Transcripts For CSPAN2 Senate Session 20140908

Standing with you is based on what you have done and not on our feeble efforts. Set your stronghold of protection firm against the foes of this land we love, as you use our haw makers to fulfill your purposes. Lord, in the midst of distracting problems, give our senators a vision of what america can become. Make this a nation of justice and plenty where vice shall cease to fester. Prepare us for the role committed to our fallible hands so that our lives will ghoarfy you. Glorify you. We flai your merciful name, amen. The president pro tempore pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The president pro tempore the majority leader. Mr. Reid mr. President , it is so good to see you. And to be back in this place where the presiding officer and i have spent a lot of the years of our life. Glad to see everybody here to see what we can do to wrap up this session at least until the lame duck. I move to proceed to calendar number 471. The president pro tempore the clerk wiltheclerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to calendar number 471, s. J. 19, proposing appear amendment to the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. Mr. Reid mr. President . The president pro tempore the majority leader. Mr. Reid following my remarks and those of the republican leerksd the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5 30 this evening. During that period of time until 5 30, senators will be permitted to speak up to ten minutes and the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 5 30 the senate will proceed to a roll call vote on confirmation of the nomination to fill the vacancy in the 11th circuit, jill pryor. Following disposition of the pryor nomination, there will be a rowell chemical vote on henry j. Aaron followed by three voice votes in relation to aaron, cohen and chen. Following this, the senate will proceed to a roll call vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the constitutional amendment o therefore, senators shall be prepared to accept up to three roll kale votes at 5 30. The presiding officer and i deserve served for a long time with the distinguished senator from south carolina, senator hollings, who retired, and this was his issue. This issue dealing with the constitutional amendment. And i can remember and see this dignified, handsome, very articulate senator talking about the importance of this before he left, and he spoke on this on many occasions. So it brings back memories, all very positive, about the good work that this man did before he left. By the way, hes still strong and vibrant, 90 years old or thereabouts, doing his still playing tennis and being as strong as we knew he was here. There are two bills at the desk due for a second reading, mr. President. The president pro tempore the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second tievment. The clerk h. R. 5230, an act making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. H. R. 5272, an act to prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens, not lawfully present in the United States and for other purposes. Mr. Reid mr. President , i would object to any further proceedings the president pro tempore objection having been heard mr. Reid with respect to both of these bills. The president pro tempore the bills will be placed on the calendar. Mr. Reid we have a number of vitally important matters that require our attention. I will only mention a few of them, there are a lot more than this. The matters coming out of the Judiciary Committee alone would nifill this whole panel or more. We have been stopped from doing everything during the last two congresses so were not getting much done. We need to pass appropriations to keep the government from shutting down. As it has in the past because of the obstruction of the republicans. Would end to pass an extension of the internet tax freedom act. We need to reauthorize the exportimport bank. We need to pass the travel promotion and enhancement act, which was overwhelming placed by the house a short while ago. And we need to recar the issues of College Affordable care act and equal pay for women. But the bill before us today, mr. President , is senator udalls constitutional amendment and that of senator bennet, the good senators from new mexico and colorado who have joined together on a very important issue. Were going to consider that. The first vote will be tonight. Mr. President , we have had in this country a flood of very, very dark money coming into this nations political system which is threatening to tear apart the fabric of american democracy. During the 2012 president ial campaign outside groups met about 1 billion. Thats as much outside spending as took place in the previous ten elections. Now, this year, mr. President , last year was a president ial election, so the moneys focused on the senate and house races they will again break all records. This spike in the amount of money being pumped into the system is not surprising, as alarming as it is. Recent decisionses rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, Citizens United, the mccutcheon case, have destroyed our Campaign Finance laws, have left the American People with a status quo in which radical billionaires are attempting to buy our democracy. Meanwhile, hardwork being families who dont have endless funds to dufn into political campaigns are expected to sit on the sideline and watch as two brothers try and fix every election in america to their liking. And i say every election. Mr. President , theyre involved in elections in the state of virginia, not for the senate theyre involved in that, im sure, too, but the secretaries of state, state legislative races in vermont, all over the country. They are a spending money as if theres no end to it. I guess with them there isnt any end to it. Hardworking families, though, dont have the funds to dump into political campaigns so they just sit on the sidelines and watch. When i say the americans are watching the Koch Brothers trying to influence the november electionses, i mean that literally. Last week it was reported that charles and david koch and their political empire have funded 44,000 political ads for television so far during this election cycle. 44,000. Mr. President , but that doesnt count montana they hide in other money they hide in other organizations. The chamber of commerce, they helped fund their ad ads, and or organizations, phony objectio organizations. But we can identify directly charles and david koch with 44,000 separate 30second tv spots. Lets put that in perspective. If for 16 days there was nothing on television except their spo spots, they have covered that. 44,000 ads. Thats how many 30second ads would running in 16 days, 24 hours a day. 16 consecutive days of aroundtheclock 30second political ads. Thats just from them. Imagine, 16 consecutive days of nonstop political ads, no 24hour news kofnlg coverage, ns coverage, no espn, no football games, no baseball games, no sportscenter, and no reality television, no anything, just the Koch Brothers paid actors and deceitful messaging all day, every day for more than two weeks. This is the political environment that the Citizens United decision has hatched. A society inundated with the radical political misgivings and i guess some would say musings of two brothers. But theyre billionaires, multi, multibillionaires. And while the kochs and other special interests using their vast resources to make their voices heard, merp americans are being systematically disenfranchised from our democracy. To say thats wrong is a gross understatement. I dont know how else to say it. Our involvement in government should not be dependent on somebodys checkbook. The American People reject the notion that money gives billionaires, corporations, or special interests a greater voice in government than our own voice. The voice of voters. The American Voter believes, as i do, that the constitution doesnt give corporations a vote and it doesnt give them because of the dollars they have extra votes. The only people who dont see it that way are the republicans here in congress. They see money as speech. In fact, the republican leader has said quote in our society, spending is speech. Close quote. If spending is speech, where does that leave the rest of the American People . Should their role in our democracy be diminished because theyre paying a mortgage or sending kidding to college . Should a family hard hit by the recession lets say theyre out of work. Does that mean they shouldnt have any say at the ballot box . Should a family hardhit by the recession take a back seat in our government to a couple of billionaires . Right now the answer is yes. How could everyday American Families afford to make their voices heard if spending money is speech . Families cant compete with billionaires. Rich families cant, poor families cant, working families cant. The only people that would have a vote are these megabillionaires who are trying to buy our country. They are trying to buy america, at every level of government. Why . Because they want to make more money. They control vast amounts of tar sands, oil, gas, coal, chemicals, and on and on. They want to make more money. What they have now is not enough. So were faced with a choice we can keep the status quo, or we can change the system and restore the fundamental principle of one american, one vote. Mr. President , when i was in law school here, one of the classes i had sent us over to the Supreme Court to listen to an argument, baker v. Carr. The decision was on one man, one vote, one woman, one vote. It was i didnt realize it when i was there listening frankly, i didnt really understand a lot of the talk that went on before the Supreme Court. But i came to learn later ive been in public phs office now for a few years and i can remember the first time i ran for the state legislature in nevada. Clerk county, where las vegas is, was really growing at the time. But they had not totally reapportioned the state. They had done a little bit. Out of clark county, which is only one county we have 17 counties. They had nine incumbent assemblymen. So i ran against those nine assemblymen. Now reapportionment has taken place because of baker v. Kamplet because when i was elected to the legislature, the one person, one vote rule did not apply. We hadnt completed that work yet. So, mr. President , i really do believe that we should be a society where one vote equals one person. Corporations shouldnt have a vote and dollar bills shouldnt have a vote. But thats where we are now, mr. President. Were faced with a choice. Keep the status quo or change it. But senators udall from new mexico and bennet from colorado, they want to change this system. Their constitutional amendment is about restoring freedom of speech for everyone in america, whether youre a billionaire, a millionaire, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, poor, homeless. Thats who were fighting for, mr. President. It grants congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending money for federal political campaigns. Senators udall and bennets amendment will rein in the massive spending of super pacs which has grown exponentially since the Supreme Courts misguided decision, Citizens United. It provides states authority at a state level. This is common sense, a solution to an issue plaguing our political system. Senate republicans are doing their best to keep the status quo. What theyre going to do, mr. President , were going to have a cloture vote tonight to stop debate on this. They say well, great, well go ahead and support that because we can stall. They want us to not be able to do anything here. Remember, their whole political mantra is this you have a democratic president , you have a Democratic Senate. And they have done their best for the six years during the Obama Administration to stop everything. Thats what they agreed to do, stop everything. Two goals not allow the president to be reelected. They failed there miserably. During the first senate we had a lot of Democratic Senators. We were able to get a lot done during the first, i should say. The last two they have been experts at stalling everything. That is what they are going to do today. Were going to vote at this time and were going to vote on it again wednesday. There will be no amendments. It is not a difficult issue. Either youre for Campaign Spending reform or youre not. My republican colleagues, they can stall for time here. Were going to be very patient. Were going to see if there is a single republican who believes that election in America Today should be determined by how much money you have. Thats what this vote is all about. So im going to move this legislation forward regardless of any republican obstruction because this issue is important. Simply put, this constitutional amendment is what we need to bring back sanity to elections and restore americans confidence in our democracy. We must overturn the status quo created by the Supreme Court and instead put in place a system that works for all americans, not just the richest of the rich. Its such a shame, mr. President , what this republicandriven tea party has done in congress to try to stop everything. Virtually everything is a filibuster. I dont know how much longer the American People are going to put up with. These are artificial numbers anyway. Shouldnt we be a democracy . Were not because everything in the senate requires 60 votes. That isnt the way the Founding Fathers, which, of course, a number of the Founding Fathers were from the presiding officers state. Not from nevada. But the Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves. They must be looking down at this and saying what in the world are they doing to our country . We must overturn the status quo. This is what the entire issue boils down to. Whether our democracy as president lincoln said is a government by the people and for the people, a government of the people of the people and for the people. Thats what lincoln said, and we know thats what he meant. Or as we have it today, a government of the rich, by the rich and exclusively for the rich. Is america for sale . The American People want change. They want their place in government to be protected. The constitutional amendment before the senate today protects working families. It protects americans. It protects their voice and participation in government because our voice, not the wealth of a few, is the very essence of american democracy. Mr. President , would the chair announce the business this afternoon. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5 30 p. M. , with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. Mr. Leahy mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from vermont. Mr. Leahy mr. President , what is the parliamentary situation . The presiding officer we are currently in a period of morning business. Mr. Leahy mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from vermont. Mr. Leahy i know were going to hold our first vote relevant to Senate Joint Resolution 19 later today, so let me speak about that a few minutes. Its a constitutional amendment, something rare here, but this would restore to congress and the states the authority to set reasonable limits on contributions and expenditures in our elections. But the amendment would also allow congress and the states to distinguish between natural persons and corporations when shaping legislation regarding the financing of elections. Both the states and the Senate Government exercised its power a long time in a responsible way until a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices ignored history. Worse than that, they ignored the courts precedent and they have invited corruption into our political system. If we dont respond, were going to continue to go back to days when only the wealthy few had access to our government. If we dont respond, corruption will flourish, hardworking americans will lose any remaining faith they have in their elected officials. So i believe it is time to restore some sanity to our Campaign Finance laws, but also to restore the true meaning and intent of the First Amendment. I came to the senate january 1975, the wake of the watergate scandal. Americans were voicing concerns about the integrity and honesty of their elected leaders. They were concerned about the corrupting influence of anonymous money flowing into elections. The publics confidence in our Democratic Institution was at a low point. So Congress Passed a 1976 amendment to the federal Election Campaign act. As a very freshman senator, the junior most member of the senate, i was proud to vote for this law. Decades later democrats and republicans again came together in 2002 to pass the mccainfeingold Bipartisan Campaign reform act. It targeted the use of soft money donations and the unlimited spending that can be done anonomously, used to finance attack ads before an election. Just as we did in the wake of watergate our bipartisan effort recognized the need to pass important Campaign Finance reforms to protect our democracy from corruption, to preserve access to our popular democracy. But it appears today many of our elected officials in a narrow majority in the United States Supreme Court no longer ago knowledge the corrosive influence of unfettered anonymous money flowing into our elections, anonymous money. Somebody can try to buy the election and dont have to put their fingerprints on it. They just spend the money. They can get the committee to bring honestness and openness to the government. Over the last decade a slim majority of the Supreme Court issued one dreadful Campaign Finance decision after another. In fact, in 2010 by a 54 ruling, five republicans on the Supreme Court in Citizens United the Court Reversed a century of precedent by declaring corporations have a First Amendment right to spend endlessly to finance and influence elections. In fact, they said corporations were people. I said this many times before, and sometimes people chuckle but stop to think about it. This country elected general eisenhower as president. Really, this is what the Supreme Court said, we could elect General Electric to be president or General Motors to be president. In this past year the same five justices held the aggregate limits on Campaign Contributions are now somehow a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, if youre running in a local election, somewhere people spend normally 300 or 400, but its critical because that local board may decide what the tax policy of a Big Corporation might be in that community. They could say okay, people running the board are going to spend 300 or 400 each. Well just put 1 million in to elect a different board, theyll give us a 10 million tax break. The courts radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment contradicts the principles of freedom, equality and selfgovernance upon which this nation was founded. And the consequence of the courts opinion is that a small, tiny minority of very wealthy individuals with special interests are drowning out the voices of hardworking americans and skewing our electoral process. What theyre saying is ive got millions of dollars. Ive got a voice in elections. You . Youre just an average, hardworking man or woman, and you dont have any voice. The expressed justification for time honored Campaign Finance laws has been a genuine concern about the corrupting influence of money and politics. But despite this wellfounded concern, Justice Kennedys opinion in Citizens United nonsenseically confined corruption to mean only quid pro quo corruption of bribery. In doing so five justices disregarded what our founders meant to be the meaning of corruption. Look at the distinguished presiding officer, a man who served with such great distinction as governor of the commonwealth of virginia. Think about the jury verdict handed down last week against another former republican governor of the commonwealth of virginia and it reminds us that elected officials grant political favors in exchange for gifts and money, it threatens the thread of our democracy. When Justice Kennedy and those who joined failed to recognize that more subtle forms of corruption are also corrosive and undermine public confidence. Back in the last century we changed the constitution to allow the direct election of senators. One of the motivating factors was in one state that the legislatures appointed senators, in one state, one major corporation, a mining industry, so controlled the legislature, they picked who was going to be the senators. We changed that because we said everybody should have a voice. States and future congresses should be able to recognize corruption extends to the idea that money, particularly unregulated Campaign Contributions, buys access and influences the political process in disproportionate ways for a wealthy few. This pay to play notion is corrosive to our democracy. The size of your bank account shouldnt determine whether and how the government responds to your needs. The government should be there for all americans, not just the most wealthy. Vermonters understand this. They have led the way by speaking out forcefully about the devastating impact of the Supreme Court decision. Weve got to start listening to our constituents. We ought to vote to protect our democracy against corruption. We ought to restore democracy for all americans. And for those who claim the threat of the Supreme Court decisions is not sufficient to warrant a constitutional amendment, lets get the facts straight. Even incremental measures to simply increase the transparency of the flood of money pouring into our elections have been repeatedly filibustered by republicans. In fact, many of us for years have tried to pass laws that would require Greater Transparency and disclosure of political spending. Ive tried to practice what i preach. Ive disclosed every cent ever contributed to me, including one time from one about 40 cents or 50 cents. It cost us more to disclose it than it was but i wanted people to know who had contributed to my campaign. But when we try to have this kind of disclosure on all money, republicans have repeatedly filibustered that legislation, known aptly as the disclose act. The statutory approach would allow the American People to at least know whos pouring money into our electoral system. Not unlimited amount of money but you ought to know whos doing it and know why theyre doing it. So i hope well be able to convince enough republicans to join this effort to overcome the republican filibuster of a modest transparency bill. But because the Supreme Court based its rulings on a fawd interpretation oa flawedintert amendment, a statutory fix alone will not suffice. Only a constitutional amendment can overturn the Supreme Courts devastating Campaign Finance decisions. Our proposal to amend the constitution simply restores the ability of future lawmakers, republicans and democrats, at both the federal and state levels, to rein in the influence of billionaires and corporatio corporations that billionaires and corporations now have on our elections. Its nose restore the first its necessary to restore the First Amendment so all voices can be heard in the democratic process, all voices, whether youre a millionaire or not. Its vital to ensure that corruption does not flourish. So i hope senators will join this vote. With that, i do not see anybody seeking recognition, mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Sessions mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from alabama. Mr. Sessions i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection, the quorum call is suspended. Mr. Sessions i thank the president. President obamas announc friday that he would not follow through on his promise to utilize executive orders to provide amnesty and Work Authorization for 5 million to 6 million americans by the end of the summer who have unlawfully entered the country and unlawfully and cannot work lawfully in america, whove overstayed their visas or entered illegally, does not indicate that he i has in any wy abandoned his plan to execute such an executive order amnesty. The president , indeed, directly said he understands that the American People oppose what hes doing, this operation to work this authorization to work and creating a legal status by executive order. The American People oppose it 21 plus. So hes going to back off, he said, and is he going to back off and honor the wishes of the American People . No, not at all. This is the point the American People need to understand. The president now is brazingly reaffirming in even clearer language that he will carry out his amnesty plan, but only after the election in november. This is an attempt to protect his Democratic Senate candidat candidates. In fact, just a few moments ago, said it would be wrong to inject into the election this issue. Well, i would say this to mr. Flak at the white house, whos paid addition hi his sy the American People. The American People have one chance to have their voice heard. The president is talking about unilateral illegal action, contrary to american law, to legalize as many as 5 million to 6 Million People. And we shouldnt inject it into the election and the Democratic Senators and other senators who would oppose who failed to object to that, they should be protected and not being criticized for allowing it to occur . Is what weve gotten to in a democracy . That the president can make this decision, not involve the American People . No, they need to stay out of this. They shouldnt talk about it in an election. Well, when should issues be talked about, great issues facing america, if not during the election cycle . So i think its time for many of these candidates for the senate to be heard explicitly where do you stand . Do you support the legislation that the house of representatives has passed that would effectively, as we often do around here, bar the president from spending any money to execute such an illegal, unauthorized amnesty, or not . Are you for it or not . Well, we know one thing, the democratic leader here in the senate will not bring it up, if its his choice, so its going to take a lot of senators to stand up to the majority leader reid and president obama and bring this legislation that the house has passed that would bar the expenditure of any money to carry out an unlawful amnesty. The president cant give Work Authorization, as he and his people have said he intends to do, to people unlawfully in america. The law says theyre not eligible to work in america. Theyre not eligible to be hired in america. The president cant say, you are authorized to work, as hes already done for the young people through the daca program. But this is 5 million to 6 million more. One article said, correctly, 10 times as many. And its adults, many of them whove entered the country illegally only recently, presumably. So i just think that weve got to understand whats going on and we need to challenge our colleagues to stand up and be counted on counted with regard to the legitimate authority of congress whos passed laws of this country that are due to be executed and carried out faithfully by the president of the United States. Hes not authorized just to not enforce the law, to not utilize the i. C. E. Officers and the Border Patrol officers, block them from doing their work. I. C. E. Officers have even sued them because theyve been blocked from following their oath to enforce the laws of the United States. No wonder this is an important issue. No wonder its rising in interest by the American People, and they have every right to do so. Well, im going to explain why this amnesty is unlawful, how it will hamper the American Workers and how it will eviscerate any hope of ever establishing a lawful immigration system in the future if it goes forward. But first, lets look at the recent events. The president openly stated at the nato conference a few days ago that he will give legal status to persons unlawfully here utilizing executive orders. He cannot do that, colleagues, American People. Theyre unlawfully here. He has no power to reverse the laws passed by the congress of the United States and declare someone lawful whos unlawful. Its a thunderous, dramatic abuse of president ial power. So hes previously made clear that his amnesty will include Work Authorization and he cant do that either. Its plainly contrary to law. He attempted to do that and so far i guess hes succeeded in declaring that for young people who came here supposedly as young people, although the proof is very uncertain, certainly not very tight about that. So his advisors and allies openly boast about how broad this is going to be. They say you must go big, mr. President , do even more than youre saying to do now under this law. And its really all because of the opposition of the American People. By substantial majority, the American People oppose this action. But the president is intending to do it. And according to the news reports, the members of the senate went to the president , said, oh, dont do this now, mr. President. I know you promised to do it before the end of the summer but dont do it now because that might hurt me in my election. Im going to have to vote or block votes in the senate that would stop you from doing this and im going to get criticized for it, mr. President. Please dont do this now. Dont do it now. You can do it after the elections, after ive gotten my sixyear term. Do it then, mr. President. No wonder senator mcconnell referred to that as a cynical act by the president. So this was a dramatic event that occurred this weekend. This executive amnesty would include work permits for millions of people who are illegally in the United States or have overstayed their visas and theyre unlawful. And its a violation of sovereign constitutional law passed by the peoples representatives in the United States congress. And it wipes away the immigration and nationality acts clear rules on who can enter the United States, who can work in the United States, and who can live in the United States. A nation has a right to establish that. Dont we all agree . Shouldnt those rules and principles be established and followed . Were not against immigration. We have a Million People come to our country every year legally, and they apply and wait their time and they come and they have the benefits of citizenship in america, one of the most generous immigration plans in the entire world. In addition to that, we have a huge Guest Worker Program that allows people to come here just to take jobs. The president wants to double the number of people who come here and take jobs. The house has refused to do th that. So these rules are the bedrock of any nations immigration policy and sovereignty and the president is actually in reality truly proposing to wipe away what amounts to the few remaining immigration rules that are in effect. The president is proposing to repeal through executive action the lawful protections to which every American Worker is entitled. His action would allow millions of Illegal Immigrants to instantly take precious jobs, jobs from struggling American Workers, unemployed American Workers by the millions in every sector of the economy. And this is not just agricultural workers, seasonal workers. 80 or more of those are in the industrial economy. And under this Work Authorization program, these people are given these people given Work Authorization would be entitled to take any job. They would be entitled to work at the county commission. They would be entitled to work at the energy company, the power companies. Even vitalle entitled to work ie manufacturing plants, drive the forklifts and heavy equipment. Good jobs, good for america. So this is at a time of high unemployment, falling wages. Were now talking about another 5 Million People being rewarded with the ability to take the best jobs in america, when millions of americans are struggling and wages are falling and we have the highest highest percentage of people outside the work force in america since the 1970s . And a higher percentage thats going up on parttime work instead of fulltime work. People on welfare. Food stamps have gone up fourfold. We need to get our people working first. We have a generous immigration plan. Now, now, i, again no one that i know of would say that the people who want to come to america and work are evil people or bad people. Were not saying bad things about them. Were simply saying that if you want to come to america, apply. And if you dont qualify, were sorry. Were simply not able to accept everybody that would like to come to america. We have rules and regulations, and they could be better, to make sure that we identify people who are likely to be successful in america, who wont be on the welfare rolls, wont demand health care from the government, will be able to pay their fair share for the cost of living in america. Thats what any smart nation would do. I think the what i think the American People need to know right now is this unconstitutional action, this planned executive amnesty has not gone away. Its only a matter of months now that its been delayed. Unless the American People stop it from happening. The New York Times reports just a few days ago on the timing of these actions. They said this quote president obama will delay taking executive action on immigration until after the midterm elections. Bowing to pressure from fellow democrats who feared that taking action now would doom his partys chances this fall, white house officials said on saturday. Close quote. Well, what does that mean . Its reported in a very neutral way. The New York Times, of course, favored amnesty and this kind of thing is reported in a neutral way, but how cynical is that . How cynical is that, that the president is now going to do something at a different date than he has promised repeatedly because hes afraid that if he does it now, the American People will have an opportunity to register their opinion come november. And members of his party will face election, and they are going to be asked if they support and vote for this or not. He does not want that to happen. Well, whats wrong with the American People being able to influence their government . Is the president above that . Has he reached such a high level of popularity that he doesnt have to worry about what the American People say, think or believe . That he can just advocate and carry out policy based on political deals hes made with big business and special Interest Groups and politicians . And the American People dont support it, Congress Wont pass it, so he gets to do it anyway. Is this where we are in America Today . Look, whats particularly disturbing is our Senate Democrat colleagues apparently dont object to the president carrying out executive amnesty, unilateral amnesty. They only prefer that the president implement it after the election, after their race is over so they dont have to explain it to the people they represent. Politico responded reported one typical Senate Democrat office as saying quote obama should use his executive authority to make fixes to the immigration system but after the november elections. Close quote. After the elections. Dont let it blow back on me. Go ahead, mr. President. We want you to do this fix but dont do it now. Do it after the election so nobody can hold me to account. I think the American People are getting tired of this. I think they are wising up. American politicians work for them. They dont the American People dont work for the politicians. So we had a vote in the senate on july 31 and i sought to block this action by bringing up a house bill similar to the bill that the house passed that would bar the president to expend any money to advocate, carry out this executive amnesty. Not one Senate Democrat only one, senator manchin, voted in support of that to allow the bill to come up for a vote. And no one, to my knowledge, on the democratic side has challenged senator reid and his ideas, his blocking of the house type legislation. So it is a very serious matter that we are engaged in today. Its a very serious matter. The moral underpinnings, the integrity of the Immigration Law already seriously damaged by the dak daca action president obama undertook will be fatally wounded if he utilized five million to six Million People unilaterally. How can you tell anybody in the future they have got to comply with the law . As the spokesman said for as the president himself said at the nato conference, that if we do my executive amnesty, it will, as he said, encourage legal immigration. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rewarding millions more who have entered the country illegally, rewarding their illegally acts is not going to cause more people to follow the law. Its going to be a further weakening of the law. And how will we be in the how will we in the future be able to tell people that came across the border after that that they shouldnt be given lawful status, rewarding them for their illegal act . Its just that simple. So, mr. President , were going to have to confront this issue. Congress needs to stand up, affirm the rule of law, do the right thing. We are not against immigration. We are not against n immigrants. We dont believe that this country ought to be isolationist, but we have a right and the American People have a right to believe their government will create an effective, honorable system of immigration and see that it is enforced fairly and resolutely. Thats the moral thing to do. Its the right thing to do. Its what the American People have been demanding for 30 or 40 years, and the politicians have steadfastly refused. So its time for the peoples voices to be heard, i think, and the American People are right on this. Exactly right. We are failing the future of our country, the lawful system of our country, and we are failing the American People and we are failing American Workers who are having a difficult time today finding jobs and seeing their wages decline. Mr. President , i thank the chair and would yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Hatch mr. President , today the senate will vote on three nominees to positions on the Social Security Advisory Board. Two of these nominees, alan cohen and lanhee chen, are well suited for these positions, and that being the case, i totally support their nominations. However, i plan to vote against the remaining nominee, dr. Henry aaron, who the president audibly intends to serve as chairman of the board. Id like to take just a few minutes today to explain why i have reached this decision. Over the past decade or so, dr. Aaron has spent most of his time and efforts focusing on Health Care Issues and advocacy. Indeed, the vast majority of writings that he offered in support of his nomination dealt with health care, not Social Security. When the finance committee considered his nomination, i specifically asked dr. Aaron if he had performed any Social Security analysis over the past decade. He could not produce anything substantive along these lines. Now, there is nothing wrong with focusing ones energies on health care instead of analyzing Social Security policy. However, given the specific focus of the Social Security Advisory Board, i am concerned about the extent to which dr. Aaron has considered Social Security issues and analytical advances in the field over the past decade or more. It appears to me that dr. Aarons interest and skill set make him better suited for a position in the Health Care Arena rather than advising on the current state of Social Security. Dr. Aaron has written about Social Security more extensively in the past, but his conclusions were predominantly normative, and his most recent Social Security writings too often imply that anyone disagreeing with his conclusions are dead wrong and likely have adverse motives. In fact, this is a trend that pervades all of dr. Aarons writings. Far too often, in addition to reaching conclusions and making recommendations, dr. Aaron finds it necessary to condemn potential critics, usually along partisan lines. Of course, im not one to vote against a nominee simply because i disagree with her policy prescriptions or their analytical techniques. I generally believe in giving reasonable deference to the president on nominations, particularly those involving positions designed to provide advice to the president and his administration. The Social Security Advisory Board, however, is set up to provide bipartisan advice on Social Security issues to congress, and the Social Security commissioner as well as the president. Given all the challenges facing Social Security, this type of advice is crucial. The board chair must be able to work toward gathering bipartisan consensus and avoid turning the Social Security Advisory Board into just another platform for Political Division and partisan rhetoric. Therefore, it is necessary to consider dr. Aarons nomination from the perspective of bipartisanship, like i said. The nominee for board chair must demonstrate an ability to promote and garner bipartisan consensus. Unfortunately, the evidence does not convince me that dr. Aaron would be able to set aside his partisan views and manage the board in a bipartisan fashion that names the consensus in both analysis and conclusions. Throughout much of his writings, dr. Aaron has far more often than not opted for partisanship over sound policy. This not only makes me question his ability to be bipartisan, it also leads to question his judgment on policy issues. For example, he has recently advocated that the president disregard the constitution and ignore the statutory limit on federal debt. He has praised the president for ignoring the law by unilaterally deciding not to enforce provisions of the Affordable Care act, identifying the administrations failure to enforce law written by congress and signed by the president himself as an act that quote to quote dr. Aaron, adroitly performs political jujitsu on obamacare opponents. Unquote. He has written that the independent payment Advisory Board or ipab, an agency with virtually unchecked power to ration medicare spending, should be given even broader authority. He has scolded states that have fully within their rights decided against expanding medicaid as part of the Affordable Care act, the rollout. Dr. Aaron used particularly vitriolic words to describe state officials who opted not to expand medicaid, saying that quote officials in many states have adopted a stance reminiscent of massive resistance, a futile attempt, a futile effort to block implementation of the Supreme Courts implementation Banning School segregation. Unquote. When i asked dr. Aaron a question at his confirmation hearing about the caustic nature of some of his comments, he alluded to writings for newspapers and opeds as avenues in which inclusion of politically charged rhetoric is the quote coin of the realm, unquote. That may very well be the case, mr. President , but that doesnt mean there is a place for it on the Social Security Advisory Board. I have serious concern about dr. Aarons ability to keep such rhetoric in check as he chairs a board that is by statute intended to exhibit impartiality. Once again, our Social Security system faces a number of fiscal and structural changes and challenges. If were going to address these challenges, we need serious discussions that will lead to serious solutions, not more partisanship. Dr. Aaron has not convinced me that he is the one to help lead these types of discussions, and for these reasons, i intend to vote against this confirmation. Mr. President , i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call the presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cruz mr. President , i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection the quorum call is suspended. Mr. Cruz mr. President , i rise today to address an issue of grave importance to the National Security of the United States. That is the threat from the radical sunni terrorist organization known as the Islamic State in iraq and syria or simply as the Islamic State, and now it claims to control territory in a grotesque parody of a nation state. Isis is a study in oppression and brutality that is conducting ethnic cleansing against religious minorities in the region, that is targeting and persecuting christians, and that is attempting to subject the local population to the strictest forms of sharia law, and isis has gruesomely murdered u. S. Civilians and indeed, journalists on the public stage. It should come as no surprise the people of the United States are deeply concerned about this development. We are concerned about the inability of our government to anticipate this gathering threat, we are concerned about the brutal acts of oppression against the weak and the helpless. We are concerned about isiss seizure of financial and military assets that have fueled their murderous rampage. And above all, we are concerned about the threat that isis poses not only to our close allies in the region but also to our citizens and even here in our homeland. There has been a lot of talk in recent days about developing a strategy to combat isis. Id like to propose a couple of commonsense steps that we should take immediately to combat this scourge. First, the time has come it is beyond time for us to secure our borders. Representing the state of texas, which has a border nearly 2,000 miles long, i know firsthand just how unsecure the border is right now. This week of all weeks with the anniversary of the september 11 attacks upon us, we can have no illusions that terrorists wont try to make good on their specific threats to attack america, and as long as our border isnt secure, were making it far too easy for the terrorists to carry through on those promises. Rumored isis activities in the southern border should unite us all in the resolve to make Border Security a top priority, rather than an afterthought or rather than something to be held hostage for political negotiations here in the congress. Second, we should take commonsense steps to make fighting for or supporting isis an affirmative renunciation of american citizenship. We know today that there are over a hundred americans who have joined isis, who have taken up arms alongside the jihadists, along with thousands of others from the european union. And we also know that they are trying to return to their countries of origin to carry out terrorist attacks there. We know this because on may 24, an isis member returned to belgium where he attacked innocent visitors at a jewish museum, slaughtering four people. And it was reported today that he had been plotting an even larger attack on paris on bastille day. In addition on august 11 of this year, an accused isis sympathized thighser, donald ray morgan, was arrested at j. F. K. Airport trying to reenter the United States. So we know that this threat is real. Mr. President , that is why i have today filed legislation, thics patriot rat terrorist act of 2014 which would amend the existing statute governing renunciation of United States citizenship to designate fighting for a hostile Foreign Government or Foreign Terrorist Organization as an affirmative renunciation of citizenship. By fighting for isis, u. S. Citizens have expressed their desire to become citizens of the Islamic State. And that cannot and will not peacefully coexist with remaining american citizens. The desire to become a citizen of a terrorist organization that has expressed a desire to wage war on the American People, has demonstrated a brutal capacity to do so, murdering american civilians on the global stage and promising to bring that jihad home to america, we should not be facilitating their efforts by allowing fighters fighting alongside isis to come back to america with american passports and walk freely in our cities to carry out unspeakable acts of terror. It is my hope that the legislation im introducing today will earn support on both sides of the aisle, that we will see this body come together and say while there are many partisan issues that divide us, when it comes to protecting United States citizens from acts of terror, we are all as one. That is my fervent hope. The third thing we should do is we should do Everything Possible to make isis understand that there are serious ramifications for threatening to attack the United States, for murdering american citizens, while damaging isiss Financial Assets is certainly a part of this action, because of the very nature of isis, the response must be principally military. All americans are weary of the long and coste wars of the last decade. Were tired of sending our sons and daughters potentially to die in distant lands. No one wants to see an extended engagement in iraq. But at the same time, i dont believe the American People are one bit reluctant to defend our National Security, to defend the lives of fellow americans. And the American People can see the grim threat represented by isis. And the need for decisive action. We should concentrate on a coordinated and overwhelming air campaign that has the clear military objective of destroying the capability of isis to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States. We must remain focused on this clear military objective if we hope to be successful. We cannot engage in photo op Foreign Policy or press release Foreign Policy of dropping a bomb here, shooting a missile there, and not having a strategy that is dictated by clear and direct military objectives in furtherance of u. S. National security interests. We should be perfectly clear as well that any action we take against ice sis in no way contingent on resolving the civil war in syria. That conflict of conflict is a d the sad reality is that there are no good options for the United States in this fight. We may have had less radical options three years ago, but those are not currently available today. The Obama Administration had proposed arming rebel forces that contained terrorist factions associated with isis. Previously, we were told that the rebels fighting alongside isis were our friends and assad and iran were our enemies. Now, in the face of isis, were hearing that assad may be our friend, iran may be our friend, and isis is now our enemy. This makes no sense. Indeed, its a dangerous cycle reminiscens of George Orwells 1984. He wrote at this moment in 1984, oceana was at war with asia and in alliance with east asia. Actually it was only four years since oceana had been at war with east asia and a alliance with east asia. But officially change of partners had never happened. They were at war with oceana and there are had always been at war with asia. The enemy of the moment, and any past or future agreement with him was impossible. This administration seems to have no sense of past or future. All of those familiar with the terrible human carnage inflicted by the civil yar in syria pray for its end. But the goal of our action in isis should not be to end it by supporting assad. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. And sometimes the goal is the destruction of the enemy who poses an imminent threat to our National Security, not the enabler of yet another enemy of america. It should also are cleared that any action we take against isis should in no way be contingent on political reconciliation between sunnis and shiites in baghdad. This administration has often become distracted by the hope to achieve this reconciliation but the sad truth is the sunnis and shiites have been engaged in a sectarian civil war since 6 2 a. D. It is the height of hubris, the height of ignorance to suggest that the american president can come and resolve a 1,500yearold religious civil war and have both sides throw down their arms and embrace each other as brother. That should not be our objective although we, of course, always hope for reconciliation and peace. We should not be so naive as to make defending our National Security contingent on resolving millennia old sectarian religious civil wars. Doing so, seeking to promote a utopia, seeking to transform iraq into switzerland is nothing less than a fool aerrand. Likewise, it fools errand. Any action we take to stop isis from attacking and murdering americans is no no way contingent on consensus from the socalled international community. America is blessed to have many good friends and allies this therange and beyond who understand the threat of isis and are eager to do what they can to combat it and we welcome their support. But in order that this action be done right, it must be led by the United States unfettered by other nations rules of engagement that might impede our effective action. Achieving some preordained number of countries in a coalition is not a strategy. For as as often been remarked, in the most effective efforts, the mission determines the coalition, not the other way around. It is heartening to hear the voices from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle raising the alarm of the threat posed by isis and president obama has signaled his attention of addressing the issue later this week. It is well past time for him to do so. As his recent statements from his admission on august 28 that quote we dont have a strategy yet to his suggestion on september 3 that our best bet is to try to quote shrink isis fear of influence until they are a manageable problem. Those comments are not encouraging. The objective here is not to make isis manageable. The objective here is to protect the National Security interests of the United States and to destroy terrorists who have declared jihad on our nation. Neither are the two things we already know that the president will propose if his quote new game plan namely, that he will not be requesting authorization from congress for hilt action against isis and that his model is the counterterrorism policies pursued by his administration the last five years. Neither of these are encouraging. I ask the president to reconsider both of these points. While isis is obviously part of the scourge of radical islamic terrorism that has bedeviled the west for decades, it is equally obviously representing a new and particulaparticularly virulent. The president is considering an action that could last as long as three years and may require a range of actions. If this is indeed the case, then it is incumbent upon him to come to congress and lay out his strategy so that we and the American People are clear on it. I would note, mr. President , that you have been particularly vocal and clear defending the Constitutional Authority of congress to declare war, and i would note as well that it is beneficial for the effort for the president to come to congress because, in doing so, it will force the president to do what has been lacking for so long, which is lay out a specific and clear military objective. What is it were trying to accomplish that is tethered directly to the u. S. National security interests of america. The constitution is clear it is congress and congress only that has the Constitutional Authority to dhair war. To declare war. Now, any president as commander in chief, has Constitutional Authority to respond to an imminent crisis, to resphond a clear to respond to a clear and present danger. But in this instance, the president is not suggesting that. He is suggesting engaged military action, and it is, therefore, inconsistent with the constitution for him to attempt to pursue that action without recognizing the Constitutional Authority of this body. It is my hope that he will do so, and it is my hope that we will have a substantive and meaningful debate about the military objective we should be united in achieving, which is namely destroying isis and preventing them from committing acts of terror, murdering innocent americans. Given the need to consider such action against a new actor like isis, it also must be admitted that the Obama Administrations counterterrorism policy has not been a success. They have labeled the 2009 attack on fort hood in high home state of texas in my home state of texas as an act of workplace violence. Even though nidal hasan recently asked to be a citizen of the Islamic State, they also missed connecting the dots that would have uncovered the radicalization of the tsarnov brothers that resulted in the attack in the boston that i thai remember on this. It should be noted that the elder tsaranov brother wore shipped at the same mosque where the isis head of worship. This jihad ks reach back and directly take the lives of american sentence at home. The administration has failed to respond effectively to the attack on our facilities in benghazi on september 11, 2012, in which four americans are murdered, including the first ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979. An event that innog rated liby libyas spiral into terrorist anarchy that continues unchecked to this day. And they completely missed the gathering threat of isis to the point that the president himself was under the misapprehension that the group was the terrorist equivalent of the Junior Varsity just a few months ago. We cannot forward to return to these we cannot afford to return to these policies given the acute threat posed by isis. It is my happ hope that this boy will stand together as one in bipartisan unity to secure the borders and to change our laws to pass the legislation im introducing today to make clear in that any american that takes up arms with isis has, in doing so, constructively renounced his or her american citizenship so that the congress can with one voice protect americans here at home. This requires clear, decisive, unified action, and it is my hope that all of us will come together supporting such action and that the president will submit to the authority of congress seeking authorization to protect america against isis and to engage in a concentrated, directed military campaign to take them out. I yield the floor. Ms. Warren mr. President . The presiding officer the senator massachusetts. Ms. Warren mr. President , i rise today in support of the pending constitutional amendment offered by senator udall of new mexico which would restore to congress and the states the authority t to rein in the enormous sums of money that are flooding in the political process. The founders feared the impact of concentration of power. John adarnlings a massachusetts native and the author of our state constitution, expressed this idea well. He said, power must be opposed to power, force to force, strength to strength be, interest to interest, as well as reason to reason, eloquence to eloquence, and passion to passion. Balance, said adarnling adams, s critical. But here in washington, power is not balanced. Instead, power is concentrated all on one side. Wellfinanced individuals and corporate interests are lined up to fight for their own privileges and to resist any change that would limit their special deals. I saw this up close and personal following the 2008 financial crisis when i fought hard for stronger financial regulations and the biggest banks in this country spent more than 1 million a day to weaken reforms. But there are many, many more examples. Big corporate interests are smart. They fight every day on capitol hill, every day in the agencies, every day in the courts always with the same goals in mind to bend the law to benefit themselves. And the United States Supreme Court is doing all it can to help them. Three wellrespected legal scholars, including judge richard pose posner, a widely respected and sceivive reagan appointee conservative reagan appointee, recently examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. The researchers used multivariant regression analysis to determine how often each justice voted in favor of corporate interests during that time. Now, judge posner and his colleagues concluded that the five sceivive justices conservative justices currently sit on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most procorporate justices in more thank half a century. And justices alito and roberts, number one and number two. Perhaps the most egregious example of this procorporate shift is the Citizens United decision. In this new Citizens Unitedera, the Supreme Court has unleashed a flood of secret corporate money into our political system and emboldened a powerful group of millionaires and billionaires who can toss out checks for millions of dollars to influence election outcomes. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave them even more room to operate. Congress had long ago put limits on how much money one rich person could contribute to a candidate, a party, or a Political Action committee in an election. These scng commonsense limits we intended to spreef preserve the integrity of our elections and the appearance of corruption. But the Supreme Court struck down those limits. Now as Justice Breyer noted in his dissenting opinion, the courts decision quote will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a Political Party or a candidates campaign. The impact of this line of judicial decisions is powerful. In 2012, about 3. 7 million typical americans gave donations of 2 or less to president obama and mitt romney. These added up to about 313 million. In that same election, 32 americans gave monster donations to super pacs. 32 people spent slightly more on the 2012 elections than 3. 7 typical americans who sent in modest dollar donations to their preferred president denying candidate. When 32 people can outspend 3. 7 million citizens, our democracy is in real danger. This is an extraordinary situation. The Supreme Court overturned a century of precedent, voiding Campaign Finance restrictions passed by congress and making it far easier for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporat corporations to flood our elections with massive amounts of money. The Supreme Court is helping them buy elections. We are here today to try to reverse the damage inflicted on our country by these decisions. We are here to fight back against a Supreme Court that says there is no difference between free speech and billions of dollars spent by the privileged few to swing elections and buy off legislators. We are here to fight back against a Supreme Court that has overturned a century of established law in an effort to Block Congress from solving this problem. I support a constitutional amendment only with great reluctance. Our constitution sets forth the fundamental structure of our government. The scope of that governments power and the critical limentses on that power. Limits on that powmplet any change to its text should be measured, should be carefully considered, and should occur only rarely. But there are times when action is required to defend our great democracy against those who would see it perverted into one more rigged game where the rich and the powerful always win. This is the time to amend the constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. We were not sent here to run this country for a handful of wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. We were sent here to do our best to make this country work for all our people. Thank you, mr. President. I yield, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Durbin mr. President . The presiding officer the assistant majority leader. Mr. Durbin i ask consent the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection the quorum call is suspended. Mr. Durbin mr. President , i chair the subcommittee of the senate Judiciary Committee that is entitled the subcommittee on constitution human rights and civil rights. Obviously our most important charge, the most serious charge of the subcommittee is to consider proposals to eam the constitution. Senate joint resolution 19, the democracy for all amendment, was the First Amendment considered by the constitution subcommittee since 2009 when i became its chair. The constitution and the wisdom of its framers endured for generations. I have established, and so have many of my colleagues, a very high bar for suggestions to amend that constitution. Thats the way it should be. Thats why majority leader reid, chairman Patrick Leahy of the senate Judiciary Committee, and i were committed to ensuring this proposal would be thoroughly vetted and that it moved through the senate by regular order. Its important to recall that until the early 20th century, most americans were not allowed to vote. And even after the franchise was legally expanded, a violent racist campaign prevented many africanamericans from voting. Six constitutional amendments, landmark civil rights legislation, and Supreme Court decisions helped make the promise of one person and one vote a reality. We must in our time, in our generation be constantly vigilant against threats to these victories which were won through the blood, sweat, tears and even the lives of many americans. Thats why were engaged in this debate today, because the right to vote is under siege. It is in peril. A wellfunded, coordinated effort has made it harder for millions of americans to vote and at the same time unleashed a tidal wave of special interest and corporate money into elections to drown out the voices of average americans. Opponents of our amendment say, oh, theyre just trying to repeal the First Amendment. They have it backwards. Our efforts would protect and restore the First Amendment. The amendment before the senate would begin to undo the damage done by five activist, conservative Supreme Court justices who have rewritten and distorted the First Amendment. With decisions like Citizens United and mccutcheon, these five justices overturned a century of legal and constitutional precedent to give a privileged click and corporate titans the power to drown out the voices of ordinary americans. And thats exactly whats happening. Bigmoney donors and their names are familiar to those who follow the world of politics the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the corporate interests they represent certainly deserve a seat at the policymaking table. But the size of their Bank Accounts does not entitle them to buy every seat at the table, control the agenda, and silence their critics. Unfortunately, this is exactly what were seeing across the nation, even being played out as i speak in this current Election Campaign. Bigmoney Campaign Donors and special interests emboldened by the Supreme Court has flooded our elections. Unfortunately, to a great degree with secret contributions. Listen to these statistics. Spending by outside groups has tripled since the last midterm election. They spent 27. 6 million in 2010 compared to 97. 7 million so far this year. In 2006, before this awful decision in Citizens United, these groups spent 3. 5 million. And now the running total for this year, almost 100 million from outside special Interest Groups and wellheeled individuals. In 2012, super pacs spent more than 130 million on federal elections and 60 of all super pac contributions that year came from an elite class of 159 people. In North Carolina, that elite group had just one member. That state had just one person. 72 of all outside spending in 2010 in North Carolina came from one man art pope, a millionaire conservative, rightwing activist. As i stand and speak, there is a super pac on the air attacking me in my home state. As best we can trace it, its to one individual who so far apparently has spent 700,000 in negative ads against me on radio and television, perhaps more will follow. Thats the nature of the world that we live in. Members of congress who run for office, for election and reelection, abide by strict rules on disclosure. Money raised, how much is being spent. But when it comes to these individuals, since Citizens United, all bets are off. Although some of the biggest and most frequent spenders are on the republican side of the aisle, the influx of secret money from super pacs and wealthy donors is happening on the right and on the left. Many have created super pacs on the other side as a defense. It unfortunately has attacked strategy dictated by Supreme Court decisions. Sadly, all of this money fight is eroding our democracy and drowning out the voices of everyday citizens. One year ago in a Shelby County decision, the same five justices gutted the Voting Rights act. Civil rights legislation that had protected the Constitutional Rights of average americans for 50 years. Emboldened by the Shelby County decision, more republicandominated state legislatures followed suit by pursuing legislation that restrict the right to vote. It is no coincidence these laws have a disproportionate impact on minority, young voters. Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court said this of the right to vote. It was quote the right preservati ve of all other rights. And he pledged to be neutral calling balls and strikes when it came to issues like the viet to vote. But because of the judicial activism of chief Justice Roberts and his four conservative allies, the right to vote of average americans is now at greater risk than any time since the jim crow era. Mr. President , two years ago i decided to take my subcommittee for hearings in the states of ohio and florida. In both of those states, the republicandominated legislatures inspired by a group known as alec, that is not a lobbying group but creates socalled model legislation, had dreamed up ways to restrict the opportunity to vote. How did they do this . Some of them called for the presentation of Identification Cards when you vote. Others said well just limit the time that you can vote. No early voting. Well restrict the opportunities for people to vote. So i took the hearings to florida and ohio. My first table of witnesses consisted of a bipartisan gathering of Election Officials in both florida and ohio. States that had passed these restrictive voting laws. I asked the first panel under oath a basic question. Tell me about the incidents of voter fraud and voter abuse in your state which led to these changes in the legislature. There was none. Tell me the number of individuals who had been prosecuted for voter fraud in ohio and florida that led to these changes in state legislation. There were virtually none. One said he could remember maybe one case or two in a course of years. I think its pretty clear. These efforts to restrict the right to vote have nothing to do with the integrity of elections. There isnt a single one of us in either Political Party that condones voter fraud and voter abuse. Period. But to restrict the right to vote of millions of americans in the name of stopping voter fraud that doesnt exist, well, its time to ask the more basic question whats the real reason . The real reason is to restrict the right to vote. It is hard to believe that republicans in state legislatures and even some in this chamber, the party of abraham lincoln, for goodness sakes, is party to this effort to restrict the right to vote across america. For goodness sakes, ive been involved if Election Campaigns which i have won and those which i have not won. I have always felt if it were a fair election, so be it. Let the people speak. That is what a democracy is all about. But when you Start Playing with the rules, when you start saying, well, were going to try to make it tougher for people to vote, even those who are legally entitled to vote, i think, frankly, youve crossed the line, which we should not cross in this country ever. Fire hoses, growling dogs and insidious poll taxes have now been replaced with a wellfunded campaign to now deny millions their right to vote and a flood of special interest money drowning out the voices of average americans. Is that your vision of america . Is that your vision of this country in the future . Where your opportunity to vote is now restricted more and more even without any indication of voter fraud or voter abuse . When your opportunity to be informed about the candidates and their positions is, in fact, overwhelmed by those who come in like the Koch Brothers and those on the left, too, to spend millions of dollars. I might say, mr. President , i introduced a bill a few years back for Public Financing of campaigns. There was one valued republican who stood up who agreed to cosponsor my bill and only one Arlen Specter. Arlen specter. The senator from pennsylvania, republican senator. What happened to him . I can tell you what happened. The late Arlen Specter was challenged in his republican requirement by one of those on the far right in his party, and he couldnt win as he looked at the polls. He switched parties and he became a democrat. I lost my only republican on the senate financing when he joined us on this side of the aisle. He lost the democratic primary. He went on, finished his term and passed away. He was the only republican with the courage to stand up for Public Financing to change this mess we have. I can just tell you, were reaching a point where mere more tallies, individuals who dont happen to be multimillionaires, really want nothing to do with this political business. It has become the hobby of high rollers. The two candidates for the highest offices in my home state now are multimillionaires, playing with their own money now, putting millions into their campaigns. Im not envious of their wealth. I have said it publicly and i will say it again. I am only one Powerball Ticket away from matching their wealth. So im not jealous of them. But it says something about the political process, doesnt it, that someone can put in in 9 million, 10 million, 12 million of their own money and that Supreme Court can say well, they are just exercising their right of free speech. Really . I didnt see the word cash in the First Amendment. I didnt even see the word money in the First Amendment. Thats what were up against. Senate joint resolution 19, which is before us today, is a constitutional amendment. It is narrowly tailored and it is a proposal to respect and restore the First Amendment. It empowers congress and state legislatures, the elected representatives of the American People, to set reasonable contentneutral let me underline that content neutral limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and special interest donors can give to candidates. It overturns Citizens United by authorizing congress and state legislatures the presiding officer the senators time is expired. Mr. Durbin i ask consent for five additional minutes. The presiding officer without objection, so ordered. Mr. Durbin i thank the senator from texas. It overturns Citizens United by authorizing congress and state legislatures to prohibit corporations and unions from spending money from their treasuries to influence elections. Our amendment will ensure that elections are contests with the best ideas, contests where mere more tallies, a group i mentioned earlier, have the same chance to succeed as multimillionaires. Thats why our amendment is supported by 60 diverse advocacy organizations and a majority of the American People. Politicians may not get it, but the American People do. They can see whats happening to this bidding war we now call elections. They understand the flood of television. We have one senatorial candidate on our side. I think she has been subjected to 15 million in independent expenditures, negative ads into her state. Thats been going on for almost a year. She is going to weather the storm and be reelected, incidentally, but imagine that. 15 million from special Interest Groups just showering her with hate and venom for month after weary month. Is that what our political process has come down to . Opponents of our amendment argued that any limit whatsoever in election spending violates the First Amendment, but just as there is no constitutional right to buy an election, free speech doesnt give anyone the right to violate or overwhelm the Constitutional Rights of others. Apparently, five conservative Supreme Court justices believe the wealthy and elite have a greater right to free speech because they have more money. Our opponents also argue that corporations are people. Give me a great lake. Corporations are granted the advantages of perpetual life, Property Ownership and limited liability to enhance their efficiency as an economic entity, according to Justice Rehnquist in one of his opinions, but he went on to say in the same opinion these properties so beneficial in the economic sphere pose special dangers in the political sphere. That was rehnquist speaking about giving powers to the corporations which cede the obvious. While some corporations have rightfully been extended beyond Everyday Americans to corporations, Citizens United went too far. Living, breathing americans face challenges that these legally created entities will never face. Corporations never get married. They dont raise kids. They dont care for sick relatives. They cant vote in elections or run for office. Corporations have the right to be heard for sure, but the right to control an election with their bank account, theres something wrong with that decision. Our amendment restores the basic longstanding principle that corporations shouldnt be able to wield their Enormous Economic power to sway federal elections. Our amendment restores and protects the First Amendment for all americans. I new jersey my colleagues to vote for Senate Joint Resolution 19. I expect a strictly partisan vote. I am sorry if that happens, but i expect it. When we even came up for disclosure to disclose who was giving to campaigns, we couldnt get the republicans to give us support. Just disclose who is giving the money. No. Keep it secret. That was their position. Now they not only want to keep it secret, they want to make sure that those that are abusing the process by sending in huge sums of money on behalf of corporations and individuals are going to be protected. Well, they may protect the special interests, but they will do it at the expense of average americans who are losing their faith, losing their faith in this process and in the institutions it creates. Restore that faith. Support Senate Joint Resolution 19. Lets amend the constitution and make Citizens United a vestige of a wrongheaded decision by the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. Again, i thank my colleague from texas. The presiding officer the republican whip. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , im glad i got to catch a few of the tail end remarks of my colleague from illinois. I didnt realize what this debate was really all about, but he, i think, made that clear. This is all about Public Financing of elections, according to him. Because anybody contributing any of their hardearned money to support a candidate who they happen to believe in or someone espousing or advocating for the principles that they believe in, there is something inherently wrong with that, according to the distinguished majority whip, the senator from illinois, because to him the only answer is lets take your money and use that to finance an election perhaps to benefit a candidate who doesnt agree with anything that you believe in. Is that really what this is all about . Public financing of elections. And he said Something Else i dont think i had ever heard anybody have the audacity to say before. He said voter fraud doesnt exist. Well, im sure in chicago, they have had a few instances of voter fraud. We have unfortunately had some in texas, some that resulted in the nomination of Lyndon Johnson to be the democratic nominee for president of the United States in box 13 in duval county, texas. And there have been a number of other instances investigated and found cases of voter fraud that have been found exist. And what is the problem with issuing or requiring somebody to have a photo i. D. To vote . Well, in texas, to get a voter i. D. For which the attorney general has sued the state of texas saying somehow its discriminatory, to require somebody to have a voter i. D. To prove they are who they say they are so they can then cast their vote, even though it takes a photo i. D. To get in the department of justice, you cant go see eric holder or anybody at the department of justice unless you have a photo i. D. And oh, by the way, you cant buy tobacco products, you cant buy alcohol, you cant fly on an airplane without a photo i. D. And if for some reason you dont have one in the state of texas, you get one for free. How does that possibly burden the right to vote . Well, its no surprise then that 70 of the respondents and most of the polling i have seen, independents, democrats and republicans alike say they think voter i. D. Is a good idea, because what does it do . It protects the integrity of the of the ballot for people who are qualified to vote. And doesnt permit illegal votes to dilute those votes. Well, mr. President , we have spent the last several weeks back home meeting with our constituents. I know some people like to call it recess. I know it doesnt feel like recess, or at least not in the Elementary School sense of the word because most of the time its this is a period during which we get to travel our states and interact with our constituents and do something that we need to do more of, which is to listen to what they have to say and what their concerns are. And i did that in texas. My constituents did not say well, the most important thing you can do is pass a constitutional amendment gutting the First Amendment, the right to free speech. That didnt come up one time. What did come up was their concerns about the economy, about access to health care, about immigration, about the challenges imposed by radical islamic terrorists and the russian strongman vladimir putin. All of those came up. Not a single time did my constituents say we want you to go back to washington, d. C. , and vote to gut the First Amendment right to free speech. And at the time of high unemployment and stagnant wages, with the Labor Participation rate at historic lows, thats the percentage of people actually in the work force looking for a job. Its at a historic low. And millions of americans concerned about losing their Health Insurance or facing higher deductibles or premiums with a crisis on the southwest border which has not gone away with this wave of unaccompanied minor children coming across from central america, with terrorists on the march in the middle east, with Russian Military forces continuing a fullblown invasion of ukraine, despite all that, the majority leader in his wisdom has decided to bring up this amendment because he thinks the most urgent order of business is to replace the current First Amendment which has stood the test of time for all these many years since our countrys founding and replace it with one that empowers incumbent politicians to control who has access to the resources in order to get their message out. Now, everyone is entitled to their priorities, but its painfully clear that the majority leaders priorities have everything to do with november 4. Thats the coming midterm elections. So its all politics all the time, no matter what. And i am embarrassed, frankly, to confront my constituents when they say what are you going to be doing when you return to washington, d. C. . Are you going to be dealing with jobs or the energy sector, which is a very bright spot in our economy . What are we going to do to make sure the millennials, the young adults can actually find jobs so they can pay down their College Loans and so they can get to work. What are you going to do to keep the promises that the president made on health care that if you like what you have, you can keep it, the premiums for a family of four are going to go down by 2,500 and you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. What are you going to do to make sure those promises are kept . Well, instead of dealing with all of those really important issues, its embarrassing for me to tell my constituents that look, the majority leader is the one who controls the agenda in the senate. Hes the traffic cop, and an individual senator, certainly not one in the minority, doesnt have any ability to control what the agenda of the United States senate is. So this is all senator reids choice as the majority leader. And he claims that this proposed constitutional amendment is all about getting socalled dark money out of the political system. In reality, if that were all this was about, we might have a good good debate and a vote here, but in reality, what he is concerned about is opposition, Political Support that is going to make it more likely that republicans regain the majority in this senate and democrats become a minority. Thats what is motivating this vote. In reality, what this amendment would do would be to undermine some of our most cherished, most fundamental and most important liberties. If this proposed amendment ever becomes law, state and federal lawmakers would suddenly have vast new powers to regulate or even criminalize political speech. So to state the blindingly obvious, the Founding Fathers proposed and we adopted the First Amendment precisely because we saw how dangerous it was to let politicians restrict the exercise of free speech. The founders understood that without the First Amendment, we could end up with a neverending cycle of elected officials shrinking the boundaries of permissible speech. A political system like that would be totally incompatible with the principles and values of a free society, yet that is exactly the type of political system we would have if this constitutional amendment being proposed ever were to take effect. Now, i heard the majority whip saying that this isnt really about political speech, this is just about the money. But that argument quickly falls apart. For starters, my colleagues amendment would allow congress to restrict freedom of assembly and freedom of petition as well, both of which are essential to safeguarding political speech. And while the amendment might not give congress the power to curtail freedom of the press per se, it would give congress the power to curtail political speech by individuals and activists. Which begs the question why should the political speech of newspapers and magazines be any different from the political speech of you and me . Why should theirs be carved out and be unrestricted in terms of the Financial Resources it can advance those points of view in newspapers and magazines, yet our ability to communicate about the things we care about the most would be restricted by limiting the amount of money that we could spend to advocate those points of view . After all, when newspapers publish editorials about Public Policy, theyre trying to persuade politicians and other elected officials to adopt a given position, and thats an important part of our our system. Mr. President , i would ask unanimous consent for an additional three minutes. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Cornyn and so newspapers all the time are trying to persuade voters to elect a given candidate because they endorse those candidates. I remember the first Public Office i ran for was a district judge in bear county, san antonio, texas. And one of the most important things that i sought was the endorsement of the Editorial Board of the local newspaper because i knew that if nobody knew anything else about you, if the newspaper Editorial Board thought that you were a credible candidate, that that might help in my election. Neither federal nor state lawmakers should have the power to decide which types of political speech are permissib permissible. Free speech is free speech, and the solution to speech is more speech, not less speech. For 225 years, the First Amendment has served as the guarantor of american democracy. It was designed to protect all speech, not just speech we happen to agree with or that supports our particular point of view. A recent Supreme Court decision put it this way. There is no more basic right to our democracy than the right to participate in electing political leaders, closed quote. Unfortunately, this amendment would undermine that right and it would roll back perhaps the most elemental freedom of our founding document, by creating a system in which vital, indispensable liberty would be contingent on the evershifting tides of partisan politics. These efforts should not only be not supported, they should be repudiated firmly, loudly and unapologetically. Nothing less than the very bedrock of american democracy is at stake. And, mr. President , just as i close, i want to add that the founders wisely put in our constitution the process by which the constitution could be amended. So twothirds of the house and twothirds of the Senate Must Vote for a constitutional resolution. And then it goes to the states, where threequarters of the states must ratify this constitutional amendment. I can tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that that would never, ever, ever happen with this amendment. So why is the majority leader bringing this up now, less than 60 days before the midterm elections . Perhaps to motivate his own Political Base in hopes that that will mitigate some of the losses in the november the 4th election. But it certainly cant be with any hope or even a pipe dream that it would ever become the law of the land. And for the reasons ive stated, it should not. Mr. President , i yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new mexico. Mr. Udall thank you, mr. President. And to my good friend texas, let me just say, there are very Important Reasons for bringing this up now and its the elections that are going on. He wants to make this sound like this is some kind of political process. Whats going on is in our elections right now and theres the nine Top Senate Races in the country. And in the blue you have the what is partial or nondisclosed money. So this is the dark money. Nobody knows where this moneys coming from. It could be billionaires. It could be large corporations. It could be almost anyone with with a secret agenda. And so in this race in arkansas, more than half the money is dark money. More than in georgia, you can see almost all the money is in this category of partial or nondisclosure. In kentucky, almost half the money. In North Carolina, almost half the money. And in significant amounts in the other nine states. So this has to do, mr. Preside mr. President , this has to do with whats happening right now in our elections and how this these rulings by the Supreme Court Citizens United. Just six months ago, i went over to the Supreme Court and listened to the mccutcheon argument and the ruling well, i went over longer than six months, and about six months ago we had the ruling. That ruling that ruling said that one individual can give 3. 6 million. So thats what this is about, is were trying to get to the bottom of whats happening in our elections and how our elections are being taken away from us and how theyre being influenced in terms of dark money. So this is this is a very good time to have this debate. And let me say to my friend from texas, this is a bipartisan amendment. This amendment started back in 1983 with ted stevens, a republican. Ernest hollings couldnt be more of a bipartisan figure in the senate, picked it up. Weve had over the since 1983 to today 11 republicans either vote for the amendment or a similar amendment or beyond the amendment. So this isnt anything that should be partisan. This is something that the American People are very worried about, this dark money and the impact that its having. But ill come back to this chart in a minute. And this is a crucial period in our history. Americans will go to the polls and vote. Thats our heritage. Its something to celebrate. Its something to protect. The integrity of our elections is crucial but our Campaign Finance system is under siege. Drowning in cash and records amounts of money, much of it from outside groups, much of it hidden. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Money has poisoned our political system. The American People have lost faith in us as they watch this merrygoround, this constant money chasing from special interests and very, very little getting done. Folks Want Congress to get to work and to work together, finding Real Solutions to real problems and spending our time raising hopes instead of raising cash. Thats why senator bennett and i have introduced our constitutional amendment and that is what i want to talk about today. Total spending on federal elections over 6 billion in 2012. Thats double which was spent in 2000, just 12 years before. That is a lot of money. Where does it come from . Most of it comes from a tiny fraction of the population, and theyre billionaires and special interests writing checks, and often in dark corners. A lot of the dark money i talked about at the beginning of my speech here, where nobody knows whos behind that dark money and theyre in our elections in a big way. There are basically two questions. How did we get into this mess, and how do we fix it . First, the history, which is important to understand because folks can change the subject but they cannot change the facts, and the facts are very clear. Our Campaign Finance system is being destroyed by misguided Supreme Court decisions one after another, narrow 54 decisions giving a hammer to big money, chipping away at our democracy. The tradition normally has been in the Supreme Court of justices deciding things 90, 81, trying to work with each other. But these are narrow 54 decisions dividing dwietiondg the country and dividing the court. We can go all the way back with the Supreme Court decisions to 1976 and a case called buckley v. Valeo, when the court said and free speech are the same thing. Then four years ago, Citizens United, where the court said corporations are persons and they can spend all they want. Basically the Supreme Court put a for sale sign on elections. These elections these decisions opened door, allowing a flood of money, ignoring political reality and drowning out the voices of ordinary americans. And most recently, the mccutcheon decision, knocking down aggregate contribution limits. So what were talking about there, one person can dole out 3. 6 million directly to candidates and parties in all 50 states. Lets put that in perspective for the average american working full time making minimum wage. He or she would have to work 239 years to make that much money. So because of the mccutcheon decision, one person can dole out 3. 6 million now directly to candidates and parties in all 50 states. It would take the average american working full time making minimum wage 239 years to make that much money. Look at the imbalance. Look at the inequality there. Justice ginsburg said in a recent interview in the National Law Journal, and n the National Law Journal and this is her quote i think the biggest mistake this court has made is in Campaign Finance. It should be increasingly clear how money is corrupting our system. Supreme Court Justice ruth bader ginsburg. You know, Justice Ginsburg is right, it is clear to most americans, which is why opponents of reform either change the subject or muddy the water, which i will get into in a minute. But the point must be made, the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court are not done. If left unchecked, the hammering will continue, the destruction will go on. Chief Justice Roberts made a troubling statement in the mccutcheon decision. He said that preventing bribery is the only basis, the only justification for congress to pass Campaign Finance laws. What does this mean . It means more bad decisions from the court. It means the floodgates stay open, the money keeps pouring in. Short of prohibiting out and out bribery, congress is powerless to act and the American People must step aside, billionaires will stay at the front of the line. All of this, folks, defies defies common sense. Senator mccain said after mccutcheon quote there will be scandals involving corrupt political officials and unlimited anonymous Campaign Contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again. Im afraid my friend is right, there will be scandals. We are setting the stage today for scandals. Just look at the millions of dollars of undisclosed money pouring into our elections. But how can there be how can there be reform . The court has tied the hands of congress. Until the constitution is amended, we cannot enact real reforms, reforms like mccainfeingold. The court will just strike them down. Were headed back to the prewatergate era. In 2012, outside groups spent 450 million to influence senate and house races. In 2008, before Citizens United, they spent 43 million. Thats a tenfold increase. There is an obvious trend and it is deeply troubling. Much of that money is hidden. According to a recent report by the brennan center, over half the money half the money spent in this years top nine senate races is not fully disclosed. So in two months, we will know the outcome of these elections but we wont know who paid for them. And this chart is a great indication here. You have the top most contested senate races and here in the red have you full disclosure of the money. So the red shows you what people know and they know who the contributors are, but the blue, which more than half, if you average it through all the elections, partial or absolute nondisclosure. This clearly shows that we have a broken system, and there are only two ways to fix it. First, the court could reverse itself. That is unlikely. Or we could amend the constitution, make it clear in the constitution that people have the right to regulate Campaign Finance. Until then, we will fall short of real reform. That is why a constitutional amendment is essential, because the time has come to give power back to the elected representatives of the people. Opponents say this is just an electionyear stunt. But, again, this ignores history. Our amendment is similar to other bipartisan amendments introduced in nearly every Congress Since 1983, when ted stevens, a republican, with us was the lead sponsor. Many prominent republicans cosponsored and voted for these amendments. Over the course of three decades, people like john danforth, strom thurmond, nancy cassel balm, Arlen Specter, thad cochran, this was always a bipartisan effort and that was before Citizens United, before mccutcheon when things went from bad to worse. Its not a radical idea. In fact, its pretty simple. It would give back power to congress to regulate Campaign Finance at the federal level, and to states at the state level. Thats it. Period. We do not dictate specific reforms. We cannot we can debate the specifics and we should, but congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible Campaign Finance reform. The American People support reform because they know a basic truth no matter how hard some may try to obscure it, when the court says money is free speech, there is a great risk that special interests can drown out the voices of everyone else. Because we know you dont get something for nothing. Folks writing those checks want something in return,whether its democratic billionaires or republican billionaires, then value for their money, which usually means less compromise. And which usually means less compromise and more gridlock. Opponents of reform are in full throttle. By ignoring history and torture in their tortured logic. But lets be clear, heres the bottom line they oppose any limits, they oppose any restrictions on how big the checks are or even saying which billionaires are writing them. Its hard to defend that. Instead, they change the subject and talk about threats to free speech which goes Something Like this if congress can regulate Campaign Finance spending, then it could also regulate free speech. I think this is a strawman argument not supported by history, logic, or the law, and it isnt persuasive and its basically a scare tactic. Congress has a long history of regulating Campaign Finance. Often in the wake of scandal. Since 19 since 1867, congress has been in the business of regulating that, banning solicitation of Campaign Funds yeah yard government employees. Weve had the pendleton act, the federal construct practices act of 1925, the hatch act, the federal campaign act of 1974, the Bipartisan Campaign act of 2002. First scandal, then reform. That is the fortunate pattern. Every generation has faced that challenge for ethical government, for standing up to the power of big money. And the congress has acted. It has not banned books, suppressed preachers or stopped printing presses. Reforms have been modest, reasonable, and responsive. Sensible enough to pass both houses of congress and get the signature of the president. We have to answer to our constituents, unlike Supreme Court justices. Further, our amendment does not give Congress Free rein. There is still a reasonable reasonableness requirement in the courts interpretation of any constitutional amendment. If congress did pass extreme laws, the court could still overturn them as unreasonable. The First Amendment is in full effect. So in the classic example, we protect free speech, but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Reasonable is not a complicated idea, except maybe here in washington. Or to billionaires who demand their way or the highway. Opponents also argue our amendment protects incumbents. This again misses the point. If anything, the Current System favors incumbents, raising 10 million or 15 million or 20 million for a senate seat is a tall order, one that many qualified candidates will decline. And if youre elected, its just the beginning. This Endless Campaign cycle to compete, to keep up, raise more money, every member in this body can speak of this, the hours on the phone dialing for dollars when our time could be better spent, meeting the real needs of our constituents and serving the folks who sent us here in the first place. The presiding officer the senators time has expired. Mr. Udall thank you. Id ask for just another minute to sum up. The presiding officer is there objection . Hearing none. Mr. Udall thank you, mr. President. This this is not about free speech and the American People know it. Its about the wealthiest interests trying to buy elections in secret with no limits, period, thats it. And let me just finally say that i have had a great group of senators working with me on this amendment over the years. One of them youre going to hear from right now, senator Bernie Sanders from vermont. All of us, senator leahy, senator durbin on the Judiciary Committee, we have worked and refined this amendment to do everything we can to make sure that it is responsive to the American People and going to make us responsive to the American People in terms of having good, solid electoral a good, solid electoral system other than the one Supreme Court is leading us down the path. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from vermont. Mr. Sanders let me begin by thank senator tom udall for his extraordinary work offer the years in calling attention to this disastrous Supreme Court decision called Citizens United which is doing so much to undermine the foundations of american democracy and its been a pleasure working with him, were going to continue to fight. Mr. President , you may not know it by reading the newspapers or watching tv, but, in fact, this week we are going to be having a debate on what i consider to be the most important domestic issue facing the United States of america. And that is in fact whether this great country retains its democratic foundations, one person,with one vote, or whether we move into an oligarchic form of society where a small handful of billionaires are able to control not only the Economic Life of our nation but the political life as well. Mr. President , whether you are a democrat, whether you are a republican or whether you as you and and i are, as independents, the overwhelming majority of the American People do not believe that free speech has anything to do with billionaires being able to buy elections. Mr. President , the Washington Post reported earlier this week that one family, the Koch Brothers, a family worth 80 billion, has already put up on the air some 44,000 ads in this and this campaign has two and a half months, two months left to it. 44,000 ads. What america is supposed to be about is a debate about issues. It is not supposed to be a process where a billionaire can come into a small state like maine or vermont and plop 50 million down or 20 million down to elect candidates whose sole job in life is to represent the wealthy and the powerful. Men and women have put their lives on the line and died to defend american democracy, the right for all of us to be involved in the political process, not to create a situation where a handful of superwealthy families can elect candidates that they want. You know, mr. President , i think some people when they hear the Citizens United they say, well, its kind of ans owe tieric issue, its not relevant to my life. And anyone who believes that, they are dead wrong. If you are concerned about the collapse of the middle class, if you are concerned about the fact that more people today are living in poverty than any time in american history, if you are concerned about the fact that we have more wealth and income inequality in America Today than any other major country on earth, if youre concerned were the only major country on the house without guaranteeing health care to all people, if youre concerned about the crisis of Global Warming and many, many other issues you have got to be interested in the issue of Citizens United and how, in fact, we elect members of the house and senate and governors and so forth and so on. Because ultimately what this is about is whether the wealthy can determine the agenda of the house and the senate, whether they can say to candidates here it is, were going to put 50 million into your campaign and all you got to do is support us on a, c, d, and e. You got to make sure that the rich get more tax breaks despite the fact that the wealthy are doing phenomenonally well. You got to make sure that we cut food stamps or we cut education and we eliminate the environmental protection. Thats why we are giving you the money that were giving you. People do not spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns for fun, for the hell of it. They are spending money because they have an agenda, and the billionaire agenda is not the agenda of the American People. Mr. President , i want to read for a moment language, exact language from the 1980 Libertarian Party whose vicepresident ial campaign and major funder was one david koch, one of the two Koch Brothers. And im going to read you today is what i believe their agenda remains today, ive seen no evidence that it has changed. So when you turn on the tv and you see an ad coming from one of the Koch Brothers organizations, know what they stand for. I quote. We favor the abolition of medicare and Medicaid Programs end of quote. That doesnt mean cutting them, that means ebbed ending them. Quote we favor the repeal of the oppressive Social Security system. That means not opposition to raising the minimum wage which many of us want to do, they want to they want to do away with Social Security entirely. Not cut Social Security, but do away with it. We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment such as minimum wage laws end of quote. What that means in english is while we are trying to raise the minimum wage, they want to abolish the concept of the minimum wage when so high unemployment areas an employer can pay a worker 3 an hour or 4 an hour. This is also from the Koch Brothers platform. Quote quote we oppose all government welfare, relief projects and aid to the poor programs. All these Government Programs are privacy invading, paternalistic, demeaning and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private persons and organizations. That means goodbye federal aid to education, goodbye unemployment insurance. Mr. President , this is not a conservative agenda. This is not a small government agenda. This is an extremist agenda designed to eliminate virtually every piece of legislation passed by congress in the last 80 years which protects the middle class, working families, lowincome people, seniors, and the sick. That is their agenda. Now, im not saying every republican adhered to every aspect of this agenda but these guys are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process for a reason, and that reason is to make the wealthiest people in this country even wont wealthier while they do away with all legislation that protection working families. Citizens united is one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. I would hope that every member of the u. S. Senate votes this week to start the process for a constitutional amendment to over turn Citizens United. And with that, mr. President , i would i promised i would yield to the senator from georgia. A senator i thank the distinguished chairman from vermont. Today the state of georgia lost a great citizen and america lost a great patriot. The founder of chicfila restaurants passed away. He started a restaurant called the dwarf house in college park park, georgia during into the chicfila which how has over 1,800 residents in 40 states and the district of columbia. Mr. Isakson its a business built on the principles that drew and kathy believed in. True and kathys stores are never open on sundays. He believes sunday is a day of rest owe so he separates prates six out of seven days. Everybody who competes operates for seven days but everybody that competes finishes second in gross sales, second in quality and the line. He is an drew kathy is a man whose life is a tribute to all the things. He gave back no to his community more than any person i know of. He founded win shape homes, win shape to build boys, children who couldnt find a post foster parent. Hes a prolific writer of book after book after book about his belief in life and his greatest book is one i gave to each member of the senate five years ago. Its easier to build boys than to mend men. Because he knew the citizenship 6 our country would be better if we had Good Foundation from the beginning so he tried to make sure those who were less fortunate who didnt have the advantages he had had ear others had had a chance to grow up in a home with a nurturing environment, a christian environment, an environment dedicated to the principles of this country and freedom and democracy. Atlanta and georgia will miss truett kathy. He is i are i replaceable. The legacy and legend he built will go on as a flagship with everything right about Free Enterprise and the United States of america. On this floor of the United States senate, to his family and legion of friends and to all he stood for and stands for, i mourn the loss of truett kathy, a Great American and great citizen. I urge everybody when they get the chance to read the story of his life because it is the story of the american way of life, the story of principles that youre committed to, vision that you hope for, taking a risk to try and create a reward and giving back to the community when you earn the money from that reward to see to it that you leave the place a better leave the world a better place you found it. He has gone on to a better place and left our city, our country a better place than what he found. May god bless the life of truett cathy. Snomr. Nelson mr. President , i ask consent that amanda ferguiero, a defense fellow sesqui on our office sesqui on our coves staff and dale dawton, also a defense assistant, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 113th congress. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Nelson mr. President , i have filed today and would like to insert in the record, if i may be granted, the Senate Joint Resolution that i have filed today. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Nelson mr. President , this is a resolution that will express the authorization for the use of United States armed forces against the Islamic State in iraq and the levant. Mr. President , it is a resolution that has been necessitated by legal scholars since the president has used his existing authorization for the use of military force in iraq, most recently against isis isil, isis. I. T its the same thing. The levant is that area broadly from about baghdad all the way to the mediterranean. Thats isil. Isis, isis, is the Islamic State in iraq and syria. And, of course, we know that this organization that is calling itself an islamic caliphate, it knows no jurisdictional boundaries; it has taken large swaths of territory in syria as well as iraq; and when the president successfully employed the use of air power, both manned and unmanned, against isis targets as they were marching toward irbil, the capital of kurdistan, and then likewise, as they were marching toward the mosul damn, the president used his the mosul darnlings the president used his norse iraq and also his authority as commander in chief to protect americans. There are americans in irbil, there are americans in bag dated, there are in baghdad, there are americans in other places in iraq, and protection of the dam in mosul was to protect those americans downriver, because if the dam were blown, that would have flooded all downriver, and it would have flooded baghdad. Legal scholars disagree with me that the president has the authority under the constitution as commander in chief to go after isis in syria. I describe isis has a snake. If the head of the snake is in syria, which it is, a lot of their organization, a lot of their leadership is there, then we ought to go after the snake where the head is. And decapitate the snake. In doing that, were going to have to go into syria. Now, i believe that the president has the authority to do this under the constitution anyway. But there are some who disagree. So rather than quibble about legalities, i have filed this legislation. Theres no pride of authorship. The senate is obviously going to debate this. I believe that if youre seeing the polls from today where 90 of the people of this country are concerned about isis, and some huge number want us to go on and attack isis in other places than where we are attacking now, then i think it is obvious that the United States is going to have to continue this attack on isis. Now, i want to compliment the president. Often as i have talked about this issue, people have come or members of the press and say, well, the president has dillydallied and so forth. I dont think he has at all. I think the president , indeed, has employed a very successful strategy of going after isis in iraq, in fact, stopped their march on irbil, in fact, stopped their march on the mosul dam, and is going after them in other locations in coordination with the peshmurga of the kurds as well as the iraqi army. And, indeed, the president started on august the 25th the surveillance flights over syria so that we can collect the intelligence that is necessary as you prepare to go after them in syria. But the president has done something more. He has started to put together a coalition, realizing that the American People have no appetite for american boots on the ground in syria, to put together a coalition so that maybe the free syrian army, maybe other members of the arab league, maybe some other members of nato, would participate. But the way we drew this resolution, it talks about that there would not be a recurring military presence in the implying of an American Army on the ground. It leaves the flexibility that clearly there would be american boots on the ground, just as there already has been when we sent our special Operations Forces in there to try to rescue the two american journalists that subsequently met such a brutal and uncivil end in their beheading. So american boots have been there. And we might need special operations kinds of missions in the future. We might need forward air observers actually on the ground to direct in airstrikes. So theres flexibility in this resolution. I want to say that, if there is anybody with any doubt about the intent of isis, they have made it so clear, not only taking the lives of these journalists, the second one of which was from my state of florida, but in their statements of what they intend to do setting up an islamic caliphate, the leader albaghdadi, even calls himself the caliph, or religious leader, but they have also sthaid they y have also said that they will not stop until the black flag of isis is hanging and flying over the white house. So their intent is pretty clear. Are and so were going to and so were going to have to deal with them, not only in iraq, as we are now, but elsewhere. And its going to be sooner or later. Now, its not going to be a one or twoday operation. The American People, as the president has already indicated, this is going to be a longterm kind of operation. And the fact is that the United States is the one that has to lead the coalition. So to get this right out front and center of what we need to do, i have filed and its inserted as part of the record the resolution that i am offering to give the legal authorization from the congress for the president to strike isis in syria and to do as the president has said; to bring it to a successful conclusion to stop this horrendous, uncivil, extraordinary kind of inhumane behavior that is being illustrated by these folks. Mr. President , i yield the floor. Mr. Roberts mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from kansas. Mr. Roberts thank you, mr. President. This evening the senate will vote on whether it should proceed to consideration of a constitutional amendment that would, of all things of all things alter the bill of rights. Specifically, it seeks to amend the First Amendment to permit this congress to regulate speech and political activity of american citizens. As written, the First Amendment does not permit regulation of the sort the majority wishes to impose, so they have decided to rewrite it. This is incredible. Mr. President , and a sad demonstration of the lengths to which this majority is willing to go in its quest to retain power. It is particularly sad when you realize that in just over two weeks we will be celebrating the anniversary of the Senate Action that made ratification of the First Amendment possible. It was on september 25, 1789 that this body passed the first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States. That was 225 years ago. The ratification process was completed when virginia became the 11th state to approve the amendments on december 15, 1791. Since then, for over two centuries, the First Amendment has guaranteed all americans will have the right to express themselves and participate in the political process without fear of government reprisal. While other nations have struggled to build and sustain democracy, the liberties guaranteed by our constitution have given us a stability that allowed the United States of america to grow and to prosper and to become a beacon of freedom around the globe. Our founders knew that the Free Expression of ideas was essential to the life and health of our democracy. Many other nations have yet to learn this lesson and still punish and imprison their citizens for daring to speak out and challenge those in power. That does not happen here because of the system our founders gave us. It does not happen because of the First Amendment. These things should be obvious, mr. President. You might even call them selfevident. And you would think that even in these polarized times, we would have a consensus or could have a consensus on the wisdom of the founders on this point. You would think that senators on both sides of the aisle would recognize and agree that the First Amendment which has preserved our liberty must itself be preserved. Well, im very sorry to say, mr. President , that if you thought that, you would be wrong. I am very sorry to say that as we stand here today in september 2014, those on the other side of the aisle now want to reverse the decision this body made that september 225 years ago. 49 49 members of the majority have chosen to cosponsor Senate Joint Resolution 19, an amendment to the bill of rights. I am pleased to say that not a single one of my republican colleagues has joined them, but i am saddened that so many of those across the aisle have taken the extraordinary step of supporting it. I think the reason is clear. They want to silence their opponents. The First Amendment does not allow them to do so, so they are going to try and change it. Well, the First Amendment begins Congress Shall make no law for a reason. Our founders knew a great deal about human nature. They knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it, and unless constrained would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American People. Now, the majority wants to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech, to silence their opposition. Now, we will hear from the other side. Theres nothing to worry about. That all they wish to do is impose reasonable regulations. Of course, the point of the First Amendment is to prevent this congress from making determinations about what speech is reasonable and therefore permitted and what is unreasonable and, therefore, prohibited. And we dont need to speculate about what the majority will deem reasonable and what it will deem unreasonable. As i described at a recent rules Committee Hearing on the disclose act, prior consideration of that legislation has shown us what the majority regards as reasonable. The disclose act is the majoritys most recent version of their now biennial attempt to create a new regulatory structure to deter speech. It is precisely the kind of legislation we can expect to see more of if the majority grants itself the power to regulate speech through the amendment we are debating today. So with past as prologue, let us recall what happened when the disclosure act was considered by the house by the house in 2010. Not surprisingly, the restrictions and obligations that imposed were applied to groups disfavored by the majority at that time. A number of corporations were simply prohibited from speaking. Government contractors and tarp recipients were prohibited from making independent expenditures. During floor consideration, an amendment was added also to prohibit speech by companies that explore and produce oil and gas on the outer continental shelf. The bill is on the floor soon after the deepwater horizon spill. You see, so this was an easy target. Not surprisingly, the majority thought it was perfectly reasonable to prevent any of these companies from speaking but did not think it was necessary to extend those restrictions to the unions that might represent the workforce in these companies. Republican amendments to extend those restrictions to those unions were rejected. The majority did not find them reasonable apparently. In some cases groups were excluded from the disclosure operation solely because the votes were not there to include them. That is what happens once the Congress Starts imposing speech restrictions. Restrictions get applied to whoever doesnt have enough votes in the congress to prevent them. Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in the congress at a given time is not reasonable. But it is exactly what happens once we start down this path. And the majority has not deviated from it. The rules Committee Hearing revealed the disclose act continues to exempt groups sympathetic to the majority from the obligations it would impose on others. Mr. President , it may be a natural impulse to wish those who were criticizing us would stop. Everybody understands that. But the First Amendment does not allow us to make it stop. We should not have the power to silence our critics, and we should never have it. I know many members on the other side of the aisle are upset about the ads that are attacking them and their agenda. I know they want those ads to stop. Well, we dont get to choose who gets to speak. The proponents of this amendment and the critics of the Citizens United decision are clearly exorcised by the prospects of corporate speech. It is obvious they fear how such speech might influence Public Policy debate in this country and their own electoral prospects. They have decided these voices should not be heard and must be suppressed. They claim to be motivated only by a desire to promote the health of this democracy. They claim they just want all voices to be heard and want to make sure powerful corporations do not drown out the voices of others. This claim is belied by one simple fact, mr. President. There are and always have been powerful and wealthy corporations that have exerted enormous influence over our politics in this country, our culture even. But the majority has not had a problem with them. Im speaking, of course, of media corporations. They were never limited by the electioneering restrictions imposed on other corporations. The Citizens United decision simply leveled the plague Playing Field and ended that nonsensical distinction. That result alarms the majority because they fear that other corporations may not be as sympathetic to them as media corporations have been. They, therefore, regard it as perfectly reasonable to allow media corporations to say whatever they want while at the same time regarding it as intolerable that other corporations be permitted to do the same. While the amendment they propose would allow them to prohibit speech by any corporation, including the media, we can expect their allies will continue to enjoy the right to Free Expression. Their opponents, however, will be targeted. Those whose views align with the majority should draw no comfort from this fact, though, mr. President. You see, majorities do change. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that the peoples right to speak is not dependent on the whims of whatever majority happens to be in power at a given time in the senate of the United States. People have a right to express themselves, and that right is not limited to whatever this body might deem to be reasonable. We have a free marketplace of ideas. We do not entrust this congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed. Again, we dont entrust this congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed. Now, the majority proposes this amendment because they want that power, but they should never have it. And neither should any future majority. We have already seen from the rule change they imposed unilaterally a few months ago that this majority is willing to jettison longstanding traditions and practices for shortterm political gain. This mentality has already done serious and possibly irreparable damage to this body, but apparently destruction of the senate rules will not suffice. Now the constitution itself must yield. The interest of the majority are paramount and Everything Everything even our most basic principles must be sacrificed on the altar of the majority. Well, thankfully, the rules cannot be discarded as easily as the rules of this body. To ensure against precisely what the majority wishes to do alter the constitution for their own benefit the founders made it very hard to amend. Twothirds of each house of Congress Must agree to an amendment. Then threequarters of the states must ratify it. Thats just not going to happen. But the fact that they will not succeed does not mean we should take their threats seriously. To even begin down this path shows a remarkable contempt for our political traditions and founding documents. It reveals the desperation of the majority at the same time it reveals the wisdom of our founders. And seeking to amend the First Amendment to protect themselves, the majority reminds us again how lucky we are to live in a country with a constitution that prevents such abuses. I am profoundly grateful for the wisdom of the founders and proud to stand here today to defend the First Amendment that they gave us. I will oppose this amendment today, tomorrow, and forever. And i ask my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, mr. President. Mr. Roberts mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that time be charged to both parties and that i think it is obvious that we do not have a quorum. The presiding officer without objection. The clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new hampshire. Mrs. Shaheen mr. President , i ask that the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Shaheen mr. President , these last few weeks have been very trying for america. In august, as the result of the cowardly and barbaric acts of a terrorist group, isis, america lost two courageous and inspiring journalists, james foley and steven sautlof. Along with my colleagues, senator ayotte, senator nelson and rubio and chairman menendez, im introducing a resolution to honor the lives of james foley, who was born and raised in new hampshire, and steven sautlof, a florida native but a graduate of Kimball Union academy in maridan, new hampshire. Our resolution mourns james and steven, two outstanding journalists who pursued their profession under the most difficult and dangerous conditions in order to tell the stories that needed to be told of the struggles that people that the ground were facing in the middle of difficult conflicts. We will never forget the bravery of james and steven and their dedication to the ideal ideals f freedom that they so embodied. Our resolution strongly condemns the terrorist group isis, a group that has committed unspeakable atrocities against humanity and attempted to justify them through a perverted interpretation of islam. Isis fighters have targeted iraqi christians, killing many and forcing others to flee their ancient homeland. They have massacred muslims, who do not subscribe to their debraved ideology. They have threatened genocide against the ancient yzidi population of iraq, and have targeted other religious and ethnic minority groups. They have threatened to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including here in the United States. And, of course, isis brutally murdered these two american journalists, jim foley and Steven Sotloff. So let us be clear. We must hold isis accountable for their despicable acts. We must vigorously pursue those responsible and bring them to justice. And we must not let the deaths of these two americans go unanswered. The terrorists who murdered jim foley are deeply mistaken if they think their barbaric acts will lessen americans resolve and pave the way for isis to continue terrorizing. We will bring an end to those who stand against everything these men stood for. And i hope that the entire United States senate, republicans and democrats united, will stand together to pass this resolution. And independence. Let us show the world that our nation is united in its commemoration of the lives of james foley and Steven Sotloff and our commendation of the barbaric group who took these brave americans from us. Thank you, mr. President , and i yield the floor. And note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the senator from georgia. A senator i ask the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Isakson mr. President , in a few minutes, in fact, in about 19 minutes, the senate will exercise one of its Constitutional Responsibilities of advice and consent on the appointment of a judge to the Circuit Court of appeals for the 11th district in the United States of america. We will be considering a recommendation of president obama of miss jill a. Pryor. I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote favorably for miss pryor, a lawyer from the city of atlanta and the state of georgia, a grout nominee and a great appointee. As i make this recommendation, i want the chamber to know loud and clear that i praise the president and his staff, particularly kathy rumler, for the job they did in coordinating with senator chambliss and myself and seeking advice and consent to come up with a series of appointees to the district and Circuit Courts in georgia. Jill pryor is an outstanding lawyer and an outstanding attorney. A graduate of washington and l lee, she graduated from Yale University and was editor of the yale law review, an outstanding jurist, an outstanding person practicing in business, law and practice and specializing in representing plaintiffs and defendants not in the same case, i might add she represented them either way but not in the same case. In the areas of business torts, Corporate Governance and the shareholder disputes, class action, trade secrets, fraud, intellectual property fraud, and the Georgian Federico statutes. Shes an outstanding member of the firm of bonderant, nixon and elmore and clerked for the 11th circuit judge when they got out of Yale University law school. Shes an outstanding individual of impeccable credentials, impeccable integrity and will be a great credit to the 11th circumstance put and the federal bench and the federal court of appeals. I commend her to each of my colleagues here today with my highest recommendation and i thank again the president of the United States and his staff for their cooperation in nominating a superior judge to the 11th Circuit Court of appeals in the United States of america. And i yield note id like to have the if the chair would equally divide the quorum call, and i would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer without objection. The clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley mr. Oh, i ask to speak now. Okay. Thank you. The presiding officer the senator has the floor. Mr. Grassley mr. President , with all the problems facing the country and the world, the majority has decided that the time has come to cut back on the bill of rights to be amended for the first time in our history. We hear from the other side repeatedly that they revere the constitution, but they want to restrict the core of free speech. That is speech that allows a selfgoverning people to choose in elections the people who will represent them. This proposed amendment would enshrine in our constitution the ability of elected officials to criminally punish those who would dare to criticize them more than the elected officials think is reasonable. Today, americans are free to spend Unlimited Money on behalf of candidates and political issues and messages of their choice. The amendment being proposed would put those who would engage in political speech unnoticed that they may be prosecuted for being active citizens in our democracy. That threat of criminal prosecution would not just chill speech, it would freeze political speech. This proposed amendment would be the biggest threat to free speech that congress would have enacted since the alien and sedition acts of 1798. The First Amendment creates a marketplace of ideas. When people disagree on political speech, competeing voices respond to each other and the public then decides. When speech is free, people are not shut up with the threat of jail if government thinks they speak too much. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that because effective speech can only occur through the expenditure of money, government cannot restrict Campaign Expenditures by candidates or anybody else. The court has recognized that Effective Campaign speech requires that individuals have the right to form groups that might actually spend money on campaign speech. The proposed amendment is very radical. It would not overturn just one or two but it would overturn 12 Supreme Court decisions. That was the testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the countrys foremost First Amendment lawyer floyd abrams. The other side may think that the senate can simply filibuster the motion to proceed and then move on to some other political vote that they may want to have us take. Proposals to amend our fundamental charter of liberty, meaning the bill of rights, should be treated more seriously so we should have debate on this important amendment. The majority should be made to answer for why they want to silence their critics under threat of criminal prosecution, so i look forward to supporting the vote to move to that debate, and i now yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from georgia. Mr. Chambliss mr. President , i rise today in support of the nomination of jill pryor who has been selected to serve as circuit judge for the 11th circuit. Ms. Pryors judicial pedigree is beyond reproach. She worked to put herself through college at william and mary, and she then went on to Yale Law School where she was the Senior Editor and chief of the yale law journal. After finishing law school, she clerked for judge edmondson on the 11th Circuit Court of appeals in atlanta, the very court for which she is today being considered. Once she finished her clerkship, she decided to stay in atlanta in private practice, and there she has been practicing for the last 25 years. During that time, she has played a pivotal role in some of the largest, most complex cases in the history of our legal system in our great state of georgia. But like any other wellrounded attorney, ms. Pryor has taken time to give back outside the courtroom. She is currently on the state bar of georgia board of governors and she is also on the board of governors of the Georgia Legal Services program. She is the former chair of the appellate practice section of the state bar and she is a past president of the Georgia Association for women lawyers. The 11th circuit will be well served boy the by the addition of ms. Pryor. As i said in july, before the Senate Unanimously confirmed judge julie carnes to this very same court, this is a vacancy that needs to be filled and needs to be filled quickly. Ms. Carnes certainly has the judicial as well as educational background to serve on the 11th circuit. She has done extensive work inside the courtroom as well as at the appellate level, and she is well qualified to now go to the 11th circuit. Im pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee, and i urge my colleagues to vote in support of jill pryor to the 11th circuit judicial court. Thank you very much. And i suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call the presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Wyden i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, the judiciary, jill a. Pryor of georgia to be United States circuit judge for the 11th circuit. The presiding officer the question occurs on the nomination. A senator i ask for the yeas and nays. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote