Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I would first ask unanimous consent, since the leaders have consumed--quite eloquently, I might add--15 minutes, that the hour run from this minute until 11:15 so that both sides have the full hour and that the cloture vote on S. 160 occur at 11:15 a.m.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, the Senator from the State of Connecticut has reached an age where he has mixed feelings when people acknowledge his birthday. But I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The alternative is not good. And I praise the Lord for every day. So I say thank you to Senator Reid for his kind words. Madam President, I rise today, and I am proud to do so along with my friend and colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, to urge all Senators to vote yes on the motion to proceed to this important legislation, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. This measure will give the citizens of our Nation's Capital full voting rights in the House of Representatives while effectively adding a fourth congressional seat for the State of Utah. In 2007, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 241 to 177 but fell 3 votes short of gaining cloture in the Senate. That failure to proceed here in the Senate, 2 years ago now, left the citizens of the District with the wholly unsought after distinction of being the only residents of a democratically ruled national capital in the world who have no say in how their nation is governed. It is really astounding. It is time to right this injustice, just as this Congress has historically righted so many other voting injustices that stretch back to the very founding of our Nation. I again thank my friend, Senator Orrin Hatch, for his principled and steadfast support of this bill. I believe his commitment to join in this historic change puts him up there with other great Republican Senators in recent history, such as Everett Dirksen, who worked with Lyndon Johnson to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1964. I also thank my colleagues, Senators Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, McCaskill, Mikulski, Sanders, and Voinovich, for joining as cosponsors. And, of course, I thank our leader, Senator Reid, for bringing this bill to the floor so swiftly in this 111th session. In the Senate, as we all know, one of the greatest gifts you can get is floor time, and the priority Senator Reid has placed on this measure speaks volumes of his commitments to fairness, justice, and, in this case, I think civil rights. Great thanks are due to District Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been a tireless champion of full representation for the citizens of the District. In her 10 terms in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton has valiantly represented the citizens of the District despite the fact-- and I say valiantly and effectively represented the citizens of the District--despite the fact that she has no vote on the House floor. Madam President, before I go on with the substance of the argument, I would like to ask that you let me know when I have consumed 14 minutes of my time so I can wind it up.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I wish to begin by taking my colleagues way back to November 22, 1800. Why that day? Because that was the day that could be considered the official dedication of Washington, DC, as our Nation's Capital: November 22, 1800. On that day, President John Adams, who had only recently moved into the still-unfinished Executive Mansion--it was not known as the White House back then--gave his State of the Union Address to the opening of the second session of the Sixth Congress, which was also moving into its offices in the unfinished Capitol Building. It is a sweet historical coincidence that today we begin discussion of this bill and tonight President Obama addresses the 111th session of Congress. President Adams opened his statement with a prayer that this new city ``be the residence of virtue and happiness [and] be forever held in veneration!'' That prayer has only, let's say, imperfectly been realized, but we aspire to it nonetheless. Adams then called on Congress to be wise stewards of this new city of then roughly 8,000 people. He said: You will consider it as the capital of a great nation advancing with unexampled rapidity in arts, in commerce, in wealth, and in population, and possessing within itself those energies and resources which, if not thrown away or lamentably misdirected, will secure to it a long course of prosperity and self-government. Beautiful words. The District did, of course, grow into a robust and thriving capital. Today, with nearly 600,000 residents, the District has a population roughly equal to or, in fact, greater than the States of Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. But, sadly, its residents have not been allowed to be full participants in our democracy, have not been allowed to have voting representation in the Congress of the United States. I want to speak for a moment about some of the fundamental injustices that result from that fact. The people of the District, of course, have been a direct target of a terrorist attack, but they have no vote on how the Federal Government provides for their homeland security. Men and women of the District have fought bravely in all our wars-- well, at least going back to the War of 1812--many, many giving their lives in defense of our country and its freedom. Yet they have no vote on the serious questions of war and peace, of funding conflicts, of supporting veterans when they return home. The courts have found that Congress has the authority to tax the citizens and businesses of the District. And do they pay taxes? In 2007, residents and businesses of the District paid over $20 billion in Federal taxes, which is more than 19 States, and at the second highest per capita rate of Federal taxation in the Nation. This should be embarrassing; that is, the fact that they still do not have voting representation here should be embarrassing to a nation whose Founders rallied around the Revolutionary slogan: Taxation without representation is tyranny. The District is the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally generated tax dollars. Yet DC has no vote in the appropriations process. Finally, if any American living in the 50 States--outside of the District of Columbia, I mean to say--were to move abroad, they would continue to be entitled to full voting representation in Congress-- voting by absentee in their last State of residence--regardless of how long they remain out of the country. The only way they can lose that full voting representation here in Congress is if they were either to renounce their citizenship or return to the United States and live in Washington, DC. Now, that just does not make sense. I am pleased to say that as I hear the arguments of the opponents of this bill, they seem to recognize and concur on the fundamental justice of our cause. Their primary argument against the bill is the question of constitutionality. Opponents cite article I, section 2, of the Constitution, which states that the House ``shall be composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several states.'' But I would urge my colleagues to read on because in article I, section 8, the Framers gave Congress authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' regarding the District. This so-called District clause grants Congress particularly sweeping powers with regard to legislation for the District of Columbia. In fact, our courts have upheld Congress's right to treat the District as a ``State'' for purposes of Federal taxation, Federal court jurisdiction, the right to a jury trial, and interstate commerce, among others. A broad range of constitutional experts, including very respected conservative constitutional experts such as Judge Ken Starr and former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh tell us that Congress's power to provide voting rights to the District lies within this District clause. If Congress has this power, there is no excuse for not deploying it to end the injustice facing the District's many residents with respect to voting representation in Congress. Madam President, let me give a little more history. There are some question marks lurking in the history of voting rights in the Federal District. In the first 11 years after Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the Capital in 1788 and 1789, respectively, residents of that ceded territory continued to vote in either Maryland or Virginia. They retained this right to vote through congressional legislation. But when the District was formally established in 1800, Congress was silent on the voting rights for citizens of our Capital City. Frankly, we do not know exactly why this came about. The rights were never explicitly withdrawn. They just never addressed them. What we all know is that our Nation has always moved to expand and protect the right to vote so that evermore voices could be heard and represented. It is time to do that again. The fact is, in 1800, when the Federal Government first took up residence in the District, as we all know, sadly, not all Americans could vote. Slaves, who made up nearly a sixth of our Nation's population, had no vote and outrageously were counted as a mere three-fifths of a person. Women could not vote, and neither could many men. Most States required you to be a landowner to vote, so many tradesmen, laborers, shop clerks, farmhands, and others who were vital to the Nation's growing economy were denied the franchise. The Senators of 1800 were chosen by State legislatures, not by popular vote. President Adams, in fact, was about to be defeated in 1800 by his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, in an election where most of the members of the electoral college were also chosen by State legislatures, not popular vote. Well, we have, over the decades and centuries since 1800, righted those wrongs. As I heard someone once say: American democracy is on a journey without a final destination. We keep struggling and, thankfully, achieving, generation after generation, the rights that are proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. So we move beyond those barriers to voting through legislation, constitutional amendments, and court decisions. And our democracy is, of course, stronger for it. State legislatures began expanding voter rolls beyond just landowners and also provided for the direct election of Presidential electors. Let me just read from----

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. The Supreme Court, in Wesberry v. Sanders, in 1964, ruled that House districts had to be approximately equal in population. That was the so- called ``one man, one vote.'' Again, in each of these cases, our Nation has always had the goal of expanding and protecting the right to vote. And that is what we seek to do today. I am going to yield now to Senator Hatch, with whom I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. Senator Hatch in this case is not just the distinguished and effective and honorable and intelligent Senator from Utah, he has written one of the great law journal articles which asserts and I think clearly establishes the constitutionality of what we are trying to do today. So I thank the Chair and I yield the floor to my friend from Utah.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, that Senator Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, is on his way to speak for 5 minutes. Senator Kyl has raised some important constitutional questions. I spoke to them briefly in my opening statement. Senator Hatch spoke at more length. It will undoubtedly consume a great deal of discussion, assuming we invoke cloture when we vote in approximately 15 minutes. I will wait to respond until then and remind my colleagues, of course, that on the constitutional question, I think it is at least arguable--I believe it is more than arguable. I believe the proposal before the Senate today is clearly constitutional and has been acknowledged as such by a wide array of experts--left, center, right--but that will be determined by the Chamber. I remind my colleagues what we are voting on today is whether we are going to take up this bill. The basic reality is that a grave injustice has been done to the residents of this District. Mr. President, 600,000 Americans do not have voting representation in Congress just because they happen to live in our Nation's Capital, the only democracy in the world where that is so. It is an embarrassment. I think my friends who oppose this bill agree; we just disagree on the constitutionality of this proposal. I ask everyone, please vote for cloture. Let's at least give the residents of the District their day in the Senate and hopefully we will go on to enact this legislation. But this bill certainly at least deserves to be debated. I reserve the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend for his generosity.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may, before the vote goes off, I simply wish to note that in addition to the names I indicated in my opening statement who are cosponsors of S. 160, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and Senator Schumer of New York have also joined. And on behalf of my colleagues, I would note the presence in the Chamber and welcome the Honorable Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty, and the honorable and eloquent and aggrieved Delegate from the District, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

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' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations adopted subcommittee rules of procedure. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the rules of procedure of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I do not have much time, so I cannot take the liberty I would normally take to build on the metaphor offered by my dear friend from Kansas about this frog in the hot water. But I will say briefly that I see this legislation, this conference report, as essentially being a prod to the American economy, which is kind of like a lethargic frog right now, not moving very far, and when this bill passes and is signed by President Obama, that American frog is going to go jumping positively all over the landscape. Now, having gotten that out of my system, may I say that you have to judge this bill not just on its face or as a matter of theory but in reality, in the context of the world we live in now. The fact is, without belaboring it, because we are living it, we are going through in this country the most severe economic emergency since the depression of the 1930s, and it is happening in a way that is unprecedented. It is not like the 1930s. So we are working very hard to figure out a way to get us out of it. What is the reality? Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month, people laid off, hundreds of people every month; the market going down; the value of people's homes dropping more than $4 trillion in the last year; the stock market dropping somewhere around $8 trillion; confidence sapped in our economy; no credit from the banks. So this is not a perfect piece of legislation. I do not believe I have ever seen one in my 20 years in the Senate. But this is a very strong piece of legislation. I will say, bottom line, I am confident that passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is before us from the conference committee, will be the turnaround of the American economy. It will stop the slide of our economy. It will protect and create millions of jobs. It is that strong and that urgent. I said from the beginning that I thought this so-called stimulus package should be as big and clean and quick as possible. Big because the problem is so big that the economists I have talked to--left, right, center--say: Don't do what Japan did when it, through a similar crisis, kind of gave a little, it did not work, and gave a little more. Give it a big investment. I think this bill does that. Clean. Yes, there was some stuff in it at the beginning that, in my opinion, was not as directly related to job creation or economic recovery as it could have been, should have been. That is why I worked with the bipartisan group of centrists, and I think we ended up cutting out $110 billion, a lot of programs. The bill is as clean as possible, as it could be. Quick. That is most important. You cannot legislate in the middle of an emergency in a way that is as lethargic as that frog I described in the beginning. The American people need help. This bill will provide them help. I want to make two quick points. There is a lot of spending in this bill, and some people are rightfully worried about whether we can spend this much money this quickly and do it without waste or fraud. I want to say on behalf of Senator Collins, who is the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and myself, we have responsibility for the oversight of Government spending generally. We take that seriously. We intend to oversee aggressively the carrying out of this economic stimulus package. We are going to begin with a hearing in our committee on March 5 to examine how the Federal Government will account for the billions of dollars that will be spent over the next 2 years, with a focus on ensuring that measures are taken to prevent cost overruns, that strict oversight of contractor performance is in place, that grant conditions are met, and that fraud is promptly prosecuted. Speed in distributing money, as I said, is critically important, but we cannot repeat the kinds of mistakes that occurred in support of Iraqi reconstruction projects or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina where money rushed out the door with little accountability and too many billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted. This bill, on its face, gets off to a good start in that direction. It includes $200 million in additional funding for our inspectors general to hire experienced auditors and investigators to police the spending under this program. It creates a Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, headed by a Presidential appointee and composed of at least 10 inspectors general from the departments and agencies that have jurisdiction over the recovery package. The bill adds protections for whistleblowers who work for State or local governments or private contractors, who generally have no protection against retaliation, if they disclose waste or fraud in the spending of these stimulus funds. A special Web site called recovery.gov will provide transparency by posting information about spending, including grants, contracts, and all oversight activities, so that any American will be able to report on waste, fraud, or abuse when they see it. But our committee is going to police this, working with this board, and stick with it to do our best to make sure every taxpayer dollar is spent efficiently. Final point: I cosponsored, with Senator Isakson, a proposal to create a home buyer tax credit of $15,000 to help stimulate the home- buying sector of our economy, raise home values, along with the $50 billion the Secretary of the Treasury has to use to prevent foreclosures and modify delinquent mortgages. Unfortunately, the conference committee determined that our proposal was too expensive to fund. It ended up coming in at over $35 billion. But there was a good compromise to create an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit, with no recapture--in other words, you do not have to pay it back--and it can be used until the end of this year, December 1, 2009. As I said, it is raised to $8,000. This is no small incentive. In fact, the estimates are that this credit will cost us $6.6 billion. But what that means is, I think hundreds of thousands of people who want to buy a home will get this special incentive--an $8,000 tax credit--to buy that home. That will raise the values of homes generally and get this economy of ours moving again. Bottom line, we are in an emergency. This bill is as big and unprecedented as the emergency. As I said before, I believe we will look back at the passage of this bill and say: This is where the American economy began to turn around and work its way out of the great recession of 2008 and 2009. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 111th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the committee rules printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend, the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I thank him for his leadership and, frankly, for his strength of character and patience throughout the long journey we have taken as a Chamber on this bill. When we get it done--and I think we need to get it done quickly--it will be in no small measure because of his steadfastness in this time of national need. Mr. President, one of the favorite metaphors that is used in time of crisis is of a burning house. I wish I could find a different metaphor because that one is used so frequently. But, frankly, I can't find one that better expresses what I would like to express in a few moments this afternoon. The fact is obvious: America's economic house is burning. A lot of people are being hurt--600,000 people unemployed last month, the second month in a row that went over a half million people losing their jobs. From one report I heard, it was the largest number of people losing jobs in 1 month in America in 35 years. I could go on with a lot of statistics, but we don't need them. We have heard them in the debate before. America's economic house is on fire. But I want to extend the metaphor to us, those who are privileged to serve in the Senate. We are the firefighters, if you will. And I fear there is a danger that what may be happening is, while the house is burning, and we are on our way to try to put out the fire, we have stopped the truck because we are arguing over what is the best way to get to the fire most quickly. In the meantime, we are leaving the house burning and more people are being hurt. Some people have suggested we go back to the beginning and start again or that we wait, as my friend from Tennessee just said, until the administration comes in with all its ideas for all of the responses to the economic crisis we are in before we act on this one. That simply cannot happen because the need and the urgency of the need is too great. It is felt in individual lives, it is felt in macroeconomic statistics, it is felt in the reports we hear, one after the other, of great American businesses doing worse than they did last year and terribly worse than they did 2 years ago. It is felt in the growing signs of a deep global recession. It is clear that demand from the private and personal sector has dropped dramatically. Economists estimate about a $1 trillion hole in our economy. The proposal President Obama has made comes to us from the House. It is not all perfect, believe me, as I will say in a moment, but it is $800 billion over 2 years. In fact, it is $800 billion over more than 2 years. That means it is less than $400 billion the Government is injecting into the economy now, because the private sector will not, to try to kick-start the economy and protect people's jobs and create new ones. That $400 billion into an economy that is $1 trillion short is simply necessary and it is urgently necessary. Here we are. H.R. 1 is before us. It is larger than some people want it to be. It contains items in it that do not appear, on first look, to be directly related to economic recovery, stimulating the economy. I preferred originally--I said I thought the stimulus bill should be big, as big as the problem is; it should be as clean as possible; that is, it would be mostly job creating--public works, that kind of investment--and then it should be quick because the house is on fire and every day we do not do anything, more people suffer and it will be harder to get out of it. That is the challenge we have. Yet we, as the firefighters, seem to be falling into some old habits, where we are argue about how to get to the fire when the house keeps burning. In the midst of this, two of our colleagues, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Susan Collins of Maine, have come together to form a bipartisan group, a gang--that gives a good name to the term gang--whatever you want to call them, moderates, centrists, Independents--basically a bipartisan group that wants to find common ground so we can get the 60 votes we need to pass this so we can get to the fire and help put it out so more Americans do not suffer. As part of this--and I have been part of this group--we have worked well together and we have been very open and honest with one another. We have talked about cuts--I have--in programs that I support deeply. But I have two things in mind here. One is the urgency of the moment. I am going to have to yield on some things I wish to see in that bill to make sure we get something done quickly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two? It is a deal. See, that is in the spirit of compromise, in this case not bipartisan.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to do it. Tough decisions had to be made by this bipartisan group. Why did we make them? One, because the urgency is to get to 60. I wish we could get to 80 but it doesn't seem to be in the offing so I am going to do everything I can to get to 60 and hopefully a little over so we can get help to the American economy, American businesses, the American people. Second, this is not the last appropriations bill. We have an omnibus bill coming. We have the regular appropriations process. We can come back and find other ways to deal with some of the real needs that will not get quite as much as they get now in H.R. 1, to achieve results quickly. That is my appeal to my colleagues. Let's not get dug in. This is not a perfect bill, but it clearly is a very good bill and, most important of all, it is a proposal that will pump money into the American economy, into the pockets of working Americans and businesses throughout this country, that will kick-start the economy, protect millions of jobs, and create millions of other jobs. There is nothing more important than doing that right now. Let's get together, let's support the bipartisan effort, let's shoot for 80 but get over 60 so we can get to the fire together and put it out. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friends, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for their eloquent comments. I thank them for their leadership. I thank them for their courage. I am honored to be in their presence. All of America is indebted to them for what their leadership, on behalf of this unifying amendment, will mean to the people of our country. Tonight the Senate is passing a test. It is not as hard a test as the test millions of Americans are facing every day in this terrible economic crisis our country is going through. It is not as hard as the test facing the families whose mothers and fathers have lost their jobs or whose children cannot afford to go to college or whose employers cannot afford to give them the health care benefits they have had. I could go on and on. It is the American people who, in the midst of this economic crisis, greater than any we have faced since the Great Depression, are facing the most serious test every day. But their test now confronts the Senate, the House, this Congress, the President, our Government with another test. Are we able to come together and give the American people, the American economy, American businesses, American workers, the help that they can get from nowhere else, to get this economy of ours moving again, to protect jobs and to create jobs. The help is not going to come from the private sector; it is not there. It is not going to come from the personal consumption that normally drives 70 percent of our gross domestic product; it is not there. You do not need to be an economist to understand that. People see it in their own lives: lost jobs, fear that their jobs will be next, an anxiety so deep they will not buy what they need, businesses that are constantly laying off people. It has been referred to, but here it is today, 600,000 Americans lost their job last month, January of this year. So the only place help can come from for this economy now is the Federal Government. The question is, Would we rise to the test? I think tonight, thanks to some very strong leadership from Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, some really courageous work by the two of them, and Senator Specter and others in both parties, we are going to show tonight that the U.S. Government passes the test. As a result, we will then help the American people pass the test, restore their hope, protect their jobs, create new jobs, give them more money in their pockets as their payroll taxes go down. This journey we have been on this week, very intense, very emotional, very difficult, was never about winning or losing, it was about governing. Would we be able to find common ground to get 60 votes to pass this legislation so critically needed by the American people. Tonight we are going to do it. It was not easy, but we are going to do it, and it should give us all in this Chamber hope as we go on to confront the next problems and challenges we will face: health care reform, climate change, entitlement reform to secure the retirement of the American people in future years. The bill that came to the floor, as has been said, was a very strong and good-faith effort. But many of us on both sides of the aisle, both parties, even a couple of Independents, felt there were some things in it that though very well intended, could not be justified as part of an economic stimulus package. On another level, what was clear as a result is that the proposal, as it came to the floor, simply did not have the 60 votes it needs to get adopted. You cannot get anything done, I was told a long time ago when I went into Connecticut politics, by a wise and seasoned politician: You cannot get anything done for the people who were good enough to send you to serve unless you pass legislation. It is great to give a beautiful speech, but a beautiful speech doesn't protect anybody's job. It doesn't put more money into the paycheck. It doesn't provide health care or hope. In what looked like another moment of failure, inability to lead, inability to govern, inability to help the people of our country who are suffering now as they haven't suffered for a long time, a gang was formed. I must say, as a teenager I never got to join a gang. The Senate has given me an unexpected opportunity to join some good gangs. It shows if you live long enough, as the old saying goes, you experience anything. This wasn't a gang of 14. This was a gang of people who wanted to get the economy moving again--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But it took two people with the guts to step forward and form it, lead it: Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Susan Collins of Maine. A lot of others of us came together. We worked very hard. We worked openly. We worked honestly. We had a common goal, as has been said; $110 billion has been cut out of this program. Our Republican colleagues offered an amendment that would have cut the original program down to $411 billion. Senator Collins, in our meetings with one another, came in with a proposal of $620 billion. The bill, as it came to the floor, was $885 billion. We compromised. That is always the way anything gets done in an American legislative body because we represent this extraordinarily diverse country. We come with different philosophies, different backgrounds, different constituencies. If you try to get everything you want, you won't get anything for anybody who was good enough to send you here to represent them. So through some steadfast, patient, creative leadership from Senator Nelson and Senator Collins, we moved forward and, ultimately, today have come up with this agreement. This actually cuts over 20 percent of the money recommended for spending by the Appropriations Committee, but it comes very close to the $800 billion President Obama has quite rightly said this country needs to make this stimulus work. We have a $1 trillion gap in our economy this year. This $780 billion will be spent over 2 years. Frankly, we need that, and probably more, to get the economy going in the way we want it to be going. I wish to say a special word of thanks and admiration for Senator Collins and Senator Specter. They differed from the majority of the members of their party. I have been in that position. It is no fun. It is lonely. It is not that anybody is right--we think we are right--it is just that people come to a different decision about what the national interest requires. Both of our colleagues and others on the Republican side have put what they think to be the national interest ahead of party interest. I think what we are doing here tonight will be a tremendous help to the people of this country. A lot of our colleagues on the Democratic side are accepting less than they thought was necessary to do the job. They are compromising too. They are compromising because they want to get something done, and they know, as they watch the economic indicators and the human suffering changing every day, getting worse and worse every day, that it is urgent we do something now. So we come together tonight to prove we are capable of governing, we are capable of leading, we are capable of reaching across party lines to get things done when the American people need it most. I am proud to be here. I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am encouraged that what we have done tonight will set an example for what we can do for the rest of this session. The leaders of the gangs may change. The Members may come and go. But we only get things done here if we build bridges across the aisle. That is what we are celebrating tonight. Ultimately, as I said, there were no winners or losers. This is not about winning or losing. There is a winner tonight. It is the American people. They deserve it. The leader set up this time for debate. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that this period of time be for debate only.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I rise to speak in favor of the Feingold-McCain amendment. I heard my friend from Wisconsin refer to this as an amendment with tripartisan support. Hearing that, I rushed to the floor to validate his description of it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is quite appropriate that this amendment is being offered on this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I support this act strongly. It is critically important. It is gravely important we adopt this legislation, and adopt it soon, to kick start our economy, to start creating and protecting jobs again. But there is an awful lot of money in this measure that has to be spent quickly. There are oversight actions and institutions that have been made part of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But it gives us an opportunity to deal directly with what has become known as the earmark problem or the earmark crisis or the earmark scandal to some. I support this amendment and have cosponsored it because it does not end what has begun to be described as earmarks. It reforms the process. It creates a legislative vehicle for any 1 of 100 of us to stand and say: Hey, wait a second. What is this appropriation without authorization that has been put into this bill and to essentially demand, by raising a point of order, that 60 of the 100 of us agree that it is worth spending taxpayers' money on this particular appropriation. This is necessary because we have taken a legitimate constitutionally created function of Congress--the power to appropriate--and we have misused it in too many cases that it now requires us to create a process to basically say, at times when it is justified: Stop. Stop this particular appropriation, this particular earmark. When I talk about a constitutionally ordained process, I am talking about the fact that the Constitution gives Congress, uniquely, the power to appropriate public funds. It is simply a matter of record, which my colleagues from Wisconsin and Arizona have made more than clear this morning again, that the power we have been given to appropriate has, in some cases, been misused in what now are called earmarks. So we need to create this checkpoint to say: No, let's demand 60 votes for this one. The amendment would also require all recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts the recipient has expended on registered lobbyists. This is a way also to create some transparency--the sunlight that Justice Brandeis, I believe it was, said was the best disinfectant for bad behavior in Government. So I am proud to be a cosponsor. I hope we take this moment, as we appropriate necessary funding--hundreds of billions of dollars--to say that on all other appropriations bills coming along, every Member of this Senate will have the opportunity to ask something very reasonable and sensible: If they doubt the necessity, the validity of a particular appropriations earmark, that 60 of us have to say: No, we think it is OK. Amendment No. 106 Madam President, I am not sure, at this point, what the regular order is. I also have come to the floor to speak about an amendment the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and I have offered. If it is appropriate, now I would speak for a few minutes on it. If not, I will wait until that amendment comes up.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I promise my colleagues I will be brief. Senator Isakson and I have offered an amendment which will create a $15,000 tax credit for any purchaser of a home within a year after the date of enactment. There is no recapture clause for that. We do so to offer one of what we hope will be a series of measures to revive the housing market and housing values as a critical part of reviving our economy and creating jobs. Very briefly, it was the subprime mortgage scandal, the bubble in housing prices, the collapse of housing prices, that has been at the heart of the follow-on collapse in our financial institutions and the collapse in confidence, particularly, the confidence of the American consumer, whose demand, whose consumption, drives 70 percent of the American economy. So bottom line: I saw a statistic from a reputable economist about a week ago, 2 weeks ago now, that estimated in the last year there had been a loss of $4 trillion in the value of real estate in our country-- $4 trillion. We are talking about $4 trillion of value in houses, which for most Americans--middle-income, lower middle, and lower income--who could afford to own a house, was the major asset they had, the major asset of value, the major source within them for which they had economic confidence because it was worth something beyond what the mortgage was. That is part of what gave them the confidence then to go out and consume, to drive our economy forward. The collapse of housing values, the dramatic drop in activity-- housing purchases and sales--is at the heart of the collapse in confidence and the spiraling downward of our economy today, and we simply will not get our economy going again unless we get that moving. This credit Senator Isakson and I are proposing--we are not saying is going to solve all the problems. There has to be action in other ways. There has to be action through the Treasury Department in the second tranche of the so-called TARP money to help people stay in their homes, particularly those who are in homes that are now worth less than the mortgage they have. There has to be action to try to lower interest rates and so on. But we think this action will really kick start the housing market by giving a $15,000 tax credit, refundable, to anybody who buys a house within a year of the date of enactment. That will drive sales. As you watch the interest rates coming down--and interest rates are at a low of many years, when you can get a mortgage--and then with the action through the Treasury Department to increase liquidity, and you add on a $15,000 tax credit, I think people are going to go out and buy homes. That is going to begin to raise the value of homes. If a home sells on the street, everybody else's house goes up in value. Then people's sense of their own wealth, their own economic well-being, is going to increase, and I think it will give them the confidence to go out and begin to consume. In 2008, I can tell you, Connecticut's housing market experienced its sharpest decline in home sales and median home prices in 20 years. Single family home sales fell nearly 24 percent. This proposal Senator Isakson and I are making obviously costs some money. But compared to other proposals that have been made, this one will pay a return on the dollar. Although we are waiting for a final estimate, I would anticipate the amendment could cost as much as $20 billion. However, we have had economic estimates from credible economists who have looked at the amendment Senator Isakson and I are offering and said they believe it could lead to as many as 1.1 million home purchases within this year, that it would generate 539,000 new jobs, mostly in construction, and $14 billion in Federal tax revenues. So that is a tremendous return on what this will cost the Treasury. Senator Isakson will show it in his comments, because we have talked about this--this has been tried once before in a terrible housing crisis in the 1970s and worked very well. I am proud to stand with my friend from Georgia. This is a bipartisan amendment; perhaps I should say tripartisan. It deserves to have tripartisan and, I would hope, unanimous support as something that has been proven in the past and will work again today to get people's home values rising, because there will be the demand to buy houses in America once again. I thank the Chair, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to address comments made by my colleagues regarding several measures for the Department of Homeland Security in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: the $248 million provided for the construction of a consolidated headquarters, and the $500 million provided to fund construction and renovation of fire stations. These are both projects that will save lives, save money, and most importantly for this bill, create jobs. The Senator from South Carolina has included funding for the DHS headquarters project among a list of what he refers to as ``cats and dogs'' which he is intent on stripping from the bill. But the DHS consolidation project is far more important to our Nation than those comments might suggest. DHS is responsible for leading a unified, national effort to secure the United States, yet the Department does not have all the necessary tools to do so, including an adequate headquarters. DHS is currently spread throughout more than 70 buildings located on 40 sites across the national capital region making communication, coordination, and cooperation among DHS components a significant challenge. Moreover, the existing space housing the Office of the Secretary, Intelligence, and other key functions is grossly inadequate, contributes to recruitment and morale problems, and is simply not befitting a cabinet agency critical to Americans' security. Some of my colleagues have argued that funding this important homeland security project is not appropriate in the stimulus bill. I respectfully disagree. The DHS headquarters project will create jobs. The final environmental impact statement for the headquarters plan found that the overall project would create direct employment opportunities for over 32,000 people in the national capital region. Put another way, the economy would gain payroll earnings of approximately $1.2 billion during construction and renovation of the St. Elizabeths West Campus plus approximately $3.8 billion in additional expenditures during the construction phases. Funding this project through the stimulus will also expedite the creation of these jobs. DHS estimates that the funding included in this bill will allow the headquarters project to be completed 12 months earlier than previously planned. This means funding will be spent into the local economy earlier creating real jobs and stimulating economic growth in DC, Maryland, and Virginia when it is most needed. This bill will also save money. Accelerating the project will reduce the cost of the overall headquarters project by $18 million. Moreover, the Federal Government will be able to negotiate better prices with contractors because they can sign larger contracts up front which will result in additional cost savings. In short, this project creates a win-win situation by creating jobs today and saving money for the taxpayer in the long run. And, most importantly, by fostering a more efficient and effective Department of Homeland Security, it will make our country safer. I would also like to take a moment to address the mischaracterization by some of my colleagues and members of the media that this money will only be spent on furniture. The $248 million allocated to DHS will fund construction, IT infrastructure, security, and a host of other activities associated with constructing a building. Furniture is one allowable use of the funding, however less than 7 percent of the total funding proposed for the headquarters in this bill would be allocated towards furniture. And I would also like to address the comments of my colleague from Oklahoma regarding the value and the appropriateness of providing funds for the construction of fire stations. I would argue that as an issue of security, safety, and of job creation, there is nothing more valuable or appropriate. The Nation's fire houses are in dire need of attention. In cities and towns across America, they are too few in number, aging, and crumbling, and as a result, they are inadequate to provide the necessary protection to families and communities. The U.S. Fire Administration--a part of the Department of Homeland Security--has provided a grim picture in its second needs assessment of the U.S. Fire Services. Consider the following: 60 to 75 percent of fire departments have too few stations to provide an optimal response; 36 percent of fire stations in the United States are over 40 years old; 54 percent of fire stations lack backup power; and 72 percent of fire stations are not equipped for exhaust emission control. These figures show that our country's fire stations are just not able to ensure that firefighters can serve the needs of their communities with the adequate safety and effectiveness. These infrastructure problems are spread across the country, in communities large and small. Permit me to address the need for building more fire stations, from the ground up, to ensure that there are enough to protect the public. Without an adequate number of fire stations, the response time of firefighters may increase significantly in incidents where every moment counts. A fire doubles in size every 60 seconds. A heart attack victim suffers irreversible brain damage after four minutes. So imagine the impact on a neighborhood where the fire houses are spread too far apart--imagine the increase in risk of death, injury, and property damage. This is a risk we cannot afford to take. This funding, which would be distributed by the Department of Homeland Security to the communities with the greatest need, could be applied immediately to projects in need of attention right now. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has identified over 100 fire station construction or renovation projects that are ``Ready to Go,'' so thousands of jobs would be created immediately with this $500 million. This is funding that we cannot afford to trim from this bill--both for the jobs it creates, and the safety and security it will provide for our communities. I encourage my colleagues to look at the facts. These projects, which are essential to the security of our Nation and our communities, will also create jobs and stimulate the economy. It is not wasteful spending and belongs in the stimulus bill we are considering today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep gratitude to Secretary Michael Chertoff for the service he has given his country over the past 4 years as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Chertoff came to the job in February 2005, upon the retirement of the Department's first leader, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, with an impressive record of public service as a Federal judge, an assistant attorney general, and a prosecutor. He leaves office in the next few days with even greater distinction for shepherding the Department through the growing pains of, shall we say, its toddler years, making great strides to turn the amalgam of 22 agencies--all with different cultures and missions--and 200,000 employees into a single, focused Department. His commitment to the security of the American people remains unswerving, for which he deserves the Nation's appreciation. Leading the Department of Homeland Security is one of Washington's toughest jobs and probably one of the most thankless. The Department of Homeland Security carries with it the awesome responsibility for safeguarding the Nation against terrorist attacks and natural disasters. It incorporates many different agencies, with missions critical to the American people, ranging from emergency management; to immigration and border security; to air, rail, and highway travel security; cybersecurity; science and technology; biological and chemical security; and infrastructure protection. Unfortunately, the Secretary gets no credit for terrorist attacks that have been averted and, of course, would be blamed if an attack were to occur. Let me say that I believe our country is safer than it was when Secretary Chertoff began his tenure at the Department, and it is in part due to his attentive and forceful leadership--and the dedicated service of the men and women he had led--that the country has been spared from another terrorist attack. His contribution toward efforts to disrupt the plot to destroy airplanes en route from Great Britain to the United States in August 2006 is especially noteworthy. Secretary Chertoff brought a rigorous, clear-eyed intensity to the Department's many challenges. He has worked hard to set priorities for the Department and lay out a roadmap to achieve goals. While we in Congress have not agreed with all of his decisions, he has spoken clearly about his goals and been honest with us and the American people about the difficult tradeoffs involved in many aspects of homeland security. Obviously, the Department is still a work in progress with many challenges ahead. But the Secretary has made an indelible mark in a number of areas. I will mention just a few that are of deep importance to me. First, I would note that it has been under Secretary Chertoff that the serious work of protecting the government's information technology infrastructure began. Our enemies and economic competitors are highly skilled at using computer systems to try to gain advantage over us. Secretary Chertoff realized this, took the threat seriously, and moved to secure government networks in a coordinated, comprehensive way through the creation of the comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative, CNCI. CNCI is still in its nascent stages and many other agencies have responsibility for its success, but I am pleased the Secretary moved with resolve to improve our defenses against cyberintruders. Under Secretary Chertoff's leadership, DHS has made important strides in improving its financial management. DHS has taken important steps toward improving its grades from OMB on information security, and, I am told OMB's latest data will show that the morale of the Department's employees has definitely improved. To his credit, Secretary Chertoff learned from his Department's mistakes responding to Hurricane Katrina and set to work to recreate FEMA, and enable it to leverage DHS' many other significant resources, so that it can become, for the first time in its history, an emergency management agency capable of responding to a catastrophic disaster. The fact is that today, FEMA is not the same agency it was in 2005. That's because the Secretary has been an instrumental ally in implementing legislation I was honored to draft with my colleague on the committee, Senator Collins, to transform FEMA into a stronger, more accountable, and more coordinated agency. It is now elevated to a special status within DHS--like the Coast Guard--so that its authorities and assets cannot be changed without congressional approval and its administrator is the President's principle adviser in an emergency. Key FEMA officials now are required to have relevant emergency management experience; its preparedness duties are united with its response functions so that the same people who prepare for emergencies also respond to them. FEMA now has responsibility for dispensing $2 billion in homeland security grants and its 10 regional offices are getting stronger by the day. To the Secretary, I would say that the Department's much improved internal coordination and coordination with State and local officials during the 2008 hurricane season attests to the improvements that have been made. There are many other areas in which Secretary Chertoff's leadership has been instrumental, including border and port security, chemical security, information-sharing, and developing the architecture to protect the nation of terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. And, of course, all Americans who travel by air have been made safer by the Secretary's focus on improving the Transportation Security Administration. I cannot talk about all of the Secretary's accomplishments today. But I would be negligent if I did not thank him for his assistance in achieving a goal that has a very low national profile, but which has significant ramifications for the 200,000 employees at the Department. I am talking about efforts to consolidate most of the Department's headquarters under one roof at St. Elizabeths Hospital campus in southeast Washington. The Department's headquarters is spread throughout more than 70 buildings across the Washington area, making communication, coordination, and cooperation between its component parts a real challenge. A unified headquarters would allow employees to work more efficiently and interactively and is a critical cornerstone of the efforts to improve management and integration at the Department. I am pleased the National Capital Planning Commission recently approved a master plan for a consolidated headquarters at St. Es. I expect construction to begin later this year, And I thank Secretary Chertoff for his leadership in this effort. In the short time since it was created in 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has become an equal among the most important government agencies responsible for our national security, such as the Department of Defense. Secretary Ridge launched the process and admirably led the Department through the initial challenge of merging scores of agencies and programs--the largest government reorganization in half a century. Secretary Chertoff has moved the Department to the next level, where it now has a focused, long-term strategy clarifying the Department's priorities, roles, and responsibilities, as well as those of other key Federal, State, and local partners. He has worked tirelessly to ensure an integrated and overarching vision of how the government will tackle its role of defending the homeland. We have much work ahead to transform the Department into a mature agency whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But we have made steady progress. The threat of natural disasters is ongoing and the threat of terrorism remains with us. As I have often said, these are not ordinary times. They demand extraordinary commitment from those who have chosen public service. Secretary Chertoff has given our country his extraordinary commitment, and he will be well and gratefully remembered for it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise simply to say a few words of personal tribute to our dear friend, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, who has just spoken so beautifully. We are going to miss this man. He has only been here 4 years, but he has made an extraordinary contribution to the Senate and to our country. I first got to know Ken Salazar in 2000 when I had the honor to be the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party and went to Colorado. I could see at the first meeting at which I met him--I had an instantaneous reaction to him--that this was a person of strength, of warmth, of character, of purpose. Every day I have known Senator Salazar since then has only deepened those feelings about him. You can feel all his strength and all of his purpose and all of his faith and all of his passion and all of his humility as you listen to this final statement he just made on the Senate floor. I love the fact that one of the last items Senator Salazar asked was unanimous consent to print in the Record his family genealogy because it speaks not only to his extraordinary history and greatness but to the greatness of our country. It is, obviously, a fact that the Hispanic-American population has grown and is growing significantly in our country. I have been with Ken on a few occasions, I say to Senator Reid, when people have said: You are Mexican-American. When did your family come to this country? And they are expecting to hear 20 years ago, 50 years ago, maybe 90 years ago. And Ken will say with that quiet strength: My family came here in the 16th century. The 16th century, before the Pilgrims came. It reminds us of a history which, as Senator Salazar said, was for a long time suppressed. But the Hispanic, Mexican-American contribution to America is long, it is deep, it is proud, it is strong, and it will continue to grow. Senator Salazar was raised in a tradition, like so many of us, where we were told by our parents that to be a good American, you don't have to assimilate or homogenize. You contribute to our country by being who you are and what you are. In the diversity of this great country, we gain more strength. That has certainly been true of the Mexican- American community, and it is particularly true of this great American. Senator Salazar talked about his faith, about his family, about the love of country he learned from his parents. This man is, in so many ways, the quintessential American. He brings this unique cultural heritage of his roots, family roots, way back in Mexico, but he combines those with the values we associate with the American West, the love of the land, individualism, a sense of honor, a sense of confidence that has become so much a part of the American character. And he added to that, which is where it all begins, as he believes and I believe and most of us believe, with faith, that we are here for a purpose, that our existence here is not an accident, and that we have a series of values that come from our faith which are expressed in the founding American documents and lead us forward. Senator Salazar served our Nation brilliantly in this 4 years he has been in the Senate. What a thrill to have met Ken in 2000 and to have played some small part in having him come here and then to have him as a colleague--as Senator Reid said so well, to watch the role he has played. He is a doer. He did not come to make speeches. He makes a very good speech, as we just heard. He came to get things done for the people of Colorado and for the people of America, and he has done that over and over again. In the so-called nuclear option, I always viewed it as the integrity of the Supreme Court selection process. Senator Reid referred to my own recent situation. Senator Salazar came forward, a dear friend, incredible across the entire Senate--in this case, the Senate Democratic caucus--and just on my behalf and on behalf of what he thought was right, created a path forward that made me feel great--I can say that personally--but I hope also and I believe facilitated a path forward and reconciliation within the Democratic caucus. Obviously, it would not have happened without Senator Reid. That was extremely constructive. It was a tough decision for Senator Salazar to leave the Senate. It is a tough one for us to see him go because he is unique here. But he has responded to the call to serve our country. He will play an extraordinarily important role as a true American environmentalist, a lover of the land, in preserving all that the Interior Department oversees that is America's great natural gift from God--the land. He will also, in a very thoughtful way, play a central role in one of the most significant transformations American Government has made in a long time, which is to turn us toward energy independence and a cleaner, more reliable source of American energy. I wish him well. The only comfort in seeing him leave the Senate is that he is only going down the street a bit. We know he will be here to work with us. I cannot think of a better way to end this simple tribute to a dear friend and a great American than to say that over the years we have come to know each other, both greeted each other and at moments of challenge said a particular two words to one another and then said goodbye to each other with these two words in which we have joined our respective ethnic heritages. And the two words that I say to you, dear friend, fellow colleague, as you leave the Senate to serve our country as Secretary of the Interior, and with my confidence that will not be the end of your service to our country but will go on, in my opinion, higher and higher, those two words bringing our two ethnic heritages together are ``Viva chutzpah.'' God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this morning we introduced legislation to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the threat of oil and gas exploration. S. 231 designates 1.5 million acres of the Refuge as Wilderness to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Bestowing Wilderness designation on this precious piece of national heritage will reaffirm the original intent of the Refuge: to provide habitat for Alaska's wildlife. As designated Wilderness, that land will become subject to specific management restrictions. Human activities will be restricted to non- motorized recreation, scientific research, and other non-invasive activities. Logging, mining, road building, mechanized vehicles, and other forms of development are generally prohibited in designated Wilderness areas. However, since these particular lands are in Alaska, some public motorized uses will be permitted for subsistence and traditional use. For example, subsistence hunting as well as limited backpacking and hiking will be allowed. The Arctic Refuge is home to 250 species of wildlife. Drilling there would severely harm its abundant populations of polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, and snow geese, and the amount of commercially recoverable oil in the Refuge would satisfy only a very small percentage of our nation's need at any given time. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a pristine natural treasure that must be preserved for future generations. We do not have to choose between conservation and exploration when it comes to our energy future; we can do both simultaneously while moving toward a sustainable and diverse national energy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this morning we introduced legislation to protect the coastal plains region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the threat of oil and gas exploration. S. 231 designates 1.5 million acres of the Refuge as Wilderness to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Bestowing Wilderness designation on this precious piece of national heritage will reaffirm the original intent of the Refuge: to provide habitat for Alaska's wildlife. As designated Wilderness, that land will become subject to specific management restrictions. Human activities will be restricted to non- motorized recreation, scientific research, and other non-invasive activities. Logging, mining, road building, mechanized vehicles, and other forms of development are generally prohibited in designated Wilderness areas. However, since these particular lands are in Alaska, some public motorized uses will be permitted for subsistence and traditional use. For example, subsistence hunting as well as limited backpacking and hiking will be allowed. The Arctic Refuge is home to 250 species of wildlife. Drilling there would severely harm its abundant populations of polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, and snow geese, and the amount of commercially recoverable oil in the Refuge would satisfy only a very small percentage of our nation's need at any given time. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a pristine natural treasure that must be preserved for future generations. We do not have to choose between conservation and exploration when it comes to our energy future; we can do both simultaneously while moving toward a sustainable and diverse national energy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity today, obviously early on this first day of this new session of Congress, together with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation which will finally grant citizens of our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, voting representation, the proper representation to which they are entitled as citizens. That representative voting would be in the House of Representatives. This bill is entitled ``The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.'' It is identical to a bill which Senator Hatch and I introduced in the 110th Congress. It would, for the first time, give citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the House while adding a fourth congressional seat for the State of Utah based on population statistics from the 2000 census in which they came very close. I think the people of Utah would in fact say they deserve an additional seat. This is the fifth session in which I have introduced legislation to try to correct what I believe is a fundamental wrong--which is to deny the citizens of our Nation's Capital voting representation in Congress. I hope and believe and pray this is the session in which we are going to get this done. Last year, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 271 to 177, but it fell three votes short of gaining cloture in the Senate, though the vote in favor was 57 to 42. With a new Congress and a new President who was in fact a cosponsor of this bill himself in the last session of Congress, I am hopeful we can pass this legislation, vital to the rights of nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District of Columbia. Keep in mind the population of the District, though small compared to many States, is roughly equal to the State populations of Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, all of which have, of course, not only representation--that is, voting in the House--but two Senators here. This deals only and exclusively with voting representation in the House. I want to particularly thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Orin Hatch, for his continued, principled, steadfast support of this bill. He set aside partisanship to join me and others in trying to right this historic wrong. I greatly admire his commitment to this cause. I am also proud to say Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold are today joining as original cosponsors of this legislation. Of course, I pay special honor and thanks to the DC Delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been a tireless champion of full representation for the citizens of the District; of course, a tireless champion for the citizens of the District generally. Delegate Norton is introducing a similar bill in the House today. I do this with a certain special personal pride because Delegate Norton and I were at law school at Yale at the same time just a few years ago. It probably would seem, to the casual observer, hard to believe that we deny the residents of our Nation's Capital of the right to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives. In fact, public opinion polls have been taken over the years that ask people: Do you think the residents of the District of Columbia have voting representation in the House? Overwhelming, the American public says: Of course they do, because they cannot believe there would be a reason to deny them the representation. In recent years, those who have opposed this legislation which would correct a historic injustice have argued that congressional representation is granted only to the States under the Constitution, and therefore our legislation is unconstitutional. With all respect, I believe that simply is not true. The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to bestow voting rights on the District. Multiple constitutional experts, spanning the full ideological spectrum of left to right, including Ken Starr, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and former Solicitor General, and Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General, and many others have told Congress and the public that this authority, which is, the authority to grant representation in Congress, lies within the District Clause of the Constitution, which is article I, section 8, where it states: Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District. Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long ago as 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to broaden diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the Constitution specifically provides that national courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' In other words, in that act, Congress said no, for purposes of diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even though the Constitution says that courts may hear cases between citizens of different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the District of Columbia, because they happen to live in the Nation's Capital, could not gain access to the Federal courts. When challenged, this revision to the Judiciary Act was upheld as constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the courts have found that Congress has the authority to impose national taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the District, and to include the District in interstate commerce regulations. These are rights and responsibilities that our Constitution grants to States. Yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply those rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to do so would make residents of the District, or the District itself, second class in their citizenship. Treating the District as a State for purposes of voting representation in Congress should be no different. The elections of 2008 saw a historic number of citizens carrying out their civic duty by voting for their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately, for over 200 years, DC residents have been denied that most basic right. According to a 2005 KRC Research poll, 82 percent of Americans, when told that residents of the District do not have a voting representative in Congress, say it is time to give that voting representation to the citizens of our Nation's Capital. This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District have been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no vote on how the Federal Government provides for their homeland security. Men and women citizens of the District have fought bravely in our wars, in defense of our security and our freedom over the years, many giving their lives in defense of our country. Yet citizens of the District have no voting representation in Congress on the serious questions of war and peace, veterans' benefits, and the like. Of course, the citizens of the District of Columbia, per capita, pay Federal income taxes at the second highest rate in the Nation. Yet they have absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax rates or in determining how the revenues raised by those taxes will be spent. This is plain wrong. The Supreme Court has said ``that no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the election of those who make the laws, under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' We can no longer deny our fellow American citizens who happen to live in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States engaged now in two wars, a global war also against terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the most significant economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is past time to grant the vote to those citizens living in our Nation's Capital so their vote can be rightfully heard as we debate these great and complex issues of our time. This matter has fallen, according to our rules, under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair. I hope we will be able to take it up quickly. It is my intention to consider this legislation at the first markup of our committee in the session, and then to bring it to the floor as quickly as possible with a high sense of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that we will have, with the help of the new Members of the Senate, more than 60 votes necessary to close it off, and at least have a vote on this question of fundamental rights for 600,000 of our fellow Americans. I want to submit not only an original copy of the bill to the clerk, but also for the Record a statement from Senator Hatch, which I ask unanimous consent to appear as if read.