A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide that wages earned, and self-employment income derived, by individuals while such individuals were not citizens or nationals of the United States and were illegally in the United States shall not be credited for coverage under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under such title.

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the Senator from Nevada wishes to call up the amendment and speak very briefly--he mentioned to me 2 minutes. I believe I am in the line to speak and I wish to speak on this amendment.

Is that the agreement?

Is the subject of this amendment vouchers?

No problem.

Amendment No. 587

Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to amendment No. 575 offered by Senator Ensign. This amendment is not the instant amendment that he just spoke about; it is the amendment that essentially would repeal all commonsense gun laws in the District of Columbia.

I believe the amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our Nation's Capital. It will endanger the citizens of the District, the Government employees who work here, our elected officials, and those who visit this great American Capitol. And, of course, if successful, it will be the first new step in a march to remove all commonsense gun regulations all over this land.

The Ensign amendment repeals gun laws promoting public safety, including DC laws that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated were permissible under the second amendment in the Heller decision. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the second amendment gives individuals a right to possess weapons for private purposes not related to State militias, and that the Constitution does not permit a general ban on handguns in the home. But that is the law. It has been adjudicated. It has gone up to the highest Court, and I am one who believes if we do not like the law, we should try to make changes through the proper legal channels. However, it is important to note that Heller also stands for the proposition that reasonable, commonsense gun regulations are entirely permissible.

As the author of the original assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994, I know commonsense gun regulations do make our communities safer, while at the same time respecting the rights of sportsmen and others to keep and bear arms.

Just yesterday, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of 52 people in California, Minnesota, and Maryland. In addition to seizing 12,000 kilograms of cocaine and more than 16,000 pounds of marijuana, the DEA also seized 169 illegal firearms from members of the Sinoloa Cartel.

Where did they get those guns? It would be interesting to find out because this cartel is one of several that law enforcement believes is responsible for kidnappings and murders within the United States in addition to engaging in violent gun crimes.

In talking about the Sinoloa Cartel yesterday, Attorney General Holder noted that reinstituting the assault weapons ban would benefit the United States, as well as help stop the flood of weapons being sent from the United States to Mexico for use by drug cartels to cause violence on both sides of the border.

I am prepared to wage the assault weapons battle again and intend to do so. I have been quiet about this because there are many pressing needs of this Nation. But with the help of the President, the administration, and the people of this great country, we do need to fight back against these kinds of amendments.

Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion on the Heller case that a wide variety of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful,'' including the laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' and regulations governing ``the conditions and qualifications of the commercial sale of arms.''

I cannot think of any place more sensitive than the District of Columbia. Even bans on ``dangerous and unusual weapons'' are completely appropriate under the Heller decision. So it is interesting to me that you have this decision, and then you have the Senate moving even to obliterate what is allowable under the decision.

Senator Ensign's amendment completely ignores Heller's language and takes the approach that all guns for all people at all times is called for by Heller. It is not.

We have all seen the tragic consequences of gun violence: the massacre of students at Virginia Tech University in 2007, the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, the North Hollywood shootout where bank robbers carrying automatic weapons and shooting armor- piercing bullets shot 10 Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers and seven civilians before being stopped.

We have seen criminal street gangs able to buy weapons at gun shows and out of the back seats or the trunks of automobiles. We have seen their bullets kill hundreds, if not thousands of people across this great land--men, women, and children.

I remember one case in the San Francisco Bay area not long ago where a youngster taking a piano lesson in a home had a bullet from a gang member pierce the wall of the home, cut his spine, and today he is a paraplegic. It is unbelievable for me to think of the ease with which people can buy weapons.

As Senator Schumer said, if this amendment becomes law, even if you cannot see, even if you cannot pass a sight test, you can have access to firearms. That is not what this Nation should encourage. Those incidents and the gun violence that occurs every day across this country show us that we should be doing more, not less, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and not give them unfettered access to firearms.

It is worth noting just how far this amendment goes in repealing DC law and just how unsafe it will make the streets of this Capitol. Here is what it

would do: It would repeal DC's ban on semiautomatic weapons, including assault weapons. If this amendment becomes law, military-style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines will be allowed to be stockpiled in homes and businesses in the District, even near Federal buildings such as the White House and the Capitol. Even the .50 caliber sniper rifle, with a range of over 1 mile, will be allowed in DC under this amendment. This is a weapon capable of firing rounds that can penetrate concrete and armor plating. And at least one model of the .50 caliber sniper rifle is easily concealed and transported. One gun manufacturer describes this model as a ``lightweight and tactical'' weapon and capable of being collapsed and carried in ``a very small inconspicuous package.''

Is this what we want to do? There is simply no good reason anyone needs semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in an urban community. It is unfathomable to me that the same high-powered sniper rifle used by our Armed Forces will be permitted in the Nation's Capital. Yet this is exactly what the amendment would allow if passed by the Senate.

Next, the amendment would repeal existing Federal anti-gun trafficking laws. For years, Federal law has banned gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out-of-State buyers who are not licensed firearms dealers. This has helped substantially in the fight against illegal interstate gun trafficking, and it has prevented criminals from traveling to other States to buy guns.

Senator Ensign's amendment repeals this longstanding Federal law and allows DC residents to cross State lines to buy handguns in neighboring States. Illegal gun traffickers will be able to easily obtain large quantities of firearms outside of DC and then distribute those guns to criminals in DC and in surrounding States.

And no one should be so naive as to say that this amendment will not do this. It will. The amendment repeals DC law restricting the ability of dangerous and unqualified people to obtain guns. The amendment also repeals many of the gun regulations that the Supreme Court said were completely appropriate after Heller.

So all of those who will vote for this amendment should not do so thinking they are just complying with the Heller decision. This is part of a march forward by gun lobby interests in this country to begin to remove all commonsense regulations, and no one should think it is anything else.

This would repeal the DC prohibition on persons under the age of 21 from possessing firearms, and it repeals all age limits for the possession of long guns, including assault weapons.

Do we really want that? I think of the story of an 11-year-old who had a reduced barrel shotgun and just recently killed somebody with it. Is this what we want to see all over this country, the ability of virtually anyone to obtain a firearm regardless of their age? I don't think so.

The amendment even repeals the DC law prohibiting gun possession by people who have poor vision. I heard Senator Schumer speak about this yesterday afternoon. Unbelievably, under this amendment, the District would be barred from having any vision requirement for gun use, even if someone is blind. Is this the kind of public policy we want to make for our Nation? Is this how co-opted this body is to the National Rifle Association and others? I hope not.

One of the reasons we have 6-year terms is to allow us to make difficult decisions. There is no higher charge than protecting our public safety. We should protect individuals. The way we protect individuals is by enacting public policy that is prudent, reasonable, and subject to common sense. This amendment does none of the above.

I ask my colleagues to think carefully about this amendment, because if it succeeds, trust me, the march for similar legislation will be on. I introduced the assault weapons legislation. I survived. I had an election in 1994, just after I had introduced it. I survived. The people of my State want commonsense gun control. They don't want local jurisdictions stripped of any ability to enact prudent regulation.

The Presiding Officer is in the chair. The husband of one of her colleagues, going home on the Long Island train, was shot and killed by someone who never should have had a weapon. How many of these incidents do we have to have? How many businesses employing people who are mentally ill have to suffer when they have a grudge against an employee, and kill 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 people? How many schools do we have to have where aggrieved students go out and acquire the most powerful weapons and come into cafeterias, libraries, or classrooms and mow down students? A vote for this amendment, any way we look at it, makes this easier to happen.

I believe passionately about this. I will never forget, many years ago, before I was mayor, walking into the robbery of a corner grocery store. When people die of gunshot wounds, it is not the way it is on television or in the movies. I saw brain matter all over the walls. I saw the husband, a proprietor, the wife, a proprietor. This individual who came in even shot the dog. People are capable of terrible criminality. We should not encourage that criminality by making their access to weapons so very easy.

As I say, this is the first step in a march to see that there is no ability to enact prudent gun regulation throughout the United States.

I ask every colleague, before they vote for this, to think about the people they represent and whether society is going to be safer because of their vote. How deep have we sunk in catering to these interests? For shame.

The amendment before the Senate repeals all firearm registration requirements in the District, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and track down the registered owner. The amendment repeals all existing safe-storage laws and prohibits the District from enacting any additional safe-storage laws. After the Heller decision, the District passed emergency legislation to allow guns to be unlocked for self-defense, but requiring that they otherwise be kept locked to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. We all ought to want that. The Ensign amendment repeals even this modest limitation and prevents the District of Columbia City Council from enacting any law that discourages--whatever that means-- gun ownership or requiring the safe storage of firearms. How can we, in the Capital of the United States where we have had so many tragic events, possibly do this? This is simply ridiculous and goes well beyond the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

Think about what this means. Consider that every major gun manufacturer recommends that guns be kept unloaded, locked, and kept in a safe place. Under this amendment, the District could not enact any legislation requiring that guns be stored in a safe place, even in homes with children. How can anyone believe this broad-brush amendment is the right thing to do? How can any of us believe it provides protection for the people we represent?

Let me make one other point. The American people clearly do not agree with this amendment. Last fall, when a virtually identical bill was being considered in the House of Representatives, a national poll found that 69 percent of Americans opposed Congress passing a law to eliminate the District's gun laws--69 percent. That is about as good as we get on any controversial issue. Additionally, 60 percent of Americans believe Washington will become less safe if Congress takes this step. Is this what we want? Do we want the Capital of the United States to become less safe? I don't think so. Today, if this amendment passes in the Senate, it will be directly against the wishes of the American people. It will not pass because it is good public policy--it will only be passed to placate the National Rifle Association. I say for shame.

As a former mayor who saw firsthand what happens when guns fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, and the mentally ill, I believe this amendment places the families of the District of Columbia in great jeopardy. The amendment puts innocent lives at stake. It is an affront to the public safety of the District. It is an affront to local home rule. This isn't just a bad amendment; it is a very dangerous one. I very strongly urge Senators to join me in opposing it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to amendment No. 575 offered by Senator Ensign.

I believe the amendment is reckless. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of our Nation's Capital. It will endanger the citizens of the District, the Government employees who work here, our elected officials, and those who visit this great American Capitol. And, of course, if successful, it will be the first new step in a march to remove all commonsense gun regulations all over this land.

The Ensign amendment repeals gun laws promoting public safety, including DC laws that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated were permissible under the second amendment in the Heller decision. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Heller that the second amendment gives individuals a right to possess weapons for private purposes not related to State militias, and that the Constitution does not permit a general ban on handguns in the home. But that is the law. It has been adjudicated. It has gone up to the highest Court, and I am one who believes if we do not like the law, we should try to make changes through the proper legal channels.

However, it is important to note that Heller also stands for the proposition that reasonable, commonsense gun regulations are entirely permissible. As the author of the original assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994, I know commonsense gun regulations do make our communities safer, while at the same time respecting the rights of sportsmen and others to keep and bear arms.

Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion on the Heller case that a wide variety of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful,'' including the laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' and regulations governing ``the conditions and qualifications of the commercial sale of arms.''

I cannot think of any place more sensitive than the District of Columbia. Even bans on ``dangerous and unusual weapons'' are completely appropriate under the Heller decision. So it is interesting to me that you have this decision, and then you have the Senate moving even to obliterate what is allowable under the decision.

Senator Ensign's amendment completely ignores Heller's language and takes the approach that all guns for all people at all times is called for by Heller. It is not.

We have all seen the tragic consequences of gun violence: the massacre of students at Virginia Tech University in 2007, the murders at Columbine High School in Colorado, the North Hollywood shootout where bank robbers carrying automatic weapons and shooting armor- piercing bullets shot 10 Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers and seven civilians before being stopped.

We have seen criminal street gangs able to buy weapons at gun shows and out of the back seats or the trunks of automobiles. We have seen their bullets kill hundreds, if not thousands of people across this great land, men, women, and children.

As Senator Schumer said, if this amendment becomes law, even if you cannot see, even if you cannot pass a sight test, you can have access to firearms. That is not what this Nation should encourage. Those incidents and the gun violence that occurs every day across this country show us that we should be doing more, not less, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and not give them unfettered access to firearms.

It is worth noting just how far this amendment goes in repealing DC law and just how unsafe it will make the streets of this capital. Here is what it would do: It would repeal DC's ban on semiautomatic weapons, including assault weapons.

If this amendment becomes law, military-style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines will be allowed to be stockpiled in homes and businesses in the District, even near Federal buildings such as the White House and the Capitol. Even the .50 caliber sniper rifle, with a range of over 1 mile, will be allowed in DC under this amendment. This is a weapon capable of firing rounds that can penetrate concrete and armor plating. And at least one model of the .50 caliber sniper rifle is easily concealed and transported. One gun manufacturer describes this model as a ``lightweight and tactical'' weapon and capable of being collapsed and carried in ``a very small inconspicuous package.''

Is this what we want to do? There is simply no good reason anyone needs semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in an urban community. It is

unfathomable to me that the same high-powered sniper rifle used by our Armed Forces will be permitted in the Nation's Capitol. Yet this is exactly what the amendment would allow if passed by the Senate.

Next, the amendment would repeal existing Federal antigun trafficking laws. For years, Federal law has banned gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out-of-State buyers who are not licensed firearms dealers. This has helped substantially in the fight against illegal interstate gun trafficking, and it has prevented criminals from traveling to other States to buy guns.

Senator Ensign's amendment repeals this longstanding Federal law and allows DC residents to cross State lines to buy handguns in neighboring States. Illegal gun traffickers will be able to easily obtain large quantities of firearms outside of DC and then distribute those guns to criminals in DC and in surrounding States.

And no one should be so naive as to say that this amendment will not do this. It will. The amendment repeals DC law restricting the ability of dangerous and unqualified people to obtain guns. The amendment also repeals many of the gun regulations that the Supreme Court said were completely appropriate after Heller.

So all of those who will vote for this amendment should not do so thinking they are just complying with the Heller decision. This is part of a march forward by gun lobby interests in this country to begin to remove all commonsense regulations, and no one should think it is anything else.

This would repeal the DC prohibition on persons under the age of 21 from possessing firearms, and it repeals all age limits for the possession of long guns, including assault weapons.

Do we really want that? I think of the story of an 11-year-old who had a reduced barreled shotgun and just recently killed somebody with it. Is this what we want to see all over this country, the ability of virtually anyone to obtain a firearm regardless of their age? I don't think so.

The amendment even repeals the DC law prohibiting gun possession by people who have poor vision. I heard Senator Schumer speak about this yesterday afternoon. Unbelievably, under this amendment, the District would be barred from having any vision requirement for gun use, even if someone is blind. Is this the kind of public policy we want to make for our Nation? Is this how co-opted this body is to the National Rifle Association and others? I hope not.

The amendment before the Senate repeals all firearm registration requirements in the District, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and track down the registered owner. The amendment repeals all existing safe-storage laws and prohibits the District from enacting any additional safe-storage laws.

After the Heller decision, the District passed emergency legislation to allow guns to be unlocked for self-defense, but requiring that they otherwise be kept locked to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. We all ought to want that.

The Ensign amendment repeals even this modest limitation and prevents the District of Columbia City Council from enacting any law that discourages, whatever that means, gun ownership or requiring the safe storage of firearms. How can we, in the Capitol of the United States where we have had so many tragic events, possibly do this? This is simply ridiculous and goes well beyond the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

Think about what this means. Consider that every major gun manufacturer recommends that guns be kept unloaded, locked, and kept in a safe place. Under this amendment, the District could not enact any legislation requiring that guns be stored in a safe place, even in homes with children. How can anyone believe this broad- brush amendment is the right thing to do? How can any of us believe it provides protection for the people we represent?

Let me make one other point. The American people clearly do not agree with this amendment. Last fall, when a virtually identical bill was being considered in the House of Representatives, a national poll found that 69 percent of Americans opposed Congress passing a law to eliminate the District's gun laws, 69 percent. That is about as good as we get on any controversial issue. Additionally, 60 percent of Americans believe Washington will become less safe if Congress takes this step.

Is this what we want? Do we want the Capitol of the United States to become less safe? I don't think so. Today, if this amendment passes in the Senate, it will be directly against the wishes of the American people. It will not pass because it is good public policy, it will only be passed to placate the National Rifle Association. I say for shame.

As a former mayor who saw firsthand what happens when guns fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, and the mentally ill, I believe this amendment places the families of the District of Columbia in great jeopardy. The amendment puts innocent lives at stake. It is an affront to the public safety of the District. It is an affront to local home rule. This isn't just a bad amendment; it is a very dangerous one. I very strongly urge Senators to join me in opposing it.

Mr. President, when this bill was tried in the House a year ago, a poll was done nationally in which 69 percent of the people were against it. I have to believe a dominant majority would still be against it. I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, under the previous order, the Senate will now move to the Kyl amendment, I believe, on retrocession, not to be confused with retrogression, although there may be some similarity between the two.

I am looking at the Senator from Maryland, who will rise to the defense in a moment.

As my colleagues know, last night the majority leader filed a cloture motion on this bill, S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. We made some progress yesterday. There are a few amendments still pending. Obviously, it is our hope that we will be able to complete the bill today and hopefully not have to go to the cloture vote. But that depends on our colleagues.

So I would yield on the pending Kyl amendment to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Maryland for a thoughtful discussion. I rise to oppose amendment No. 585, offered by the Senator from Arizona. Unlike some of the other amendments pending, this one goes to the heart of what the underlying bill that came out of committee is all about, which is how do we give voting rights in Congress to 600,000 Americans who happen to live in our Nation's Capital who don't have such representation now. I disagree with the method, but I appreciate the fact that this is not germane in a parliamentary sense, but it is directly relevant to the underlying injustice and inequity. But for the reasons that the Senator from Maryland made clear, this is not a practical solution to the problem before us, the longstanding injustice.

It requires the consent of the people of Maryland, and all their leaders tell us that the people will not support it. So it may be a solution on paper, but it is not going to be a solution and a fix to the problem in fact. It is also full of complications that would ensue.

For instance, section 2 of the amendment would automatically transfer all pending legal actions in the District of Columbia to an ``appropriate Maryland court.'' We can only imagine the legal and political tangle that could create given that Maryland and the District actually have distinct legal structures, rules, and precedents. Section 3 of the amendment describes at some length the boundaries of a small but still sizable national capital service area that would continue to be controlled by Congress and which would consist of key Federal buildings and monuments. There are complications there too. Who would police and maintain those streets and otherwise administer this large swath of downtown Washington?

As has been said, it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal amendment XXIII which granted the District of Columbia three electoral votes in Presidential elections. If amendment XXIII were not repealed, presumably the effect would be to grant a disproportionately large role in Presidential elections to a relatively small population that would continue to reside in that national capital service area and that would remain under congressional control. In fact, the amendment recognizes this and, therefore, would not become effective until such a repeal amendment to the Constitution is ratified.

As I have said, this is an alternative solution to the problem. I appreciate it in that it would, if it overcame the obstacles, actually be a remedy, but it is not the right or realistic remedy to the injustice of nonvoting representation in Congress for residents of the District. The right and reasonable and realistic solution is the underlying bill before us, S. 160. That is why I oppose the amendment and urge the passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. He is absolutely right. I have been informed that the senior Senator from Delaware is on his way to the floor to speak on this amendment. But I echo what Senator Kyl has said, that we have some other pending amendments. The floor is open until the vote at 10:30, and I urge our colleagues to come and take advantage of that opening.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, seeing no one on the other side in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent to speak for no more than 5 minutes, probably less.

I thank the Chair. I will yield if anyone on the other side comes in.

I thank my friend from Delaware for his very eloquent and thoughtful statement. The pending amendment is on retrocession. As the Senator began his remarks about the Bible study and prayer groups, I thought he was going to talk about redemption and not retrocession, but he got to the point. I must say, if I may continue the argument the Senator from Delaware made

very eloquently in two ways, S. 160, the underlying bill, does provide--please allow me some license here for a kind of political redemption--for the voters of the District of Columbia who up until this time have been denied a voting representative in Congress. The whole premise of our Government is that we govern with the consent of the governed, but here we have 600,000 Americans who, through historical anomalies and maybe more recently partisan disagreements, don't get to consent or object to anything we do to them or even for them.

The second--and I thank my friend from Delaware for making this point about the Golden Rule. I hope all of our colleagues in the Senate will apply that fundamental ethical human principle to this vote and think about how we would feel if we were the District's Delegate in the House of Representatives. Eleanor Holmes Norton is a gifted and wonderful person. I have known her--I won't state the year because I don't want to compromise the privacy of her age; mine has already been compromised this week. We were at law school together. She is an extraordinarily gifted person and a very diligent and passionate and aggressive advocate for the people of the District of Columbia. Imagine how we would feel if we were occupying the seat she occupies in the House of Representatives. She gets to debate issues. She gets to talk. But when the roll is called, imagine how we would feel--my friend from Delaware and our dear friend from Arkansas who occupies the Chair at the moment, myself--if there were a major item here in the Senate and we could debate it, but then the roll is called and it is as if our mouths are stifled, muffled. We couldn't vote. That is what Delegate Norton goes through in the House of Representatives. If we think about it that way, in the terms the Senator from Delaware stated, to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, it seems only fair, reasonable, human to give Delegate Norton and the 600,000 people she represents the right to vote on the floor.

So I thank my friend for taking the time to come over and speak as eloquently and convincingly as he has.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam 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.

Madam President, I believe two of our colleagues wish to speak as in morning business at this time. After that, our intention is to pick up the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, on the fairness doctrine, and then Senator Durbin also will be offering a matter on the fairness doctrine as well.

With that in mind, I yield the floor to one of the two Senators to my right, and they may joust as to who goes first.

Madam President, if I may very briefly respond to my friend from Nevada, I appreciate the statement he has made. Personally, I agree with him on this DC scholarship program which I supported in past years. The authorization is running out.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as my friend knows, actually still possesses jurisdiction over matters related to the District of Columbia. So we would be the proper committee to consider an authorization bill.

As I have said to my friend, I do not know what I would support. I do not know what the outcome of the committee would be. But I appreciate the spirit in which he has presented this amendment. I agree with him totally that we ought to be reauthorizing this program, and we will work together to see, with the majority leader, whether we can get an agreement that there will be floor time with a time limit given to a debate and an attempt to reauthorize the program when it expires, which I believe is in this fiscal year, meaning that it would affect the school year that begins in September.

So I will pursue that with the leader and will continue our conversations. I thank him for offering the amendment.

I now yield the floor to our distinguished colleague from California.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now debate concurrently the Durbin amendment No. 591 and the DeMint amendment No. 573; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Durbin and DeMint or their designees; that at 2 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 591, to be followed by a vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 573; that prior to the second vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and the second vote be 10 minutes in duration.

That was my understanding. As a point of clarification, it actually is as I suggested earlier, which is that the floor is open for debate from now until 2 and that the time is equally divided. Obviously, if others want to come to the floor and speak about something else, they can ask unanimous consent to do that.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

On that last point, am I correct in reaching the conclusion--and that second clause is prohibiting any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance--that you do not intend to affect or dislodge in any way existing FCC laws or guidelines with regard to, for instance, decency standards, language, or sexually loaded content, or violent content that currently prevails?

Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio. He speaks with such admirable passion about the needs of children who obviously are not his. He has a record on this issue. He knows, as I do, though, that some groups may disapprove, oppose this DC low-income student scholarship program. One group that doesn't oppose it--in fact, enthusiastically supports it--is the parents of low-income children in the District who have oversubscribed by multiples for this program every year.

We are going to have conversations during this discussion. I support this program, as my friend from Ohio knows. Hopefully, we can get to a point where we can have an agreement that will get some floor time for this discussion. As I said earlier, since the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has tucked within it jurisdiction over matters related to the District of Columbia, we would, I believe, be the authorizing committee.

I am certainly committed to holding a hearing on the reauthorization bill. The Senator from Ohio rightly wants to guarantee by one means or another that there will be floor debate on this issue in a timely way; that is, so that we can consider it in plenty of time for the DC school system to act.

Most of all, I tell him I admire the strength of his position because it is a position that cares for children. It is not against anything. It is for a good education for all our children. I thank him. I admire him.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield back the time on our side.

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. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been agreed to on both sides. It is as follows: I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 579 and 587 be withdrawn and that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Ensign amendment No. 575, the second-degree amendment No. 576 be withdrawn; that there then be 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Ensign amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Ensign and Feinstein or their designees; and further, that Senator Feinstein's 15 minutes begin at 3:30 p.m.; that at 3:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 575; that upon disposition of amendment No. 575, no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that passage of the bill be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that if the bill achieves that threshold, then the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided further that the cloture motion be withdrawn, with this addendum: that 2 minutes of Senator Ensign's time be reserved to occur at 3:45 p.m., with the vote occurring with respect to Ensign amendment No. 575 following Senator Ensign's 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Dakota. I just want to say as a manager of the bill, I was present at the conversation with Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Thune. The conversation was exactly as reported.

Senator Leahy could not be here because he had other pressing business,

but he asked me to represent to our colleagues that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the amendment offered by Senator Thune and now withdrawn.

Mr. President, in a few moments the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, is scheduled to be here to speak on the Ensign amendment and I will yield to her to vote at 3:45. But I say we are coming to a pivotal moment in a march that has gone on for years and years now. In some sense it goes back more than two centuries when--for reasons that are hard for historians let alone Senators to fathom, the District was established as a National Capital, separated from the State to which it had been attached before--an omission was made that was grave and inconsistent with the founding principles of this country. The residents of this National Capital of the greatest democracy of the world were left without a Representative here in Congress who could vote. In a government premised on the consent of the governed, the 600,000 residents of the District today do not have a voting Representative here in Congress.

If you step back, it is actually unbelievable. No one has argued that this is somehow a just result. The fact is that it is patently unjust and un-American, in the sense of a violation of the best principles of this country, of freedom, of democracy, of the Republic based on the votes of the people. So the argument against the proposal that has come out of the committee that I am privileged to chair, that enjoys bipartisan support, is nonetheless that this is not quite the right way to do it.

I understand those who have argued against our proposal have said that the Constitution does not allow us to do it quite this way; that it requires a constitutional amendment. The effect of this I think is to say to the residents of the District: Wait a little while longer. It has only been a couple of hundred years that you have been denied a voting Representative.

That is not fair. In fact, the preponderance of constitutional opinion is that the so-called District clause occupies the field and gives us the opportunity to right this historic wrong. Over and over again, notwithstanding the clause my colleagues rely on which says that the House shall be composed of Members chosen by the people of the

several States--they emphasize States--yet in decision after decision the Supreme Court of the United States has said that the District should be considered as a State or else its citizens will be denied equal protection; due process as a State for purposes of the interstate commerce clause; as I stated, for the purposes of diversity of jurisdiction, the opportunity for people to gain access to Federal courts for the right of trial by jury. So the Supreme Court of the United States has made very clear that the District, even when the Constitution refers to States, should be considered as a State. There may be a constitutional argument on the other side; I do not think it is a compelling argument. But if you accept the injustice of the status quo for the residents of the District, an unacceptable injustice that is an embarrassment to this great democracy of ours, then even if you think what S. 160 does is not constitutional, vote to end the injustice because the proposal, S. 160 itself, provides for expedited appeal to the court to determine the constitutionality.

After all, there is always debate. No one knowingly votes for something they think is unconstitutional. Yet there are so many times when we have to acknowledge, as powerful as this great deliberative body is, we are not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. That privilege, that power, was given by the Constitution to the judicial branch of our Government.

So I hope, my friends, as we draw close to the hour of decision, that my colleagues, whatever their conclusion about the constitutionality is, will vote to end the injustice imposed on residents of the District. I have always believed America is many things, but in this sense, is a journey. It is a journey historically to realize the extraordinary revolutionary principles adopted in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that have been followed by so many other countries since the great statement in the Declaration of Independence, those self-evident truths, that all of us are created equal; we are endowed by our creator with these inalienable rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution enshrines a system of representative government, a great republic, government by the consent of the governed. But we must acknowledge that at the outset of our history, as lofty as the principles were embraced and expressed in the Deceleration and the Constitution, they were not fully realized at the outset of our history. People of color, African Americans, were not only denied the rights of citizenship but were only counted three-fifths the equal of Whites. Women did not have the right to vote. Many men did not have the right to vote because the vote in most States was limited to those who owned land.

So over our history, we have been on this extraordinary journey to realize, generation after generation, the ideals stated by our Founders. Of course, in many cases it took too long, but here we are in a country where voting, at least, has been extended fully to most people in our country--the right to vote, the right to have voting representation in Congress. Yet there is this growth remaining; 600,000 of our fellow Americans get taxed, get called to war, get regulated and supervised and everything else, and yet have no say here with a vote by a Representative in the House of Representatives. That is what this bill would do.

It is not a small step, it is a significant, historic step forward on the journey to realize the best principles of this great Republic. When the time comes, I hope and believe our colleagues in both parties will finally right this wrong and extend voting representation in the House to residents of the District.

I am pleased to see the Senator from California on the Senate floor, and I would yield to her at this time.

Mr. President, Senator Reid wishes to speak for 2 minutes before the vote. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for voting to pass the historic District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 and giving the citizens who live in the capital of the free world the right to exercise that most basic of freedoms--the right to choose who governs them.

Passage of this act is another step on our long march to make our democracy ever more inclusive.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

It is by their votes the people exercise their sovereignty.

But when Jefferson wrote those words only a small pool of white landowners got to choose who governed them.

Since then, through acts of state legislatures, the Congress and the courts the right to vote has been extended to men over 21--regardless of property ownership--to newly freed black men who, along with their families, had previously counted as just three fifths of a person, and then to women and to 18 year olds.

And after extending those rights we further decided that each of these votes should count equally--``one man, one vote,'' and that no one legally entitled to vote could be denied the franchise by a poll tax or voting test.

The men and women of the District--a city of nearly 600,000--fight in our wars and pay Federal taxes; yet, they have no say on issues of war and peace or how their money is spent.

Perhaps the ultimate slight of denying the right to vote to District residents was that if an American were to move abroad, their right to vote in their home State was guaranteed, regardless of how long they remained out of the country. The only way they could lose that right was if they were to either renounce their citizenship or return to the United States and live in Washington, DC.

Today we fixed this situation and we can all be proud of our work.

I want to thank Senator Reid for bringing this to the floor and thank his outstanding floor staff--as well as other Democratic and Republican Senate staffers--for their hard work.

And finally, I would like to take a moment to thank Michael Alexander, Kevin Landy, Holly Idelson Deborah Parkinson, Leslie Phillips, Scott Campbell, David Rosenbaum and the rest of the staff of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee staff for their hard work in bringing this bill successfully to the floor of the Senate.

I am proud to share this historic moment with them.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I am beginning to believe the Senator from South Carolina opposes my amendment. He has called it unconstitutional, Communist, socialistic, enslavement, and he is just getting started. So I wish to explain what the debate is all about.

It is a fundamental question, and it is one I have reflected on. The fairness doctrine is the idea that broadcasters should cover issues important to local viewers and should cover these issues fairly; in other words, allow for different viewpoints to be heard and allow those ideas to be presented in a way that is balanced or, as one of the networks say, fair and balanced.

The fairness doctrine isn't a new idea; it is one that has been around in some shape or form since the 1920s, and it was formally adopted by the Federal Communications Commission as a standard in 1949--60 years ago. Back then, though, the world was a lot different. Television was in its infancy. It was just starting. In the 1950s, of course, there emerged three major television networks--NBC, ABC, and CBS. Congress and the FCC had a legitimate concern that these three networks and their local stations could abuse their power, because when you broadcast to radio and television consumers, you are not using something you own, you are using the public airways. We own it. All of us collectively as Americans own it. We license those who use it and say: You are allowed to broadcast your television signal or your radio signal and you have to do it under certain rules and regulations. Listening to the Senator from South Carolina, he is basically saying: Government, step aside. If a private entity wants to get involved in broadcasting, that is an exercise of free speech.

Well, historically, the courts have not agreed with my friend from South Carolina. They have said that you can impose reasonable obligations on those who have licenses to use the airwaves. They don't own the airwaves; the public owns the airwaves, and there is a public interest in reaching certain goals in those airwaves. One of those

public interests was expressed and defined for many years as the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine basically said Americans are entitled to hear both sides of the story so there is balance and fairness in the news and in the expressions of ideas on these radio and TV stations. The fairness doctrine was clearly I think American, not Communist; constitutional--no one struck it as unconstitutional during the period of time it was in effect--and I don't know about the enslavement of socialism; I will have to reflect on that for a minute. But the fact is, it was the law of the land. The mightiest broadcast stations, radio and TV stations that could have gone to court, I say to my friend from South Carolina, and challenge that idea as unconstitutional were not successful in doing so. It is hard to imagine we would restrict their broadcasting and they wouldn't challenge it if it was unconstitutional. Well, that is a fact. Facts sometimes are hard to deal with in debates such as this, but that was the reality.

That was then and this is now. The world has changed. The world of broadcasting has changed. We still have the major networks--ABC, NBC, and CBS--but we also have CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and hundreds of other channels on cable TV. We have public broadcasting. We have more than 14,000 AM and FM radio stations, hundreds of satellite radio stations, and we have the Internet. It is clear that technology has changed dramatically since 1949 and the institution of the fairness doctrine. There are more ways now than ever to hear a variety of perspectives on a number of issues.

So when the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987, many of us objected. The basic argument: Americans have the right to hear both sides of the story; television and radio stations should still hold themselves to that standard. Let the American people decide. Don't let one major network jam through a political viewpoint over the public airwaves that the American people, frankly, have to take or leave. I thought that was the right position then in 1987, but I will tell my colleagues the world has changed.

President Obama has said while on the campaign trail and in the White House that he doesn't support reinstating the fairness doctrine, and neither do I. You will find no mention of the fairness doctrine on the White House Web site; you will find no effort to reinstitute the fairness doctrine in my amendment. Because, quite honestly, now it isn't a question of NBC giving me one point of view and I have to take it or leave it. We all know what happens when you go home with the remote control; you have more choices than you know what to do with. That gives a variety of opinions an opportunity to be expressed on television--the same thing is true on radio--for Americans to hear a different point of view. If they want to switch from Rachel Maddow to Bill O'Reilly, they will hear a much different view of the world. It is there. It reflects the reality of technology and media today.

So I think it is interesting that the Senator from South Carolina still bangs away at this notion that some people on the floor want to reinstate the fairness doctrine. I don't. There may be others who do. My amendment has nothing to do with that.

The amendment Senator DeMint has written was not carefully written. I don't know if he understands some of the language he included. I call his attention to a paragraph in his amendment, paragraph 2 of section 303A. It seems like a very general statement that shouldn't cause any trouble, but I am afraid it does, because after he goes after eliminating the fairness doctrine, he also includes any similar requirement that broadcasters meet program and quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance. Now, that is a problem. I don't know if he understands it is a problem, but it is. This amendment does more than ban the FCC from doing something it wasn't going to do anyway. Incidentally, nobody is talking about reinstating the fairness doctrine. This is the ``bloody shirt.'' That term is a political term that came about after the Civil War when people would come to the floor and try to inflame passions, and they said: You are waving the bloody shirt of the war; stop that. Let's have a rational conversation.

Well, the rightwing broadcasters on their side, conservative broadcasters, have been waving this bloody shirt of the fairness doctrine for months. They love this. They have set up this kind of false choice that you are going to take away the right of free speech and they are trying to impose the fairness doctrine. It hasn't happened, it isn't going to happen, and I am not trying to make it happen.

The DeMint amendment also contains a provision which I read to my colleagues that seriously cripples the FCC's ability to ensure responsible broadcasting. Remember: Public airwaves that the radio and TV station owners apply for a license from the Government to use to make money. The public airwaves truly are the property of the American people. We say to broadcasters that in return for a license to use those airwaves, your Government is going to ask that you use them in the public interest. Now, what does it mean to say we use the airwaves in the public interest? According to Senator DeMint, it is the enslavement of socialism. Well, here are the 14 major elements listed by the FCC when it comes to defining the public interest: Opportunity for local self-expression, development and use of local talent, programs for children, religious programs, educational programs, public affairs programs, editorialization by licensees, political broadcasts, agricultural programs, news programs, weather and market services, sports programs, service to minority groups, and entertainment programming.

Senator DeMint's amendment--that second paragraph I read which has not been carefully written--goes way beyond stopping the fairness doctrine; it undermines the FCC's ability to make sure broadcasters meet these public interest obligations. So what. What if the public interest requirement disappeared tomorrow? What difference would it make? Let me tell my colleagues the difference it would make. There would be no requirement that your local station provide local news and weather. There would be no requirement that your local television station provide children with programming that is free from sex and violence. There would be no requirement to make sure advertising to children is subject to appropriate limitations and no requirement to provide a minimum amount of educational programming on each channel. Does that have anything to do with the fairness doctrine? It doesn't. What Senator DeMint is doing is undermining broadcasting in the public interest.

If a station decided to run a religious program, they would be doing it in the public interest. Senator DeMint removes that definition of public interest. In fact, he says--let's go back to the exact language of his amendment. He says, ``any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.'' So his language goes too far.

What we have tried to do is to make sure we don't limit the FCC's ability to protect the most vulnerable and impressionable viewers and listeners in America--our kids and our grandkids. The DeMint amendment takes away that requirement of licensees, radio and TV licensees, to protect children from sex and violence. They might do it anyway, they might not, but there would be no license requirement under the DeMint language.

I still believe broadcasters who use public airwaves should use them in a fair and reasonable way in the public interest, and I believe the FCC should be able to enforce this. If the DeMint amendment is passed and if it became law, if you wanted to enforce the fact that on Saturday morning, when a lot of kids are watching television, the local television station is running a gory movie or one that is on the edge when it comes to sexual content, it would be hard, if not impossible, to do it. I am sure that is not the Senator's intent, but that paragraph was very poorly written, and that is why I change it.

Now, there is also the suggestion by the Senator from South Carolina that if we encourage diversity of media ownership, somehow that is communistic. From my point of view, it is not. Diversity of ownership opens the public airwaves to a variety of different owners. I am not saying here--and no one is suggesting--that the law for the Federal Communications Commission says you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat or

this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative. When I talk about diversity of media ownership, it relates primarily to gender and race and other characteristics of that nature. We don't mandate it, even though you would think we did when you hear Senator DeMint read from my amendment. What we say is the Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communications media ownership. I don't think that is a mandate to give licenses to any one group; it just says ``take actions to promote and encourage,'' something that is already in the law.

I might say to the Senator, section 307B of the Communications Act-- and I hope you will have your staff look at it--requires that the FCC ensure that license ownership be spread among diverse communities. It is there already. It is there already. This enslavement of socialism, in the words of the Senator from South Carolina, is already there. I don't think this is socialistic, communistic or unconstitutional. It is in the law. So to say we are going to promote what the law already says is hardly a denial of basic constitutional freedoms. Second, the Communications Act requires the FCC to eliminate market entry barriers for small businesses to increase the diversity of media voices. That is section 257, which I hope your staff will look at too.

To argue that what I am putting in here is a dramatic change in the law or is going to somehow muzzle Rush Limbaugh is not the case. What we are suggesting is, it is best that we follow the guidelines already in the law to promote and encourage diversity in media ownership. Even with cable, satellite, and Internet, broadcast TV and radio, there are still important ways we learn about what is going on in our communities and in our country.

The Senator from South Carolina went on to say this amendment would affect the Internet and blogs. I have to remind the Senator they are not licensed. They don't have FCC licenses. They are not affected by this debate. You can start a blog tomorrow, I can, too, and I don't have to go to the FCC for approval. They certainly cannot monitor that blog to determine whether it is in the public interest. That is not the law. The Senator is on this rampage and, yet, when you look at the facts, they do not apply to the Internet or blogs.

We should be concerned, however, that the policies of the last decade have led to bigger and more consolidated media outlets controlling more of the stations and more of the content. As a result of these policies today, women and minorities are less likely to own media stations, even though the existing law says that is a goal when it comes to licensure. Nationwide, women own just 5 percent of all broadcast TV stations. Racial or ethnic minorities own just 3.3 percent. In Chicago, the city I am proud to represent--diverse and vibrant with many significant minority communities--there is only one commercial TV station owned by a racial or ethnic minority. The numbers are almost as dismal in radio. Nationwide, women own just 6 percent of broadcast stations; minorities, 7.7 percent. In Chicago, only four radio stations are owned by minorities. That is about 5 percent of the radio stations in Chicago, less than the national average.

The content of the media should reflect the diversity of America. These statistics show this is not currently the case. The law says that should be our goal. The existing law says that should be our goal. I restate the existing law, and the Senator from South Carolina calls it communism. I don't think it is. I think it is still a worthy goal so that there is diversity in ownership, diversity in stations. I am acknowledging the obvious.

I am acknowledging the obvious: We are no longer in the world of three television networks; we are in a world where we have many different choices. I ask that we reaffirm diversity and media ownership so there will be choices. I hope the Senator from South Carolina cannot argue that we should not have choices, that we cannot turn the dial to our favorite stations, or punch the remote control to reach those stations. I think that as long as America has those choices, it serves the original goal of letting us hear different sides of the story and doesn't reimpose the fairness doctrine, which none of us are asking for.

We need to make the media more accessible to all voices in America. Isn't that what we are all about in this country? Don't we basically say we trust the people of this country to hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds? We sure do. We give them a right to vote. I guess that is the most instructive delegation of authority you can give to a person: you get to pick your leadership based on your opinion.

All I am asking is that we encourage diversity of media ownership so there are more options, more opinions being shared, and Americans can choose the ones they want. I will repeat so my friend from South Carolina understands clearly, I do not favor the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. The world has changed. The world of media and technology has changed. I believe Americans are entitled to hear different points of view, and that is why I restate the existing law-- and I have given citations for both sections of the Communications Act--which is that we need to have more diversity in media ownership in America. I have not proposed taking away a license from anybody or giving one to anybody. Setting this as a goal is as American as apple pie and has nothing to do with communism or Marxism.

I say to the Senator I was careful in writing this amendment, so I included a section very similar to his section (2) but narrowing it to the issue of fairness. I say--and this is so short that I will read parts:

The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote

diversity in communication ownership and ensure that

broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

That is so there is diversity in ownership and we protect kids from sex and violence. If the Senator thinks that is communism, I disagree with him.

Then I say:

Nothing in section 303A--

Which is what we are talking about in this amendment--

shall be construed to limit the authority of the commission

regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that

broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on

issues of public importance.

I protect what I think was the intent of his amendment to prohibit the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, which nobody has suggested, but to make it clear that is as far as we go. We are not eliminating the requirement of broadcasting in the public interest for obvious reasons: We want to protect kids; we want to protect families; we want to keep sex and violence away from kids; and make sure there is local news and weather so people can turn on the TV stations and learn about it.

All of these things, from my point of view, are constructive, and I hope we all agree. The Senator from South Carolina has said that old Durbin will argue for the fairness doctrine. Let's correct the record. I am not doing that. The fairness doctrine, in 2009, doesn't make sense. It might have made sense in 1948. We should not reinstitute that, but let's not give up on fairness. Let's make sure American viewers of television and listeners of radio have choices. Making those choices can form an opinion that leads to their expression of points of view and their votes. There is nothing wrong with that.

For the people who want to take a license and use the airwaves, there are basic rules. We don't want you to put gory movies and sex on television during early morning hours on a Saturday when kids are watching. We want you to be careful in your content so you don't do something that is abusive of your use of our public airwaves.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the clerk report the amendment which I have pending at the desk.

The clerk will report the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

It is my understanding the vote is scheduled for 2 o'clock.

I ask unanimous consent that it be moved until 2 minutes after 2 and I be allowed to speak and there be response.

Mr. President, before us is a debate on the fairness doctrine. Sixty years ago, the Federal Communications Commission said radio and TV stations had to tell Americans both sides of the story. In those days, television was just starting. In the 1950s,

three networks emerged and the fairness doctrine applied for decades. Then, in 1987, the FCC canceled the fairness doctrine, and there has been a debate ever since whether we should return to it.

Well, if you want to argue whether Americans should hear both sides of every story to make up their minds, I think it is a pretty basic concept. But while we were debating whether to return to the fairness doctrine, media and technology changed dramatically. It is no longer three networks, it is 200 channels, cable channels, and all sorts of opportunities for information.

So the fairness doctrine in its day was the right thing for the right reason. Today it is not. Senator DeMint wants to eliminate it--make sure no one brings it back. No one is planning on bringing it back. There is no problem with that. But he included some language in his amendment that goes too far. It takes away the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to basically determine that radio and TV stations use their Federal licenses in the public interest. What does that mean?

It means the FCC can tell a television station it cannot put on a violent movie early on Saturday morning when kids are tuning in to cartoons. It cannot put on something with sexual tones to it at a time when children and family are watching. There are limitations because it is using America's airwaves to make money. Use them responsibly in the public interest. I think it was inadvertent, but, in fact, he removed that. He removed that authority of the FCC.

My amendment says two things. It is the first amendment we will vote on. First, the existing statutory requirement for diversity in media ownership is going to be encouraged so we have more and more different people applying for licenses for radio and TV stations. There is nothing wrong with that, as I see it. It is already in the law. Secondly, do not take away the FCC's power to say to public licensees of television and radio: Operate in the public interest. Make sure you have local news and weather. Make sure you do not have sexual content and violence on children's shows--basic things that are common sense.

I do not think the Senator from South Carolina wanted to change that. He did inadvertently. My amendment cleans it up. If the Durbin amendment is adopted, I encourage people to support both the Durbin amendment and the DeMint amendment. If my amendment is not adopted, I hope they will reconsider their support for Senator DeMint's amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--will the time be equally divided between now and 2 o'clock?

Madam President, I have no objection.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up DeMint amendment No. 573.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Wicker, Bond, Bennett, Enzi, Barrasso, Brownback, and Alexander.

Thank you, Madam President.

This has been a good debate, not just about DC voting rights but constitutional rights in our country, and if we are going to go by our own opinions and good intentions or are we going to follow the Constitution. Clearly, a lot of us wish to give fair representation to everyone who lives in the District of Columbia. But our oath of office is not to our good intentions, it is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution is very clear that Congressmen and Senators are allocated only to States. The District of Columbia was set up as a neutral entity, certainly where people will live and work associated with the business of the Federal Government, but there is nothing in the Constitution that would give a Congressman or Senators to this Federal District of Columbia. So we are talking about a constitutional issue.

We have had other constitutional issues, such as the Bill of Rights guarantee to bear arms, and there will be an amendment to that effect with the bill. I wish to bring up another constitutional issue, which is the right of free speech and the freedom of the press.

A number of Members of Congress have been talking about the annoyance of having radio talk show hosts talk about what we are doing here. I do not blame the other side for being annoyed when a radio talk show host actually describes what is in a bill, since we have gotten in the habit of not actually reading them ourselves. When we have radio talk show hosts all around the country going through page by page, contradicting what is actually being said here, I can understand that people wish to muzzle those radio talk show hosts. That could be the opinion of some of those in Congress today, but it happens to go against the Constitution when we try to decide what people can say and what they believe.

There is actually a doctrine that was mentioned by the Senator from Kansas

called the fairness doctrine that is one of those political doublespeak titles that is radio censorship that actually tries to control what radio talk show hosts could say. That doctrine was dispensed with by Reagan, and since then we have thousands of radio talk shows with wide varieties of opinion. But many are starting to talk about bringing back this radio censorship idea to try to force radio stations to present alternative opinions every time a radio talk show host presents an opinion of their own.

What this would do is create a dysfunctional situation where no radio station could afford to have a talk show host express an opinion of any kind if they had to go out and find someone to express the opposite opinion and in the meantime face lawsuit after lawsuit from the ACLU and others. Because whose opinion is going to determine what is fair, what is balanced, what is diverse? But the whole implication here is that the Federal Government and the Federal Communications Commission are somehow going to decide for us what is fair and what is balanced and what is diverse.

The amendment I am offering today, which we call the Broadcaster Freedom Act, would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reestablishing any part of what is called the ``fairness doctrine'' into their regulatory structure today.

Plain and simple, most people here have said they do not want it to come back. President Obama said last week he is against the fairness doctrine. So who could oppose us making it a law that some bureaucrat over at the Federal Communications Commission could not write into regulations all or parts of this censorship of radio talk shows across the country?

It is a pretty simple amendment, but I have a feeling it is getting ready to sound lot more complicated when the other side starts presenting what is in it. We have found in this body that the facts, the truths, sometimes do not make a lot of difference. But anyone who votes against my amendment, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is voting against the Constitution. They are voting against the freedom of the press. They are voting against the freedom of speech in this country.

The one hope we have to turn this Government around, to stop this spending, and the intervention in all areas of our life, is a free press that can tell people the truth about what is going on. More and more, we have the radio talk show hosts and the bloggers and some cable news that every day are telling Americans more about what we are doing, and Americans are getting more informed, they are getting more engaged and increasingly more outraged about what we are doing.

I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against this side by side that is being presented by the Democratic majority. What we are seeing in this side by side is the real intention of the Democratic majority as far as dealing with this fairness doctrine. They are going to propose that we as a Congress direct the Federal Communications Commission--that we are going to say: ``shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership.''

Now, they are not just saying radio here. This is ``communication.'' This includes the Web, the Internet, the blogs, blogisphere, television, newspapers. This language would direct the Federal Communications Commission to take action to enforce diversity in communication. This is Soviet-style language that you are going to get some rosy picture of in a minute. But it is so open and so vague that about every communication outlet in this country is going to be faced with accusations that their ownership is not diverse.

What does ``diverse'' mean? Does it mean ``white and black''? What they are after is what they believe, what their opinions are. If this were applied to our offices here in the Senate, we could not say anything, I could not express my opinion today without being obligated by law to go find somebody to say something completely opposite of what I am saying. This is not freedom. Anyone who votes for this alternative is voting to repress the freedom of speech in this country, the freedom of media.

The second part of what they have after ``promote diversity in communication media''--all media; only the lawyers and the bureaucrats are going to tell us what that means--is ``to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.'' That is already a law, and that is good, and television and radio stations that use the public airwaves all over the country are held accountable by current law to do things in the public interest, and many of them are very good at that, and it is very helpful in our communities.

But I will ask my colleagues not to let this distraction confuse them about the real intention. If we pass the broadcaster freedom amendment today, we are going to close the front door to taking away the freedom of speech in this country. But this alternative opens the backdoor to what the Democratic majority is after; that is, to muzzle this annoyance of people on the radio who are telling the truth about what is going on in this Congress.

If they can go out and threaten a station that they are not diverse in their ownership, and some judge or some bureaucrat is going to decide whether they are diverse--and who knows what that means--we are going to create such risk and such liability and such intimidation that this will not even look like America in a few years.

This is dangerous material that is being offered on the other side. I will encourage my colleagues to remember our oath of office. It has nothing to do with enforcing our opinions or some judge's opinion on some radio station out there that is trying to give its opinion to the American people. We are dangerously close to the enslavement of socialism in this country with the expansion of Government on every front.

This is intolerable. Do not let the pretty language you are getting ready to hear confuse you because this is against everything we swear an oath to in this Congress. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Durbin amendment, vote for the Broadcaster Freedom Act, and I would appreciate their support.

Thank you, Madam President, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I always enjoy a good debate with the Senator from Illinois. He is certainly good at what he does and, in this case, that is confusing facts. The good news for us and all Americans is, this afternoon, on radio talk shows all across the country, they can find out what is in both of these amendments and what it really means. They are not going to hear it here today. There have been a lot of distortions but interesting admissions.

Certainly, the Senator from Illinois made it very clear that he should be a part of determining what is fair and balanced and how we should determine

what is both sides. He mentioned there are 14,000 radio stations. What he does with his amendment is he orders ``shall take action to encourage and promote diversity and communication media ownership.'' He wants our FCC to monitor 14,000 radio stations to decide if their ownership is diverse. He said it doesn't apply to the Internet, but we do regulate the Internet. We regulate everything in America, folks-- everything that a Federal dollar touches.

Believe me, this language is not just about radio stations; it is about doing the impossible, and that is to centrally manage the ownership of radio and other communications in this country. It goes back to his original opinion that, yes, he believes there should be fair and balanced perspective presented in the media. But what he believes--and what many on his side believe--is that fairness should be determined by those of us in Government rather than the listeners and viewers who tune into that radio or the TV station or go to that Web site.

It is not for us to determine what is fair and balanced. His distortion about my amendment and what it does is exactly wrong. We do not address or change in any way the requirements of radio stations to act in the public interest. The nonsense about children's programming and indecency has nothing to do with this. It is another section in the law. I don't affect that in any way.

What this is about is, saying to your face, America, that they are not for reinstating the censorship of radio, while at the same time introducing an amendment that would allow us to go in and make our judgment, our opinion, about what is diverse ownership of a radio station.

Let me read again what this provision in my amendment addresses. He says it takes away the public interest clause. It has nothing to do with that. But it prohibits this backdoor approach to getting back to the principles of the fairness doctrine by saying broadcasters do not have to meet programming quotas and guidelines. In other words, we can't decide how many opinions they have to offer and what the guidelines for those opinions are. It is not for us to say. They have to fulfill their public interest obligations. We don't change that. But this clause would keep the good Senator from Illinois and those on his side who want to censor radio from allowing the FCC to go in and set some kind of quotas on how often, how they need to state their opinions, and the guidelines for that. It creates a license for us to go in and determine what opinions, how many opinions, and basically it is the fairness doctrine through the back door.

I will restate that this Broadcasters Freedom Act protects the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It does nothing to dislodge or change the requirement that public stations--radio or whatever communications--meet the current law requirements to act in the public good. But it does keep us, as a government, from setting quotas and guidelines of what opinions can be expressed and how often they can be expressed.

Yes.

The Senator is right. We have legal opinions on that, and it doesn't overrule any existing commission regulations. We asked the broadcasters' legal counsel, and this is intended to narrow this fairness doctrine backdoor approach of controlling what people say by establishing quotas and guidelines about how that is done. I thank the Senator for that question.

We have probably talked enough about this subject. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I could have my colleagues' attention for just a moment, I think this should be an easy vote for all of us. President Obama has expressed his opposition to the fairness doctrine. Senator Durbin has expressed his opposition to the fairness doctrine. This amendment, the Broadcasters Freedom Act, prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from implementing all or part of the fairness doctrine, which has been repealed.

I wish to clear up one misunderstanding that has been stated on the other side. This amendment does not affect the public interest requirements of broadcast radio. It does not change children's programming or opposition to indecency. What it does is, it prohibits quotas and guidelines on programming, which is another way to prohibit the implementation of the fairness doctrine.

While the fairness doctrine is a direct and obvious method to burden and chill broadcaster speech, there are also several indirect ways that are not as well-known, but no less available to proponents of limiting the freedom of our national media.

Last year's FCC Localism Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--MB Docket No. 04-233, released January 24, 2008, ``Localism Notice''--contained a number of ``tentative conclusions'' that, if adopted, would result in greater regulation of broadcaster speech.

First, the FCC proposed to reintroduce license renewal processing ``guidelines'' that would measure specific categories of speech aired by broadcasters.

The guidelines would pressure broadcasters to air Commission-specified amounts of programming in Commission-defined program categories. Although the Localism Notice does not specify which categories broadcasters would be measured by, political programming, public affairs programming, and local news are mentioned as possible types of programming to be regulated. Broadcasters that do not meet the thresholds to the Commission's satisfaction would risk losing their license to broadcast.

While ostensibly the renewal processing guidelines are meant to increase the total amount of local programming, the adjective ``local'' is ill-defined in this proceeding. It could be expanded to include an almost limitless array of speech and could shift with the political winds.

My amendment, DeMint No. 573, would not eliminate the FCC's power to develop license renewal processing guidelines completely, but only its authority to develop processing guidelines that mimic its past authority under the fairness doctrine, hence the language which limits it to quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.

The second way in which the Commission has proposed to indirectly regulate broadcaster speech is by return of ascertainment requirements, which would mandate that every broadcaster develop and meet with an ``advisory board'' made up of community groups and local officials that would ``inform the stations' programming decisions.'' This proposal would make broadcasters very vulnerable to pressure or even harassment by groups that do not approve of their programming.

A similar ascertainment requirement was eliminated in the early 1980s after the Commission determined that the rule did more to create bureaucratic burdens than it did to improve broadcasting.

Like the processing guidelines, the ascertainment requirement could become a factor for broadcasters at license renewal. Groups that feel a local broadcaster did not listen to their suggestions through the advisory board--suggestions to, for example, air more programming that addresses whatever social or political issue is of concern to these groups--could challenge the broadcasters' license and argue that the broadcaster ignored the ``needs and interests'' of their local community. Talk radio would be particularly vulnerable to this type of harassment, as would religious broadcasters.

Again, my amendment, DeMint No. 573, would not eliminate the Commission's authority to mandate ascertainment completely, but only its authority to mandate that broadcasters seek out opposing viewpoints on ``issues of public importance.''

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Maryland has a moment, I would be very happy to respond to some of the concerns he raised. They are all legitimate questions, I acknowledge up front. No State should have territory foisted upon it. That is absolutely true. And the questions raised here were good questions.

First of all, the amendment before us is an amendment that has frequently been offered in the House of Representatives. It has been vetted over there for a long time. So this is not something new.

Secondly, it is absolutely clear from section 6 of the amendment that nothing happens with regard to retrocession unless the State of Maryland agrees.

The effectiveness provision reads as follows:

Not later than 30 days after the State of Maryland enacts

legislation accepting the retrocession described in section

1(a), the President shall issue a proclamation announcing

such acceptance.

Unless the State of Maryland affirmatively, through an act of the people's representatives of that State, vote to do this, there is no retrocession to the State of Maryland.

That answers the question of States rights.

Of course.

I say to my colleague, the first point he made was that the State of Maryland should have a say in this, and it should be a definitive say. If the State of Maryland doesn't want the residents of the District of Columbia to be part of the State, that informs our decision about what the people of the State of Maryland want. I wouldn't force that decision upon them any more than the Senator suggests should be the case. The State of Maryland should have that say. If the Senator is saying: I can tell you right now Marylanders don't want these folks from the District as part of their State, we ought to know that by a definitive process rather than assuming it to be the case going into the debate. That would be my response.

I am happy to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, my colleague makes a good point. I will respond in two ways. First, I appreciate the sentiment and would hope that when western land issues are dealt with in this body, our eastern colleagues would apply that same principle. Frequently, there is a sense that folks in the east know best about what we should be doing with Federal lands in the west. I certainly respect that sentiment. Obviously, in some respects, that is not as important as the fundamental political jurisdictional issue we are facing here. The question of retrocession is a fundamental issue, and it has to do with a fundamental right the District of Columbia residents would have to participate in State government. I recognize there are some differences, but I offer that first response.

Second, I am not presupposing anything with the amendment. The question will always be before the Maryland electorate whether they want to do this. I don't know whether the Maryland electorate wants to do this. I presume there would be a debate. The result of that debate, decided by the people of Maryland or their elected representatives, would be dispositive on the question. Nobody is foisting anything on anyone. I would be the first to say: If the people of Maryland don't want the residents of the District to be part of the State of Maryland, then the Congress would have to be informed by that decision. I would think it would be dispositive.

Could I respond to a couple other points first and then I will be happy to engage in a further colloquy.

On the matter of the way the lines were drawn, the history of this is that the so-called national areas, the areas where the Federal buildings, various Government departments are located, the Mall, the monuments and those sorts of things, would not be part of the retrocession. The bulk of the bill draws those lines. I can't tell my colleague exactly what the philosophy was with respect to each of those areas. Any question about what should or should not be in, be it the Kennedy Center or anything else, is a legitimate subject of discussion. It could be the subject of amendment. This has been a matter that has been not frequently but not infrequently debated in the House of Representatives. So there is some history of the rationale behind the line drawing. But with respect to where any of these particular lines are drawn, obviously, the Senators from Maryland should be key in helping us to decide where those lines would be. There is nothing locked in stone here that could not be considered the subject of an amendment.

Finally, with respect to the unfunded mandate part, I am not sure it wouldn't work the other way around. I cited a couple days ago the statistics about the money that the Government provides for the District of Columbia. Some of that money has to do with the running of these Government departments, the construction of buildings, maintenance of the buildings, and so on, but much of it does not. Much of it has to do with what the Constitution provides as to the general welfare of the people within the District. I suspect that under any scenario, the money that has been provided to the District of Columbia would still be far in excess of the money returned to any of the several States. And because of the unique nature of the District and the history and traditions, much of that funding would naturally carry over to future years. There is no way the Federal Government is not going to fund all of the national areas that are retained in this legislation.

As the District's Delegate Norton said in a press release recently, much of the money in the stimulus bill that is going to refurbish or construct office buildings that are Federal Government buildings provides employment opportunities for the residents of the District. While we should obviously be sensitive to any issues of transfer, if the State of Maryland were to accept the residents of the District of Columbia, it is a very legitimate point, and all of those things are appropriate for discussion.

On the matter of the unfunded mandate, it would probably work the other way around, that Maryland would receive a lot of money from the Federal Government. In any event, the Federal national areas that would be receiving the amount of money that they naturally do would certainly help the residents who work here in what is now the District of Columbia.

There is nothing in this amendment that is intended to jam anything down the throats of the people of Maryland. They have the final and ultimate say of what is done. I wouldn't propose anything different from that.

Absolutely.

If I may make one other point, we will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment at 10:30 and on the bill, of course. I want to conclude my comments to the Senator, because he, obviously, has a good sense of what the people of Maryland want. I concede that. Again, I concede the premise of his point which is that the people of Maryland should have a say before this is done. The reason for the amendment is simply this: We believe it is unconstitutional for the Congress to simply provide a congressional district without an amendment to the Constitution.

I personally think the residents of the District should be represented in the House. The only other way to do that, for those of us who believe it is unconstitutional to pass the legislation pending before us, and a court will in relatively short order make a determination on whether that is true, and let's assume that the court says, you can't do it, Congress, by simple legislation, then short of a constitutional amendment, this is the only other way to achieve the objective. It is presented in good faith. It is presented as the only other logical alternative for the residents of the District of Columbia to have their own congressional district. Because of the number of people who live in the District, something over 600,000, and because the representation from House congressional districts today is approximately a shade over 600,000, the fact is that the residents of the District could have a district of their own or essentially exactly as the District is configured today without presumably modifying the lines of other Maryland districts. Of course, that would be up to the State of Maryland in the way that it sets its congressional district lines.

I am happy to.

I said that is why it would be ``almost.'' You might have to include a few residents of what are now Maryland within the District, and I acknowledge that to be the case. In any event, I accept the fundamental premise of the Senator. Our amendment addresses that specifically. My hope would be that if the courts should declare that we cannot by legislation do what this bill attempts, then the people of Maryland would strongly consider whether the next best alternative is to provide for the retrocession we have in this amendment as the next best way to provide a vote for the residents of the District of Columbia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me respond to two points my colleague made, and they are both legitimate questions. The first is some of the technical problems. I am sure there are a lot of technical problems we have not even thought about that would attend. This is a big change. Whether you adopt the underlying legislation or you go through a process such as retrocession, there will have to be a lot of adjustments and accommodations, to be sure.

But on questions such as, for example, policing the Mall and so on, those things are already well understood and resolved. For example, I have spoken recently with Capitol Police and asked them about the overlapping jurisdiction: Where, for example, does the Capitol Police jurisdiction end and where does the DC Police jurisdiction begin, and so on? They have all these things worked out. I do not think there is any difficulty with those kinds of technical issues. But there will be, undoubtedly, others that will have to be addressed as well.

Secondly, my colleague is correct, in order to avoid the anomalous situation where a few people who might be technically residents downtown and not have other residence downtown--being in the Federal areas or national areas as described in this legislation--we would have to eliminate the twenty-third amendment to make sure those people would not have three electoral votes for the Presidency. I cannot imagine that if retrocession did occur the citizens of the country would not follow through on that essentially technical issue and approve the recession of the twenty-third amendment. But it is one of the things that will have to be done. That is absolutely true.

Again, I will conclude by saying, for those of us who believe it would be preferable for the residents of the District to have their own representative in the House of Representatives and, in fact, to be able to vote for Senators, and have that representation as well, if they are part of a State--if, in fact, the underlying legislation is unconstitutional, as many of us believe it is--then this amendment offers a constructive way to achieve the same result, I would suggest, with very little in the way of adjustment, but with some adjustment that would have to occur--again, subject solely to the approval of the people of the State of Maryland.

I say to our colleagues, this vote is scheduled for 10:30, so if there are people who want to discuss other amendments or other matters, or to further debate this amendment, this would be a good time to do so.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, the last amendment is going to be debated soon. Senator Ensign is here to begin that debate.

Both Senator McConnell and I would like to make some brief remarks.

(The remarks of Mr. Kyl and Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the testimony by Professor Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee September 14, 2006, be printed in the Record.