vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 97. the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the first aaron nomination. the clerk: social security advisory board, henry j. aaron of the district of columbia to be a member of the social security advisory board for a term expiring september 30.

the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation. mr. wyden: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, at an important -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators please take their conversations out of the chamber. mr. wyden: mr. president, at an important time for the social security program, the senate now votes on three nominations to the social security advisory board which the congress established to provide critical input and perspective on the social security program. all three of these nominees are very well qualified and they are strong and independent thinkers. the first is dr. henry aaron. dr. aaron is one of america's foremost experts on social

security. his many publications and contributions to the program make him a valuable asset. i strongly urge senators to support his confirmation on this bipartisan board. the second is one of the senate's own, dr. alan cohen, a veteran economist in the finance committee staff. he will be an excellent board member. and the third is dr. lanhee j. chen, dr. chen has a particularly good academic record. mr. president, i would yield the additional time to senator cardin. he's got great expertise on social security. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take the conversations out of the chamber. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i spout all three of these nominations but i want to talk about dr. henry aaron. i had a chance to work over my legislative career with dr. aaron, and i don't know of a person who is more qualified to serve on this board. he has been involved with the social security his entire

professional life dating back to 1979 when he chaired the advisory council on social security, which is a bipartisan group that works on social security. he's an individual who will work across party line in order to deal with the short-term and long-term needs of social security. he's currently a senior fellow in economic studies at brookings, a fellow and faculty member at the university of maryland and stanford university. very, very-well qualified. i know personally of his commitment to work with all members of the senate and i urge my colleagues to support all three of these nominees. mr. wyden: mr. president, i yield the floor and urge their confirmation. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not the ayes are 54, the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. the senate will comed to order. please take your conversations out of the chamber. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, have you finished all your work on the last vote?

the presiding officer: the last vote has concluded. mr. reid: okay. mr. president, we're going to have three voice votes now on nominations. there will be one more -- there will be one more roll call vote tonight. that's it. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the second aaron nomination. the clerk: henry j. aaron of the district of columbia to be a member. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation. mr. reid: i ask consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on confirmation. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the cohen nomination. the clerk: alan l. cohen of

virginia to be a member. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation. mr. reid: i ask consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on quimplatio c. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the chen nomination. the clerk: lanhee j. chen of california to be a member. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on confirmation. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent that time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on confirmation. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, with respect to those nominations confirmed, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, the president shall be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the senate will be in order. all conversations will be taken out of the chamber. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 471, h.j. s.j. res. 19, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 19, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 79, the nays are 18. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be heard as if in morning business for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i'm speaking for two almost unrelated reasons right now on two different subjects but it's very important, i think first of all, when you look at what is happening with isis, we've gone through all kinds of terrorist activities, we all know that we're in a crisis right now and i'm inclined to agree and i don't always agree with secretary hagel but the other day when he said that the isis is an imminent threat to every interest we have whether it's in iraq or anywhere else. this is a big deal, mr. president. you know, as america sat back and looked and observed and saw the beheading of some

americans, you know, that's -- a lot of us would say that's an act of war. this is something this that is really big. i just found out recently that as of yesterday and it will be announced in the next two days, that there's a poll that has been conducted that says if you take all the problems that are out there that people have been talking about for a long period of time including the border and all the other issues, that nothing is even close to isis. i think it was very interesting that just on august 28, just a knew days ago, the president made the statement we don't have a strategy yet to deal with isis in syria. well, you know, if there's not a strategy now, there has to be a strategy. and i'm introducing an aumf resolution for actions -- action against isis. now, an a.u.m. is the authorization of use of military force. this is something perhaps the

president has anyway. we don't know that, but we have got to take away the doubt that's out there. something has to be done. i know the president is going to make a speech on i guess it's on wednesday, and he may come out with a specific strategy, if if he doesn't, he's had all the time in the world he needs to do it and he hasn't done it. my aumf is specific to isis. now, there are other aumf's dealing with al qaeda and other things but to me that just confuses the issue. this has now become the number-one issue in america, and there is no tolerance to continue doing nothing as we have been doing, that we need to make sure that the president has the authority and this requires the president to within 15 days and then with 90-day updates to submit to congress in writing a comprehensive strategy to defeat the global threat posed by isis. keep in mind, it seems as if

this president is inclined every time there's a problem out there, let's drop a bomb here, do something over here. that's not a strategy. i stated this a year ago this -- this same day that the president can't don't operate without a clear-cut strategy. so the congressional authorization for the president is to use all necessary and appropriate force to protect americans and defend national security of the united states against the threat posed by isis and any successor terrorist organizations. allows the president to use all tools available and necessary to defeat isis with flexiblity to adjust as the terrorist organization evolves. this is not just limited to any boundaries, as you know there are no boundaries with isis, it's not just syria, it's not just iraq. this is something that is spread all over, it's huge, it's a

threat we have not seen anything like in our country before. so i'm going to be asking my good friends, i've already talked to several friends on the democratic side and the republican side to join in this and i i think hopefully we'll be able to do it. it's estimated that 12,000 foreign fighters have joined isis and about 2,500 hold western passports to give them easy access. they would be trained terrorists. i think that's a major issue that i wanted to at least announced. i've introduced this resolution, it's out there right now and we'll be asking for support. now, the other thing i wanted to talk about and i've talked to our leader, chairman levin. armed services committee, several members on the floor right now of the armed services committee including the chair, and what we want to avoid is what happened last year. last year we didn't pass an

ndaa. we passed an ndaa every year for 52 years. in my perhaps narrow view i think it's the most significant bill deaddress every year. we have this year's ndaa that we passed on may 22. it passed our committee 25-1. so it was -- it's got the overwhelming support of democrats and republicans right now to go ahead and have an ndaa bill. now, chairman levin and i have come to the floor and begged our colleagues 20 send down amendments they want, we have several amendments now, a couple hundred amendments, we're looking those over, we're going to try to see what could go into a managers' amendment and maybe come up with something, i'm hoping we could do it before the election. to come up with a bill that will consider the amendments,if if we were able to say the democrats and republicans on this floor that we would

restrict it to x number of amendments, three, four o'five, six on each side, i believe our leader would allow this to come to the floor to have an ndaa votes. i have a number year -- here, it's 140 amendments have already been filed, the staff has been working over the august recess to put together a managers' package that's going to consider varieties of all these 140 amendments but we need more -- what i don't want to happen is at the last minute everyone says i want -- i've got 25 amendments, i want to have them. now is the time to do it. we have thousands of men and women serving today in harm's way risking their lives for us. as -- for our nation and they're dealing with the most complex and volatile global security environments i've ever seen in my life hand we rely on them to do their job to keep our nation safe and they should rely on us to do the same thing.

let's remember what happened last year. last year we didn't do it and we came toward the year end and it wasn't until we decided that we were not going to be able to do it the legitimate way we've been doing it for 52 years so we had the big four. i happened to be the ranking member of the minority and, of course, chairman levin and then, of course, we had the two on the house side, the big four got together in a room, took all of the amendments that had been considered, weeded through them, satisfied most of the people and in three hours we designed a bill, brought it out to the floor and passed it on the 26th of december. now, if we had gone beyond that, gone to the december 31, we would have kids out there risking their lives without hazard pay, without reenlistment bonuses. it costs $15 million to train a fighter in the air to the standards of an f-22. a reenlistment bonus would be

about $200. so the economics of their -- assume week had gone beyond that point it would have been an absolute disaster. so i'm pleading with you and with all of my members, our members on the republican side and the democrat side, to do what's necessary to bring their amendments down to the floor. the president recently submitted a request for $59 billion to fund operations in afghanistan and around the world. the request includes a new $4 billion counterterrorism partnership fund and a $1 billion for the european reassurance fund. many questions remain about these funds. i have questions about it. i haven't talked to one member of the senate armed services committee who knows the details of this request. we're the ones that should be doing this. these are things that we can do in the ndaa and i'm going to ask and plead with our fellow members on the democrat and

republican side to get your amendments in and let's go ahead and let us take some amendments to -- a number of amendments on each side so that we can have a bill and do it the way it should be done. in the -- the only alternative is to do what we did last year and that doesn't include anyone except four people in the house and the senate. with that i'll yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we proceed to a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 39 and also, mr. presiden f that resolution, i ask the joint resolution be indefinitely postponed. the presiding officer: without objection. i am told s. 2779 is due for another reason.-- first reading, in fact. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time.

the clerk: s. 2779, a bill to amend section 349 of the immigration nationality act to deem specified activities in support of terrorism as renunciation of united states nationality. mr. reid: mr. president, i object to my further proceedings with regard to this matter at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate -- when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning, september 9, at 10:00 a.m. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, there be a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes, the majority the final 30 minutes. following that morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. j. res. 19 postcloture. further that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15.

finally, that the time during any morning business, adjournment or recess count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. reid reid mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.onsent 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 >> since 2009 when i became its chair. the u.s. constitution and the wisdom of the framers have endured for generations. i have established and so have many colleagues established a high bar for suggestions to amend that constitution. that is the way it should be. that is why majority leader reed and patrick and i were commit today ensuring the proposal was vetted and moved through the senate by regular order. it is 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

raci raci racist campaign prevented many african-americans from voting. we must in our time and our generation be vigilant against threats of the victories that were won through the blood, sweat, tears and even lives of people. a well funded effort has made it harder for millions of americans to vote and at the same time unleashed a title wave in corpora corpora corporate elections to drown out the voices of the people. our efforts will protect and

restore the first amendment. the amendment before the senate would begin to undue the damage done by five activist supreme court justice who have distorted the first amendment with citizens united and others, they overturned a century of precedent to give a privilege clip and corporates the ability to drown out americans. big time donors like the koch brothers and the corporate interest they represent deserve a seat at the policy making table. but the size of their bank accounts doesn't entitle them to buy every seat at the table, control the agenda and silence

their critics and control the nation. this is what i am seeing being played out across the campaign. big donors and special interest are embolded by the supreme court have flooded the election with a great degree of secret contributions. listen to these statistics. spending by outside groups has tripled since the last election. 26 million in 2010 compareed to 97 million this year. in 2006, before this awful decision, they spent $3.5 million and now the running total for the year is almost $100 million from outside special interest groups. in 2012, super pacs spent $130

million on federal elections and 60% of the donations came from a 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, right wing activist. as i stand and speak there is a super pac on the air attacking me in my home state. as best as we can trace it it is to one individual who has spent $75,000 in negative ads against me on radio and television and perhaps more will follow. that is the nature of the world we live in. members of congress running for election and reelection abide by strict rules on disclosure and money raised and how much is

being spent but when it comes to these individuals since citizen united happened all bets are off. some of the biggest and most frequent spenders on the other side of the aisle it is happening on the right and left. many have created super pacs on the other side as defense. it is a strategy that has been de de dictated by the supreme court decisions. sadly, all of this fight is eroding our democracy and drowning out the voices of every day citizens. one year ago, in a shelby county decision, the same five justice gutted the voting rights act. civil right protection of average americans for 50 years. made bold by the is shelby county decision more republican

state legislatures followed suit by pursuing election to restrict the right to vote. it is no coincidence they have an impact on minory and low income voters. john robert of the supreme court said this of the right to vote it was quote the right preserve of all other rights end of quote. and he pledged to be a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes when it came to issues like the right to vote. because of the activism of justice robert the right to vote for average americans is now at greater risk than any other time since the jim crow era. two years ago i decided to take subcommittees hearing in ohio and florida and in both of those states the republican dominated legislatures in spired by a

group known as alec that is not a lobbying group but creates so-called model legislation had dreamed up ways to restrict the opportunity to vote. how did they do this? some called for the presentation of identification cards when you vote. others said you can limit the time you can vote. no early voting. we will restrict the opportunities for people to vote. i took the hearing to florida and ohio. my first table of witnesses consisted of a bipartisan gathering of elected officials in florida and ohio. states that 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 one or two cases in a course of years. i think it is clear. these efforts to restrict the right to vote are have nothing to do with the integrity of elections. to restrict the right to vote of millions of americans in the name of stopping voter fraud that doesn't exist -- well it is time to ask the more basic question. what is the real reason? the real reason is to restrict the right to vote. it is hard to believe that republicans in state elevator -- legislatures -- and even some in this room, the party of lincoln

is part of restricting the right to vote across america. i have been involved in election campai campaigns that i have won and not won. if felt if it was 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 and saying we will try to make it tougher for people to vote. even those who are legally entitled to vote i think frankly you have crossed a line which we should not cross in this country every. growling dogs and pole taxes have been replaced with a well-funded campaign to not deny millions the right to vote and a flood of special interest money drowning out the vote of millions. is that your vision in america? your opportunity to vote is restricted more and more even

without any indication of voter fraud or 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, spending millions of dollars. i might say, mr. president, i ini introduced a bill for public financing and campaign. there was one republican who stood up agreeing to co-sponsor by bill. arlen specter. senator from pennsylvania. republican senator. what happened to him? i can tell you what happened. he was challenged in his republican primary by one of those on the far right in his party and he could not win. as he looked at the polls he switched parties and became a

democrat. he was the only republican with the courage to stand up for public financing and to change this mess we have. we are mortals and individuals who don't have to be multi-milli multi-millionaires and want coming to do with the business. it is the hobby of high rollers. the two candidates in my state are multi-millionaires. i am not envious of their health. i am only one powerball ticket away from matching their wealth. but it says something about the political process. someone puts in 9-12 million of their own money and the supreme

court says they are just exercise their right of free speech. i didn't see cashi in the feminifirst amendment or money. this is a constitutional amendment before us today. it is narrowally tstated. it empowers congress and state legislatures to set reasonable and content neutral limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and special interest donors can give to candidates. it overturned citizens united -- >> your time is expired. >> consent for five additional minutes? >> without objection is it is so ordered.

ouch this amendment is supported by 60 organizations and the american people. politicians don't get it but the american people do. they can see what is happening to the bidding war we call elections. they understand the flood of television. we have a senatorial candidate who has been subjected to 15 million dollars in negative ads in her state.

five supreme court justice believe the wealthy and elite have a greater right to free speech because they have more money and they argue corporations are people. give me a break. corporations are granted limited liability to enhance their efficiency as an economic entity but went on to say these properties are beneficial in the economic sphere but pose special dangers in the political atmosphere.

>> corporations don't get married and they get have kids or vote and run for office. they have a right to be heard. but the right to control this isn't right. corporati corporations shouldn't be able to wield their enormous power to sway elections. i encourage my colleagues to vote for senate joint resolution 19. i expect is strictly partisan vote. when we came up for disclosure we could not get the republicans to give us this. just disclose who is giving the

money! nope, keep it secret. they want to keep it secret now and make sure those abusing the process by sending in large amounts of money on behalf of corporati corporations and individuals are going to be protected. they will do it at the expense of the average american who is loosing their faith in the process and the institutions that it creates. restore that faith and support s senate joint resolution 19. >> i think we made that clear this is all about public financing and elections according to him. because anybody contributing any of their hard earned money to

support a candidate they happen to believe in her someone espousing for the principles they believe in there is something wrong with that. in chicago they had voter fraud and we had some in texas that resulted in the nomination of

linden johnson in box 13 for president of the united states. and there have been a number of other instances investigated and found cases of voter fraud exist. and what is the problem with issuing or requiring someone to have a photo id to vote? well in texas to get a voter id for which the attorney general sued the state of texas saying it is discrimination to cast their vote and even though it takes a photo id to get into the department of justice and you cannot see eric holder without a photo id. you cannot by alcohol, tobacco or fly on an airplane without an

id. if you can't afford one in texas you get one for free. 70% of the respondants to most of the polling i have seen think voter id is a good idea because it protects the integrity of the ballot for people who are qualified to vote. and doesn't permit illegal votes to dilute those votes. mr. president, we spent the last several weeks back home meeting with our voters. i know some people like to call it recess. it doesn't feel like recess or not in the elementary school sense of the world. most of the time this is a period during which we get to travel our states and interact with our voters. i did this in texas and my

voters didn't say the most important thing you can do is pass a constitutional amendment gutting the first amendment. that didn't come up. concerns about the economy, access to health care, immigration, about the challenges imposed by radical islamic terrorist and the russian strongman vladimer putin. all of those came up. not a single time did my voters say we want you to go back to washington, d.c. and vote to gut the first amendment. at the time of high unemployment and stagnant wages with the labor participation rate at historic lows that is the percentage of people in the workforce looking for jobs. it is a historic low. and millions of americans concerned about loosing their health insurance or facing

higher deductibles or premiums with a crisis on the southwest border which hasn't gone away with this wave of unaccompanied minor children coming across central america and terrorist on the march in the middle east and russian military forces continuing a full-blown inva invase -- invasion of ukraine -- despite that the majority leader is bringing 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 since the country was founded and replace it with one that empowers recumbent politici politicians to control who has access to resources in order to get their message out. it is clear the majority leader's priorities have

everything to do with november the 4th. the coming midterm elections. so it is all politics, all the time, no matter what. i am embarrassed to confront my voters when they say what are you going to do when you return to washington, d.c. are you going to be dealing with the jobs or the energy sector which is a very bright spot in our economy or what are we going to do to make sure the millennia millennials. what are you going to do to make sure promises are kept like you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor? instead of dealing with those

important issues it is embarrassing for me to say the majority leader is the one that controls the agenda, he is a traffic cop, and an individual senator doesn't have the ability to control the agenda of the united states senate. so this is all senator reid's choice as the majority leader. he claims this proposed constitutional amendment is all about getting so-called dark money out of the political system. in reality, if that were all this were about we might have a good debate and a vote here. but in reality what he is concerned about is opposition and political support that is going to make it likely republicans regain the majority and democrats become the

minori minority. this is going to undermine the most cherished amendments. state and federal lawmakers would have vast new powers to regulate or even criminalize political speech. to state the blinding obvious, the founding fathers proposed and we adopted the first amendment because we saw how dangerous it was to let politicians restrict the exercise of free speech. without the first amendment they realized we could end up with a cycle of shrinking the boundaries of political speech. a political system like that isn't compatible with the principles of a free society and

that is what we would have if this constitutional amendment being proposed were to take effect. i heard majority whip saying this isn't about political speech dbit but about money. but that argument falls apart. it would allow congress to restrict freedom of assembly and while the amendment may not give congress the power to curtail freedom of the press per se it will give them the power to curtail speech by individuals and activist. and that begs the question why should the political speech of magazines be different than you have me? why should it be carved out in

newspapers and magazines but our ability to communicate about the things we care about the most would be restricted by limiting the amount of money we could spend to advocate those points of views. when newspapers publish stories they are trying to sway politici politicians and elected officials to sway to a certain position and that is an important part of the system. i would ask consent for an additional three minutes. >> is there an objection? >> without objection. >> so newspapers all of the time are trying to persuade voters to lect a candidate because they endorse the candidates. i remember the first public office i ran for was district judge in bear county and the endorsement of the local newspaper was one of the biggest ones i caught. i knew if the newspaper

editorial board thought were you a qualified candidate that would help. lawmakers shouldn't have the right to decide what types of speech are permissable. the solution to speech and more speech not less speech. for 225 years the first amendment has protected all speech. not just speech we agree with or supports our political view. a recent supreme court decision put it this way. there is no more basic right to the dema'odemommocracy to mock the democracy than picking our leaders. this amendment would roll that back and create a system in which vital liberty was depended

upon the tides of partisan politics. these efforts shouldn't not only be supported but reputed firmly, loudly and unapologetically. mr. president, as i close i want to add the founders put in the constitution the process by which the constitution could be amendmented. two 3rds of the house and two 3rds of the senate must vote for a constitutional resolution and three quarters of the state must radify the constitutional amendment. i can tell you there is no doubt in my mind that would never happen with this amendment. so why is the majority leader bringing this up now? perhaps to motivate his own base

in hoping it will mitigate losses in the november 4th election. but it can't be are hope or a pipe dream it would ever become the law of the land. for the reasons i have stated it should not. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the senate voted to move over an amendment that will give congress the power to set limits on campaign contributions and spending. here are a few comments we received from viewers. >> i am so glad and thankful for c-span and the book reviews and especially books that are like last night you had a book called lift up your heart by doug neck.

please keep up the good work. i am grateful you have a phone line we can call. because not all of us senior citizens can work the computer. >> i watch the show on c-span and i don't know if is was c-span1 or c-span2 but what i thought was nice about the way they conducted the meeting was when somebody got up at a the meeting and someone got up to ask the conversation whoever the moderator or host was they told the person who was asking the question don't stay at the mike and then they would go say what they were going to say whatever that person's question or statement was and then the

person that asked the question got to have a conversation with them to clarify the intent of what the question and the issue was about. most people call in and you hang up on them and the guest panel speaker speaks off in left field and doesn't get to the part in details and meat of what the question was talking about. >> i am calling to tell you about c-span3. i sure enjoy your programs on the weekend. i enjoy the programs and everything you do. i appreciate it. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know.

202-626-3400, send us a tweet or e-mail us. join the conversation lie by liking us on facebook or following us on twitter. >> two former fcc chairman talk about media mergers and then in 30 minutes former president's bill clinton and george w. bush launch a leadership training program and texas senator ted cruz said americans who fight with isis should be stripped of their united states citizenship. that is later. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. on the