Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
10:01 a.m. The Senate comes into session with its usual pledge of allegiance, etc. Now Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid is explaining how the day's work will go in the Senate, including taking up S.160. He's actually proposing voting on the actual bill today, sometime around 5 p.m. That's big news.
10:07 a.m. "This legislation has been around for a long time," Reid said by way of explaining his push to have a vote on the bill this evening after the procedural vote passes this morning. Reid wants to keep the Senate's Friday schedule clear and get this bill over and done with today.
10:14 a.m. There was some procedural wrangling there between Reid and McConnell we didn't totally follow regarding the Hilda Solis confirmation, but now the motion to proceed to S.160 is back up. Lieberman is asking for the cloture vote to be moved to 11:15 a.m., since they took up 15 minutes talking about the day's schedule. Reid just acknowledged Lieberman's birthday, which is today, leading Lieberman to make a little joke about how he's of "a certain age" where birthdays leave him with mixed feelings. It's yuckville USA in the U.S. Senate this morning!
10:19 a.m. "Eleanor Holmes Norton has valiantly and effectively represented the District of Columbia despite the fact that she has no vote on the floor," Lieberman says. Now he's going on with his usual history lesson about the founding of the District, which we've certainly heard a number of times before in committee testimony.
Here's an argument we don't think we've heard from Lieberman before: residents of Washington, D.C. were the victims of a direct terrorist attack, referring to the Sept. 11 Pentagon attack, and yet they had no say over how Congress reacted to that attack. Do we quibble about the fact that the Pentagon is in fact in Virginia? Nah, since by all accounts the fourth plane was headed to another federal target within the District.
10:27 a.m. Congress has consistently legislated to enfranchise more and more voters over time, Lieberman says. Now he's passing the baton to co-sponsor Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Hatch is going to try to convince his fellow Republicans that they may, can and should pass this bill, and then allow the courts to decide on its constitutionality.
Hatch: "Noting that the District is not a state is a factual observation. It is not a constitutional argument."
10:36 a.m. Hatch: "I oppose statehood for the District of Columbia. But giving the District a House seat so that its residents can participate in the process of making the laws they must obey, in no way changes either the District's political status or Congress' authority over the District." Hrrrm. Not exactly the argument statehood activists want to hear from Hatch here.
10:41 a.m. Now Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is up to argue against the bill, and he opens with the "several states" argument.
Oh no! Kyl makes the Gohmert case! "The District does not lack for representation in Congress. It actually already has representatives in Congress, 100 Senators and 435 House members, all of whom, under the Constitution itself, have the jurisdiction and indeed the obligation to provide for the general welfare of the residents of the District of Columbia." Don't worry, D.C., we'll be posting phone numbers and email addresses for Jon Kyl's offices so that you can place constituent services requests to him directly in just a few minutes.
Sen. Jon Kyl
Republican Whip
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207
Or you can use this form to send an electronic message to Kyl's office. Let Jon Kyl know what he can do for you, D.C. He's just announced on the Senate floor that he has "the jurisdiction and indeed the obligation to provide for the general welfare of the residents of the District of Columbia." Let's take him up on that promise! Are there any potholes that Jon Kyl can take care of for you?
Another option: Email Jon Kyl's chief of staff! Tim Glazewski can be reached at Tim_Glazewski(at)Kyl.senate.gov.
10:52 a.m. D.C.'s own senator, Jon Kyl, says we need to pass a constitutional amendment in order to get a voting representative.
11:01 a.m. Kyl says that those who respect the Constitution cannot support this bill in the hopes that the Courts will later decide on its legal merits.
Lieberman says they are waiting on Sen. Dick Durbin to come speak for 5 minutes. In the meantime, he pleads with his colleagues to at least vote for cloture so that the bill can be debated.
11:11 a.m. Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the bill's main supporters in the Senate, takes the floor. "Do opponents of this bill think that D.C. residents should have the full responsibilities of citizenship, but not the full rights of citizenship?" Durbin goes on to say things he has seen in the Senate regarding how Congress treats the District are "embarrassing," that Congress uses the District as a point of political leverage and treats it in such a way that no member would ever treat a city within their own home constituencies. Nice to hear such a big time senator admit that on the Senate floor.
11:16 a.m. The cloture vote is now being called to proceed. Roll call.
11:28 a.m. Here come the votes. One vote that's gone the other way this time: Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), voted yea this time, even though he voted nay on the 2007 bill. Another vote switch: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has voted yea, after voting nay last time. WEIRD? Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who voted for the bill last time, has voted no. Don't forget that the bill also grants an additional House seat to Utah.
11:42 a.m.: Motion to proceed is agreed to, 62-34! Filibuster avoided!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Can someone pull Lieberman's mic before he ruins this for all of us...?
I still think everyone is missing the point... Taxation and representation, right?
I'd rather not vote AND not pay taxes.
If you don't pay taxes, you should also get no Social Security and Medicare, and the army should refuse to defend DC. There's a reason taxes are mandatory.
Boy, you're a buzzkill this morning... Guess I forgot to end my post with "/sarcasm"
Depends on the degree to which you don't pay taxes. Puerto Rico, for example, doesn't have to pay federal income taxes, but it's still subject to FICA and Medicare withholding. I'm pretty sure the other colonies work the same way. If we got the same deal as Puerto Rico, which is what most people are proposing, we'd better be eligible for Social Security and Medicare.
As for having the army refuse to defend DC, well, the army does defend the other territories, so they probably should offer the same arrangement here. The ability and responsibility of a nation to defend a territory is a key de facto definition of a legitimate territorial claim, whether or not the nation in question does so at a loss. If you're not prepared to defend it, is it really yours?
However, if as a matter of principle you want the military to stop defending the colonies, though, that should work out just fine; I'm sure Cuba or Venezuela could be convinced to open defensive military bases in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, China or North Korea could be likewise recruited to fill the same role for American Samoa and Guam, and DC should have no end of proposals to host military bases. Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Grand Fenwick, all bidding against each other... we would make a mint.
Nice try. Most folks in this thread will never get back out of Social Security what they put in. Medicare is approaching insolvency. And judging seeing as what's left of the Army and National Guard are "defending" us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South Korea (snort!), chances are they won't defend DC anyway. Unless you count the pooptacular performance of FEMA during Katrina as "defense." Screw taxes and halfassed representation. What DC needs is patriopsychotic anarchomaterialism: every hobo a king! Every child and pet a serf! Take it from Huey Long! "Every man a king! Every man a king! For you can be a MILLIONAIRE!"
Representative democracy is a degenerate failure! When will these dummkopfs learn that the will of the Volk is best expressed through a single party headed by a single, unquestioned leader?
Sounds to me like you're questioning our leadership! Guards! Sieze them! Ve haf ways of making you talk! Cardinal Biggles! Fetch....THE COMFY CHAIR!
We have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives? So can we vote in all of those elections, then? I'd be OK with that.
the funny thing is, if all these idiots in the congress (who LOVE to profess their respect for a strict constructionist reading of the constitution) really mean that we have 100 senators and 435 reps as district citizens, that means that our representation doesn't conform with "one man, one vote" rules, right?
So what's the difference between "debate" after cloture and what they're doing now? They don't actually debate one another in the class sense with statements for and against and rebuttals, do they? Did I miss that on CSPAN? I thought "debate" was all just speeches, i.e. what they're doing now.
I'd rather have someone I could talk to in the Senate. The only thing that E.H.N. can't do is break a tie on the House floor. How often are there ties in the House?
In the mean time, we'd be giving Utah a new seat, which they'd likely use as an excuse to split the district currently held by a Democrat in half. Granted, this would happen in 2012 anyway, but there's no reason we should have to bargain for representation--especially when it's so one-sided.
Plus--and this is the most important part--people in the rest of the country will say that D.C. has what it wants and they'll forget about us. Then we'll still lack a voice in the Senate, Congress will still have to approve all of our city government's actions. It's not worth it.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on the ins and outs of Congress, but somebody bottom-line this for me:
If/when the Senate approves S.160, it goes to the House, right? If the House approves, we get conference committee fun. Then it has to be reapproved by both chambers before going to the President, right?
OR do we get to skip the House since it's a bill about it's makeup?
Signed, Confused on Capitol Hill
Never mind, folks. I found this at WTOP
The bill still faces contentious amendments and may have to overcome GOP opposition to moving to a final vote. If it does pass the Senate, possibly by the end of the week, the bill goes on to a receptive House and ultimately to President Barack Obama, who supports it.
"Do opponents of this bill think that D.C. residents should have the full responsibilities of citizenship, but not the full rights of citizenship?" (emphasis added)
Glad to hear you're so enthusiastic, Dick. I'll look forward to reading the bill you'll be authoring to give us a couple of senators after this passes and we finally have a third of the rights of citizenship. I really hope Durbin isn't trying to make the argument that this bill actually accomplishes giving us the "full rights" to which he's referring. Otherwise all those nice things he's saying about how embarrassing our situation is would end up being just kind of...embarrassing. And just to quibble a moment with his choice of words: "rights of citizenship" is a phrase that makes for nice speechmaking — it sounds better than "the rights of federal taxpayers" — but it isn't really accurate; Puerto Ricans are citizens too, but no one is discussing getting them a vote.
Huzzah! Congress has made us rich again and we can vote! All is right with the world!
Just submitted:
Dear Sen. Kyle,
I'm very concerned with the state of the Metro here in Washington, DC. It seems budget shortfalls and debt are creating an untenable situation and I worry for the future of public transportation. As a Senator with "the jurisdiction and indeed the obligation to provide for the general welfare of the residents of the District of Columbia," as you so eloquently stated, please let me know what you are doing to address this issue.
Many thanks,
Mebbee, we could proclaim Puerto Rico our Sister
Colony. Send Fenty down there to wax cosmopolitan
and rum for all.
Senator Kyl,
Since you say that all senators and congresspeople have a duty to provide for the general welfare of the residents of Washington D.C., I was wondering if you could look into our water quality, which has been tested to contain lead and other contaminants. While you are at it, can you please look into the fact that way too many of street fire hydrants are out of service, which can be a big problem when fires are all too common in a big city. In addition, maybe you can work out the issues with the overburdened DC Child and Family Services Agency. Get the point? DC has many issues that require representation from their OWN senator. Thanks for understanding.
I borrowed some of the previous ideas and expounded.
Dear Senator Kyl,
Since you say that all senators and congresspersons have a duty to provide for the general welfare of the residents of Washington D.C., I was hoping you could look into our poor water quality issues, as our drinking water supply has been proven to show that it contains high levels of lead and other contaminants.
Could you also please look into the fact that way too many of street fire hydrants are out of service, which can be fatal when fires are all too common in a densely populated city. Note several multi-family residential building fires, the Eastern Market fire and the Georgetown Library fire in the last couple of years alone.
In addition, maybe you can work out the issues with the overburdened DC Child and Family Services Agency. Children should not be dying on your watch. Those four girls who were killed by their mother last year, they deserve public services that protect their health, safety and welfare. As do all residents of DC.
I'm also very concerned with the state of the Metro here in Washington, DC. It seems budget shortfalls and debt are creating an untenable situation and I worry for the future of safe public transportation in our capital city and metro region. How do you get around town when congress is in session?
As you know, America was founded on the idea that citizens of any land should not have to pay taxes without adequate representation in their own government, yet Washington DC has one of the highest tax rates in the nation. You may consider yourself and others in congress to be 'adequate' for our needs, but I assure you when Rep. Louis Gohmert of TX made the same arguement last year and DC residents contacted him about DC issues, Rep. Gohmert most certainly did not have time for us, nor the interest in assisting us with our needs. How much time are you personally willing to devote to actually representing DC residents, sir?
As a Senator with "the jurisdiction and indeed the obligation to provide for the general welfare of the residents of the District of Columbia," as you so eloquently stated, please let me know what you are doing to address these issues. DC has many such issues that require representation from dedicated congresspersons.
Furthermore, DC is the only national capital in the world where residents do not have representation in their own government. We're U.S. citizens too, sir, and aren't you ashamed of trying to deny us rights equal to those of our fellow citizens? You should be.
Many thanks for your time,
Anica
Nice try, but too ambitious. There's no way a Senate staffer is going to read past the postmark, unless you enclose a big enough campaign contribution.
I'm just asking Sen. Kyl to sign me up for a White House tour, for which he will ask for tickets "as a courtesy to my constituents." He can't begrudge me that, can he?
I could really get behind this if I thought it would survive a Supreme Court challenge. If the law is passed - still a big "if" despite the big guy's support - it will inevitably be challenged in court by some think tank or right-wing organisation that has no vested interest in DC.
When it lands on the bench, you can bet there are at least four votes against it. The strict constructionists on the court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) will find no constitutional support. That leaves Stevens, and his vote on this is anyone's guess.