunity to express that in this amendment. If we believe it is 
unconstitutional, we will have the opportunity to express that. Many of 
us want to express that proposition.
  At the end of the day, however, as my friend from Connecticut has 
pointed out, the ultimate resolution is not going to be what we believe 
but, rather, what the courts say with respect to the issue. Again, for 
that reason, it is important to have a workable, expedited procedure 
for resolution of this issue in the courts. And I am hopeful we can 
achieve that in the legislation, even should the legislation pass over 
the objections of those of us who disagree with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I so yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished Chairman I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate now considers a bill to provide 
voting rights to citizens of the Nation's Capital city. I am proud to 
cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. 
This important legislation would end over 200 years of unfair treatment 
to nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District of Columbia, a 
population roughly equal to the size of Vermont, and give them a vote 
in the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, the Senate finally 
broke through the Republican filibuster of this legislation that 
stalled its consideration in the last Congress. That filibuster 
prevented its passage, despite

[[Page 5510]]

the bipartisan support of 57 Senators, a majority of the Senate. The 
vote earlier this week to overcome that filibuster is an encouraging 
step toward guaranteeing all citizens representation in our Government.
  Last Congress, President Bush threatened to veto this bill. This 
time, when the Congress passes this bill, I am confident President 
Obama, who cosponsored and voted for the bill when serving in this body 
as a Senator from Illinois, will sign it into law.
  I commend Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Senator Hatch for 
having worked out a voting rights bill for the District of Columbia 
that can and should pass with bipartisan support. The bill we consider 
today would give the District of Columbia delegate a vote in the House 
of Representatives. To remove partisan political opposition, it accords 
Utah an additional vote in the House, as well.
  As a young lawyer, Congresswoman Norton worked for civil rights and 
voting rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that as the 
District of Columbia's longtime representative in Congress, she still 
does not yet have the right to vote. She is a strong voice in Congress, 
but the citizens living in the Nation's Capital deserve her vote on 
their behalf to count.
  I believe this legislation is within congressional power as provided 
in the Constitution. This is not a partisan conclusion. Lawyers from 
across the political spectrum, from Judge Patricia Wald to Kenneth 
Starr and former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, agree that this 
action is constitutional. After careful study, we have all concluded 
that Congress has the constitutional authority to grant voting rights 
in the House of Representatives to the representative of the citizens 
of the District of Columbia.
  Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this issue, 
and heard compelling testimony from constitutional experts that such a 
bill is constitutional. They highlighted the fact that Congress's 
greater power to confer statehood on the District certainly encompasses 
the lesser action to grant District residents voting rights in the 
House of Representatives.
  Moreover, Congress has often treated the District of Columbia as a 
``State'' for a variety of purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton reminded us that ``Congress has not had the slightest difficulty 
in treating the District as a State, with its laws, its treaties, and 
for constitutional purposes.''
  Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 
1789 that broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction to include 
citizens of the District, even though the Constitution expressly 
provides that Federal courts may hear cases ``between citizens of 
different States.'' Congress has also treated the District as a 
``State'' for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce 
``among the several States.''
  The sixteenth amendment, the Federal income tax amendment, grants 
Congress the power directly to tax incomes ``without apportionment 
among the several States'' and that taxing power has been interpreted 
to apply to residents of the District. The District of Columbia car 
license plates or tags remind us every day that District residents 
suffer from ``Taxation Without Representation,'' a battle cry during 
the founding days of this Republic.
  Hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in the District of 
Columbia are required to pay Federal taxes. In fact, the District of 
Columbia residents pay the second highest Federal taxes per capita in 
the Nation, yet residents have no say in how those dollars are spent. 
We must also remember that many who serve bravely in our armed services 
come from the District of Columbia. The brave men and women who defend 
our values and freedoms abroad must also enjoy those same rights here 
at home.
  Opponents of this bill claim that the citizens of the District of 
Columbia do indeed have representation, that they fall under the 
jurisdiction of all 100 Senators and 435 Representatives and are 
sufficiently provided for by Congress. To that argument I say that 
there is no substitute for direct representation in Congress. How many 
of us in either party would be willing to go back to our State and say 
``You do not need your representatives because other States are going 
to represent you?'' I do not believe that would go over well in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Chairman Lieberman knows that would not 
go over well in his State of Connecticut. I guarantee you that would 
not go over well in the State of Vermont. Similarly, the citizens of 
the District of Columbia also deserve the chance to elect a 
representative who has not only a voice in Congress, but a vote as 
well.
  Over 50 years ago, after overcoming filibusters and obstruction, the 
Senate rightfully passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957 and the Voting 
Rights Act in 1965. Let us build on that tradition and extend the reach 
and resolve of America's representative democracy. I am pleased that we 
took the first step in overcoming the filibuster of this legislation, 
and I urge all Senators to support the final passage of this bill 
without further delay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on 
the McCain constitutional point of order occur at 2 p.m. today; that 
the 10 minutes immediately prior to the vote be equally divided and 
controlled between Senators McCain and myself or our designees; and 
that no amendments or motions be in order to the constitutional point 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 574

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to consider an amendment at the desk and that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 574.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide for expedited judicial review for Members of 
                               Congress)

       On page 27, strike line 21 through the end of the bill and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional 
     Grounds.--If any action is brought to challenge the 
     constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act, the following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of 
     appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional 
     statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action 
     and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--
       (1) In general.--In any action in which the 
     constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act is challenged (including an action 
     described in subsection (a)), any member of the House of 
     Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) or the Senate shall have the 
     right to intervene or file legal pleadings or briefs either 
     in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the 
     case regarding the constitutionality of the provision or 
     amendment.
       (2) Court efficiency.--To avoid duplication of efforts and 
     reduce the burdens placed on the parties to the action, the 
     court in any action described in paragraph (1) may make such 
     orders as it considers necessary, including orders to require 
     intervenors taking similar positions to file joint papers or 
     to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument.
       (c) Challenge by Members of Congress.--Any Member of 
     Congress may bring an action, subject to the special rules 
     described in subsection (a), to challenge the 
     constitutionality of any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act.


[[Page 5511]]

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been cleared 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will not object. I just wish to say 
this amendment is supported not only by myself but the majority leader. 
It adds language to the bill. It is similar language that was in the 
so-called McCain-Feingold bill. So we support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 574) was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KYL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 575

    (Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of 
                               Columbia)

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment, which I have sent 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Burr, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
     Thune, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Crapo, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 575.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, while we are here debating the 
constitutional implications of this bill, I want to take this time to 
discuss a 30-year constitutional injustice happening right here in 
Washington, DC.
  On June 26 of last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling 
affirming the second amendment right to bear arms as an individual and 
constitutionally protected right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 
the Court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of 
handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right. Prior to 
this decision, Washington, DC, had enforced the most prohibitive gun 
control laws of any city in the nation. Not only did the District 
prohibit ownership of handguns, it also required that allowed firearms, 
such as rifles and shotguns, be ``unloaded and disassembled'' or 
``bound by a trigger lock.''
  Millions of Americans were supportive of Mr. Heller, who was simply 
wishing to excise his constitutional right to protect himself. 
Recognizing the District's restrictions were not only unreasonable but 
also unconstitutional, the majority of the Supreme Court held that 
``the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the 
Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful 
firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-
defense.''
  Despite the Court's ruling in June, the District of Columbia City 
Council has continued to exact onerous and unconstitutional firearm 
regulations on law-abiding residents.
  In response to the District's obstruction of the text and spirit of 
the Court's decision, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6842, 
the National Capital Security and Safety Act. Last year, almost half 
this body joined me in a letter to the majority leader urging prompt 
consideration of this bill, which was denied and the bill died. That 
bill would have unequivocally restored the Second Amendment rights of 
the District residents, and that is why I offer this updated bill as an 
amendment to S. 160 and encourage my Senate colleagues to join me to 
address this real injustice.
  Mr. President, the residents of the District have waited long enough, 
and it is time for us to ensure that they realize their constitutional 
right to bear arms. We must pass this amendment so the Second Amendment 
rights of the citizens of DC are protected.
  This amendment is substantively identical to the bipartisan 
compromise that passed the House last year, with the exception that it 
repeals the 2008 DC anti-gun law that was enacted in the interim, and 
the inclusion of a severability clause. As I said, these are merely 
technical changes to this widely supported bill that 47 of my 
colleagues supported in a letter to the Democratic leader in the 110th 
Congress and two of our new Senate colleagues voted for while they were 
in the House, when it passed by a vote of 266 to 152 including 85 
Democrats.
  These changes were necessary to guarantee the second amendment rights 
to DC residents are adequately protected. Instead of abdicating our 
constitutional duties as a co-equal branch of Government, we should 
enact legislation such as my amendment, to defend and protect the 
constitutional rights of American citizens. It is high time we address 
this real constitutional injustice and adopt my amendment.
  Mr. President, it is high time that we address this real 
constitutional injustice and pass my amendment. According to the Census 
Bureau, Washington, DC, is the 27th largest city, with close to 600,000 
residents. Similarly large cities, however, have not enacted comparably 
restrictive gun laws. For example, both Las Vegas proper and the 
District of Columbia are cities with populations between 500,000 and 
600,000 residents. According to the Census Bureau, in 2007, Las Vegas 
without incorporated areas, was the 28th largest city, just behind DC. 
These cities, however, have very different gun-control laws.
  According to FBI Criminal Justice Information Service Division, in 
2007, the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates were higher in DC 
than Las Vegas, including all the incorporated areas. When you include 
the incorporated areas, this more than doubles the population count in 
Las Vegas. In fact, if you total all the population of Nevada, DC still 
would reigns in this category. Can you honestly tell me gun control in 
DC has been effective?
  According to the FBI, murder rates in the United States peaked at 
around 10.2 per 100,000 persons in 1980. Despite the strictest gun ban 
in the country, however, murder rates in the District continued to 
climb well into the 1980s and 1990s, peaking in 1996 at about 80.6 per 
100,000--nearly 8 times the average of what the rest of the United 
States had experienced.
  Since then, the murder rate in DC has declined somewhat and is now 
fairly level, following a national trend of decreasing violence. As 
this chart shows, however, the murder rate in DC still remains over 250 
percent higher relative to the 48 largest cities in America.
  Law-abiding, Nevada residents only need to register handguns if they 
live in Clark County, the home of Las Vegas. And then, to do so, they 
simply bring an unloaded handgun to any police substation--unlike the 
District of Columbia's single location--where they receive a cursory 
background check and are given a gun registration card. There are no 
fees or other onerous hurdles to infringe on the Second Amendment 
rights of law-abiding citizens.
  The DC gun registration laws for lawfully permitted firearms are even 
more restrictive than Nevada laws for concealed-carry permits. Yet, I 
repeat, even with a gun ban, DC crime rates are significantly higher. 
Disarming the law-abiding residents of DC has made them easy prey for 
criminals to target. Furthermore, most criminals who use guns get them 
through unregulated channels. According to the Bureau of Justice 
statistics, most criminals get guns via theft or the black market. 
According to the ATF, almost 90 percent are acquired through 
unregulated channels, and the median time between a gun's acquisition 
and its use in a crime is over 6 years.
  Mr. President, it is high time we address this real constitutional 
injustice

[[Page 5512]]

and let DC citizens lawfully defend themselves. I urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment to protect the Second Amendment rights of DC 
residents.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleague 
from Nevada for bringing up this very important issue. Those of us who 
are strong supporters of second amendment rights clearly are looking at 
this issue and appreciate his leadership.
  Earlier this morning, the Senator from Arizona raised a 
constitutional point of order as it relates to the bill before us, S. 
160. I have to admit, I kind of took a step back and said: Well, a 
constitutional point of order--I am not sure I am familiar with that. 
So we went to Riddick's, which is our encyclopedia of Senate 
precedents, and looked up ``constitutional point of order'' and some of 
the history there.
  I was surprised to find that a constitutional point of order was 
raised during the consideration of the Alaska statehood bill.
  I have had an opportunity on the floor, throughout this past year, to 
remind all my colleagues that this year is the 50th anniversary of 
Alaska's statehood and some of the debate that took place on the floor 
of the Senate and the process that we as a State took to gain 
statehood.
  I pulled up the Congressional Record from this debate on the 
constitutional point of order. It is quite interesting, quite 
fascinating, from Alaska's perspective, because the point of order that 
was being discussed was whether section 10 of the Alaska Statehood Act 
violated the requirement that States come into the Union on equal 
footing.
  The argument that was made at the time was that half of Alaska's 
territory would be withdrawn by the federal government, depriving the 
proposed State of Alaska at the time the power to have a uniform system 
of taxation. Alaska's experience seeking voting representation in 
Congress explains why I have taken such great interest in the debate 
over representation for the District of Columbia.
  In Alaska, it was a huge fight--a huge fight--as to whether we should 
become a State. My grandparents on both sides were involved in the 
debate at the time. It was a fight to gain control of our resources. It 
was a fight to determine who had control of our fish. As Alaska 
observes the 50th anniversary of its admission to statehood I reflect 
back on our fight for voting representation in Congress. This is why I 
believe it is so important for the people of Alaska to have voting 
representation in the House of Representatives.
  I appreciate the pleas of the people of the District of Columbia, the 
residents of this very small area, for voting representation within the 
Congress because it was not too long ago those same cries were being 
heard back in Alaska. You have to give the District of Columbia 
government credit for a pretty effective lobbying campaign. I do not 
know of any other place that has used their license plates to tell the 
rest of the country what it is they are asking for: no taxation without 
representation.
  There are significant differences between Alaska's fight for 
statehood and the cause of representation in the House for Washington, 
DC. Alaska, 50 years ago, was a territory. The District of Columbia is 
a different entity, a federal enclave created by our Constitution. Our 
Constitution makes it clear that they are not a State. However, I 
supported cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 160 yesterday because 
I believed it was important that we have this debate on the floor of 
the Senate and that we hear the perspectives being presented, whether 
it is from the Senator from Connecticut or the Senators from Arizona, 
and to allow this issue, which is so important to some 600,000 people, 
to be debated. I represent a State of just a little over 600,000.
  It was back in 1960, June 17, that the Congress approved and sent to 
the States for ratification the 23rd amendment. It was the 23rd 
amendment that extended to the people of the District of Columbia 
representation in the electoral college. It was 285 days later that the 
23rd amendment was ratified by the States. That ratification settled 
the question of whether the people of the District of Columbia should 
have the right to vote for President, and it settled that question 
absolutely conclusively, by way of amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
  I believe the people of the District of Columbia have been without 
representation in the Congress for too long. I have strongly supported 
the view that the people of the District should have voting 
representation in the House of Representatives, but what we have before 
us today, S. 160, does not conclusively resolve the question of whether 
they will.
  We know the question of whether Congress may, by legislation, grant 
the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives has 
been a matter of spirited debate not only here on this floor but with 
constitutional scholars on all sides of the issue. It was our assistant 
majority leader yesterday who observed that S. 160 has attracted--I 
think the words were some strange bedfellows amongst the community of 
constitutional scholars. We have very distinguished individuals such as 
Ken Starr and Viet Dinh who suggest that, in fact, S. 160 is 
constitutional. On the other side, we have an extremely well-respected 
gentleman, Jonathan Turley, who has testified that despite the best of 
motivations, S. 160 is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level 
and would only serve to delay true reform for District residents. His 
conclusion is that this legislation is facially unconstitutional.
  We also have a review by our nonpartisan Congressional Research 
Service, their assessment and their analysis, and they, too, cast doubt 
on the constitutionality of S. 160. Their report, dated February 17, 
2009, states:

       Although not beyond question, it would appear likely that 
     Congress does not have the authority to grant voting 
     representation in the House of Representatives to the 
     District of Columbia.

  So the key point here is this: I believe the District of Columbia 
deserves representation in the House of Representatives, but S. 160 
does not conclusively resolve the question of whether they will get it.
  I think we have heard on this floor that this is going to lead to 
litigation. The issue, of course, is how do we interpret article I, 
section 2, of the Constitution, which says:

       The House of Representatives shall be composed of members 
     chosen . . . by the people of the several States.

  I don't think there is any dispute amongst the constitutional 
scholars who are out there that the District of Columbia is not a State 
for the purposes of article I, section 2. If the courts shall conclude 
that article I, section 2, of the Constitution means what it says--that 
only the people of the several States can send voting Representatives 
to the House--then basically we start all over. We start all over. We 
start anew with a constitutional amendment on DC representation.
  So I would suggest to the body that what we are engaging in today is 
almost a cruel hoax because what we are doing is we are delaying the 
end of taxation without representation for several more years. What we 
are doing is getting this into the courts. Is that what the people of 
the District are really seeking?
  I think 49 years ago the Congress understood what we needed to do in 
order to provide clarity and to conclusively resolve the issue of the 
District of Columbia with the 23rd amendment. We knew the way to handle 
it was to give the people of the District of Columbia a voice in the 
selection of the President and Vice President, and the route they chose 
to take was the route of a constitutional amendment. They knew then 
that was the proper route to take, and I would suggest that today it is 
the proper route to take to provide for this. This Senator believes 
that is what we owe to the people of the District of Columbia, to get 
it right the first time. Let's resolve this. A constitutional amendment 
passed by the Congress, ratified by the States, settles the matter of 
DC representation conclusively, and S. 160 doesn't.

[[Page 5513]]

  Now, we know the history on this. This was tried once before. A 
constitutional amendment was adopted by two-thirds of both bodies and 
sent to the States for ratification. Unfortunately, only 16 States 
chose to ratify within that 7-year period. So we basically come back to 
start over. I would suggest that is the method and manner we need to 
approach as we try to provide representation for the 600,000 people who 
are residents of the District of Columbia.
  I am prepared to support a constitutional amendment and to work for 
its ratification, and I intend to introduce that constitutional 
amendment today. It will not be part of S. 160. A constitutional 
amendment is a different process, one that is done through joint 
resolution as opposed to a Senate measure or a House measure. I believe 
amending our Constitution will provide justice for the people of the 
District of Columbia, and I look forward to working toward that end.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                 Amendment No. 576 to Amendment No. 575

    (Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of 
                               Columbia)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 575 offered by the Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to offer a 
perfecting second-degree amendment to Senator Ensign's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 576 to amendment No. 575.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is simply a perfecting amendment to 
change the date of the actual enactment of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few moments on the underlying 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I will do that for a very short period of time.
  We have heard a lot about the constitutionality of this, but I think 
there is an important point that has not been raised, and I would take 
exception to the fact that this is not a partisan debate. This is about 
whether we really follow this wonderful little document each of us in 
this Chamber has sworn an allegiance to and what it says.
  I wish to quote a legal scholar because I think it leads to a lot of 
common sense. Here is the quote:

       It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the 
     Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would 
     have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the 
     composition of Congress, only to give the majority of 
     Congress the right to create a new form of voting members 
     from federal enclaves like the District. It would have 
     constituted the realization of the worst fears for many 
     delegates, particularly the Anti-Federalists, to have an 
     open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of 
     Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the 
     Federal Government as the source for new voting Members.

  I have no doubt that if this present bill is passed, it will be found 
unconstitutional. As my colleague from Alaska stated earlier, if what 
we want to do is change the Constitution, the way to do that is through 
a constitutional amendment and a joint resolution.
  So there is no question that people who are taxed have the right to 
representation, but there is another way to solve that. The best way to 
solve it is to eliminate the tax on the citizens of the District of 
Columbia. I will be offering an amendment this afternoon that will do 
just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a distressing situation where, 
for some reason, we have abandoned the knowledge we gained in 1977 that 
it takes a constitutional amendment to get representation in the 
Congress for the District of Columbia. There is so much in the 
Constitution that refers to this, but article I--the very first 
article--section 2, says the House of Representatives--that is what we 
are talking about: giving a Member of the House a vote for the District 
of Columbia--shall be composed of Members ``chosen every second year by 
the people of the several States.'' It goes on to say that the 
requirements of a Representative are that they should be--they must be, 
when elected, ``an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be 
chosen.'' The Senate--discussed in section 3--of the United States 
``shall be composed of two Senators from each State.''
  So I know there is politics here, and I hope when the Supreme Court 
reads this debate they look right through it because I don't think it 
is a sound position we are dealing with. I believe Senator McCain has 
rightly raised a point of order as to the constitutionality of this 
bill.
  I wish to make some general remarks.
  I think the legislation is an affront to the Constitution. Professor 
Jonathan Turley, one of the liberal outstanding scholars of the law, 
who has testified before our committee a number of times, testified 
before the House Judiciary Committee recently--this is the language he 
used, and I am sure he would consider himself a Democrat. He said he 
considers this bill to be ``one of the most premeditated 
unconstitutional acts by Congress in decades.''
  Congress cannot, consistent with the Constitution, pass a bill that 
gives congressional voting rights to a non-state without violating the 
plain text of the Constitution. The Framers of our Constitution 
envisioned a Federal city that would not be beholden to any State 
government. The text of the Constitution does not provide anywhere that 
a non-state may have a congressional voting Member. Also, the District 
of Columbia is not a forgotten city. In fact, it receives more Federal 
dollars, per capita, than any State in the United States.
  History is clear that the Framers excluded the District of Columbia 
from having direct congressional representation. Our Founders could 
have placed the seat of the Federal Government within a State--and that 
was discussed--thus ensuring direct congressional representation from 
that city, but they chose not to do so. As James Madison stated in 
Federalist No. 43, there was fear that the State that encompassed the 
Nation's Capital would have too much influence over Congress. It has a 
lot now. The Framers feared that, symbolically, the honor given to one 
State would create ``an imputation of awe and influence'' as compared 
to other States. That is, that the State would have an advantage in 
some fashion.
  Thus, when the Framers of our Constitution considered carefully how 
to treat the Nation's Capital, they provided in the District clause--
article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution--that Congress had 
the power to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, 
over such District.''
  So it gave Congress the legislative power over the District, clearly. 
Congress was, of course, made up of Representatives from States. This 
meant that residents of the District would not have direct 
representation in Congress--they understood that, clearly, from the 
beginning and, indeed, they have never had it--but instead, they would 
have indirect representation and that such direct representation was 
reserved only for the residents of States.
  Second, this bill violates the plain text of the Constitution, as I 
noted. Article 1, section 2 says ``each State shall have at least one 
representative.'' Further, one of the qualifications to be a 
Congressman is to ``be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be 
chosen.'' As George Smith, the former senior counsel at the Department 
of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel recently wrote and was published: 
``All told, no fewer than 11 constitutional provisions make it clear 
that congressional representation is linked inextricably to 
statehood.''
  Congress has recognized this fact in years past. In 1977, Congress 
passed a constitutional amendment, which was never ratified by the 
States, but we passed it. It was a constitutional

[[Page 5514]]

amendment that would have given the D.C. residents congressional 
representation. I suppose that was then and this is now. Now we are 
just going to pass a law that doesn't have to have a supermajority in 
Congress or be ratified by the States. That is a lot easier to do. I 
remind my colleagues that while political winds may change, the plain 
text of the Constitution doesn't. The Constitution says only States may 
have congressional representation, and no bill, no mere congressional 
legislation, no law we pass can change that fact. The Constitution is 
the supreme law of the land. Our legislation can't alter the 
constitutional requirements. We can alter the Constitution through the 
amendment process, as has been previously done, to fix this very 
problem.
  Alexander Hamilton, many years ago, wrote:

       The qualifications of the persons who may . . . be chosen, 
     are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are 
     unalterable by the legislature.

  Finally, the District is not, as I said, forgotten. Its residents 
have indirect representation. All 435 Members of the Congress travel in 
the traffic here, go in and out of the city, and 100 Senators likewise 
do the same. They have done pretty well by way of getting money out of 
the Federal Government.
  One of the Framers' concerns, which Madison articulated, was a fear 
that the ``host'' State would benefit too much from ``the gradual 
accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the 
Government.'' According to the most recent data available, as of 2005, 
the District of Columbia taxpayers received more in Federal funding per 
dollar of Federal taxes paid than any of the 50 States. According to 
the Tax Foundation, for every $1 of Federal tax paid in 2005 by the 
District of Columbia citizens, they received approximately $5.55 in 
Federal spending. This ranks the District the highest nationally by a 
wide margin. For example, New Mexico, which is perceived to be the most 
benefitted State, received $2.03 in Federal spending per $1 of tax 
payments their citizens made. But even that amount is $3.52 less than 
what the citizens of D.C. receive. Perhaps, some would say Madison's 
fear has become a reality, with all the jobs that are here and paying 
good wages--how many of us would love to carve out some of these 
agencies and have them be settled in Birmingham or Baltimore or New 
York? Then that tax revenue would be spent in our States. But it is 
being spent here.
  I am just saying I don't believe the District of Columbia is being 
abused. In fact, they are doing pretty well with taxpayers' money all 
in all. I know the argument that you don't collect property tax on 
Government property and everything, but they are doing pretty well 
under any fair analysis.
  The Framers envisioned a Federal district serving as the National 
Government's home. That district was not to be a State, and the 
District of Columbia was never to be treated as a State. Granting a 
non-state congressional representation and voting rights in the 
Congress of the United States violates the Framers' intent, pretty 
clearly, and the plain language of the Constitution. Congress, as 
Professor Turley notes, ``cannot legislatively amend the Constitution 
by re-defining a voting member of [the House of Representatives].''
  We have all sworn to uphold the Constitution and to defend it. As 
written, this bill violates the Constitution and it will, I predict, be 
struck down by the Court. I think it is going to come back from the 
Court like a rubber ball off that wall. If it doesn't, we are going to 
learn something about the Supreme Court of the United States--something 
we don't want to know. I submit that we cannot in good faith vote for 
this bill without conflicting with our oath to the Constitution. So 
that is why I cannot support it.
  I would just point out a recent case decided November 4, 2005, in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel consisted 
of now-Chief Justice John Roberts; Judge Harry Edwards, appointed by 
President Carter; and Judith Rogers, appointed by President Clinton, 
for whatever that is worth. I hate to even say that because we expect 
our judges to put away partisan activities when they put their robes 
on. So that is just background.
  Basically, the court dealt with an argument over taxes. As part of 
their holding--it is a per curiam opinion; no one judge was considered 
to be the author. They all agreed to this language. They said:

       Congress, when it legislates for the District, stands in 
     the same relation to District residents as a state 
     legislature does to the residents of its own State.

  So we stand in the same position to the people of D.C., as set up by 
our Founders, as the State legislatures do to the people of the States. 
The court also noted:

       Not only may statutes of Congress or otherwise national 
     application be applied to the District of Columbia--

  That is the tax laws--

       but Congress may also exercise all the police and 
     regulatory powers which a state legislature or municipal 
     government would have in legislating for state or local 
     purposes.

  Then the court said:

       This is true notwithstanding that the Constitution denies 
     District residents voting representation in Congress.

  So this panel, in 2005, concluded--all three judges--that the 
Constitution denies District residents voting representation in 
Congress.
  I am not personally of the view that people who voluntarily live 
within the borders of the District of Columbia have to have direct 
congressional representation. I guess it is a matter that we can 
discuss and debate. Arguments on both sides can be made. I simply say 
the matter is conclusively decided by the plain language of the 
Constitution.
  As Mr. Smith says, 11 different places in the Constitution say that 
representation in Congress must come from States. It does not come from 
districts. It does not come from territories. It does not come from 
tribal areas. It comes from States.
  If we would like to change it, maybe we can, but we are bound by the 
laws and our Constitution, and a mere statutory act of this Congress is 
not able to reverse the Constitution. Therefore, I will object to the 
passage of this legislation. I think it is incorrect. I will support 
Mr. McCain's constitutional point of order because I see no other 
rational conclusion.
  As shown by a recent opinion from the District Court of the District 
of Columbia in 2005, the Constitution does not give congressional 
voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in support of the DC Voting 
Rights Act. I rise from a new seat, a new chair in the Senate. My desk 
is now moved to the center aisle. I rise from this desk for the very 
first time to speak about a new opportunity to expand democracy. That 
is what the DC Voting Rights Act is--it is about democracy, about 
fairness, and about empowerment.
  The DC Voting Rights Act simply gives the District Representative 
full voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives. I also want to 
point out to my colleagues that this is not only about the District of 
Columbia, but this is also about Utah. What this legislation does, in a 
sense of fairness and parity, is grant a seat to the District of 
Columbia and an additional seat to Utah. What we are doing is trying to 
adjust, without amending the Constitution, wrongs that need to be 
righted. The DC Voting Rights Act gives the District Representative 
full voting rights in the House of Representatives.
  Right now, the District of Columbia is represented--and I might add 
very ably--by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a distinguished 
public servant. She is called a Delegate to Congress. We call her 
Congresswoman. When she moves around her great area, she is also called 
that. What is she allowed to do? One, she is able to have a voice. That 
is important. So the people of DC do have a voice. But in Congress, a 
voice also usually means a vote. That is where it doesn't work the way 
we think it should. She is able to vote in her committee, but she is 
not able to vote on the House floor. We think that

[[Page 5515]]

is wrong. We think she should have a voice and we think she should have 
a vote.
  The residents of the District of Columbia are the only residents in a 
democratic country in the capital city who do not have a vote in 
determining the fate and direction of the Nation.
  What we have essentially done is disempower the over 600,000 
residents of the District of Columbia. Yet we do not disempower them 
when we call them to serve for war. The District of Columbia, through 
its National Guard, has served ably and willingly. Yet even though they 
go to fight for the entire United States of America and they are sent 
to war by the Congress of the United States, they have no voice, no 
vote in the direction of their own country. This is not right.
  DC residents go by the same rules and laws as the United States of 
America. They pay taxes. They pay, by the way, Federal taxes because 
they see themselves as part of the Federal Government. But the Federal 
Government does not see that they have full representation. I wish 
sometime we could have those DC residents who fought in wars in the 
balconies. They fought through the National Guard, and they fought 
through the regular military. They have fought and they have died, most 
recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when they come home, they are 
treated like second-class citizens. I don't think that is right.
  I also happen to believe if you pay taxes--there was a famous patriot 
who said: If you pay taxes, you should have representation. If it was 
good enough for Patrick Henry and Patrick Kennedy, it should be good 
for us. If you pay taxes to the Federal Government, your representative 
should have a vote in the Congress of the United States. That is what 
we want to do today.
  When we think about all the major issues that are debated in 
Congress--the economy, health care, education, the direction of our 
national security--these issues affect the residents of the District of 
Columbia the same way they affect Maryland or Virginia or Texas or 
Alabama or North Carolina. Yet the DC residents do not have a vote on 
these issues.
  How would you feel, Madam President, if you did not have anyone 
representing you on those issues or if your Congresspeople could have a 
voice but not a vote? I think the District of Columbia deserves this, 
and they have been waiting a very long time. The District of Columbia 
has been waiting for this for 200 years.
  Last year when we tried, we fell three votes short. But we are in a 
new day in Washington, and I hope this new day will be new democracy, 
the expansion of democracy. We love to expand democracy around the 
world. Let's expand democracy to the District of Columbia.
  The District of Columbia has been made the target of congressional 
pet projects. We often shove ideas at them. We undo what they often 
want to pass for themselves. We think they should be able to have a 
vote to exercise the direction both for themselves and for the Nation.
  Currently, DC residents are represented by a delegate. This would 
give full voting power in the House of Representatives. It would give 
Utah one additional representative. This solution is fair, it is 
nonpartisan, and it will enfranchise 600,000 District of Columbia 
residents and also enfranchise the State of Utah to have one additional 
representative that they barely missed in a census that was flawed in 
many ways.
  I stand today as a friend and neighbor to the people of the District 
of Columbia. We in Maryland live next door to the District. Many of the 
constituents I represent, the sons and daughters live in Maryland, the 
moms and dads continue to live in the District of Columbia. I know 
their fierce devotion to this country, the fact that they are proud to 
be residents of the Capital of the United States of America. They love 
doing their duty by participating in their community, by paying their 
taxes, and going to war, if necessary. But they believe participation 
and taxation should have representation. I believe like they do; we 
should give it to them and give it to them this week in this Senate. 
The time is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when we are sworn in to the Senate, we 
raise our right hand, put our left hand on the Bible, and swear to 
uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. That is why I am 
very troubled and concerned that those of us who have taken that sacred 
oath to uphold the Constitution would, in fact, purport to violate the 
Constitution by passage of S. 160, the DC voting rights bill.
  This bill, at various times, has been called the DC voting rights 
bill; at other times it has been called the DC statehood bill. Of 
course, DC is not a State, but DC would have to be a State under the 
Constitution to get the voting Member of the Congress for which the 
proponents of this legislation are calling.
  By the way, if DC is a State for the purpose of creating a district 
for a Member of Congress, why would not DC be a State for the purpose 
of having two U.S. Senators? Of course, even the proponents of this 
legislation know that would be a bridge too far, but this is the first 
incremental step to considering the District of Columbia as a State 
entitled, they say, to a Member of Congress, as well as two Members of 
the Senate.
  I believe this legislation is unconstitutional. There is a 
constitutional way to do it, but the proponents of this result have 
found that to be a tough row to hoe, to pass a constitutional 
amendment. So now they have come back trying to do it the so-called 
easy way but in a way that violates the Constitution and, I would say, 
cannot be reconciled with the oath that each of us takes.
  I know it is common to say the courts will fix it. We ourselves have 
a duty to pass only legislation that we believe is truly 
constitutional. For us to say we have the votes now, as some of my 
colleagues have indicated, we have the votes to do it, but let's not 
pay attention to the constitutionality of it I think is a very serious 
mistake.
  We all sympathize with the desire of the residents of the District of 
Columbia to be represented in Congress. But as I said, there are 
constitutional ways to do this, and this legislation is not a 
constitutional way to accomplish that goal.
  I don't know how the constitutional limitation or, indeed, the 
prohibition to passing this legislation and expecting it to be enforced 
could be more plain. Of course, the Constitution in article I, section 
2, limits House seats to States alone. The District of Columbia is not 
a State and, therefore, the District of Columbia may not have a House 
district and be represented by a voting Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  I am not asking anybody to take my word for it. Let's just look at 
the text of the Constitution.
  The text of the Constitution repeatedly and clearly limits 
representation in the House of Representatives to the States. The 
apportionment of Representatives is governed by section 2 of the 14th 
amendment, which provides: ``Representatives shall be apportioned among 
the several States.''
  As I mentioned a moment ago, article I, section 2, of the 
Constitution establishes the House of Representatives and governs its 
membership. Each of that section's first four clauses specifies 
States--not cities, not the District of Columbia--as those entities 
that are entitled to representation in the House.
  The first clause provides that Representatives are chosen ``by the 
People of the several States.''
  The second clause provides that a Representative must be ``an 
inhabitant of the State in which he [or she] shall be chosen.''
  The third clause says that ``each State shall have at least one 
Representative.''
  The fourth clause specifies that ``when vacancies happen in the 
Representation from any State,'' the Governor of that State shall call 
an election.
  Article I, section 4, of the U.S. Constitution provides that rules 
for the elections of House Members ``shall be

[[Page 5516]]

prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. . . .''
  Just as the text of the U.S. Constitution makes plain that only 
States are to be represented in the House of Representatives, it is 
equally clear the District of Columbia is not a State for purposes of 
such representation.
  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies that the Federal 
Government ``District,'' the District of Columbia, was to be formed 
``by Cession of particular States.'' This provision distinguishes 
between States and the Federal District in which we are presently 
located formed by cession of the States.
  If that is not enough--the plain text of the Constitution--then I 
think all we need to do is look back at the 23rd amendment of the 
Constitution, where the proponents of this result actually tried to do 
it the right way. The 23rd amendment to the Constitution, which granted 
the District of Columbia Presidential electors, gives the District of 
Columbia the number of electors it would be entitled to if it were a 
State. This constitutional text presupposes that the District is not a 
State, as that term is used in the Constitution, for purposes of 
apportioning Representatives, Senators, and electors.
  In short, the text of the Constitution could not be clearer, that 
Members of Congress are to be elected only from States and that the 
District of Columbia is not a State.
  One may be asking why would we be having this debate 230-something 
years since this country was founded. It has been understood and, 
indeed, has been the uninterrupted practice and precedent of our 
Republic that people have regarded the District of Columbia not as a 
State and not entitled to a Member of the House. Otherwise, why would 
this just be coming up now? From the founding until recently, the 
evidence shows it was understood that a constitutional amendment would 
be required to give the District a voting seat in Congress. Of course, 
since the founding, the District has never been granted a voting seat 
in Congress. Representation has been apportioned in accordance with the 
constitutional provisions I have cited every 10 years since 1790. In 
other words, every 10 years we have a census, and every 10 years 
Congress apportions seats in accordance with these constitutional 
provisions, every 10 years since 1790. Never in the history of this 
country has a Congress or a President acted on the belief or on the 
theory that they had the power somehow to apportion a Representative to 
the District of Columbia.
  Indeed, the Framers of the 23rd amendment clearly thought that 
granting the District Presidential electors, as I mentioned a moment 
ago, required a constitutional amendment. Similarly, in 1977, Congress 
passed a constitutional amendment that would actually have given the 
District residents what they seek by this act of legislation. At least 
at that time, the consensus of Congress was a constitutional amendment 
was required.
  If the Framers of the 23rd amendment or the authors of the DC voting 
rights amendment believed they could have achieved their ends by mere 
legislation alone without submitting themselves to the admittedly 
difficult process of constitutional amendment, don't you think they 
would have done so? Clearly, they would have done so.
  Furthermore, the Federal courts have long interpreted the word 
``State'' in section 1 of the 14th amendment to exclude the District of 
Columbia. Thus, due process, equal protection, and other constitutional 
challenges to District laws, such as in the recent Heller case--that 
was the DC gun rights case--are brought under the Bill of Rights rather 
than the fourteenth amendment that would incorporate the Bill of Rights 
and apply them to the States.
  If the District of Columbia is not a State for purposes of section 1 
of the 14th amendment, it seems odd to argue it is a State for purposes 
of section 2 of the 14th amendment in the very next sentence of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  The history of our first two centuries under our Constitution 
demonstrates an uninterrupted consensus by all three branches of 
Government that the District could not be represented in Congress 
without a constitutional amendment. Why Congress would even consider 
passing a piece of legislation that is going to be challenged in the 
courts and ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court--and I am 
predicting here today they will say this is an unconstitutional act by 
the very same Federal officials who have taken an oath to uphold and 
defend the laws and Constitution of the United States--why we would do 
this is baffling to me.
  So why could anyone think a bill such as this might actually be 
upheld? Well, there was a clever lawyer, as there frequently is behind 
novel legal theories. It was not until 1991, shortly after the 
Constitution's bicentennial, that a clever law student first advanced 
the argument that Congress could create a Representative for the 
District of Columbia through simple legislation. Legislation purporting 
to do that was first introduced in 2004. This novel legal theory lacks 
merit, as I have argued, and cannot overcome the weight of textual and 
historical evidence that would all but declare that this bill is 
unconstitutional.
  Supporters of this theory cite the District clause of the 
Constitution that gives Congress power to ``exercise exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District. Because the 
District is not a State, it doesn't have a State legislature, and so 
Congress is given that authority under the Constitution. This plenary 
power, it is argued, gives Congress unfettered power to determine the 
District's representation in Congress.
  But this power cannot be used in any kind of logical way to vitiate 
the carefully crafted apportionment of representation elsewhere in the 
four corners of the Constitution. By the logic of the act's supporters, 
Congress would exercise unlimited plenary power to repeal freedom of 
speech in the District or give the District 436 representatives in the 
House and 101 Senators.
  The absurdity of this argument is highlighted by the fact this 
District clause goes on to give Congress the same plenary power--``Like 
Authority''--over Federal institutions such as, ``Forts, Magazines, 
Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Buildings,'' in the quaint 
language of the Constitution. But surely this does not mean that on the 
basis of the District clause Congress can grant a vote in Congress to a 
federal dockyard or an arsenal. It doesn't make any sense.
  Congress should not adopt an overly aggressive or overly expansive 
role of its powers under one section of the Constitution that allows it 
to violate--somehow magically--the clear language and intent of other 
provisions of the same Constitution. Like all of Congress's powers, the 
District clause is limited by the context and the rest of the same 
Constitution.
  As the Supreme Court of the United States first noted back in the 
early 19th century in Marbury v. Madison, and has continually affirmed 
throughout our history, if Congress could alter the Constitution's 
meaning through mere legislation, then the Constitution would cease to 
be ``superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.''
  On another note, having argued from a historical perspective, and 
from the text of the Constitution the historical practice, the 
political impact of what the Senate is being asked to do--aside from 
these constitutional concerns--we need to look at the impact of this 
legislation on the size of congressional delegations in all other 
States after the 2010 census and beyond.
  As I noted earlier, every 10 years we recalculate how many seats will 
be available to the U.S. House of Representatives from each State, 
since there is a fixed number. Of course now it is 435. Because of 
that, every 10 years some States are winners and some States are 
losers. High population growth States, such as my State--Texas--are 
likely to get as many as three new congressional seats after the next 
census. This bill would change the list of winners and losers after the 
2010 census and for every census thereafter.
  Think about this, colleagues: Some States clearly are going to lose a 
seat or two in Congress after the 2010 census. Just as my State will 
gain up to

[[Page 5517]]

three seats, there will be other States that will lose a seat because 
of population shifts in our country. There are other States that are 
not clear winners or clear losers but are on the bubble. I ask my 
colleagues to consider what they are doing to the interests of their 
State before they vote on this bill. It could be that by voting for 
this legislation some Senators will be putting their States on the 
bubble now and for decades to come.
  Now, what does that mean? Well, let me ask this question: Do you want 
to explain to your constituents that your State must lose a seat after 
the census so the District of Columbia can gain a seat by this 
legislation? Are Senators going to vote for a bill that might mean 
their State would receive one less congressional district after the 
next census, because they want the District to have one? Do you want to 
explain to your constituents that you would have had another seat after 
the census, but instead you are going to have the same number and the 
District of Columbia is going to grow by an additional seat as a result 
of your vote on this legislation?
  The increase in House membership from 435 to 437 disguises this 
issue, but only if you are not paying very close attention. Think about 
this: If the membership of the House had been 437 after the 2000 
census, which States would hold those two seats today? The answer would 
be Utah and New York. So New York is a big loser in this bill because 
we are expanding membership in the House without giving New York the 
seat its people deserve based on the current law.
  We don't know which State will be the biggest loser after 2010. If 
the current census projection holds, it is likely to be New Jersey or 
Oregon. The fact is we don't know which State would be entitled to that 
437th seat if it weren't awarded to the District of Columbia by this 
legislation. But we do know this: There will be winners and there will 
be losers. And there will be a new loser every 10 years after this bill 
passes if it is not struck down, as I predict it will be, by the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  The ultimate impact of this bill on our representation in the House 
of Representatives is unclear, but I believe the bill's lack of 
constitutional foundation is clear. For that reason, I believe Senator 
McCain's constitutional point of order should be sustained.
  I will close where I started: Each of us, as U.S. Senators, has taken 
a sacred oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. 
So how, under any interpretation, would we vote to pass a law that is 
so clearly unconstitutional? Why is it that Congress would totally 
abdicate its responsibility in considering legislation to determine 
whether it is constitutional or not and to kick that responsibility 
over to the Federal courts?
  I believe all of us--Members of the House, Members of the Senate, 
Federal judges, the President of the United States--have a 
responsibility to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United 
States. And if this Senate passes this clearly unconstitutional 
legislation, it will have violated its sacred oath to uphold the 
Constitution, in my humble view.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, 
this morning raised what he called a constitutional point of order 
about S. 160. I would like to just respond to a few of his arguments.
  He is my friend, and I appreciate his leadership in this body. I 
appreciate the fact that he went through this great campaign and 
asserted such influence but also such dedication to this country. I 
have appreciated his dedication to our country ever since I met him. 
But I do have some comments to make about his constitutional point of 
order.
  The Senator from Arizona said that this bill is obviously, plainly, 
and blatantly unconstitutional because the District is not a State.
  For him, the constitutional debate apparently begins and ends with a 
single word.
  As I said on Tuesday, however, noting that the District is not a 
State is a factual observation; it is not itself a constitutional 
argument.
  It is a premise, not a conclusion.
  There are many other factors to consider in order properly to answer 
the constitutional question.
  The Senator from Arizona is entitled to answer that question however 
he choose, but I believe it is necessary to at least consider the 
factors relevant to the answer.
  I, for one, have not avoided the constitutional issue.
  I have confronted the issue directly.
  I have testified about it before the Senate Homeland Security 
Committee.
  I have spoken about it on this floor.
  I have written and published an extensive article about the issue.
  I have sent that article to my colleagues, including to the Senator 
from Arizona.
  I do not demand, or even expect, that my colleagues necessarily agree 
with me on this issue, but I would like to hear at least an attempt to 
respond to those arguments.
  America's founders, those who wrote the Constitution we are talking 
about, passed legislation allowing Americans living on the land ceded 
for the District to vote in congressional elections. They did that.
  That land was no more a State in 1790 than the District is today.
  Those Americans did not live in a State.
  I do not understand why treating District residents today as if they 
lived in a congressional district is constitutionally different than 
treating them in 1790 as if they lived in Virginia or Maryland.
  No one argued in 1790 that doing so was unconstitutional.
  It seems to me that the Constitution would have been, if anything, 
even more clear and plain to its own drafters in 1790 than it is to us 
Senators here today.
  Congress has provided, by legislation, that Americans living abroad 
can vote in congressional elections.
  They do not live in a State.
  They do not even live in America.
  I would like to hear from the Senator from Arizona why Congress can 
provide voting rights for Americans living in other countries but 
cannot provide voting rights for Americans living in this country.
  If it were so obviously, plainly, and unequivocally obvious that the 
word ``States'' in the Constitution can never include the District, 
then the Supreme Court would not have ruled that the authority of 
Congress to regulate interstate commerce applies to the District.
  The Supreme Court would not have ruled that the sixth amendment right 
to a speedy and public trial in the State where a crime was committed 
applies to the District.
  The Supreme Court would not have ruled that Congress can extend to 
the District Federal Court jurisdiction over lawsuits between citizens 
of different States.
  The Supreme Court would not have held that the apportionment of taxes 
among the States applies to the District.
  The Supreme Court would not have upheld Congress's authority to 
implement in the District the fourteenth amendment's commands regarding 
the States.
  The Supreme Court has indeed held all these things.
  If Congress could not provide for the District the House 
representation the Constitution gives to the States, the Supreme Court 
would not have affirmed a decision saying that such a goal could indeed 
be pursued in the political process.
  I assume the Senator from Arizona is aware of these and many other 
similar decisions over the past two centuries.
  He is certainly entitled to believe that all of these decisions were 
wrongly decided.
  But, with respect, rather than simply repeating the word States, he 
should at

[[Page 5518]]

least attempt to explain why those decisions are all wrong or, in some 
way, are different than the issue before us now.
  And, again with respect for my colleague whom I admire, these Court 
decisions establish that the Senator from Arizona is simply incorrect 
when he says that courts have consistently ruled that the word States 
excludes the District.
  The Senator from Arizona also asked why territories would not be 
entitled to the same congressional representation as the District.
  As the Senator himself acknowledged, however, the District is an 
entirely unique entity in America.
  America's founders intended that the District permanently to be a 
jurisdiction separate from State control.
  It should remain that way.
  Territories, in contrast, are jurisdictions which can, and in some 
cases are intended to, become States.
  I am unclear why the Senator from Arizona included this argument in a 
constitutional point of order because it is not a constitutional 
argument.
  It is instead a political argument, and it has been raised and 
addressed before.
  My friend from Arizona also questioned whether Utah is included in 
this bill.
  As the Senator from Connecticut explained, both before and after the 
remarks of the Senator from Arizona, the House of Representatives must 
have an odd number of Members.
  One will go to the District, and the other to the State which would 
have next qualified for one under the 2000 census.
  As such, this decision was, as the Senator from Arizona said it 
should be, based on census data.
  It is not, as he alleged, simply an arbitrary, irrational, backroom 
partisan political deal.
  This debate about what the Constitution allows Congress to do is 
important and worthwhile.
  I believe the constitutional foundation of this bill is more than 
sufficiently solid to justify voting for this bill and I hope my 
colleagues will.
  I hope my colleagues will vote down this constitutional point of 
order which I think is not justified under either the Constitution or 
under our rules.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 6 minutes.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 474 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is fortuitous that I happened to be on the Senate 
floor managing the DC Voting Rights Act. But I take this opportunity to 
thank my friend from Iowa for this introduction of this legislation.
  It is consistent with not only the actions that I have been 
privileged to be involved with him on but what our committee has stood 
for. We will give it a thorough review and, hopefully, we will be able 
to bring it forward. Senator Akaka is a very active and senior member 
of our committee. I am sure his advocacy will help a lot in moving the 
legislation forward. I thank my friend from Iowa for introducing this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Under the previous order, the 
first 10 minutes prior to the 2 p.m. vote are equally divided and 
controlled by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, is going to speak in support of the point 
of order Senator McCain has raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose S. 160, the District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act. I must--in other words, I have to--review and 
renew my objections to legislation of this kind. I have to speak and 
speak loudly--can you hear me--to its flaws, as I have done when 
similar erroneous attempts have been made to amend the Constitution 
with legislation.
  As I have said previously, my quarrel is not with the intent of the 
legislation but with the vehicle with which the Congress is seeking to 
effect this change.
  What does the Constitution say? Article I, section 2, of the 
Constitution says--now listen:

       The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
     chosen every second Year by the people of the several States 
     . . .

  The Constitution does not include the residents of the District of 
Columbia in this context as a State.
  We know--or we ought to know--from our history books that our 
Founding Fathers sought out a Federal city that would not have to rely 
upon the protections of any one State. Their vision, the vision of the 
Founding Fathers, a center of government apart from the States, is seen 
in the distinction made in article I, section 8, between the ``States'' 
and a ``District.'' Therefore, under the Constitution, the District is 
not a State. Consequently, a constitutional amendment is required to 
give the District's citizens voting representation in Congress. This is 
the step that ought to be taken. It is the step I have consistently 
supported. As far back as 1978, as the majority leader of the Senate, 
this body, I--let me identify myself: Robert C. Byrd--spoke in support 
of and voted for H.J. Res. 554, a joint resolution that proposed 
amending the Constitution to provide for representation of the District 
of Columbia in Congress. Where is that? Here.
  Every Member of this Senate ascribes to the underlying tenet of our 
system of government; namely, that the Government of the United States 
of America serves only by the consent of its citizens, as expressed 
through their elected representatives. That is us, their elected 
representatives. Every Senator seeks the goal of upholding and 
perfecting our representative form of government, but the difference 
lies in how we seek to effect those rights.
  I contend that this is no way to go about doing it. While the goal in 
this case is laudable, it is a dangerous course on which we embark. 
Simply passing a law that grants voting rights to an entity that is not 
a State is plainly circumventing the Constitution. As John Adams noted: 
``Facts are stubborn things.'' Let me say that again. This is John 
Adams talking now, not Robert C. Byrd. ``Facts are stubborn things.'' 
That is right, I may say to the Senator.

       Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, 
     our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot 
     alter the state of facts and evidence.

  So I say this imperfect method of legislation employed to amend the 
Constitution has already been met with swift opposition and solid 
opposition. The text of the legislation anticipates that very outcome 
by providing for the Court's expedited review. And legal challenges 
will surely come quickly--don't doubt it--calling into question the 
validity of this legislation, and the fate of the District's long-
sought voting rights will be further bogged down in a swamp--a swamp--
of litigation.
  Providing voting rights for the District through a constitutional 
amendment would provide the clarity and the constitutionality needed 
and would also avoid the path of litigation. Anything short of a 
constitutional amendment will be insufficient and will certainly set a 
dangerous precedent.
  While it is indeed an arduous task to amend the Constitution, and 
rightly so, thank heavens, something so critical as representation in 
the House for the people of the District of Columbia compels it. 
Shortcuts have no place here. In this instance because of litigation, 
any shortcut, so-called, may turn out to be the long cut, the long way 
home for the very deserving, long-suffering people of the Capital City 
of this country, Washington, DC.

[[Page 5519]]

  I will support the point of order raised by Senator McCain against 
the underlying bill, as it addresses this most crucial issue.
  I thank the distinguished, very able Senator. I thank the Chair and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, during the remarks we have just been 
privileged to hear, the Senator from West Virginia said: ``I--let me 
identify myself: Robert C. Byrd.'' May I say, there was no need for 
that identification. There is only one Robert C. Byrd. And may I add, 
it has been an honor to serve with you now for 20-plus years, to learn 
from you, to respect your love of the Senate, of the Constitution, and 
to hear you deliver the remarks that you have just delivered.
  Mr. BYRD. It has been my honor, my dear friend.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Thank you, sir.
  In the spirit of your history of great debate, I nonetheless, and 
with total respect, rise to oppose the point of order brought forth by 
the Senator from Arizona.
  We have here a contest between two provisions of our great 
Constitution. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from West 
Virginia rely on the provisions of article I, section 2, clause 1 that 
says the House Members be chosen by the people of the several States. 
Those of us who support the measure before us, S. 160, rely instead on 
article I, section 8, clause 17, the so-called District clause.
  It is true the Constitution does require that House Members be 
elected by the people of the several States. But it is also true 
Congress has repeatedly not applied that language literally. To fully 
protect the interests of people living in the Capital City, the Framers 
gave Congress extremely broad authority over all matters related to the 
Federal District under the so-called District clause I have referred 
to.
  Here is where the courts have spoken exactly to where we are now. The 
courts have said this clause, the District clause, gives Congress 
extraordinary and plenary power over the District of Columbia and, more 
to the point, have upheld congressional treatment of the District as a 
State for very important purposes of diversity jurisdiction and 
interstate commerce.
  Article III, for instance, of the Constitution provides that courts 
may hear cases ``between Citizens of different States.'' The Supreme 
Court actually initially ruled under this language that residents of 
our Nation's Capital could not sue residents of other States in Federal 
courts. But in 1940, Congress said that was wrong and asked that 
residents of the District be treated as a State for that purpose, a law 
that was upheld in the case of DC v. Tidewater Transfer Company of 
1949.
  The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce among the 
several States. That is the language of the Constitution, which 
literally would exclude the District of Columbia and make it impossible 
for its residents to enjoy all the protections adopted under the 
Commerce clause. But Congress's authority to treat the District as a 
State for Commerce clause purposes was upheld in the case of 
Stoughtenburg v. Hennick.
  So what we are asking for has constitutional precedent. More to the 
point, ultimately, or as much to the point, is the underlying reality 
that the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arizona speak 
to eloquently, which I presume all of us share, which is, it is an 
outrageous injustice that 600,000 residents of America who happen to 
live in our Capital City do not have any voting representation in 
Congress.
  Final point. The legislation before us presumes that there will be a 
legal challenge to its constitutionality, and that will be decided 
under the expedited procedures provided for in this legislation, in 
wording almost exactly similar to that provided in the so-called 
McCain-Feingold landmark campaign finance reform legislation. The 
Supreme Court will decide.
  So if you feel the status quo is unjust, I still urge you to vote for 
this legislation, even if you wonder about the constitutional basis of 
it because ultimately that is the judgment of one of the other two 
branches of our Government that the Supreme Court will decide. 
Therefore, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no on the point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am aware that the hour has expired. I 
ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I cannot add to the persuasive argument 
presented by the most respected Member of the Senate on constitutional 
matters and other matters. I thank Senator Byrd for his opinion. I 
thank him for his many years of service. I know all of us, however we 
vote on this issue, respect and admire his views. Thank you, sir.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the constitutional point of order 
raised by the Senator from Arizona, whether it is well taken. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the constitutional point of 
order is not well taken.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 579

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the desk, 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint,

[[Page 5520]]

     Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Risch, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 579.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow 
    citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State or the 
 District of Columbia in which they reside to carry concealed firearms 
  in another State or the District of Columbia that grants concealed 
carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State or 
                       the District of Columbia)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RESPECTING STATES RIGHTS AND CONCEALED CARRY 
                   RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2009.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity 
     Act of 2009''.
       (b) Reciprocity for the Carrying of Certain Concealed 
     Firearms.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain 
       concealed firearms

       ``Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or 
     the District of Columbia or political subdivision thereof--
       ``(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from 
     possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, 
     and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued 
     pursuant to the law of any State or the District of Columbia 
     and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, 
     may carry in any State or the District of Columbia a 
     concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license 
     or permit, subject to the laws of the State or the District 
     of Columbia in which the firearm is carried concerning 
     specific types of locations in which firearms may not be 
     carried; and
       ``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from 
     possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, 
     and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled 
     to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of 
     the State or the District of Columbia in which the person 
     resides, may carry in any State or the District of Columbia a 
     concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State or 
     the District of Columbia in which the person resides, subject 
     to the laws of the State or the District of Columbia in which 
     the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations 
     in which firearms may not be carried.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.
       (c) Severability.--If any other provision of this Act, 
     another amendment made by this Act, or the application of 
     such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is 
     held to be unconstitutional, this section and the application 
     of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall 
     not be affected thereby.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment is a very simple amendment. It 
allows individuals the right to carry a lawfully concealed firearm 
across State lines while at the same time respecting the laws of the 
host State. It is very similar to legislation I introduced earlier, a 
stand-alone bill, S. 371, which currently has 19 Senate cosponsors.
  As I believe and the Supreme Court found last June, the second 
amendment of the Constitution provides law-abiding citizens have the 
right to possess firearms in order to defend themselves and their 
families. As such, I believe a State's border should not be a limit on 
this right. Today, there are 48 States that have laws permitting some 
form of concealed carry. While some States with concealed carry laws 
grant reciprocity to permit holders from other select States, what my 
amendment would do is eliminate the need for these laws by allowing an 
individual to carry a concealed firearm across State lines if they 
either have a valid permit or if under their State of residence they 
are legally entitled to do so.
  After entering another State, the individual must respect the laws of 
the host State as they apply to conceal-and-carry permits, including 
the specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried. 
Reliable empirical research shows that States with concealed carry laws 
enjoy significantly lower violent crime rates than those States that do 
not. For example, for every year a State has a concealed carry law, the 
murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by 
over 2 percent.
  My amendment is relevant to this debate because it underscores the 
selective support that the District of Columbia has when it comes to 
individual rights such as the second amendment, and together with 
Senator Ensign's amendment will increase these rights. Specifically, 
anytime the word ``State'' is mentioned throughout my amendment, DC is 
also explicitly mentioned as well.
  My amendment is a common-sense measure that will strengthen public 
safety throughout the Nation. And I would hope if the Senate is willing 
to pass the unconstitutional legislation that is before us--the 
underlying bill creating an additional Member of Congress within the 
District of Columbia--then the Senate should also be able and willing 
to pass amendments which are constitutional and protect each citizen's 
second amendment rights.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 585

 (Purpose: To provide for the retrocession of the District of Columbia 
           to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes)

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in a few moments I am going to propose an 
amendment. I thought to conserve time that I would simply describe the 
amendment now, and then as soon as it is copied, I will distribute it 
and ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside so 
that I can offer that amendment.
  This is the retrocession amendment. It is an amendment that has been 
frequently offered in the House of Representatives over the years, and 
it is the alternative to the constitutional mechanism for providing the 
District of Columbia with representation in the House and Senate.
  Rather than going the constitutional amendment route, there is one 
thing we know we can constitutionally do legislatively. Congress has 
the ability to retrocede to the State of Maryland all of the non-
Federal areas within the District of Columbia that adjoin Maryland. The 
effect of that, obviously, is to give the residents of the District of 
Columbia today the same rights as other citizens of Maryland, if this 
procedure were to be followed.
  Under this amendment, it would require an affirmative action of the 
Legislature of the State of Maryland, so that if the Legislature of 
Maryland did not wish to proceed with this, then it would not occur. It 
also would require the repeal of the 23rd amendment to the 
Constitution, as I will describe in just a moment. But the effect of it 
is, as I said, to allow the residents of the District to enjoy 
representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It 
would do so without violating the Constitution's requirements that only 
States be represented in Congress and it would do so without creating a 
city state that would have disproportionate leverage in Congress and 
over the Federal budget.
  The amendment provides quite simply that after certain conditions are 
satisfied:

       The territory ceded to Congress by the State of Maryland to 
     serve as the District constituting the permanent seat of the 
     Government of the United States is ceded and relinquished to 
     the State of Maryland.

  Retrocession, as I said, includes a minor exception for the so-called 
national areas--the White House, the Capitol building, the Supreme 
Court building, and the other Federal buildings and monuments around 
the National Mall. The length of the amendment is simply due to the 
fact that there is a full description in section 3 of the amendment of 
the area that would remain under the exclusive jurisdiction and control 
of the Congress.
  There is an important transition provision that would allow lawsuits 
begun in the District of Columbia to be continued in Maryland courts. 
The amendment also provides that until the next

[[Page 5521]]

reapportionment, the DC Delegate will serve as a full Member of the 
House of Representatives from Maryland. As I said, there are two 
conditions that would have to be satisfied before it takes effect. 
First, the State of Maryland would have to enact accepting the 
retrocession of the District to Maryland; and second, amendment XXIII, 
which currently gives the District three electoral votes in 
Presidential elections, would need to be repealed.
  The reason for this is that in the absence of such a repeal, 
amendment XXIII might be construed not to be mooted and might be 
construed to give the very few residents living around the National 
Mall three electoral votes. The intent here is not to capture anyone 
who actually has an abode in that area, but there are some people who 
might be living there nonetheless.
  We believe the amendment is the most reasonable means of providing 
representation in Congress to the residents of the District. It is a 
solution that is based on precedent. Obviously, as we all know, in 1846 
the part of the District south of the Potomac River was retroceded to 
the Commonwealth of Virginia and became Arlington County and old 
Alexandria. We have done this before. We know how it works.
  If we adopt the amendment, the residents of Maryland could have a 
vote in the House and in the Senate within a year or two. If we 
continue down our current unconstitutional path, the legislation will 
be tied up in litigation for several years and, at least in the view of 
many of us, then struck down and we will be back at the drawing board. 
Unlike proposals to grant statehood to the District of Columbia, 
retrocession provides representation to the District residents in the 
national legislature but without creating a city state that would 
further skew representation in the Senate.
  In that regard, I would note that the number of people represented in 
most of the congressional districts of the United States exceeds the 
number of people who are residents of the District of Columbia. As 
State population continues to grow, there is every reason to believe 
that ratio would continue to exist.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sensible constitutional means of 
providing representation in Congress to the residents of the District 
of Columbia.
  At this point I ask unanimous consent that pending business be laid 
aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 585.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note for the benefit of colleagues that we 
now have, I think, two pending amendments.
  I urge my Republican colleagues, if they wish to speak to either of 
these two amendments or to lay down further amendments--we have good 
cooperation here on both sides of the aisle to move forward with this 
legislation, and if Members who have an interest can be here and 
express their views or offer their amendments, we can move through the 
bill more quickly.
  I will suggest the absence of a quorum here, but in the event Members 
on the Republican side wish to speak, certainly this would be a good 
time for them to come down and speak to the bill and offer amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are several amendments pending. This 
is a bill which is trying to make history. I thank Senator Lieberman, 
Senator Hatch, and others for bringing this bill to the floor. We have 
600,000 residents who live right here in the District of Columbia who 
do not have a vote. They do not have a vote in the House of 
Representatives nor in the Senate. They never have. They were created 
as a kind of Capitol District without a voting Congressman, 
Congresswoman, or Senator. Of course, the people in the District of 
Columbia pay Federal taxes. Their sons and daughters take an oath to 
protect America and march off to war. At least seven have recently died 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are bound by virtually all the Federal 
laws that people in Illinois or Oregon or Connecticut would be bound 
by, but they do not have a voice.
  There is no representation of 600,000 people. I think that is a gross 
miscarriage of justice. I salute those who bring this bill to the floor 
today to give the District of Columbia, specifically the 600,000 people 
who live here, that voice in Congress. It is long overdue.
  But there is an interesting relationship between Congress and the 
District of Columbia. Even though they do not have a voice in the 
Congress, Congress has always had a voice in the District. Congress has 
assumed a role somewhere between Governor and mayor when it comes to 
the District of Colombia. I have seen it when I served in the House and 
the Senate. A lot of Members from all over the United States of America 
who secretly long to be mayors get their chance. They come to 
Washington, they come to Congress, and they sit down and they play 
mayor for the District of Columbia.
  They make all kinds of decisions, decisions that do not relate to war 
and peace or Federal Government; decisions that in most places are 
going to be confined to mayors and city councils or Governors or 
legislatures. People in Congress cannot suppress the urge to be mayors, 
so they make all kinds of rules for the District of Columbia. Some of 
them are nothing short of outrageous.
  They delve into issues which the people in this city ought to decide 
for themselves--zoning issues, issues of public health, issues that, 
frankly, we do not have any business working on. But we can't stop 
ourselves. These Senators who want to be mayors get their chance. You 
can be a Senator from another State, but you can play part-time mayor 
in the District of Columbia.
  That is one of the good reasons for this underlying bill, so finally 
at least some person can stand up in the House of Representatives and 
say: I am representing these people and these people do not care for 
what you are doing to them.
  Along come a couple of amendments here. They are in this big 
constitutional debate, history making, about the future of Washington, 
DC, and several of my colleagues cannot suppress the urge to be mayor. 
They want to be mayor of the District of Columbia.
  One of them has come in with a proposal relative to firearms in the 
District of Columbia. This is offered by Senator Ensign of the State of 
Nevada and about a half dozen or a dozen other Republican Senators. 
Here is what they are trying to do.
  They want us to write the ordinances for firearms in the District of 
Columbia. Are we going to do it in a committee hearing? Bring in the 
police? Bring in the experts? Sit down and do this thoughtfully? No. We 
are not going to have any committee hearings. We are going to allow the 
National Rifle Association to write the gun ordinance for the District 
of Columbia.
  Do you want to guess what is going to be in that ordinance? Not much, 
when it comes to dealing with firearms.
  I guess you could be sarcastic and say why would you worry about 
controlling firearms in Washington, DC? I am not going to be sarcastic 
because I can recall a time not that long ago when a deranged 
individual brought a gun into this Capitol building and fatally injured 
two Capitol Hill policemen before he was finally suppressed.
  I can recall when a President of the United States at the Washington 
Hilton hotel on Connecticut Avenue, a

[[Page 5522]]

man by the name of Ronald Reagan, was shot down in the District of 
Columbia.
  I can recall time and again the efforts made, by men and women who 
are Capitol police officers, to protect us and our visitors, wondering 
at any moment whether someone was going to open fire on them.
  I can recall not that long ago an inauguration with 2 million people 
on the Mall and the overwhelming concern we all had for the safety of 
everyone involved and particularly for our new President or First Lady, 
the First Family. I saw the length we went through to protect them 
because of the obvious--we live in a dangerous place. We live in a 
dangerous time. A person with a gun, if they are willing to lose their 
own lives, can take out the lives of almost anyone. That is a fact. So, 
is there reason for us to be careful when it comes to guns? In my 
hometown of Springfield there is. In the great city of Chicago that I 
represent, you bet there will be. Kids are getting gunned down every 
day--certainly in Washington, DC, our capital city.
  Guns need to be taken seriously--I won't say more seriously. Every 
life is precious. But when we are entertaining visitors from around the 
world who come to our Washington, DC, U.S. Capitol, we want to offer 
them protection and safety as they travel. Maybe it is a special 
circumstance here. But this town needs to be as safe as possible, for 
the people arriving here, for the visitors, for all of us.
  So the National Rifle Association has decided they want to establish 
the standard for firearms in the District of Columbia. Let me tell you 
what they would do, to give you an idea if they could write the 
ordinance for guns in the District of Columbia, with the Ensign 
amendment. There are a few things they would like to do. The amendment 
would provide:

       The District of Columbia government shall not have 
     authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or 
     eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.

  If that is your starting point, listen to what follows. It blocks the 
District of Columbia from passing any background check or registration 
regulations, even sensible regulations that are needed to help law 
enforcement know who is buying guns. So the first thing the NRA wants 
to do is say we cannot ask you for a background check to find out if 
you should be able to own a firearm in the District of Columbia. What a 
great starting point.
  It also prevents the District of Columbia passing laws that require 
gun proficiency training. It even prohibits them from educating parents 
about child gun safety.
  You read the stories--we all do--about children killed when they find 
a firearm at home, play with it, shoot themselves or a playmate, a 
little brother or a little sister. This bill would prohibit the 
District of Columbia from establishing gun safety training.
  The amendment would also prohibit the DC City Council from taking 
steps to unduly burden--that is the language of the bill--the 
acquisition or use of firearms by persons not already prohibited under 
Federal law. That means that DC could not pass a law, for example, 
restricting access to guns by those convicted of misdemeanor sex 
offenses involving a child.
  That is a fact--because the Federal law does not prohibit that, DC 
could not. A person convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense with a child 
could not be prohibited, under this NRA amendment, from owning a 
firearm in the District of Columbia. Make you feel safer? Would it make 
anyone feel safer? Obviously, some people at the NRA would.
  Let me tell you what else. It repeals the age limits for legal gun 
possession. Now, this is a good one. Let's basically say you cannot 
tell someone you are too young to own a gun or maybe too old and 
feeble. It repeals DC's prohibition on gun possession by anyone who was 
voluntarily committed to a mental institution in the last 5 years. How 
many times have we heard the stories on college campuses, in my State, 
in the State of Virginia, of someone who had a serious mental illness, 
turned to violence and killed innocent people?
  It happened in Illinois. It happened in Virginia. It happened in 
other places. So governments try to keep guns out of the hands of 
people who are mentally unstable. The Ensign amendment would stop the 
government of the District of Columbia from imposing that standard when 
it came to possession of a firearm.
  It also repeals, while we are at it, not just those voluntarily 
committed to mental institutions, but it would repeal the DC 
government's prohibition on gun possession for those who have been 
judged by a court to be chronic alcoholics; you cannot stop them. Under 
this Ensign amendment, they can own a gun. It is their second amendment 
right.
  Well, I will tell you what. That is not what the Supreme Court said. 
The Supreme Court said reasonable regulation of firearms was still the 
standard in America. But I am afraid the Ensign amendment goes way 
beyond reasonable regulation.
  Well, here is another one. What if you had a requirement that before 
someone could buy a gun in the District of Columbia, they had to be 
able to see, a vision test. Not unreasonable. You want to have a gun or 
drive a car, you ought to be able to do it safely. This bill would 
prohibit the District of Columbia from imposing an onerous burden that 
a person has to pass a vision test in order to own a firearm.
  I find this incredible. It is also unimaginable to me that this law 
expressly allows the residents of the District of Columbia to cross 
borders into our States, buy firearms and come back. There is no 
restriction, no limitation.
  Now, I admit it has not worked very well. There has been a lot of gun 
violence in this town, even with that law. But why do we want to raise 
this white flag and say we are not even going to try to restrict or 
limit them? So when the supporters of the Ensign amendment say DC does 
not need any gun laws because Federal gun laws are strong enough, pay 
attention, they are, in fact, trying to weaken Federal gun laws at the 
very same time they are passing this amendment.
  We do not debate guns around here much anymore. We used to. 
Basically, we reached a point where there are not many people who will 
stick their political necks out to vote for sensible gun control--too 
big a hassle. The NRA is going to target you back home, and you are 
going to have to spend a lot of money to try to explain to people, as I 
have, if you want to own a gun, if you want to use it safely, 
responsibly, for self-defense or sporting purposes, your right should 
be protected.
  But you also ought to accept the responsibility, the responsibility 
to make certain that people check on your background so you do not have 
a criminal record, a history of mental illness, chronic alcoholism. You 
ought to be able to limit the kind of guns people buy. I mean, there 
are some people in my State and all over who say you should not limit 
people. They should be able to buy whatever they want.
  I do not buy that. I have always said, if you need an AK-47 to go 
deer hunting, you ought to stick to fishing. Obviously, you do not know 
how to use a gun, you just want to spray bullets until something stops 
moving. There are also limitations in most places as to where you can 
take your gun and how you can use it. I do not think that is 
unreasonable.
  Coming from a family, people who are hunters and sportsmen, they are 
pretty conscientious. They lock up the guns in the gun cabinet. They 
know when the rabbit season starts and when the squirrel season starts 
and they are out there. They do not want to take their gun into the 
mall. It would not make, in my opinion, sense to them. That gun has a 
purpose.
  But there are other people who disagree, people who think this is an 
absolute right. I am afraid that is what has inspired the Ensign 
amendment. I do not know if Senator Ensign or the people, the dozen or 
so folks who have cosponsored this amendment, have all gone back to 
their home States and said: We hope you will do exactly this. My guess 
is they have not. My guess is Senator Ensign has not gone to the

[[Page 5523]]

mayor of Las Vegas and said: Let's take all the gun laws out; that 
ought to help us bring in some tourists. I do not think he has done 
that. Maybe he has, in all fairness. I will give him his chance to 
respond to that on the floor.
  But it strikes me as peculiar and fundamentally unjust that Senators 
who will not impose these standards in their own hometowns want to 
impose them in the District of Columbia. They do not have the courage 
to stand in their own hometowns and say: We ought to let people with a 
history of mental illness have guns. Why? Because reasonable people 
would say to them: Are you out of your mind? They would not say someone 
judged by the court as a chronic alcoholic ought to be able to buy an 
assault weapon. Not unless you happen to live in the Nation's Capital, 
where Senators get to be mayor, where Senators try to write gun laws, 
where Senators pass ordinances here. It is a shame.
  It has been going on for a long time. I am not picking on the 
sponsors of this amendment. It has been going on as long as I have been 
here. But it does not make any sense. If there was ever a town, and if 
there was ever a time where we should take the extra measure to be 
safe, it is this town at this moment.
  We have to make sure the men and women who serve in elected office, 
the wonderful staff people whom we have, the millions of visitors who 
come into this building come in with peace of mind, knowing they and 
their families are going to be safe, not to worry that some law passed 
in the Senate is going to create a shooting gallery right outside the 
Capitol grounds.
  This amendment does not make good sense. It certainly does not make 
common sense. It is not required by the Supreme Court. It is an 
amendment that basically is an attempt for the National Rifle 
Association to do a little temperature check, find out where they are 
in this new Congress, to push to the limits the gun issue and to see 
who is going to follow it.
  I know a lot of Members who said: Well, that is their decision, I 
respect them for it. But I respectfully disagree. Let us keep DC safe. 
Let's make sure all the people who value this city and the great 
tradition and heritage of this city take an extra measure to make it a 
safe place for visitors, for those who live here, for kids going to 
school, for folks going to church on Sunday. I do not think they 
deserve anything less.
  If one of those Senators, any one of these Senators want to stand up 
and say: I have proposed this gun ordinance in my hometown and my home 
State, I think it should apply to Washington, they would have more 
credibility. But without that, they just want to experiment, experiment 
on a city that for over 200 years has not had a voice in this Congress, 
experiment on a city that is a helpless victim, many times to these 
political experiments that people like to try, through Congress, on 
Washington, DC.
  I urge my colleagues: Read this. Take the time to read this 
amendment. Pause and reflect and ask yourself one question: Would I 
want this in my hometown? Is this a standard? I know some will say yes, 
but most will say no. This is extreme. This goes too far.
  The District of Columbia is trying its best after the Supreme Court 
challenged and voided one of its ordinances. It rewrote its gun law. It 
allows for the registration of pistols, revolvers, and long guns for 
self-defense at home. So people in the District can have a gun in their 
home for self-defense.
  It bans assault weapons and junk guns used for crime. It prevents 
persons with a history of violence within 5 years from registering a 
gun. It prevents a person convicted of domestic violence or who is the 
subject of a protective order, within 5 years, from registering a gun.
  It prevents a person with multiple alcohol-related offenses within 5 
years from registering a gun. It requires that an applicant for a gun 
complete a firearm safety training course. It limits an applicant to 
registering one gun every 30 days. It bans magazines on guns over 10 
rounds. It tightens gun dealer licensing requirements. It requires all 
new semiautomatic pistols to be stamped so they can be traced in a 
crime.
  It protects children by requiring registrants to safely store their 
firearms, and it abolishes concealed carry licenses, except in very 
narrow circumstances. That is the law if you want to own a gun in the 
District of Columbia. If you have a legal right to do so, you have to 
follow some basic rules, commonsense rules, rules that will be thrown 
right out the window with the Ensign amendment.
  That is not good for the District, it is not good for America. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 573

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Illinois, and I think it helps to set up some of my comments as 
well. We are talking about a bill on DC voting rights that has a lot to 
do with our Constitution. I have an amendment to that that also has a 
lot to do with our Constitution; that is, the right of free speech and 
the right of freedom of the press, what we will call the Broadcasters 
Freedom Act.
  The interesting point about the talk of my previous colleague is, he 
was talking about the urge to be mayor here in the Senate. It is 
interesting, after we just passed this massive stimulus bill, where we 
were telling not only mayors but every Governor in the country what 
they had to do and how they need to spend their money, to control 
everything from education to health care.
  We cannot resist the urge to be Governors and mayors and, in fact, we 
cannot resist the urge to substitute our opinions of what should happen 
to our whole constitutional form of Government. It is interesting to 
hear about the guns amendment and the opinions there. I respect the 
Senator's opinion about the gun laws, what they should be.
  But the fact is, that what we do here is not about our opinion, it is 
about our oath of office, of protecting and defending the Constitution. 
The Constitution does not give me a right to decide who is going to 
bear arms. I mean it is a basic constitutional right.
  It does not give us the right to use our own opinions and good 
intentions on every piece of legislation. One of the reasons as a 
country we are so much in debt--and this is attributed to both 
parties--is we have moved away from any constitutional mooring of 
limited Government to the point now where it is whoever's opinion can 
prevail is what passes.
  An appeal to the Constitution is almost irrelevant. There is no way 
you can interpret the Constitution to say the Federal District of 
Columbia is going to have Congressmen and Senators. Now, I respect an 
opinion of anyone who says it should not be that way, that people who 
pay taxes should have Congressmen and Senators. But the fact is, our 
oath of office is to defend the Constitution, not to employ our own 
opinions, to do what we think is right, to get money for our States.
  That is a pretty simple judgment to make in this case, if we can 
count, if we can look at the language of the Constitution and see 
something so obvious. Now, sure, we do not like it, we do not like the 
way it has turned out. There are 600,000 people living here and a lot 
of people with very good intentions say they should have the same 
rights as States. But that is our opinion, it is not the Constitution.
  What worries me about a lot of our rights that are given in the 
Constitution, particularly our Bill of Rights, not only the right to 
bear arms, which people's opinion is being substituted for the 
Constitution, but the same thing has happened with the right of free 
speech, the freedom of the press in our country, which has been so 
instrumental to maintaining freedom and the ability of the American 
people to be vigilant over their Government, finding out what is going 
on here.
  Back in 1949, the Federal Government implemented what was called the 
fairness doctrine over concerns that with the relatively few number of 
radio stations across the country, a diversity of opinion would not be 
heard.
  Substituting our own good opinion for that of the Constitution, there 
are

[[Page 5524]]

some in Washington who decided we needed to referee what was said on 
radio.
  If one political opinion was expressed, the fairness doctrine 
required that they have an opposite opinion also expressed. The whole 
idea was to create a diversity of points of view. The fact is, as with 
many things we do here, it had exactly the opposite effect of what was 
intended. It put a chilling effect on political speech because what 
radio station would want to deal with the liability of expressing an 
opinion if someone else was going to come in and say they had to have 
somebody else express a different opinion? It violates the right of 
free speech and, in the process, actually puts a chilling effect on the 
development of political points of view in radio.
  In 1987, it had become obvious what this was doing. Thousands of 
radio stations were developing all over the country. The Reagan 
administration overturned this so-called fairness doctrine, which was 
really a radio censorship act. With that act gone, we have seen the 
development of radio talk shows all over the country. One can tune in 
anywhere and get all kinds of diversity of opinion.
  Frankly, it has become very annoying to a lot of Congressmen and 
Senators. There is nothing worse than going home and trying to tell 
people one thing, and they actually find out that is not the truth. 
Increasingly, that has been happening with bills we are passing, when 
folks back home find out through talk radio those guys didn't even read 
that bill. The front cover of that bill says it is not amnesty, but the 
bill says it is. The President says there are no earmarks, but open it 
up and there are thousands of earmarks in the bill. The President says 
he is expanding our energy supplies, but then look and see that they 
actually have a drilling moratorium that we didn't know about.
  Talk radio has become very annoying to politicians who don't want 
Americans to know the truth. So increasingly a number of people in 
Congress are looking back to that fairness doctrine and thinking we 
need to bring it back. We need to censor radio talk shows. We need to 
create that liability, that risk. Every time someone freely expresses 
an opinion, that station needs to know that they are liable to make 
sure another opinion is expressed.
  Who is going to decide what should be expressed? The Governors and 
the Mayor in Washington? In fact, what we are finding out is so many 
people on the other side can't resist the urge to be Founding Fathers. 
They want to change the Constitution and change what it means and 
ignore it. But freedom of speech is so important. The fact is, people 
in this Senate who swore an oath to the Constitution are actually 
advocating bringing back radio censorship and certainly will eventually 
apply it to the blogosphere and the Web. They will not stop with radio 
talk shows. We need to act to make sure this oppression, this tyranny 
is not reimposed on the American people.
  It is not just important to protect what radio talk show hosts can 
say. What we are really trying to protect is what millions of Americans 
are free to listen to: different opinions, facts, information about 
where to find more complete information about what is going on. The 
primary reason more and more Americans are standing up and are outraged 
about what is going on here is because they are finally finding out the 
truth about what we are doing, how much money we are spending, how much 
we are borrowing, the porkbarrel earmarks we are sending all over the 
country, basically changing the mission of the Federal Government from 
one that stands for the national interest and constitutional government 
to one that is essentially trying to run local governments and State 
governments and to rearrange the Constitution.
  The Federal Communications Commission could actually reimplement this 
radio censorship idea without Congress. That is why my amendment I will 
offer tomorrow, the Broadcasters Freedom Act, will prohibit the Federal 
Communications Commission from bringing back any part of the radio 
censorship they called at one time the fairness doctrine.
  Some here will say it is not germane to this debate on DC voting 
rights. But DC voting rights are about the Constitution and whether we 
will follow it. If we don't respect the Constitution on one issue, why 
should we respect it on another? The fact that people at the FCC and 
here in Congress are talking about bringing it back means it is germane 
to this discussion. It is germane to everything we do here, the right 
to freedom of speech. The freedom of the press is so foundational to 
our form of government, our way of life, it is germane to everything we 
do here.
  This amendment is so important to what we do because if we can't get 
the American people informed and engaged and activated and get them to 
stand and express their outrage, this Government, this Congress, is 
going to continue to violate the Constitution at every turn; to 
substitute their opinion, whether it be the first amendment or second 
amendment, any time their opinion is different from the Constitution. 
Their belief and the prevailing belief here in Congress is, if you can 
pass something, then it is legal. It doesn't matter if it violates the 
Constitution. What will matter is if the American people know what we 
are doing. They are going to stand up. They will e-mail. They will 
call. They will express their outrage to these people who are taking 
our constitutional rights every day. They are going to hear from the 
people back home, and they will back down or they will be brought home 
at the next election.
  That is why radio freedom, freedom of the press, talk radio, 
bloggers, cable TV, all these alternative media that are going around, 
the New York Times and the other liberal press, and taking the truth 
and the facts to the American people is something we have to protect 
with our lives in Congress. The broadcasters freedom amendment that 
will be offered tomorrow is critically important to what we do.
  I urge all of my colleagues, don't buy these lame arguments that it 
is not germane to this constitutional debate. Don't buy the argument 
that it is not relevant because no one is bringing it up. We have seen 
what people can sneak into bills that we don't get a chance to read. We 
need to make it a law that the FCC or this Congress cannot implement 
any aspect of the fairness doctrine. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  I urge colleagues to take the Constitution seriously, take this 
amendment seriously. Vote for it and show the American people that we 
will stand for their constitutional rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise to support the District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act. For too long politics has trumped basic 
fairness. This is not a bill for statehood but one that ensures the 
simple and long overdue right of American citizens to have a voice in 
their Government. It is the duty of any democracy to have every citizen 
represented. America is a model for democracy around the world. Right 
here at home in our own Capital City almost 600,000 Americans live 
without a full vote in their Government. Passage of this bill is a 
matter of fundamental rights. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay taxes 
like everyone else, but they have no voice in how their taxes are 
spent. The phrase ``no taxation without representation'' used by the 
original Thirteen Colonies is every bit as relevant today.
  The residents of our Capital City pay one of the highest tax rates in 
the Nation, but they do not have a single voting representative in 
either House of Congress. Unlike every other city in America, 
Washington, DC, is forced to remain dependent upon Congress for even 
the most basic functions. Congress has control over DC's local budget. 
Congress can review and overturn laws that DC residents pass. Even more 
important to consider is the brave service and sacrifice Washington's 
men and women in uniform make in serving our Nation in the Armed 
Forces. These great patriots deserve full participation in Congress.

[[Page 5525]]

  The foundation of our system of government is that all citizens are 
represented in the Federal Government. Today we must make good on the 
promise and grant full and fair representation to the people of 
Washington, DC.
  This issue has been around a long time. Finally, in this bill, we 
have a balanced and sensible approach, one seat for the District of 
Columbia and one additional seat for the State of Utah.
  I urge passage of this bill to give full, equal voice to the 
residents of this District and allow those 600,000 citizens to finally 
become full members of our Republic.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 575

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, with regard to gun control. I 
do so for five reasons.
  First, this amendment is completely unrelated to the DC House Voting 
Rights Act before us today. If it bears any relationship to this bill, 
it is in an inadvertent, unintended way to make the point of how badly 
we in Congress treat the District, as if we have the right not only to 
deprive it of voting representation in the House of Representatives--
600,000 residents without voting representation, no government with 
consent of the governed--but we exercise, by this amendment, if it 
passes, the right to intervene in the District when its own legislative 
body, the council, has legislated and impose our desires on them.
  Let me come back to my first point. The amendment is unrelated to the 
DC House Voting Rights Act. We should not be adding controversial, non-
germane issues to what I believe is a historic civil rights bill that 
finally nullifies what has gone on for most of American history, which 
is a voting rights injustice. Residents of the District have fought for 
decades to win the voting rights the rest of us take for granted. It 
has taken tremendous work over more than this year to get this bill to 
where it is today, to enable us to actually be on the Senate floor 
debating a voting rights bill.
  We had a good debate earlier on a constitutional point of order 
raised by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, that went to the heart 
of the bill. That is what we ought to be debating. That point of order 
was rejected, but it was relevant to what we are all about in S. 160. 
Congress has on many occasions, of course, debated legislation related 
to gun ownership, which is the subject of the Ensign amendment, 
unrelated to the DC House Voting Rights Act. No doubt we will have the 
opportunity to debate the issue of gun ownership and gun rights in the 
future. Opponents have raised relevant concerns about the 
constitutionality and appropriateness of the legislation we are 
considering. That is what we should be debating, not gun legislation.
  I fear, of course, in doing so, what we are doing on the Ensign 
amendment is we are going to cloud the prospects for this bill with 
controversial, unrelated amendments that take us from the focus here, 
which is that 600,000 Americans do not have voting representation in 
Congress.
  Second, I believe Congress should not limit the District's ability to 
enact its own measures with regard to gun violence. Some Senators, 
Members of this body, may believe as a policy matter that the 
District's gun laws are not adequate, not correct, but the District's 
gun laws have no effect whatsoever on the varying gun ownership laws of 
the States. The fact is that none of our constituents--not one of our 
constituents--will be affected or is affected by the gun laws of the 
District of Columbia. We do not represent anybody who is a resident and 
voter in the District of Columbia.
  The gun rights of residents of other States are guided and controlled 
and enabled pursuant to the laws and regulations enacted by the elected 
officials and executive officials in those States. Likewise, the 
elected officials of the District of Columbia have enacted laws 
regarding gun ownership that I believe this body should respect, just 
as I would want this body to respect the laws of my State with regard 
to guns or anything else. As I will explain in a moment, in fact, the 
District of Columbia has enacted new gun laws in response to the court 
case of DC v. Heller. Congress should not be singling out particular 
States and localities to repeal their laws on guns or anything else.
  This is not a uniform nationwide standard that will be adopted if the 
Ensign amendment passes. This is a law with regard to guns for the 
District of Columbia. It is as if a law of my State of Connecticut was 
challenged in the Supreme Court, and it was invalidated, and actually 
my legislature then responded to the constitutional invalidation by 
adopting a law which they believed was consistent with the Supreme 
Court decision, but then we in Congress came along and said: No, 
Connecticut, that is not enough. We are going to tell you exactly what 
your law should be--not for the entire United States of America but for 
the State of Connecticut. I would be outraged. Any Member of this 
Chamber would be outraged if we did to one of our States what this 
amendment proposes to do to the District. It is just not fair, and it 
is not consistent with our basic principles of limited Federal 
Government and the rights of States and localities to legislate for 
themselves.
  That is my second point. Congress should not limit the District's 
ability to enact laws of its own regarding guns or anything else.
  The third point is this: This amendment is actually outdated. The 
Ensign amendment is the same as legislation that passed the House last 
September to remove restrictions on gun ownership in the District. But 
there is an important point that has been left out here.
  Last month, January, the District's government enacted new gun laws 
that are their response to the holding of the Supreme Court in the DC 
v. Heller decision. The Heller decision struck down several provisions 
of the District's previous municipal code regarding guns. The decision 
particularly invalidated the District's handgun ban and trigger lock-
storage requirement. But consistent with the newly enacted District of 
Columbia law adopted by the council, those provisions are no longer in 
the law. So the Ensign amendment, in fact, is outdated. In fact, if you 
look carefully at this amendment, it repeals and modifies provisions 
that used to be in the DC law but no longer are because the recent 
enactment of the DC City Council removed those provisions of the law.
  So my third point is the Ensign amendment is outdated and does not 
relate to the reality that has been created by the District's City 
Council itself.
  Fourth, let me talk about the District's new gun measures and their 
relationship to the Heller decision. The Supreme Court made clear in 
its decision in Heller that the second amendment meant something. It is 
something this Senator has always felt. There is a constitutional right 
to bear arms. But that right, I have always felt, is no more unlimited 
than any other right in the Constitution, including the fundamental--I 
would almost say sacred--rights in the first amendment. Those are not 
unlimited either, as we know. So the Supreme Court decision said that 
the total bans in the DC law on gun ownership, possession of guns in 
the home, were unconstitutional and violative of the second amendment. 
But the decision also made clear that reasonable regulation of gun 
ownership was permissible.
  This amendment essentially invalidates a whole series of what I 
believe the Supreme Court would find to be reasonable regulations of 
gun ownership and again does not acknowledge what the DC City Council 
has done.
  The gun laws the District passed last month restore the right of gun 
ownership for self-defense in homes here in the District and amend the 
District's safe-storage requirements so that a firearm no longer needs 
to be kept bound by a trigger lock within the

[[Page 5526]]

home. The District's new gun law permanently repealed DC's ban on 
semiautomatic firearms and permits residents to own semiautomatic 
pistols. If you look at the Ensign amendment, you would not believe 
that was true. In fact, in the Inoperable Pistol Amendment Act of 2008, 
the city of the District of Columbia provided a self-defense exception 
to allow residents with registered firearms to carry these weapons 
lawfully in their homes or places of business. Additionally, the 
Firearms Control Amendment Act of 2008 exempted from the registration 
requirement ``[a]ny person who temporarily possesses a firearm 
registered to another person while in the home of the registrant'' if 
that person believes they are in imminent danger. So these are the very 
real rights of gun owners that are now enshrined, adopted in the DC law 
that has been passed.
  My fifth point is this, and I referred to it a moment ago: The Ensign 
amendment goes much further than the Supreme Court did in limiting the 
right of localities, States, and municipalities to regulate gun 
ownership while recognizing the second amendment constitutional right 
to bear arms. In fact, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the 
Heller case, and he specifically noted that a wide range of gun laws 
would be lawful and not violative of the second amendment--everything 
from laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' 
to ``conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.''
  The amendment offered by my colleague from Nevada would overturn 
provisions that the Heller decision did not address and did not strike 
down.
  This amendment provides that the government of the District of 
Columbia ``shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that 
discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.'' 
Potentially, this could prevent the District from passing legislation 
regarding background checks, which have been widely accepted by courts, 
or registration regulations that are needed to help law enforcement 
keep tabs of who is buying and owning guns in the District.
  The Ensign amendment repeals DC's ban on sniper rifles that can 
pierce armor plating up to a mile away and its ban on military-style 
semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
  The amendment repeals DC's requirements--modeled on a California law 
which has been strongly supported by law enforcement agencies--that 
semiautomatic pistols manufactured after January 1, 2011, be 
microstamp-ready. Microstamping is a law enforcement tool that helps 
solve gun crimes by imprinting shell casings with a unique identifier 
so they can quickly be matched to the handguns that fire them.
  The Ensign amendment also repeals the District's age limits for legal 
gun possession. Imagine how we would feel in my State of Connecticut or 
in the Presiding Officer's State of Illinois if Congress came along and 
told us how to write laws for our States.
  This amendment repeals the District of Columbia's prohibition on gun 
possession by anyone who was voluntarily committed to a mental 
institution in the last 5 years. It repeals the District's prohibition 
on gun possession for those who have been adjudicated as chronic 
alcoholics and those who have failed a vision test. This would be--I do 
not even want to say it. It is shocking.
  The amendment also weakens Federal law. Federal law prohibits gun 
dealers from selling handguns directly to out-of-State consumer buyers 
because of the high risk this creates for interstate gun trafficking. 
But this amendment would allow DC residents to cross State lines to buy 
handguns in neighboring States, undermining those Federal 
antitrafficking laws.
  It is no surprise that the chief of police of the District of 
Columbia, Cathy Lanier, has testified that the legislation on which the 
Ensign amendment is based would undermine safety and security in the 
Nation's Capital.
  So those are five reasons why I believe this amendment should not be 
adopted. But as the chairman of the committee that has reported out the 
underlying bill and as somebody who personally has worked for a lot of 
years to try to right this wrong on the residents of the District of 
Columbia, our Nation's Capital--the capital of the greatest democracy 
in the world--not having a voting representative in Congress, I just 
think this amendment, leaving aside its merits or demerits, adds 
something to this historic piece of legislation that just does not 
belong and may, along the way, complicate its path to passage.
  So regardless of your position on gun control--and I state again, I 
have always believed the second amendment has meaning, that it makes 
constitutional the right to bear arms, but that it is not unlimited--
this amendment comes close to a judgment that the second amendment 
really is unlimited. So that is why I, on its merits, think it goes too 
far.
  But whatever you think of the merits, if you really believe in 
helping eliminate one of the last vestiges of voting rights blocks in 
our country--when you think about it, when the Constitution was 
adopted, people of color could not vote. Good God, people of color were 
only counted as three-fifths of people who were White. Woman could not 
vote. A lot of men could not vote if they were not property owners. And 
over the years, on this journey of ours, from the ideals in our 
Declaration of Independence, we have gone forward to eliminate one 
after another block to the reality that the Government was premised on 
that you would not have governing without the consent of the governed. 
Yet this bizarre anomaly remains in our Nation's Capital where people 
are deprived of the right to have a voting representative here.
  So I appeal to my colleagues, whatever your position on gun ownership 
and gun violence, whatever your position on the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Nevada, please don't stand in the doorway, as Bob 
Dylan once sang, and block this underlying bill or cause it to become 
more controversial than it should be.
  I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Chair to notify me when I have consumed 8 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have two items I wish to discuss, one 
that has already been raised on the floor by my friend, Senator DeMint, 
with respect to his proposed amendment No. 573 to the underlying bill. 
As I understand it, Senator DeMint will be offering an amendment 
dealing with the fairness rule. I was a cosponsor of this legislation 
in the last Congress and I am happy to support it in this Congress; 
that is, the position that says we should not allow the FCC to 
reinforce what has been called the fairness rule that was dropped some 
years ago. Who can be against fairness? Well, I am in favor of 
fairness, but I am opposed to censorship, under the mislabeling that we 
have here, the fairness doctrine is nothing more than censorship. The 
Federal Government would say to a radio or television broadcaster we 
have determined that the broadcasting that you have been doing is not 
fair and so you are going to be ordered by the Government to present a 
different point of view on your show and we will determine whether it 
is fair or it is not. The fairness doctrine was imposed on the grounds 
that radio was such a pervasive medium that anything that was said on 
radio regarding politics should be balanced by someone who holds a 
different point of view. Right away, this raises the question of how 
many points of view?
  We have seen Presidential elections where we had President Clinton, 
where we had Pat Buchanan, where we had Ralph Nader, and some minor 
candidates, and who determines which one is important enough to qualify 
for a fairness opportunity on radio? According to the so called 
Fairness Doctrine,

[[Page 5527]]

the government determines. Who determines, therefore, what is one 
position that deserves putting down so that other positions can be 
raised in the name of fairness? The Federal Government. What do we get 
into when the Federal Government has the authority to make these kinds 
of decisions? Again, there is a word for it and it is called 
censorship.
  One way to deal with an argument, to use the Latin phrase ``reductio 
ad absurdum,'' which means ``reduce it to an absurdity.'' Take it to 
its ultimate end. If we are going to take the Fairness Doctrine to it's 
ultimate end, then we are going to say to the late night comedians, 
when you make a joke about a Democrat, since you are on the airwaves, 
you must make a joke of equivalent nastiness about a Republican. When 
you put down the President, you must find an equivalent Republican 
figure to put down in the name of fairness. The consequence of all of 
that, of course, if it were enforced, would be that the late night 
comedians get shut down all together.
  We have already had an opportunity for fairness, if you will, with 
respect to talk radio. When a group of people got together and financed 
a liberal talk show host--one who aspires to enter this body at some 
time--the public spoke. The station went out of business. Let the 
public decide what they are going to listen to and let the public 
decide how they are going to pick. There are so many outlets for 
different points of view that we do not need to go back to the Fairness 
Doctrine and impose Government censorship on the way people think and 
respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 581

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 581 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an amendment numbered 
581.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX FOR RESIDENTS OF 
                   THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Due to the unique status of the District of Columbia, 
     created by the Constitution of the United States, bona fide 
     residents of the District (other than Members of Congress) 
     shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be exempt 
     from the individual Federal income tax for taxable years 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from New York wishes 
to speak and I will be very brief. I should not take more than 10 
minutes.
  We are in a debate about the District of Columbia and the fact that 
they are taxed and not represented with a vote in the Congress. It is a 
legitimate debate. I tend to look at the Constitution and, as a matter 
of fact, as I read the Constitution--and I am not a constitutional 
lawyer, but I will tell my colleagues that anybody who reads the 
Constitution can say this is an unconstitutional bill we have in front 
of us.
  I also reject the idea that the District of Columbia does not have 
representation. All one has to do is look at the facts: $66,000 per 
resident of the District of Columbia, that is how much money the 
Federal Government spends per capita in the District of Columbia. That 
is $5.5 for every dollar they pay in taxes. So the 535 votes in the 
Congress have well represented them greater than any other group of 
citizens in the country. But there is a claim--a legitimate claim--that 
they don't have their own representative and that they are taxed.
  This is a simple amendment. What it says is while we work this out, 
the way to be fair is to eliminate Federal income tax on citizens of 
the District of Columbia. They don't have a vote. Their tags even say 
taxation without representation is unfair; no taxation without 
representation. This solves that. They will have to change all of the 
auto tags. I don't know what that will cost. But the fact is we will 
take away Federal income taxes on money earned in the District of 
Columbia from every citizen of the District of Columbia.
  Now, two things happen with that, especially since they have 535 
representatives already. Think about what will happen to the District 
of Columbia in terms of income. Think about what will happen to the 
District of Columbia in terms of economic progress. Think about what 
will happen in terms of the value of the ownership of any asset in the 
District of Columbia. Think of the growth. Think of the modernization 
that will happen as we make this the center of progress based on the 
idea that because there is no representation, there should be no 
Federal taxation. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It 
solves the immediate problem. When we finally do a constitutional 
amendment with a joint resolution, which we are ultimately going to 
have to do, what we will have done is given the people of the District 
of Columbia the benefit of having a tax advantage because they don't 
have, under their thinking, representation in the Congress.
  I am not trying to have a cute vote. If I had my way, I would try to 
eliminate almost every Federal income tax. As the Senator from New York 
knows, I try to do that quite often, and try to eliminate a lot of 
spending. The whole point being, there is a legitimate point to be made 
by the citizens of the District of Columbia in that they are treated 
differently than everybody else in this country. My argument is they 
actually have 535 representatives plus their Delegate, and it has shown 
to be very effective for them, because no place else in the country 
gets as much Federal money per capita as the District of Columbia. So 
if we want to treat the citizens of the District of Columbia fairly--by 
the way, this excludes all Members of Congress, so if my colleagues are 
thinking about voting for it for a selfish reason, please don't. If you 
are thinking about voting for this amendment on the basis of fairness, 
please consider it.


                           Amendment No. 575

  I wish to take a few more minutes to comment on the Ensign amendment, 
if I might, and then I will finish. The Ensign amendment isn't about 
concealed carrying, it is about the right that is guaranteed under the 
second amendment to be applied to people in the District of Columbia.
  James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 46:

       Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans 
     possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . 
     forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more 
     insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form 
     can admit of.

  If you look at the murder rate in the District of Columbia, what 
happened when the gun ban in 1975 was first instituted, we didn't see 
it rise that much because we allowed people to keep their guns. When 
the complete ban took place, we saw a fivefold rise that is still going 
up--except for the last 2 years--in the murder rate compared to the 
rest of the cities in this country. There is something to be said for 
the thinking that a perpetrator of a felony thinks he or she may 
possibly be harmed significantly. That tends to drive down violent 
crime--we know that--in the States that have concealed carry, and that, 
I believe, is 26 or 28 States. It may be even more than that now.
  The fact is, this isn't about concealed carry; this is about 
guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens in the District of 
Columbia to represent themselves with a right that every other citizen 
in this country has. Because Congress didn't act on that right, it took 
the Heller decision to give them that right. All this does is bring 
into line the District of Columbia with the rest of the States in the 
country. I will have taken the amount of time that I should in favor of 
Senator Schumer. I thank him very much for the consideration of 
allowing me to go first. I thank the chairman of the committee as well.

[[Page 5528]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to a dangerous 
amendment that would go far beyond authorizing gun possession for self-
defense in the home and create serious threats to public safety, and 
that is the Ensign amendment.
  First, I support the Lieberman bill to bring representation to the 
District of Columbia, which seems to be in total keeping with what 
America is all about. I just say to my good friend from Oklahoma that 
representation, of course, involves dealing with taxation, but it 
involves many other things. To simply say the people of the District of 
Columbia don't have to pay any taxes but would be deprived of other 
rights in these Chambers, to me, is not what this bill is all about. It 
is a fine bill and a long overdue bill. It is a compromise, obviously. 
But it is one that moves us up the steps to gaining representation for 
the hundreds of thousands of the hard-working, taxpaying citizens of 
the District of Columbia.
  Now, of course, we are getting into the sort of season of irrelevant 
or controversial amendments. The Ensign amendment is certainly the 
second of those. Let me say this: The Heller case basically said there 
is an individual right to bear arms. I have some degree of sympathy 
with those who are in the pro-gun movement who say: Hey, so many 
Americans look to expand the first amendment, the fourth amendment, and 
the fifth and sixth amendments broadly, and then see the second 
amendment through a narrow pinhole, saying that it is only involving 
militias.
  If you believe in a broad and expansive Constitution, how is it that 
just one of them is perceived as narrow as possible? The Heller 
decision says it is not just militias that have a right to bear arms, 
or members of them, but individuals. But every Justice in that case, 
including Justice Scalia, made the opposite point. Just as those in the 
pro-gun movement have some justification in saying it is unfair to 
regard every amendment expansively except the second, those of us who 
believe more in gun control have the right to say that every amendment 
has a limitation.
  I am a strong believer in the first amendment, but I don't vote 
against libel laws or pornography laws. I certainly agree with, I 
believe Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said: You cannot falsely scream fire 
in a crowded theater. So those are limitations on the first amendment. 
I say to my friends in the pro-gun movement, if every other amendment 
has limitations, such as the first, fourth, fifth, sixth--and many on 
that side of the aisle are for more strict limitations on those 
amendments than we might be--how is it that the second amendment should 
not have any limitation?
  This proposal by Senator Ensign, my friend from Nevada, just shows 
the absurdity of that argument because there are things in this 
amendment that people would say defy common sense. It defies common 
sense to say someone who was voluntarily committed to a mental 
institution should be allowed to get a gun. It defies common sense to 
say someone who can't pass a sight test should have a right to a gun. 
It defies common sense to say a 10-year-old has a right to carry a 
shotgun. Yet in the defense of an overly expansive view of the second 
amendment, even conceding that it does apply to these individuals, my 
colleague from Nevada wishes to say those things. Again, how many 
people in America think if you fail a sight test, you should have a 
right to a gun? You might say some sight tests are faulty. Well, change 
the test. How many people would say someone who has been in a mental 
institution--voluntarily committed--should have the right to have a 
gun?
  This is about Washington, DC, but didn't we learn on the campus of 
Virginia Tech about the destructive link when mentally ill people are 
allowed to acquire guns? Wasn't the country in an uproar about that? 
Yet here, just a few short years later, as parents of those slain 
students are still mourning, we are about to say in the District of 
Columbia, a neighboring jurisdiction, if you not just have a mental 
illness, but it has to be pretty significant if you have been in a 
mental institution, you should have a right to have a gun.
  So all we are trying to do in opposing the Ensign amendment is invoke 
common sense. We are not getting into the discussion of whether the 
second amendment applies to individuals or just to those in militias. 
The Supreme Court has ruled on that. We are saying to our friends, just 
as they get up on the floor and advocate limitations on every other 
amendment, it is contradictory to say the second amendment should not 
have the most reasonable of limitations. There can't be a more 
reasonable restriction than the requirement that someone be required to 
see before they are allowed on the streets with a gun. It just doesn't 
make sense.
  One other point: My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to 
advocate for States rights in the broad balance of things. The States 
should have the ability to make these decisions. It is clear the 
District of Columbia, with its high crime rate, is not Nevada, Wyoming, 
or Nebraska. It is clear that firearms cause far more damage in the 
District of Columbia than they do in many other States. Why shouldn't 
the citizens of the District of Columbia have the right to determine, 
within constitutional confines, how those firearms may be used and who 
may have them? If you are for a State being able to decide so many 
other policies, and you don't like the encroaching Federal Government, 
why is it different for guns? I guess that is at the nub of the Ensign 
amendment, Mr. President.
  Somehow the sponsor of this amendment seems to believe that guns are 
different from everything else. The supporters of this amendment seem 
to believe that guns are different from everything else--limitations on 
every other amendment but not the second amendment. States rights is a 
good thing, but not when it comes to the States' or localities' view to 
regulate guns. Why is it different?
  If you want to cite the Heller case in defense of the individual 
right to bear arms, the Heller case also says--Justice Scalia--that 
restrictions on firearms that are reasonable, like bans on mentally ill 
people having access to guns, are constitutional and could be, and 
should be, decided by the citizens of Washington, DC.
  So this amendment, make no mistake about it, if passed, will lead to 
needless maiming and deaths. It is a serious amendment; it is not 
frivolous. It goes way beyond a political statement on an important 
bill. I hope my colleagues will rise to the occasion and reject it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent to offer 
that has been cleared on both sides. It is as follows:
  I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed 
to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 581, with the time 
until then equally divided and controlled between Senators Coburn and 
Lieberman or their designees, and that no amendment be in order to the 
Coburn amendment prior to the vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for a few minutes or

[[Page 5529]]

until Senator Coburn arrives, whichever event occurs earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 581

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to speak against Coburn amendment No. 581. I suppose that in 
part I should say that this amendment, sponsored as it is by an 
opponent of the underlying bill, accepts one of the major contentions 
we are making about the inequity of the current situation, which is 
that the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia, uniquely among 
all Americans, do not have voting representation in Congress. 
Nonetheless, they are taxed. I mean, this goes back to one of the early 
American Revolutionary slogans or principles, which is ``taxation 
without representation is tyranny.'' Our proposal, S. 160, the House 
Voting Rights Act, responds to that inequity by providing for voting 
representation in the House of Representatives for the District of 
Columbia. The Coburn amendment takes the opposite view and says that 
since the District does not have representation, well, by God, they 
should not be subject to taxation. So it would eliminate the Federal 
tax. This amendment would eliminate Federal taxes for DC residents. But 
that is not what DC residents are asking or we are offering on their 
behalf. I mean, the point of this is that residents of the District of 
Columbia do pay taxes. They pay higher per capita taxes to the Federal 
Government than any other entity but one. They are second highest, 
approximately $20 billion a year.
  Second, they not only have been conscripted into our military 
services, but since the Volunteer Army, they have volunteered. 
Residents of this District have not only served, but they have 
sacrificed their lives in the cause of American security and freedom.
  So the point is that there is something very, I hope, inspiring about 
this. The residents of the District of Columbia are not asking for any 
free ride. They want to be contributors to America in every way, 
including Federal taxation, but they also expect to be represented in 
the House of Representatives with a voting Representative. So on behalf 
of what I would describe as the patriotic citizens of the District of 
Columbia, I would say this amendment makes a point, but it is not a 
sound or fair one.
  I polled the members of my staff who live in the District of Columbia 
to ask how they would advise me to vote. I am pleased to say that they 
put principle ahead of personal interests and have urged me to vote 
against this amendment.
  I also say that if the amendment passed, we would have yet another 
enormous gap, and this gap we now have between Federal expenditures and 
revenues would grow even larger.
  So perhaps Senator Coburn is making a point, but it is not one that I 
believe we ought to adopt in an amendment; therefore, I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague from 
Connecticut a question or two about this. First of all, I think it is 
correct that all of us would like to see a way, a proper way--and we 
disagree about what that way is--for the residents of the District of 
Columbia to have a full franchise in terms of congressional 
representation. Failing that, I think Senator Coburn was simply saying 
they should not have to pay taxes.
  I was wondering myself about potentially a second-degree amendment 
that might give that option to other States or congressional districts 
on the theory that maybe this would be a two-fer for their 
constituents: they could vote to get rid of their Congressman and the 
income tax. I wonder if my colleague would have an idea about such an 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. To my friend from Arizona, I do have some ideas about 
such an amendment, but I guess it would be best to not verbalize them 
on the floor.
  Actually, we are at a time in our history, difficult as it is 
economically, where I think people are turning to the Federal 
Government and asking for not such a free ride but asking for help. 
There is a wonderful word; I do not know if it is in the dictionary; 
the word is ``deviltry.'' It is another way to say mischievous or 
mischief.
  I think our friend from Oklahoma may be up to a little deviltry with 
this amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from Connecticut is probably right about 
that. His point is to draw an important distinction, and that is that 
there are two elements to this, one being the taxation and the other 
the representation. The Senator from Connecticut rightly points to a 
very important episode in our history where the Founding Fathers tied 
those two together. There are other factors as well.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 581 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 91, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--7

     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Graham
     Kyl
     Wicker

                                NAYS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 581) was rejected.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the District of Columbia 
subcommittee, I rise today in support of S. 160, the District of 
Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2009. I vote to enfranchise thousands of 
District residents and to affirm my commitment to the fundamental right 
of all Americans to participate in our great democracy.
  Despite our Nation's founding principle of ``no taxation without 
representation,'' District of Columbia residents lack full 
representation in Congress. They have sent sons and daughters to war in 
defense of our country, and they have paid Federal taxes in support of 
our Government. Despite this, the distinguished Delegate from the 
District of Columbia lacks a vote on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Fair voting representation is fundamental to our democracy. I 
understand

[[Page 5530]]

the challenges facing the District's residents, and I sympathize with 
its trouble to attain voting representation in Congress. I also 
understand that this will be an ongoing discussion. I am sensitive to 
the concerns raised by my colleagues on the constitutionality of our 
actions.
  Legal scholars have testified before the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee that 
Congress does have the constitutional authority to extend a vote to a 
District Representative in the House. I believe this legislation is 
constitutional, but ultimately it is the role of the courts to decide.
  Our representative democracy is based on the principle that citizens 
of this country should have a say in the laws that govern this country. 
If citizens disagree with the laws, they have the power to vote for 
different representatives. By extending this core principle to the 
District of Columbia, I believe this bill would be a decisive step 
forward for the rights of DC residents.


                           Amendment No. 575

  Now I wish to address the pending Ensign amendment.
  Today, we are addressing voting rights. Now is not an appropriate 
time to cloud the debate with amendments on gun control. Last year, 
when this gun issue was brought up on the Senate floor before being 
considered by the committee, I joined 10 of my colleagues in a letter 
to the majority leader asking that the bill follow Senate procedures 
and be referred to committee before consideration on the floor.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee charged with the oversight of the 
District of Columbia, I am familiar with the debate on DC's gun 
policies. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision 
struck down the District of Columbia's gun ban. Since then, the DC City 
Council has taken necessary steps to comply with the Supreme Court's 
decision, including the passage of legislation to address issues raised 
by the ruling. I do not believe any congressional action is needed to 
help DC comply with the Heller decision, but, more importantly, this is 
not the appropriate time to consider and vote on this issue.
  I am not against gun ownership. I am for self-determination. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to give the District of Columbia and 
its citizens the opportunity to vote on and establish their own rules 
regarding gun control. It would be ironic if we were to with one hand 
finally give the people of the District voting representation but on 
the other hand take away their right to self-determination by forcing 
them to adopt a gun control policy on which they were unable to vote. 
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ensign amendment and 
all related amendments.
  I am proud to lend my support for the underlying bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of voting rights for the residents of the 
District of Columbia and to reject any amendment that would abridge 
those rights or is not germane to the issue at hand.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to 
propound which has been cleared on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
S. 160 on Thursday, February 26, the time until 10:30 a.m. be for 
debate with respect to the Kyl amendment No. 585, with the time equally 
divided and controlled between Senators Kyl and Lieberman or their 
designees, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote, and that at 10:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 160, the 
     District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Roland W. 
           Burris, Charles E. Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Bill Nelson, John F. Kerry, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jeff Bingaman, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Robert Menendez, Barbara Boxer.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum call be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to announce to everyone where 
we are in regard to this bill. We have been working through the 
amendments. Senator Lieberman has done a terrific job. I understand 
there will be a few more that may be offered. We expect to have votes 
throughout Thursday on pending amendments, and those that are offered 
on Thursday we are going to try to dispose of those tomorrow.
  I filed cloture today, but I hope it isn't necessary to have this 
cloture vote. However, if necessary, we will look forward to seeing if 
we can get a consent agreement to have the vote tomorrow; otherwise, we 
are going to wind up coming in Friday morning. I hope that is not 
necessary. This is a piece of legislation that has been talked about 
for a long time. We have had it on the Senate floor before. I think 
everyone has had the ability to offer whatever they believe is 
appropriate.
  I really express my appreciation for the cooperation of all Members, 
both Democrats and Republicans, but especially Senator Kyl, who did 
some very good work with Senator Lieberman this afternoon.

                          ____________________