eastern time. we'll have live to the floor of the u.s. senate about the gavel in for morning business, continued consideration of the resolution proposing an intimate to the constitution that would grant congress the ability to limit campaign contributions. no votes scheduled today in the senate, and this it will be recessing from 12:30-2:15 eastern for senate party lunches. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, the fountain of our joy, you see our thoughts from a distance, comprehending the nuances of our motives. lord, you understand our desire to

please and honor you with our lives. you know our remorse for neglected duties, missed opportunities, and selfish pursuits. give our lawmakers strength for today and hope for tomorrow. today, meet the needs of our senators as they confront our dangerous world, providing them with more than human wisdom to accomplish your will. give them faith to trust that your sovereign providence will prevail in the unfolding events

of our world. remind them that they are never alone, for you will never leave or forsake. we pray in your sovereign 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. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, if any, the senate will be if a period of morning business for an hour, with senators permit during that time to speak for up to ten minutes each. with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority the final 30 minutes.

following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s.j. res. 19, postcloture. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. mr. president, s. 277 is at the desk, i understand, and is due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second 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 would object to further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i want to start today by reading a few quotes on the issue of campaign finance reform. here's the first on one from 19.

"with a we ought to do is eliminate the political action committee contributions because these are the ones that raise the specter of undue influence and those can be gone tomorrow. we can pass a bill tomorrow to take care of that problem." another quote from the next year: "we republicans have put together a responsible and constitutional campaign reform agenda that would restrict the power of special interest pacs and keep wealthy individuals from buying office." two years later, 1990: "we would eliminate pacs altogether. it would be interesting to see whether our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be willing to eliminate pacs altogether and we would have the money to come from individuals and small and fully disclosed amounts." a few years later, 1997: "public disclosure of campaign

contributions and spending should be ex-spie dieted so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. these are the reforms which respect the constitution and would enhance our democracy." thee years later in 2000, another quote: "we need to have real disclosure and so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associationssociations so that e the major political players in america." why would a little disclosure be imert than a lot of disclosure?" close quote. mr. president, a quote from 2003: "money is essential in politics and not something we should feel squeamish about. everyone knows who's supporting everyone else." so, mr. president, who did these

statements come from? tom udall, sponsor of the vote that we had last night? mark udall -- i'm sorry, michael bennet from colorado? he and tomorrow udall sponsored the constitutional amendment. did it come from them or some other democrat? no, that's not the case. let me read -- quote a few things. "keep wealthy individual us from buying public office and stop the flow of soft money and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what's appropriate." those are quotes, mr. president. did these quotes come from bernie sanders, who's known as being a liberal? he's been an outspoken voablght

for campaign finance we form. but the author of these quotes is none other than my friend, the distinguished republican leader, the senior senator from kentucky. these are all his quotes, word or word. the senior senator from kentucky has a track record on campaign finance reform spending two decades or more. i was with him there 25 years ago fighting the undue influence of unlimited campaign donations. i cosponsored his 1989 constitutional amendment that would have given congress power to enact laws regulating the amount of independent expenditures. i was there with him. but, mr. president, i guess times have changed. i'm aware that the republican leader has stated that his views on the matter of campaign finance have changed over the years. what a gross understatement. but as victor hugo wrote, "change your opinions but keep your principles. change your leaves but keep your

roots." at one time, the republican leader was rooted in the principle that the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy public office, whether for themselves or for others. either as recently as late 2507, he was preaching donger disclosure. disclosure. whoas changed in the last years? we've witnessed the koch brothers trying to buy america, untold millions hoping to get a government that will serve them and make them more money. the they're out there promoting themselves. so, mr. president, we're watching the corrupting influence that the republican leader foretold 27 years ago and many years thereafter, before he

switched teams. what could have convinced the senior senator from kentucky that limitless campaign donations aren't that bad after all? i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: now that the president has unanimous consent canned initial consultations cos with our allies and stated his objection to degrade and destroy sile, it is time to present a strategy to congress. i hope we begin to do that today. he needs to identify military objectives and explain how those ends will be accomplished.

he needs to present this plan to congress and the american people and where the president believes he lacks authority to execute such a strategy, he needs to explain to congress how additional authority for the use of force will protect america. the threat from isil is real, and it's growing. it's time for president obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response. we know that the administration has authorized military actions to protect american lives. now we need to hear what additional measures will be taken to defeat isil. on another market mr. president, earlier today one democratic senator urged his colleagues to get serious about the real challenges facing our country, challenges like dealing with the threat of isil. he implored fellow democrats mott tnotto focus all their tim, "doing things that are of lesser importance." yet his voice seems to have

ignored by the democrats who run the senate because here we stand debating their proposal on to take an eraser to the first amendment. here we are gitting whether or not to grant politicians the extraordinary authority to ban speech they don't like. that's what democratic leaders have brought to the floor this week as their top priority. it's a measure so extreme, it could even open the door to government officials banning books and pamphlets that threaten or annoy them. that's not my argument. that's essentially the obama administration's own position, one that its lawyers advocated in the supreme court in the citizens united case. as one "usa today" columnist put it at that time, it isn't often that a government lawyer stand before the supreme court and acknowledges that, yes, it would be constitutional to ban a book, but that is what happened. truly shocking.

these are the depths to which the obama administration and its democratic majority appear willing to drag our country in order to retain their hold on power. they're tired of listening to criticism of their failed policies. they're sake of having to sell the middle class on ideas that actually hurt the middle class. and with the democrats' fragile senate majority hanging o hangia thread, it seems their they're done playing with the normal rules of democracy. it seems they'd rather juice jut rewrite the rules. even as they give a pass to folks they like while jealously guarding sweetheart deals for themselves. the aim here, just like with the i.r.s. scandal is to use the levers of power to shut down the voice of "we the people "quhtion

we the people don't see things their way. the first amendment is the only thing standing in the way. of course we all know the real reason senate democrats are so determined to push this measure now. they're not actually all that serious about passing it this week. in fact, they designed it to fail because they think its failure would help turn more left-wingers out to the polls. the entire spectacle is mostly about saving the jobs of democratic senators come november. it is getting harder to tell which of our democratic friends are cynical in their support of this and which are sincere. because the number of true believers in speech suppression appears to be growing on the other side. that's really worrying for the future of our democracy. look, if the democrats who run washington are so determined to force the senate into debate over repealing the free speech protections of the first amendment, then fine.

let's have a full and proper debate. let's make the country see what this is really all about. let's expose this extremist effort to the light of public scrutiny. i suspect our democratic friends don't really want that, though. i suspect they had hoped to just drop a few talking points, have their proposal fail, shoot some indignant e-mails to their supporters and move on. i don't think they counted on senators stand up for the american people. i don't think they counted on senators exposing their plans to entrench the tools of government speech suppression, so they'd rather not have a debate they can't win. here's a better idea: we all just spent the past several weeks back in our home states talking to our constituents. they got a lot on their minds these days, important issues they expect the democrat-run senate to address. things like high unemployment,

rising health care costs, and an ongoing crisis at the border. i, for one, would be interested to hear how repealing part of the first amendment creates jobs for americans. or reduces health care costs. the answer, of course, is it doesn't. the republican-controlled house has already sent over countless bills that collect dust on the bill's desk. there are many issues, including legislation which passed the house with significant bipartisan support. so if senate democrats want to take some of that serious house-passed legislation up instead of endless designed to fail political votes, we'll be happy to do it. just say the word. let's end the democrats endless gridlock and get bills to the president's desk for once because americans are not demanding that congress repeal the free speech of the first amendment. they are looking to us to work

together to get things done for them for a change and we can just as soon as our democratic friends want to get serious. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i agree with the republican leader's defense of the first amendment. but the constitutional amendment before us isn't about limiting free speech. my democratic colleagues and i are trying to address the special interest money that threatens to create a government of elected officials who are beholden to a few -- a few -- wealthy individuals. as the respected justice john paul stevens recently told us, money is not speech. and it isn't, of course. we know that. last week a recording surfaced of a speech given to koch brothers secret meeting they had in san diego or thereabouts. it was a secret meeting on their political strategy. it was a summit, they called it.

and it was -- they had security guards. they cleared everybody who could come. it was very, very delicate. it had to be the right person or they wouldn't let you in. but one person was able to record what went on at that meeting. one of the speakers who was recorded -- and there were others -- a man by the name of richard fink who is vice president of koch industries, a big shot with the koch brothers. the koch brothers of course were there listening. here's what he said. mr. president, some pretty terribly vicious things about unemployed americans. he basically called them lazy. he went ton say that the minimum wage leads to fascism. i'm not making this up. this is what he said. fascism. and he even compared minimum wage with tactics utilized by naz disi germ -- nazi germany

and modern-day suicide bombers. mr. president, that's what the koch brothers' person said in their presence and in the presence of a number of high-ranking republican elected officials. now, he has a right to say whatever he wants; okay? that's the country we live in. but as united states senators, we have the responsibility to stand up for our constituents who are unemployed or on minimum wage. and we on this side of the aisle have done that. the american people agree with us. not just democrats, not just independents. republicans believe there should be an increase in the minimum wage. the republican leader was at the summit the very day that mr. fink made his offensive remarks. he was there. mr. president, why has he not gone on record repudiating his

vicious, unfair comments about the poor? in fact, it's been reported that the republican leader referred to the speeches at the koch conference that day as inspiring inspiring. there are 150,000 unemployed kentuckians. are they leading towards fascism? there are families in kentucky who live on minimum wage, or try to. i don't think my friend, the republican leader, views them as facist stooges or lazy, but he should stand up and repudiate what koch brothers said at the conference. if anybody in this body said as much i have no doubt my

constituent would come to their defense but be careful what you say about the koch brothers. they are very sensitive. they want to protect their $75 billion -- there's two of them, they're worth $150 billion and nobody messes with them because they have money to buy america, and that's what they're trying to do. do we need campaign finance reform? of course we do. mr. president, the quotes i gave earlier, try to figure out intellectually. my friend, the presiding officer, is a very, very smart man. rhodes scholar, graduated from one of the most famous educational substitutes in the world. -- educational institutes in the world, stanford university. pretty bright guy. but you don't have to be a pretty bright guy to understand

the flip-flop -- and i don't know how else you can describe it. here's what he said. remember, he gave his little speech a minute ago about the first amendment. i'm not making this up. this is what the man said, the same man who is complaining about the first amendment being violated is the man who sponsored basically the same thing we are trying to pass now. here, let me read these quotes again. let's make sure they're pred across this -- spread across this record. we ought to eliminate the political action committee contribution because those can be gone tomorrow. we can pass a bill tomorrow to take care that have problem, one quote. another quote. we republicans put together a responsible and constitutional campaign reform agenda. it would restrict the power of special interest pacs, stop the flow of all soft money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office. another quote: hallelujah.

i'm glad he said that. here's what else he said. we would eliminate pacs altogether. it will be interesting to see whether our colleagues -- talkerring about democrats -- on the other side of the aisle will be willing to eliminate pacs altogether and we would have the money come from individuals in small and fully disclosed amounts. next quote: public disclosure of campaign contribution spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. these are the reforms with respect to the constitution and would enhance our democracy. i didn't rewrite this. this is direct, word for word quote. next: we need to have real disclosure, and so what we ought to do is broaden this disclosure to include at least labor unions, tax exempt diss -- tax-exempt businesses and trial

lawyers. he also went on to say money is essential in politics, not something we should feel squeamish about, providing donations are limited and disclosed. everyone knows who is supporting everyone else. mr. president, i repeat, the presiding officer is one of the smartest people we have in the entire united states senate. with all due with respect to the presiding officer, you don't have to be a rhodes scholar or graduate from stanford university to understand how absolutely, absolutely irrational what my friend just came and said. he said this amendment, this constitutional amendment is violating the first amendment of our constitution. i'm using his remarks to state how important doing that, what we're trying to do is.

congress and the states have the authority -- they should have the authority to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. it's so commonsense, americans clearly believe in this. the amendment would restore the authority back to congress and the states, not two wealthy brothers who are trying to buy america. two wealthy brothers who control most of the tar sands in the world. they have this huge oil and gas interest, chemical interests. they control lots of stuff. and now, read in the paper today, they are out now going to spend a few of their millions to tell everybody what great people they are. it's in all the news today. the koch brothers, beware because they have unlimited sums of money. they're going to tell you that they're eam -- apple pie and

motherhood and great for america. mr. president, they're not great for america. they're trying to buy america. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes.

a senator: mr. president, i ask consent floor privileges for a member of my staff during the duration of the debate on senate joint resolution 19. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, political speech is not on the fringes of the first amendment. it's the core freedom of democracy. the entire point of the first amendment is to say that the government has no business telling the citizens what constitutes reasonable political speech. congress is not allowed to ban books. congress isn't allowed to ban magazines or bam pamphlets, and congress is not allowed to silence dissent. the idea behind this amendment

is that government should have the four silence criticism of the government. this amendment referring to senate joint resolution 19. it's an attempt to control the words americans speak and the ideas that americans hear. every great movement in our democracy has been based on ideas that were at one time or another at the outset deemed unreasonable by the government. it's dangerous and it's un-american in the extreme. under this proposed amendment, the federal government would have the power to decide which groups, which causes, which arguments and ultimately which citizens would be allowed to enter the public square. the amendment would even empower congress to distinguish between natural individuals and

artificial entities. that is, rich and powerful people will still be free to influence our government. but everyone else can be barred from coming together and pooling their resources for that very purpose. what is an artificial entity with restricted speech rights? churches? neighborhood associations? civic groups? single-issue organizations like national right to life or naral? trade associations? businesses? or labor unions? schools? the target of this amendment is america, civil society. when politicians talk about outside groups, they mean outside washington. they mean ordinary citizens coming together, rallying behind a common cause. they mean the abolition movement, the women's suffrage

movement, and the labor movement, as well as the civil rights movement, antiwar movements shall the pro-life movement and the consumer rights movement. they mean citizens. that's who the authors of this amendment believe are outside intruders whose speech somehow needs to be regulated, needs to be restricted by congress. people with ideas that are -- quote, unquote -- unreasonable, people like thomas pane or thomas jefferson and fred lick douglas and susan b. anthony and martin luther king jr. the true danger of the idea is even put into the text in the section 3 carve-out for the press. so wealthy individuals, those who happen to own newspapers or happen to own a television station or a radio network, do

under this proposed amendment continue to have free speech, but the people who read and watch the media do not, or the people who don't own those companies, don't they have the same rights under this proposedd amendment, they do not. under thiunder this amendment, e activities in which they engage, those that are attempted to influence elections are in fact reasonable. congress would of course be empowered to define what constitutes journalism, what falls within the parameters of this freedom of the press carve-out so that irritating bloggers and reporters and producers could perhaps be

silenced, assuming they were carved out of that definition. this provision will not guarantee equality. it will, rather, guarantee inequality. it is right there in the text of the amendment. some citizen's right to free speech would be more equal than others under this proposed amendment. it's sometimes appealing at a surface level to start from the proposition that something like this might be desirable to some for the simple reason that we don't want any one person or any one group of persons having a disproportionate impact on the electoral process. we don't want anyone or anything to be able to buy an election. but that misses the point. this wouldn't solve that probl problem. in fact, this would make that problem worse. consider, for example, the fact that under this proposed

amendment, as i read it and as i think most would read it, an individual would be free to spend unlimited amounts of mon money, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions or tens of millions of dollars, supporting the candidate of her choice, if that individual happened to own a newspaper. or if that individual perhaps happened to own a television company or a radio broadcast network, that would be no problem. that would be beyond the scope of this proposed amendment. because under section 3 of senate joint resolution 19, it makes clear that nothing in this article shall be construed to grant congress or the states the power to abridge the freedom of the press. so in light of section 3, everything else in senate joint

resolution 19 might either do a lot or it might do a little. it might do practically nothing or it might do practically everything. let me explain what i mean. let's examine the text of the first two sections of this provision. section 1 says to advance democratic self-government and political equality and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. so if your intent is deemed to involve influencing the outcome of an election, then you're subject to these reebl limits -- to these reasonable limits. now, what people in congress think is reasonable might be different than what the american people think is reasonable. then in section 2 it says that congress and the states shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation and may

distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. herein lies the problem. getting back to our hypothetical a few minutes ago, if the idea behind this is to prevent any person or any group of persons from having too much influence over elections taking place in the united states of america, this doesn't do that. and depending on how broadly or how narrowly congress chooses to define this concept of freedom of the press, which it carves out and holds harmless, this legislation might do everything or it might do nothing. let me explain what i mean. most of the money that is spent by political campaigns, whether

by individual candidates or by organizations attempting to influence the outcome of elections, comes in the form of disseminating a message, comes in the form of either printed material in the form of pamphlets or the electronic equivalent of pamphlets, or it comes in the form of some type of advertisely. maybe it's an advertisement in a niewvment maybnewspaper or maybn advertisement on television. but that's where most of the political money ends up getting spent. as understood by the founding generation and as understood and interpreted by the supreme court to this day, most of that material is protected in the sense that most of that material constitutes something that falls under the category of freedom of the press. freedom of the press, of course, doesn't belong solely, doesn't belong exclusively to those who have a press badge or those who are part of what has

historically been considered our news media. if, on the other hand, those who have drafted this amendment or if, on the other hand, those who would decide what laws to pass under this amendment to give it force, if they were to conclude that they wanted to more narrowly define press to include only credentialed media, perhaps newspaper reporters, perhaps newspaper reporters and radio and television reporters, then they would be significantly changing the first amendment as interpreted by the supreme court. they would be significantly changing the nature of the freedom of the press as recognized by the supreme court over the last two centuries. if, in fact, they choose to do it that way, then we would find ourselves in an awful situation in which the owner of a newspaper would be able to spend

potentially millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars promoting the candidate of her choice simply because she owns a newspaper. but what about somebody who doesn't own a newspaper but, nonetheless, wants her views to be expressed, wants to have some way of contributing to the national debate? what if there's someone out there who is really concerned, concerned about a particular issue? let's say there's a voter who is concerned about the patriot act and she wants to contribute to an organization -- let's say the aclu -- which would, in turn, perhaps make statements to try to influence the public debate about the patriot act? this could run afoul of that. in fact, under the plain language of it, it likely would. and, in fact, the aclu itself has expressed this concern. in a letter dated june 3, 2014,

to chairman pat leahy of the senate judiciary committee, on which i sit, page 4 of that letter, the aclu presents the following hypothetical. "for instance, would an aclu ad urging members of congress to support patriot act reform, which runs shortly before the november 2004 election when that issue is at play in the election, be construed as an issue ad exhorting voters to support reform or a covert attempt to influence voters to oppose members who do not support reform? similarly, would an ad by a group urging repeal of the affordable care act, which runs before the 2012 presidential election, be issue advocacy or covert express advocacy?" these are questions a raised by the aclu itself. these are questions -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired.

mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent i be given two additional minutes to to wra wrap up my re. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: and so, mr. president, what all of this boils down is that the core value, the core protections underlying the first amendment are not just importa important, they're not just nice things to talk about, they're at the very foundation of our representative democracy. they're at the very foundation of our republic and how it operates. if this amendment were to pass, if this were to become part of the constitution of the united states, congress would become more powerful at the expense of the american people. ultimately, this would innure to the benefit of the political establishment in washington. it would innure to the benefit, perhaps, of two political

parties but everybody else would suffer. it would be more difficult for more americans to speak on issues that concern them. congress would have more power and the states would have more power to restrict the speech of the american people. it has been said in the past that this is about restricting money, not speech. it's a little bit like saying that a city ordinance prohibiting people from using either an automobile or a subway car to get to a protest rally isn't restricting their access to a protest rally or their right to participate in that protest rally. when money is the means by which the american people can have the ability to express their concern on an issue that voters are facing in an upcoming election, that should concern us all. this is an attempt to weaken the most fundamental components of

our rights as u.s. citizens. i must, therefore, oppose senate joint resolution 19 and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i know many senators have been back home talking to citizens about things thars on their mind. i heard as a doctor as well as a u.s. senator dish heard from many people in my home state of wyoming who have lot of concers about the health care law and the devastating side effects that the law has on them. in the past few weeks there have been headlines all across the country with bad news about the health care law and its impact on the american people. just this morning, mr. president, the local newspaper, "the hill," has a headline you "support for obamacare continues to fall." it, "public approval of

obamacare continued to sink this summer. issuing the latest warning for vulnerable democrats who will face voters this fall after backing the law enforcement" it says just 35% of voters now support the health care law enforcement that is monthly poll done by the kaiser health foundation, released yesterday. it says, "health care remains one of the most important issues in midterm elections ranking only behind the economy and jobs as voters' top issues." i talk about health care repeatedly, mr. president, because i am a physician, taking care of patients for 25 years, in my home state of wyoming, taking care of families from all over the state. they come to me with their concerns about the health care law. now, president obama says that democrats who voted for the law should "forcefully defend and be proud of the law enforcement" is the president proud of the ways that families are suffering because of his health care law and the dangerous side effects that people continue to face?

here is a headline last friday, september 5, front page of the "wall street journal," "hacker breaches part of federal health site." hark, computer hacker breaching the federal health site. a hacker broke into part of the healthcare.gov web site in july, uploaded malicious software according to officials. the administration now admitted -- it says "the break-in raised concerns among federal officials because of how easy, how easily the intruder gaininged access and how much damage could have occurred." this is something that republicans have warned about for a long time. the administration, the obama administration, didn't do the basic things that any business in america would have done to protect people and their personal information. according to this report, part of the problem in this case was that the web site's developers

never -- taxpayers have paid plentoy these developers. that they never bothered to change a default passwar pass wr the system. hackers didn't have to go around some complicated security system or braipg break in through a back door. the obama administration official admitted to "the wall street journal" that there was a door left open. a door left open. the obama administration said that so far the hackers haven't stole anybody's personal information that they know of. apparently they don't even know -- they didn't know about this breech for weeks. the hacker walked in through an open door in july and the obama administration didn't know anything about it until august 25. healthcare.gov stores huge amounts of personal information, private information, about people, about their access information, about their health care information, and people

have a right to know that the information is secure. where are the democrats on the floor of the united states senate today ready to forcefully defend leaving a door open for these hackers? here's another headline, september 2, "new york times," "says, "bracing for new challenges in year two of the health care law." we all remember how the terrible -- how terrible the lawfnl of tf the health care program was last fall. cheaper than year cell phone bill, you can keep your doctor. america knows those things weren't true u so we all remember this terrible launch last october. the new head of the government exchange talked about what he expected it to be like this year. year two. they have are a had a full year now to get ready and fix the problems and this obama administration official just recently told "the new york times," "in some respects, it's going to be more complicated,

more complicated." he said, "part of me things that this year is going to make last year look like the good ol' days." america is not ready to go back to the obamacare web site "good ol' days." that's what the obama administration' person in charge of the health care exchange told the "new york times." are the democrats going to come to the floor and forcefully support this for secondary year in a row? it is another disgraceful side effect of the president's unworkable, unmanageable health care law. i'll give you one or example of what the american people are learning. insurance companies have been releasing their preliminary rates for 2015 and it new mexico places for many people premiums are going up. according to the consulting group pricewaterhouse cooper premiums going up about 8% on average across the country. it's not what democrats promised

when they wrote the health care law. democrats promised that rates would go down. president obama went around the country and he said that people would see their health care costs go down by anag an averagf $2,500 per person per year. nancy pel pelosi said rates wilo down for everyone. that hasn't happened. premiums have gone up, deductibles have gone up. out-of-pocket costs have gone up. one of the things i do is look around the country and try to find out how the policies that come out of washington affect people all across the country. i've traveled over the past month and heard from many people that the president's health care law is hurting them individually and costing them more. one place people are really being hurt by the health care law is alaska. here is a headline from the "hill" newspaper on monday.

"alaska insurance rates to spike." according to the article, alaskans can expect a price spike of more than 30% on average. another place being hit is iowa. pricewaterhouse cooper says the average person in iowa who buys health insurance through the exchange is going to pay 11.5% more next year in premiums. more others, premium will be as high as 14% higher. those iowa families aren't getting the kind of $2,500 like the democrats promised, the democrats who voted toker this health care law, like the president said. what they're get sang increase instead of 14%. more money out of the their pockets. you can go round and round. they are paying more and it is no surprise then that today "the hill" headlines is that it is more popular -- more unpopular now, continues to lose popularity. and then the impact -- it is

just -- it is astonishing, mr. president, because i picked up today's investor's business daily. a lost students have to work their way through college. "obamacare goes to college. more than 200 colleges and universities" -- this is th bece of the law, the way it defiance part-time and full-time work. "more than 200 colleges and universities have restricted work hours for students for part-time faculty or both citing the costs of complying with the employer mandate related to the president's health care law." the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. barrasso: i ask for one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: whenever mr. pres, what i do is come to the floor to talk about the concerns that americans have about their jobs, concerned about their opportunity to get the care they

need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. they see all of these things as troublesome under the president's health care law. so i'm going to continue to talk about this and the impact this has on the american family. going it talk about restoring people's treme freedom to buy insurance that works for them. they know what's best for them, not the obama administration. it going to talk about reforms and get people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. going to talk about giving people choices, not washington mandate. republicans are going to keep offering real luges for better health care -- real solutions for better health care without all of this tragic side effects. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i take this time to talk about a fair shot for american families on quality, affordable higher education. it is very appropriate that the senator from new jersey is presiding because he's been one of the great leaders in the

united states senate on the affordability of higher education and it's been a pleasure to work with the presiding officer. let me go through some of the numbers first. it is somewhat shocking. we have 20 million students who enter college every year. 60% will exit with student debt. the majority of students that now attend college will have to borrow money in order to be able to have a college education. 37 million americans today have college loans that are outstanding. and, yes, we know some of those are young professionals. some of those are older people. i was surprised to learn that almost 8 million americans over the age of 50 have college loans that are still outstanding. so this is a burden that many american families will take for the rest of their life.

theage of debt today -- the average debt ti today is $29,00. understand that number -- and that number is rising dramatically every year. when you graduate, the average debt, $t-29,000 that they carry. as the senator from the new jersey pointed out earlier today, the percentage of a family'family's disposable incot you need in order to pay for a college education -- what you need for global competition, what you need in this country is far higher than any other country in the world, any other industrial country in the world by far. equally almost 50% of disposable income. that is a shocking number. for many american families it the out of reach because of the cost and the necessary toys borrow money. let me get beyond the numbers

for a minute and talk little bit about the people. senator mikulski and i last thursday were on the campus of bowie state university and umcm. we had chance to not only meet with the president of bowie state university but with students around the table to talk about how they go around trying to arrange for scholarships and loans in order to be able to afford a college education. bowie state university is a good buy compared to other colleges. tuition is only around $5,000. you would think that those students are in good shape. but let me tell you about the realities. dr. burnham was explaining to us that on the first day of school many students who they thought would be enrolled were not enrolled.

why? because they couldn't put together the total financial package in order to satisfy the tuition costs. so they were not formally enrolled. i was talking to some students at that round table discussion who explained to me that there were student whose showed up for the first day of the class without the textbook because they couldn't afford the textbook. they're going to be behind before they even start because of the high cost of college education. but here we are at a state college and the average debt held by a student graduating from bowie is $27,800. at a state college. that's a shocking number. the same numbers, we go through the same thing at umbc. dr. freeman rabowsky, at one of

the great universities in our country, and there they find so many tools to try to help their students with loans, with scholarships and work-study programs. and the debt there is also over $20,000 a year for their graduating seniors. it's affecting their ability to perform in college. what do i mean by that, this large number of debts they have to take care of? students do everything they can to reduce their debt, so they work. they work. in some cases they work more than one job, and attending college. it affects their ability to perform and successfully complete college. at buoy state it -- at bowie state it takes about six years to do a four-year program because the students are working and having a hard time meeting credit requirements. in some cases i was told, mr. president, that there were students who wanted to take a summer class because it was offered. they need it had for their major

to allow them to graduate in a more timely way. but they couldn't afford to take the summer class because the pell grants aren't available in the summertime. i thank senator harkin, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, for offering legislation that would correct that, that will allow for pell grants to be available on a 12-month basis. that would help. now, yes, the effect of the high cost of education is first and foremost on the individual. too many children are not going to college, too many children are not going to the college they would like to, too many students are taking too many years to graduate because of the high cost of college, too many students aren't going on to those advanced degrees because they have too much debt and they have to work and they have to pay off their student loans. too many students don't have all the training they need in order to do the best for themselves, and it's affecting their ability

to succeed economically. they're delayed in their career of choices because of extra years of college. and it's affecting their ability to buy homes because they have student debt. it's affecting our community, the retail consumers are less than it would otherwise be. it is affecting global competition, yes we have to increase public support, increase transparency. but we can this week and next do something about it by passing the bank on student emergency loan refinancing act. and i thank senator warren and thank senator franken for leading our effort on this. this will allow to us refinance loans. you can't today, you can't refinance the loans. you can't take advantage of the lower interest rates. students are paying -- people who have student loans are paying thousands of dollars of extra interest costs. let us refinance it. the government shouldn't be making money off the backs of student loan holders because the

interest rates are lower than what they are charging. let's refinance that. that would save thousands of dollars to families and help us have more affordable opportunities for education in our community. let's give a fair shot to american families. let's take up and pass the bank on student emergency loan refinancing act to allow millions of americans currently holding student debt to refinance lower rates saving thousands of dollars and helping americans afford a college education. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise to speak today in support of reauthorizing the export-import bank. and i'm here with the senator from washington, senator cantwell, who's been such a leader as head of the small business committee, on this issue. and as i heard the senator from maryland talk about the

importance of student loans to our economy and the importance to our economy for having people able to go out there and get the education to fill the jobs of today, another piece of this is is to make sure those markets are available, to make sure that our businesses are able to compete internationally, both small and big, with companies from across the world. this means jobs in america. exports are critical to the u.s. economy. and we need to help our businesses, small and large, boost their exports. when 95% of the world's customers live outside of our borders, there is literally a world of opportunity out there for u.s. business. it used to be we were just focused on canada, especially in minnesota, and mexico. but we know there is a world of opportunity in emerging markets in places like asia and africa. for us to finally be making things in america and having people buy them in other countries. as a senator, i've been working to boost america's ability to

compete in the global economy and to open up these markets. that's why i support strongly reauthorizing the export-import bank. i thank senator cantwell for her efforts in leading this fight and i thank leadership on both sides of the banking committee. as senate chair of the joint economic committee, today i am releasing a report on the contributions of exports to the u.s. economy and the important role of the export-import bank. according to one analysis, exports are projected to account for almost 40% of real u.s. g.d.p. growth over this decade. 40%. we know we have stabilized the economy here in america, but the only way we're going to be able to expand it, to add more jobs, to make sure people are working at their fullest potential, is to be able to export things to other countries with these emerging middle classes in

places like india and other places where we can actually sell our goods. this report highlights the export-import bank plays a crucial role in supporting businesses, particularly small businesses, to find markets for their products. so what does the report show? first of all it, shows that the economy has expanded for the past four years in u.s. exports have really been the ticket to that growth. last year u.s. exports of bills reached an all time high, $2.3 trillion or 13.5% of u.s. g.d.p., an increase of 35% since 2009. think of the jobs that means in america. in 2013, u.s. exports of goods and services were responsible for 11.3 million jobs, an increase of 1.6 million jobs since 2009. manufacturing and agriculture

producers have also been able to increase their exports, supporting economic recovery and job growth. in the manufacturing sector, nearly 25% of production is exported, and these exports are responsible for about three million jobs. i see this in minnesota. in 2013, our goods of exports rose to 20.7 billion, and minnesota was ranked the fourth-largest agriculture exporting state in 2012, up from six in 2011. you know what that means in real terms? our unemployment rate is down to 4.5%. our twin cities area has the lowest unemployment rate of any metropolitan area in the country, and it is very much about exports. and companies, not just the big ones, but the small ones who have learned to export and are willing to use the tools to export, which means the export-import bank. yet, u.s. exporters, as we all know, are competing with foreign

producers in places like germany, in places like france, in places like china who are backed by their own country's credit export programs and often receive other government subsidies. so i just ask my friends who are slowing down this reauthorization, how can we say to our u.s. companies big and small that we're going to allow 60 other countries, including the top ten exporting countries globally, that they can have credit export programs, but our companies can't have them in the u.s.? let me just show you what i mean and this is right out of a report -- and, mr. president, i ask that i be able to put this report on the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: on the graph in the report in figure 2, we show the comparisons between u.s. and other countries export credit subsidies. so what does this show? this number is about new, medium and long-term official export credit volumes in 2013 and it's set in dollars.

and it shows that china's medium and long-term export credit volumes are at $45.5 billion. that's what we're doing, and that's why we see them, as senator cantwell will discuss going into markets like africa and opening those markets up for their companies because they're helping to help them out with their own version of the export-import thing. $45.5 billion. germany, very successful economy, is at $22.6 billion in credit volume. so where is the u.s.? we are at $14.5 billion. we're above countries like france and italy, brazil, but we are below countries like china, germany and south korea. and you can imagine the impact if we just got rid of the export-import bank. you can imagine what would happen, which we cannot allow to have happen. the export-import bank was first authorized in 1934. it supports u.s. businesses by providing financing that the

private sector may be unwilling or untiebl do at competitive rates. the export-import bank does this by providing loans and loan guarantees and insurance policies to increase export opportunities. in 2013, as our study shows, the export-import bank supported approximately 205,000 u.s. jobs and 37.4 billion in u.s. exports. it made 745 new loans and loan guarantees worth $21.8 billion. by issuing these loans, loan guarantees and insurance policies, the export-import bank helped provide funding for projects ranging from short-term investments to more complex and long-term transactions, such as transportation and other infrastructure projects. the export-import bank also steps in to provide credit to open up these new markets like africa, as i've focused on. for example, in the past four years the export-import bank has

provided authorization for more than $4 billion in support for u.s. export to sub-saharan africa. yet, china is still ahead of us. the export-import bank provides support to many industries. that's everything from gas and oil to space and telecommunications to agribusiness. u.s. bank, the export-import bank supports u.s. exports to more than 150 countries. small business -- and this is what i hear all across our state since 114 minnesota small businesses have received financing over the past few years. so the big businesses tend to have trade exports. they've got exports where they want to go to uruguay or kazakhstan or somewhere in the world. they can have some special person that knows the language, that can help them, they hire a consultant in the country. how can a small business with ten employees do that? yet they know their product is going to sell in these other countries. that's where the export-import bank comes in because working in connection with our foreign

commercial service, they're able to get the tools that they need, small businesses to compete at the same level as big businesses. in august i visited balzer, an ag equipment manufacturer based in mountain lake, minnesota; a town of about 2,000 people. balzer currently employs 74 people in mountain lake, 74 people out of 2,000. it has made a real difference, the export-import bank for their company. exports are approximately 15% of their sales. how about superior industries in morris? 5,000 people in that town. 500 people employed at the company. they are now exporting thanks to the ex-im bank to canada, australia, russia, argentina, chile, and brazil. how would they get into uruguay? do you think a small bank will help them figure out financing? no. that is why we have the ex-im

bank. it helps small businesses to make major decisions to finance major products maind jor deals so that they can actually have jobs in the u.s. that are providing exports in these other countries. that is what this is all about. it's critical. we have to reauthorize this proven ex-im bank and make sure our exporters are competing on a level playing field in a global market. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i rise to congratulate my colleague, the cochair of the joint economic committee, for her report on the importance of contribution of exports to our economy and the export-import bank. this report that she is issuing today, which has a picture of cargo container ships leaving the port of miami, i could say this picture could be any number of ports around the united states of america, and certainly in my state where one in three jobs is related to trade, i

really appreciate the joint economic committee highlighting at this point in time how important the export economy is to the u.s. economy. my colleague comes from a similar state, where we like to say that we make a lot of great manufactured products, and we're very proud that they are sold in the international marketplace. but now is no time to basically curtail a credit agency's ability to help make those sales a reality when we've had fabulous u.s.-made product. so i very much appreciate the joint economic committee's release on this report. it is showing that our economy, even though we faced a very disastrous financial collapse six years ago, that report basically shows that last week the trade deficit continues to decline. and a headline just recently said trade deficit is at a six-month low as exports climb. so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a growing middle class around the globe is an excellent

opportunity for us to sell u.s. manufactured products. in fact, the middle class is going to double over the next 15 years so that's a great opportunity for us to take american-made products and getting them into this marketplace. in fact, last year american companies exported more goods and services totaling $2.3 trillion in value, 13.5% of our gross domestic product. so that's a step in the right direction but that is being threatened if congress doesn't reauthorize this important credit agency to make sure that these deals get closed. and that's why today we're here to make sure that a long-term reauthorization of the export-import bank is implemented. now, i know that we already have about 240 members of the house of representatives who are on record saying they support a long-term extension of the export-import bank. i know there are many senators here in the u.s. senate that support that. so why is this taking so long? some people are even suggesting that we can do just a two-month

extension or three-month. well, i can tell you how ridiculous that idea is, because it doesn't give any certainty and predictability to businesses who are trying to close deals. in fact, one business exporter from texas said -- quote -- "the export-imor bank is absolutely essential to -- import bank is absolutely essential to growing and maintaining our business growth, and recent reports of the bank's future have already impacted our bottom line. our customers need certainty to continue many of their sales abroad. so this individual texas company is such a reflection of the fact that exports are u.s. jobs. in fact, it's $2.3 trillion in goods and services and 11.3 million jobs in the united states are related to exports, many of those in manufactured products. so why would we dispaic risk these kinds of numbers -- so why would we take and risk these kinds of numbers with the certainty of a credit agency

that helps close these deals? why would we even suggest, with that many jobs and that much economic at stake, why would we suggest that we only want to reauthorize it for a couple of months? i think that's a very wrongheaded approach. so we've heard from many other companies, one from georgia, which was able to increase its annual sales roughly $500,000 to over $20 million in just a few years and it was able to do so with the export-import bank. so we have 21 days left to get this right and to help our economy continue to grow, but we have to do something here in the united states senate and that is pass the reauthorization of the export-import bank. well, while we were home in august, we heard many, many people talk about this. in fact, i'd like to put up a few newspaper headlines that we heard around the country. one from the "roanoke times," which was an editorial that sa said, "in our view, small businesses need this.

this." and called for the reauthorization of the export-imon-import bank. another, "the wichita eagle," said, "reauthorize the ex-im bank." and the "columbus dispatch," "ohioans benefit from the export-import bank." so these are just three editorials heard around the country that are asking us to reauthorize this important credit agency and make sure that we're giving small businesses and manufacturers the tools that it takes to export. but my colleague, who is the joint economic committee chair, brought up an even more specific point which is, where are we going to be in competition as it relates to china when they're chasing economic opportunity all around the globe? in fact, an editorial that was in the chicago news tribune on august 15 said -- quote -- "sub-sahara africa's economy is growing about 5.4% a year,

outpacing the global rate of 3 3.5%." so here's africa, lots of economic opportunity and it was home to many very fast-growing economies in angola, nigeria and ethiopia. so they go on to say that -- quote -- "the export-import bank plays a vital niche role in the u.s. economy because it backs up commercial banks often when they can't find other people to finance those deals. and it is selling goods in developing countries." that's from "the "chicago the o tribune."." so newspapers around america get it. this is a key tool for us to access new opportunities that are emerging in developing countries. and the question is, china's already there, they're selling product in, they're using their credit agency to help close deals. why? because a lot of banks are uncomfortable either with the size of the deal, the lack of financial players in those emerging markets, and the

inability to get these deals closed without the export bank and its assistance. another editorial that was in "the boston globe" actually talked about a u.s. company that lost a deal because our inability to make a decision here. quote, a california company lost a $57 million contract this year because of ideological posturing in washington, end quote. it's a self-inflicted wound -- aim sorry, "it's a self-inflicted wound." they are talk about a firm that -- quote -- "lost its bid to sell technology that was going to be used in the philippines only because the korean competitor could guarantee that their export-import bank would be there." so that's another example of we're not even waiting right now to have the negative impact, we're already having the negative impact because we're not getting this done. so it's very important that we

make sure that we reauthorize the export-import bank. as one company in my state said, which is the norwest ingredient company, that -- quote -- "the loss of export insurance by the export-import banks would be devastating to my business. that a short-term extension of the export-import bank does not provide the certainty that we need to finance these deals." so i think that this is so much what we need to be focusing on, mr. president. i appreciate my colleague and joint economic committee's contribution to this report. and she talked, again, about the specifics of what other countries are doing. this chart shows you the percentage of credit agency resources against the country's g.d.p., how much they're investing in selling their products around the globe. so we can see what india, china,

france, germany are doing to basically dwarf what we're doing as far as making sure that our products are sold around the globe. mr. president, i wish the financial market was there to help close these contributions, but just as we have a small business administration that helps get financial backers to back small businesses, the export-import bank helps u.s. manufacturers sell their products overseas. we have too much of a supply chain in the united states of america with manufacturing in aerospace, in agriculture and in automobiles, to give it all away by simply not reauthorizing the export-import bank in a timely fashion. so i again appreciate the cochair of the joint economic committee in the release of a report focusing on why exports are so important to our economy. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. how much time do we have left here?

the presiding officer: the republicans have no time remaining. there are three minutes on the democratic side. mr. graham: okay. i just want to be recognized for the three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: one, i want to thank my colleague, senator globe char from minnesota of the joint tax committee, economic committee, for making the case of why the ex-im bank is a good government program essential to creating jobs in america for export sales. boeing is in south carolina. they're in washington. senator cantwell has been a champion of this issue as long as i've been around. now that boeing is making 787's in south carolina, i'll just put this on the table. eight out of ten 787's made in south carolina are ex-im financed. we're competing in the wide-body market. countries like france, china will be getting in this market.

every competitor of boeing -- g.e. makes turbines, gas turbines in greenville. most of those are sold in the mideast through ex-im financing. every competitor of these two large companies in south carolina have ex-im banks. so to my colleagues in the hou house, i think i'm a pretty conservative guy but i'm also practical. why in the world would we shut our bank down when china is growing their bank? the chinese would support closing ex-im bank in america. so would the french. so would the canadians. so would the british. if you really want to give the american economy a kick in the wrong place, shut our bank down and allow the other countries who compete with us to keep theirs open. there's plenty of waste in the government. so we pick one program that's small in number in terms of actual volume, that makes money

for the treasury and creates hundreds of thousands of job opportunities. this is smart conservatism? this is what conservatism has come to be? that you take a program that allows american companies to compete in the international market, that nation money for the american taxpayer -- that makes money for the american taxpayer and you shut it down just to prove to people you're ideologically pure. that's not conservatism, that's crazy. and we're not going to let it happen. to my democratic friends, we should have reauthorized this a long time ago in a process befitting the senate. there's well over half my conference ready to vote for reforms on the ex-im bank but we're not doing anything in this body and you're not going to pick our amendments. so there's plenty of blame to go around. i hope we're smart enough as a house and senate to get this right. not to shut down the ex-im bank that makes money for the

taxpayer, creates thousands of american jobs for some ideological reason disconnected from -- with reality. china would love this. france would love this. when it comes to my state, it would be devastating to the small businesses who benefit from ex-im financing. if you can close their banks down, count me in; we'll close ours. but i'll be damned if we're going to close ours when they have theirs up and running to put people out of work in my state and all over this country when you're talking about the best-paying jobs in america. the presiding officer: all time for debate has expired. mr. graham: i look forward to a further discussion on this topic. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. j. res. 19, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 471, s. j. res.

19, joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i'd like to -- i rise to speak about the situation the united states is facing regarding the new terrorist there from the new caliphate -- so-called caliphate state of isis. the president has announced that tomorrow he will address the american people and explain what he proposes to do about this new situation that faces us, this islamic state of iraq and syria, otherwise called isis or i.s. we are at a critical moment facing a serious danger and now is the time to act together. effective action, action to be

effective, needs our united support. and that's why the president's address tomorrow is so importa important. i was alarmed by his administration in a -- admission in a press conference 10 days ago that he had no strategic policy in mind. so i welcome this opportunity now to learn what this strategy is, and i truly hope that it will be articulated fully and completely, with clarity so that not only the american people but their representatives here in the house and the senate know exactly what the president intends on doing. and proposing. the unspeakable depravities commit the by isis seem to have no limits. the alarm bells have become louder as isis henchmen continue their beheadings and their brutality and their barbarism. one of the most acute dangers isis poses is the wide scope of their ambitions. first syria.

then iraq. now lebanon. later possibly jordan, saudi arabia and others in their target sites. isis is now widely and correctly judged to be the largest, best organized, best financed, most capable and most ambitious terrorist organization in history. so when the president explains his plan to degrade and defeat isis, i plan to carefully examine it, to look for what i believe are the essential elements and hallmarks that are necessary for us to succeed. those are determination. it's courage. it's resources to enact the plan. it's a vision for where we want to go, a goal that we want to achieve clearly outlined, and a realism that we can be

successful. i will support that request by the president, whatever it might be, but i will support that if i can determine that the task of defending our nation and degrading and defeating isis is clearly laid out before us in terms of how we will accomplish this. now, when i first addressed this subject last month, i outlined five areas in which i believed urgent action was required, and i hope the president's plan will incorporate or at least include these five areas. first, as i have just said, i called for the obama administration to articulate their own plan to confront isis and protect america. i trust that this will happen tomorrow. secondly, i called for a vigorous, concerted push with islamic states and communities to stand up to this outrageous

isis perversion of their religion and their culture. we haven't seen outrage in the region from those moderate, the leadership, the political as well as the people just simply who see this action of isis as a perversion of their religion and is destructive and brutal -- and as destructive and brutal as it is, where have they been, and it's time they step up. so i believe we must make a concerted push with islamic states and communities to stand up to this outrage that is taking place. we should work with all political and religious authorities to speak out about how their faith and their culture is being co-opted and perverted by these isis criminals. we then must press them to take effective action to undercut the popular political and economic

support that isis extremists are getting. genuine muslim leaders, imams and others need to take center stage to discredit the radicals and stop the recruitment among muslim youth. third, i called for much greater assistance with potential partners in this isis crisis. the u.s. should move quickly to provide arms, training and other requested assistance to iraqi kurd forces, to other states that need the support and requested the support and will work with us to address this challenge. we need to find effective ways to support and directly arm the reliable, vetted sunni tribes and sunni leaders in iraq who are essential partners in combating this isis extremism and that ultimately are in sunni

islam's interest and greatest threat. fourth, it's clear that isis cannot be defeated without our participation, and therefore i believe our current bombing campaign against isis targets should be continued and expanded to include isis bases in syria. if we learned anything from the wars in vietnam, korea and serbia and our experience along the afghanistan-pakistan border, we have learned that the futility of attacking military forces that have safe haven bases just across the border or nearby leads to less than success but leads to potential defeat. and fifth and lastly, i believe we need to address new dangers to our homeland by reassessing border security and determining whether it can be improved to address the threat of foreign fighters return to the united states. the threat of western home-grown

radical and violent jihadist terrorists is real and it's growing. we know that. isis boasts that they have trained and motivated fighters that are already embedded in many countries throughout the world and that they have their sights trained on the united states and europe. there is no reason to disbelieve them. so we must respond to this threat to our country in every possible way. now, one effective step here is to re-evaluate our entry procedures, including the visa waiver program. i know this will be controversial. i know countries that have been loyal allies will raise alarms, but we have to understand that we need to conduct a thorough, candid assessment of how this visa waiver program affects our national security interests and whether there are changes to the program that would enhance our security. similar reviews of our refugee and asylum policies are also

necessary. as a ranking member of the homeland security appropriation committee and a member of the intelligence committee, i will seek such an assessment and pursue legislation that is responsive to the new danger that we face. in conclusion, mr. president, when president obama unveils his strategy to defeat isis, not manage isis, not contain isis but to defeat isis, i'm hopeful that his presentation will include at least the essential elements that i talked about. clarity and coherence. counseled diplomacy to bring muslim nations and communities into firm opposition to isis extremism. appropriate, expanded security assistance to partners in the struggle. enhanced military action to include syria. and greater attention to border security. if what the president says

tomorrow includes these elements elements -- and hopefully more -- then i will look very carefully as to how i can support the president and his strategy and encourage my colleagues to do the same because i believe it's essential that to succeed against this threat, we need to speak with one voice. we need to be united as americans, as a congress and americans throughout the country in terms of what we need to do, the nature of the threat, what we need to do to address it and the plan and the strategy to successfully achieve that goal. if it falls short, then i hope that this body, the congress can work with the president to bring about the necessary steps to give us every opportunity to succeed in this challenging task. i hope we don't have to come to that point. i hope we can unite.

i will look forward to carefully examining the proposal, and i trust that we will be receiving at last leadership from the president of the united states and his team in terms of addressing what i think is a major crisis that cannot wait, cannot be managed, cannot be classified as hoping that something will work out. the world is yearning for leadership. on matters of foreign policy, it looks to the united states and it looks to the leader of the united states. ee need to restore -- we need to restore their confidence that we are taking this threat seriously, that we are engaging in an effort to address this successfully, and so we wait with great anticipation for the remarks of the president that will occur tomorrow. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: during the past month two american journalists were murdered by the islamic state known as isil. the murder of these two journalists is part of the campaign of horrific brutality that has included rape, the slaughter of civilians and persecution of minorities including christians. currently isil holds large sections in both iraq and syria and the group has made it clear their ambitions extend even further. meanwhile iran continues its efforts to enrich uranium, and islamic militants in libya seized a u.s. embassy compound after americans were forced to

evacuate the war-torn country. here at home, we're facing a crisis on our southern border thanks to the president's policies which have encouraged thousands of unaccompanied children to undertake the dangerous journey to the united states. on the economic front millions of middle-class families are squeezed by the bicycle economy and obamacare. job growth last month was a disappointing 142,000 jobs, the worst report this year. and far from the numbers we need to really get the economy going again. unemployment remains high and the unemployment rate would be even higher if millions of americans hadn't godden so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they gave up looking for work altogether. meanwhile obamacare has not only failed to fix the problems in our health care system, it's made them worse. american families are facing higher health care premiums and fewer health care choices. in short, mr. president, our

country is facing serious challenges both at home and abroad. and what are democrats doing about all these challenges? well, this week they're taking up legislation that limits americans' first amendment rights. that's right, mr. president. instead of taking up any of the 40 house-passed jobs bills, addressing our border crisis it's or focusing on the international challenges we're facing, democrats have decided to spend the first part of a brief two-week session rewriting the first amendment. it's no wonder a george washington university battleground poll found 70% of americans think the country is on the wrong track. the president our first amendment right to freedom of speech is one of our most fundamental rights. it's the right that helps protect all our other rights by

keeping government accountable and ensuring all americans, not just those whose party is in power, get to make their voices heard. the democrats' proposed constitutional amendment would severely curtail this freedom by giving congress and state governments the authority to regulate political speech. that means congress will get to decide just how much of a voice americans are allowed in the political process. and that's bad news for americans of every political affiliation. under the democrats' legislation the party in power could silence the voices of those who disagree with them. mr. president, democrats are unhappy with recent decisions by the supreme court that rolled back some of the restrictions on free speech and increased individuals' voice in the political process. so their solution is a constitutional amendment to shut down the voices of those who disagree with them. apparently they don't realize that's not the way the american

system works. america,if if you don't like what your opponents are saying, you have the freedom to persuade your opponents to adopt your position. or you persuade the american people to vote against them. you don't try to revoke their right to speak. that's what they do in totalitarian societies. it's not what we do here in america. in the united states your political power is supposed to exist in proportion to the strength of your ideas, not in proportion to your ability to silence your critics. fortunately the americans of -- for americans of every political persuasion, the democrats' amendment is unlikely to go anywhere in congress as democrats well know. so why are they taking up this legislation this week when there are so misdemeanor he many problems foreign and domestic that need to be addressed? the answer is simple, mr. president. democrats are worried about reelection.

and they think this legislation somehow will help them get reelected. democrats designed this amendment to appeal to next of their base who want rigid restrictions on political speech or at least on political speech with which they disagree. democrats are betting that seeing this amendment defeated in congress will encourage members of their political base to come to the polls in november. and that, of course, has been democrats' legislative strategy all year. "the new york times" reported back in march the democrats' plan to spend the spring and summer on messaging votes, timed and i quote, "to coincide with campaign-style trips by president obama." democrats concede the times reported that making new laws is not really the point. rather, they're trying to force republicans to vote against them. let me repeat that, mr. president. despite the economic challenges

facing american families and steadily growing international unrest, democrats have spent the past several months pursuing a legislative strategy in which -- and i quote again -- "making new laws is really not the point." mr. president, we've seen that time and time and time again here over the past several months on the floor of the united states where we come here on a weekly, daily basis, casting political show votes, knowing they're not going anywhere, designed simply to appeal to a political constituency that they hope will support them in the november elections. instead of pursuing bipartisan consensus, the only way to actually accomplish anything in a divided congress, senate democrats have chosen to bring up bill after bill designed to pander to their political base. mr. president, it's disappointing democrats have chosen to put their electoral

prospects over americans' freedom of speech this week. it's disappointing that democrats have spent this entire year on political show votes instead of substantial legislation to address the many challenges that are facing american families. the president's been no help. instead of urging democrats in congress to work with republicans to send him legislation to deal with our country's most serious problems, he's been focused on campaigning. it wouldn't be a stretch to say that campaigning has been the president's main concern for the majority of his presidency whether it's involved delaying obamacare regulations to protect democrats in the 2012 elections, or his decision last week to defer his executive action on immigration until after the election in what white house officials essentially admitted was an attempt to protect democrats in november. mr. president, there is a place for campaigning. we all know that. we all do it.

but it's not in the halls of congress or in the oval office. we were elected to govern and that means we should be spending our time on legislation to meet our nation's challenges. we should be taking up legislation to support job creation, we should be fighting to give middle-class families a wreakbreak from obamacare's high premiums and reduced choices. we should be taking up measures to advance energy independence in this country and make energy more affordable for working families. and we should be focused on what we need to do to address the crisessed a broad and america's security here at home. mr. president, republicans are working to create jobs, democrats are trying to save their own. it's not too late for democrats to join republicans to come up with bipartisan solutions to challenges facing our country. as i said, the house of

representatives passed i think somewhere on the order of 350 bills all of which are collecting dust here in the senate, 40 of which specifically, specifically deal with the issue of the economy and job creation which every poll says is the american people's number-one priority. yet here we are again in a shortened work period where we have a couple of weeks to actually do some things that would bend the curve in the direction of lowering the unemployment rate, of growing the economy, creating more jobs, we've got a whole series of bills that have been passed by the other chamber, the house of representatives, that have been sent here that specifically deal with the issue of jobs and the economy that are sitting at the desk collecting dust because the majority leader has chosen instead to try to bring to the floor a whole bunch of things he thinks are additive in terms of getting the vote out for

democrats in the november elections. but, frankly, mr. president, do absolutely nothing, nothing to address the serious concerns and challenges that are facing middle-class families all across this country. people's representatives can do better, the people's representatives should do better. whenever democrats here in the senate decide that they're ready to stop campaigning, and to start gasping, republicans -- governing, republicans are ready to go to work. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: