Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senate Standing Rules XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedure of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On February 24, 2009, a majority of the members of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia adopted subcommittee Rules of Procedure. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, today I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ted Vogt of Senator Kyl's staff be given floor privileges during the duration of the debate on S. 160.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring Television Carriage in the Digital Age'' on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. committee on the judiciary

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Executive Nominations'' on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a business meeting and hearing.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Illinois, we actually used all our time. Senator Kyl graciously offered the Senator from Illinois the final 5 minutes of their time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. One minute of mine and four of his.