let me conclude by offering an additional reason, even a more important reason about why the president and congress should work together to craft a suitable mission for this important effort. even only an air campaign, we ask our troops to risk they are lives and that are health, physical and mental, when we engage in this kind of campaign. of course we pray for their complete safety and corks but let's be realistic to acknowledge that some may die or be injured or be captured or see these things happen to their comrades in arms. even those who come home physically safe may see or do things in war that will affect them for the rest of their lives. the long lines of people waiting for v.a. appointments today or hominhoping to have their v.a. disability claims ajud adjudicad

are proof of this. during a time of war, we ask our troops to give their best even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. when compared against that how much of a sacrifice is it for a president to engage in a possibly contentious debate. how much of a sacrifice is it for a member of congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? while congressional members face the political costs of debate on military action, our service members bear the human costs of those decisions. and if we dhoos avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives? so i await the president's address on the real and significant threat posed by isil with a firm willingness to offer

support to a well-crafted military mission. i believe the american public and this congress will support such a mission. it is my deepest hope that we have the opportunity to debate and vote on the mission in the halls of congress as our framers intended and as our troops deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: th senatr from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i am glad that i have had the opportunity to be on the floor to hear the senator from virginia's remarks. awl i always look -- all of us look forward to the president's remarks tomorrow night. out of respect to the office of the president, i am going to reserve my remarks until after the president addresses the nation. i would say this, having heard the senator from virginia, i hope the president and his advisors listen carefully to what the senator from virginia said.

none of us want to see another military adventure in the middle east. as in virginia and west virginia and tennessee, we've had thousands -- tens of thousands of tennesseans who have been in iraq and afghanistan three, four, five, six times tours of duty. but this isis threat is a different kind of threat to civilizatiocivilization and a t- very well could be a threat to the united states. it requires a response. it requires the president's leadership. he is the commander in chief, and it is his job to lay out for us a firm and clear strategy for, in the words of his administration, how we will defeat and destroy this new movement. in thinking about whether or not to come to the -- come to the

congress, i think it's useful for the president to think back to the first president bush and the decision he had to make. i was in his cabinet. i came just about that time. and the idea of a ground war in the middle east was a shocking thought. we'd not had something like that in this country for a while. and the president was reluctant at first to come to the congress to gain approval for that. but he did it. and he said, after he had done it, that he was in retrospect glad that he did. what did it gain him, even though it was a contentious debate and the vote wasn't large. it gained him -- it gave a clear signal to the world that we were united as a country against this perceived threat at that time. it gave a clear significant mall to the country that regardless of party, we were united with

the president's united states on what he saw as a urgent mission for our country. as a result of that, he had an enormously successful operation. it was well-planned, funded by other countries primarily, had a limited objective. he got to the gates of baghdad, the objective was realized and we came home. i think the fact that the president sought the advice of congress was a part of that. in this case, i think this president would find in this body careful lfners to what he has -- careful listeners to what he has to say, a willingness on both sides of the aisle to consider his strategy, and a willingness to support a carefully crafted plan to meet his objectives. this is not libya. this is not grenada. this is not panama.

this is at least two or three years. it is not nation building, we assume. but anytime our country is expected to have a military action, especially in the middle east again, it needs to have the full support of the american people, and that starts here. so i'll wait until wednesday night to hear what the president has to say. but the senator from virginia has given some very careful and reasonable advice, and i hope that the president and his advisors will consider that -- will consider that very carefully. i'm here today, mr. president, to speak on another subject. i'm here today because senate democrats want to amend the bill of rights, at least 48 of them do. 48 of them want to say, let's amend the united states constitution and the free exercise clause of the first

amendment. let's amend the guarantee of free speech. that's an extraordinary development. if passed, the senate joint resolution 19, which is the subject on the floor today, would give congress and state governments the power to decide which americans can speak in elections, what they can say, when they can say trgs an it, aw they say it. this measure would gut the free speech provisions of the first amendment. it is a shocking proposal, made even more so that it is supported by 48 democratic senators and president obama. i wonder if any of them have taken the time to see the writing on the wall of the newseum down the street. in big bold letters it says, "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." that's in the united states constitution. our founders passed a constitution, then they said, well, we forgot to do the bill

of rights. so they came back with a bill of rights. and this is in the first amendment. free speech is one of the defining characteristics of liberal democracies worldwide. no country has developed and protected free speech as much aces the united states of america. other countries look to us as a model for this remarkable freedom. so why would anyone attempt to amend the constitution, amend the bill of rights and change the free trade exercise clause -- and change the free speech clause in the first amendment? when we look at the democratic leadership of the united states senate, we see a pattern of using a gag rule to silence senators who were sent here on behalf of the people who elected them to represent their views. the majority leader has prevented tennesseans, for example, from having their say through their senators, their elected firms, for years now, using the gabbing rule in this body -- the gag rule in this

body from keeping amendments from being considered and voted on. obamacare, no amendment. taxes, no amendment of national labor relations board, no amendment. egypt, iran, iraq -- no amendment of i've said on this floor many times, it is like being invited to join the grand ole opry and not being allow to sing. but the consequences are much more serious than that. it is not just my amendment or my colleague senator corker's amendment. it is not just tennesseans' amendments. it is the voters of every state who have sent us here to have a say on their behalf. the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso, has counted that since july of 2013 only 14 republican amendments and nine democratic amendments have received votes. that's an astounding number. there are 100 senators here representing more than 300 million americans p. this is said to be the world's greatest deliberative body.

in the new book "the american senate" describing this body, it's quoted as sake that this is the one authentic touch of genius in the american political system. what makes it the one authentic touch of genius in the american political system? it is that you take a difficult message, a difficult bill, you put it on the floor, and you talk about it, and you talk about it, and you debate it, and you amend it, until finally you say that's enough, and 60 of us say it is time to cut off debate, let's vote and have a result. yet in a year's time, there have only been 23 amendments to legislation that have received votes. some members of this body are running for reelection after six years never having had a vote on any amendment they offered on the senate floor. swung might well ask, well, what scr you -- someone might well ask, well, what have you been doing? then this summer, the democrats stengded the gag rule from the senate floor to the senate

committee rooms. when some members of the appropriations committee upon which i serve, some bills were indefinitely postponed because the senate leadership wanted to avoid difficult votes on those amendments. no vote on clean water, no vote on energy, no vote because it was a difficult vote. and now in this provision, democrats and the president are trying to extend the gag rule to the free speech clause of the first amendment. what this proposal would do is give congress the power to silence the groups or organizations that threaten their reelection. for example, the government could tell a gun owner in johnson city, tennessee, that he or she can't spend money to advocate in defense of second amendment rights. if that speech falls too close it an election and threatens to influence the campaign of incumbents. or, similarly, congress might tell tennessee right to life,

you can't advertise to protect the rights of the unborn. congress could decide that. such speech could be restricted or prohibits because incumbents feel it is endorsement of a candidate for political offices. also they can seek to stop new political movements like the tea party by placing unachievable conditions on their ability to raise and spend funds on behalf of candidates they support. they could say you can't do that unless you win an election or you can't do that unless you've been this successful in a previous election. or you have a chance of being success unti in a future electi. the decision of whether a new political movement was viable would of course be made by their political competitor. or congress might criminalize expenditures by organizations like the u.s. chamber of commerce, who might oppose a plan by senate democrats to increase the minimum wage on the grounds that the funds spent by the chamber of commerce are the

equivalent of attack ads. who might be exempt from this gag rule on free speech? well, freedom of the press. that's mentioned in the amendment. and who would freedom of the press be? it would be billionaires who could buy a television station, billionaires who could buy a newspaper, by any form of this new medium that we see all awrnsdz. so ordinary americans could have their ability to broadcast their views but billionaires could buy a tv station or buy any form of media or buy a newspaper and say whatever they think. those are the people exempt from the gag rule proposed by the democrats. or what about millionaire candidates? it's been considered by the supreme court, by all who looked at it, that while congress might put rules on raising and spending of money, that it never

could do it on your own money. so we have candidates running for president, running for the united states senate who spend their own money. it's never been thought of there could be a limit on that. so we might not be limiting the millionaire keands for the senate -- kean candidate for the senate. we might not be limiting the billionaire owners of television stations. but ordinary bheerns have a gag rule. so the gag rule that began on the senate floor and went to the hearing rooms woul now be afliee ordinary americans across the country. the founders would never have imagined that. they passed the first amendment to protect against this very concern. the government censors would tell ordinary americans what they can and cannot say. president harry trueman who liked to exercise a lot of free speech himself warned about this in a message to congress august 8, 19506789 he said, "once a

government has committed to the principle silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to awful its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." that's president harry truman. mr. president, that's not a description of this country. that is not a description of america. that is a description of our enemies. look through our history. how would this law apply in our history? what about harriet beecher stowe before the civil war, writing "uncle tom's cabin." maybe she'd want to buy an ad in the local newspaper saying mr. lincoln is a nice man. read my book. the state might not like that. they might like holding slaves. they might not like what she says and what she wants to advertise. or what about thomas paine at the beginning of our country's history, writing common sense.

would a lieu like this apply -- would a law like this apply to his tract, the one he published or if he published 10 or published 20? taken to its logical conclusion, this proposal could be to ban books, to ban writings. shocking we're standing here to debate such a proposal. it is not surprising so many from the other side of the aisle have come to the floor, as the senator from utah mentioned, they're not streaming through the door to defend this proposal. every american ought to be concerned about this proposal to amend the bill of rights and the free speech clause in the first amendment. they should be deeply concerned that the senate majority leader and his gag rule have effectively silenced their elected represents here in the senate. and now he wants to silence them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i rise today as i have for many years to urge my colleagues to fix our nation's broken campaign finance system. i do so after much deliberation and consideration of a series of supreme court decisions and the explosion of undisclosed and potentially unlimited campaign spending that has americans of all political background concerned. indeed, i remember when this was an issue that brought republicans and democrats together, and i was proud to support senator mccain's efforts at campaign finance reform. unfortunately, these recent supreme court decisions such as citizens united and mccutcheon have given more than the mere appearance that money and corporate money at that has allowed a voice to everyday americans. justice brier wrote taken

together with sniets sniets our nation's -- citizens united our nation's finance laws leaving a remnant incable of dealing with problems of democratic legitimacy those wars were intended to resolve. these misguided decisions, in my view, by a slim majority of the court, have allowed spending on campaigns to get out of control. there is a pervasive and corrosive view of politics felt by too many in this country that their ability to express their concerns and wishes to their elected officials is being crowded out by narrow interests and campaign funds. rhode islanders don't want their voices drowned out by limited money with little or no transparency or no disclosure on where that money comes from. in order to have a broad-based democratic system, we need reasonable campaign finance laws that ensure that those with financial resources can't drown out the voice of everyday americans. that's what this constitutional

amendment we are seeking to debate is all about. the system is broken. as much as individual candidates can pledge to provide more disclosure or take other steps to increase trance parn circumstance that isn't the solution to fixing the problem. we need to give congress and the states the ability to set reasonable rules for all candidates. the constitutional amendment does three straightforward things. this constitutional amendment we are considering today. first, in order to advance democratic self-governance and political equality it gives congress and the states the power to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. second, it grants congress and the states the power to enforce the amendment tond -- and to distinguish between artificial entities. third, it ensures nothing in the amendment could be used to bridge the freedom of the press. this amendment doesn't create any new and specific campaign

finance rules. rather, it gives congress and the states the power to pass legislation and to distinguish between real people and legally created entities like corporations. whatever legislation that would be enacted pursuant to this constitutional amendment would be the result of serious and lengthy debate in congress and in the states. i welcome that debate and i believe that most americans want that debate as well. it would begin a process that is so necessary to rebuild a sense of trust in our government and our electoral system. i urge my colleagues to support this constitutional amendment to fix our broken campaign finance system by giving congress and the states the power to reasonably regulate political spending, thereby reducing the influence of wealthy special interests. it is these same wealthy special interests that obfuscate the facts of a debate and block efforts that could give our country and our economy a shot in the arm.

indeed, i hope that we can also find bipartisan support to give more americans the ability to have a fair shot at success. we need, for example, to make college more affordable and ease the burden of student debt on millions of americans. invest in our infrastructure, raise the minimum wage, expand job training, close the pay gap for women and boost jops -- jobs for manufacturing. and that is just for starters. we need to send these kinds of of bills and send them to the house. the senate was able to pass a bill to provide relief for the long-term ununemployed this year but with 9.6 million americans still out of a job and looking for work, 3 million of which have been doing so for more than six months, house republicans refused to follow suit. it is imperative we keep working to strengthen our economy, create jobs and provide a fair shot for everyone. fixing the campaign finance system, i believe in this constitutional amendment will

provide the foundation so that we can have reasonable debate, that is responsive to the interest of the american people and not responsive to the interest of the narrow, narrow class of americans. so, mr. president, i would urge that we take up this bill, pass it and get on with the business of giving every american their fair chance at success. with that, mr. president, i would 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 texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, at a time of extraordinary challenges across the globe and here at home, we are not gathered in the united states senate to discuss how to confront the threat of

isis. we are not gathered in the united states senate to discuss how to prevent punitive's russia from in-- prevent putin's russia from invading its neighbors. we're not gathered in the united states senate today to discuss how to solve the humanitarian crisis at the border with some 90,000 unaccompanied children coming into the country this year. we're not gathered in the united states senate today to discuss how to bring back jobs and economic growth, how to correct the fact that the obama economy has produced the lowest labor force participation since 1978. 92 million americans not working today. and we're not gathered in the united states senate to discuss how to stop the disaster that has been obamacare, that has caused millions of americans to lose their jobs, to be forced into part-time work, to lose their health insurance, to lose their doctors and to see their premiums skyrocket. no, mr. president. instead, we are gathered today in the senate for a very

different topic. the majority leader and the democratic majority in this senate have determined that the most important priority this senate has, which we are spending the entire week addressing, is the proposal of 49 democrats to repeal the free speech provisions of the first amendment. mr. president, that is not hyperbole. typically, when americans hear that members of the united states senate are proposing repealing the free speech protections of the first amendment, the usual reaction is a gasp of disbelief. could we really have entered a world so extreme that our common ground no longer even includes the first amendment to the constitution? the first amendment protects our

most foundational rights, and yet under the amendment we're debating today that 49 democrats have signed their name to, the first amendment would in effect have crossed out the free speech. why? because 49 democrats have cosponsored a constitutional amendment that is currently on the floor of the senate, being voted on this week, that would give congress blanket authority to regulate political speech. from the dawn of our republic, we have respected the rights of citizens to express their views. it is the right upon which every other civil liberty is predicated. but in the democratic senate of 2014, citizens' free speech rights are tools for partisan

warfare. mr. president, this proposal before the senate is bar none the most radical proposal that has been considered by the united states senate in the time i have served. if this proposal were to pass, its effects would be breathtaking. it would be the most massive intrusion on civil liberties and expansion of federal government power in modern times. now, let's talk about how and why that's the case. the text of the amendment that is currently in the bill of rights says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or of bridging the free speech. so right now, we operate under a first amendment that says congress shall make no law abridging the free speech.

not some laws. not laws that some politicians think would help them politically, no law abridging the free speech is what our first amendment says. now, what would the new first amendment say? well, according to our democratic friends, the new first amendment would have two sections. the first section says congress and states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. now, reasonable. mr. president, who could oppose reasonable limits? isn't that the essence of reasonableness? mr. president, perhaps i have responsible my spectacles, but i don't see in the current first amendment congress can make reasonable restrictions on the free speech. it doesn't say that. it says congress shall make no law abridging the free speech.

what's the difference? the first amendment is not about reasonable speech. the first amendment was enacted to protect unreasonable speech. i for one certainly don't want our speech limited to that speech that elected politicians in washington think is reasonable. there was a time this body thought the alien and sedition acts prohibiting criticizing the government were reasonable. there is a reason the constitution doesn't say let's trust politicians to determine what speech is reasonable and what isn't. and i would note the supreme court has long made clear the first amendment is all about unreasonable speech. for example, when the nazis wanted to march in skokie, illinois. nazi speech is the paradigm example of unreasonable speech. it is hateful, bigoted, ignorant speech. and the supreme court said the nazis have a constitutional right to march down the street in skokie, illinois, with their

hateful, bigoted, ignorant speech. now, every one of us then has a moral obligation to condemn it as hateful and bigoted and ignorant, but the first amendment is all about saying government doesn't get to decide what you say is reasonable and what you say is not. the fimplet is -- first amendment is all about saying we will not censor the american citizens. what is this amendment about? saying the federal government now has the power to censor. each and every american who dares speak about politics. so if you have a political view at home, you better hope that politicians in washington think that view is reasonable. i'll tell you what. very little we do in this country is reasonable. the idea that elected politicians would seek to air arrogate power to themselves as a country or its citizens is

anathema to who we are as a country. this bill, if adopted, raises three simple questions, questions that i raised at three hearings in the judiciary committee and in the constitution subcommittee. i am the ranking member on the constitution subcommittee of the senate judiciary committee. we have had extensive debates on this amendment. mr. president, i want to pose three simple questions that i would ask every democrat who has put his name to this, and i notice sadly my friend the presiding officer is one of them, but he didn't serve on the committee, so i would ask him to consider these questions, and i would hope every democrat who has put his name to this upon thinking about it will have second thoughts and pull his name off. three questions that every one of us should ask. number one, should congress have the authority, the constitutional authority, to ban

movies? number two, should congress have the constitutional authority to ban books? and number three, should congress have the constitutional authority to ban the naacp from speaking about politics? now, my answer to these three questions is unequivocally, unquestionably no, and yet every single democrat who has put his name on this amendment has no choice but to answer yes to all three of these questions. now, i posed these questions in the constitution subcommittee. when i posed them of the committee, the chairman of the committee, senator durbin gaveled the hearing shut because he could not answer those questions. but at the full judiciary committee hearing, i was told by my democratic friends this is hyperbole. this is exaggeration.

we don't intend to ban movies or books or the naacp. mr. president, my response in those hearings was that this is the united states senate. 49 senators are proposing an amendment to the bill of rights. the intentions that may be buried in the hearts of each and every senator are utterly irrelevant to the question. the question is what is the language that would be inserted into the bill of rights of our constitution? so let's look to the language. section 2 of this amendment says congress and the states shall have the 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. now, that is very specific language that would now become part of our bill of rights, and it is breathtaking, it is staggering in its scope. i want to take these one at a time because the democrats -- i am sure all 49 democrats say we don't intend to ban movies, books or ban the naacp. well, let's look to the language you put your name to. number one, let's start with movies. we've all heard a lot about the citizens united case. in fact, we remember president obama during the state of the union hectoring the supreme court of the united states for the citizens united case. you know, relatively few people know the facts that underlie the citizens united case. the facts in those circumstances were a nonprofit corporation

made a movie critical of hillary clinton, and for making a movie critical of hillary clinton, the obama administration tried to impose massive fines on them. citizens united, which president obama and the senate democrats decry as the most pernicious thing in modern times, it seems, was all about the government trying to find a -- fine a moofer maker for daring to make a movie about hillary clinton. listen, let me be very clear. there are moviemakers, michael moore's movies i think are complete nonsense. to quote the bard, they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. and you know what, mr. president? michael moore has a right to keep making those movies over and over and over again and spewing his nonsense as long as he likes. the first amendment protects his right to be wrong.

and it is a simple legal matter. would this amendment give congress the constitutional authority to ban movies? well, mr. president, paramount pictures is a corporation. under the text of the amendment, what can congress do to a corporation? it can prohibit -- and that is the language in the amendment. it can prohibit the corporation from spending money to influence elections. so if a movie talks about politics, congress can make it a criminal offense. go down to hollywood, take the producers, the directors, the actors, anyone involved in the movie and put them in handcuffs. that's breathtaking. now, again, the democratic senators say we don't intend to do that. then why did you submit a constitutional amendment to the bill of rights that says congress can prohibit paramount pictures from speaking about politics? that means congress can ban movies.

how about the second question? should congress be able to ban books? now, that is an extreme question by anyone's measure, and surely nobody in washington is talking about banning books. well, if you assumed that, your assumption would be wrong. indeed, during the oral argument in citizens united, the supreme court asked the obama administration, your position is that under the constitution, the sale for the book itself could be prohibited? the answer from the obama administration, yes, if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy. the obama administration went in front of the supreme court and argued we have the power to ban books. this is in the record. this is in the official transcript. you can go and listen to this argument, listen to the obama

administration saying they believe the federal government as has the ability to ban books from your house. that is breathtaking. now, mr. president, i recognize in today's partisan society there are some people who may be watching these remarks who aren't inclined to believe me. they might say listen, you're a republican. you're a conservative. and coming from the spot in the political aisle i am, i don't tend to trust republicans or conservatives. i understand that. i would say to you if you don't believe me, perhaps i would believe that famed right-wing organization, the aclu. the aclu said that this amendment that 49 democrats have signed their name to, what

would it do? it would -- quote -- "fundamentally break the constitution, and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations." mr. president, i said a few minutes ago this was the most radical legislation that's been put before this body. why is that? because it's legislation that would as the aclu says fundamentally break the constitution, breaking the constitution is no more than matter. and endangering civil rights and civil liberties for generations ought to concern every member of this body. now, you still might say surely banning books is hyperbole. if you don't believe me, the aclu in writing told the united states senate that this amendment that 49 democrats have put their name to would give congress the power to ban hillary clinton's new book, "hard choices." i want that to sink in for a

minute. 49 democrats have put their name to a constitutional amendment that the aclu rightly tells us the express language of the amendment gives the government the power to ban hillary clinton's new book "hard choices." mr. president, i have with me that letter from the aclu. i also have a subsequent letter from the aclu doing something they haven't done before and i don't know that they'll do again, but thanking me and thanking all of us who have been fighting against this amendment for standing up for civil liberties. and it's truly a shame that the democratic party is not among them. and i would ask unanimous consent that both of the letters from the aclu be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, the third question that every

senator who has put his name to this amendment must answer, is should congress have the constitutional authority to ban the naacp from speaking about politics? why is that? because the naacp is a corporation. you know, when we hear the word corporation we tend to think, you know, a big exxonmobil or a wal-mart or what have you. but the naacp is a corporation. what can congress do under this amendment, under the explicit language of this amendment, congress can prohibit the naacp from speaking about politics. let me tell you some other corporations that congress would have the constitutional authority to silence. the aclu is a corporation. the aarp, the american

association of retired persons, is a corporation. people for the ethical treatment of animals is a corporation. amnesty international is a corporation, americans united for separation of church and state is a corporation, the gay and lesbian advocates defenders is a corporation. the national organization of women is a corporation. the center for reproductive rights is a corporation. the sierra club is a corporation. la raza is a corporation. naro is a corporation, planned parenthood is a corporation. moveon.org is a corporation. the human rights campaign is a corporation. greenpeace is a corporation. you will note every one are in discourse, often associated with being on the left. many of those groups are not particular fans of me as an elected official and that's their right. it's their right to scream from the mountaintops their criticisms with my political

positions and i will defend their right to criticize me or any other member of this body all day long because the bill of rights says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. 49 democrats just said everying organization organization i just read it should be constitutional for congress to prohibit them from speaking about politics. seems to me that every senate democrat who put his her or her name to this amendment when we return to our home states should expect to answer questions from citizens, senator, why did you vote for a constitutional amendment to silence my free speech rights? that's a question we should all expect. now, mr. president, i'd like to address a couple of red

herrings in this debate because there are arguments put forth by the democrats who say no, no, no, no, pay no attention to the text eve we've introduced, pay no attention it would give congress the power to silence ban books, it's about something else and there are three red herrings that are tossed forward. first of all, money is not speech. how many times have we heard that over and over and over again in floor speeches yesterday and today, democrats saying money is not speech. it gets repeated over and over and over again. it's a good talking point. it's simply on its face demonstrably false. now, it is certainly true that all money is not speech. if you go out and buy a ferrari, that's not speech. but if you go out and erect a billboard and pay money to put a billboard that says senator joe

manchin is a terrific guy, that's speech. now, it takes money to do that. they don't put billboards up with pixie dust. it takes dollars to erect that billboard and express that speech. if you decide you want to run a radio ad saying senator so and so is terrible or wonderful, they don't run radio ads just because you asked pretty please. it takes money. say you want to run a television ad. it takes money. say you want to launch a web site. ever launched a web site for free? say you were a little old lady who wants to put a yard sign in your front yard. and it's going to take $5 to take some poster board and a stick and some crayons and

markers and write "i love the first amendment, i love the free speech." that takes money. the federalist papers were the essence of speech, it took money to print them. thomas paine's "common sense" took money to print them. pamphlets, took money to print them. everyone in the tech community -- and i would note, by the way, all our friends the democratic sponsors of this amendment, almost to a person routinely go to the tech community and say give us money. give us campaign contributions. every senate democrat should expect the tech community to say wait a second, why did you vote for a constitutional amendment to give congress the power to regulate every web site in america? because if a web site talks about politics, this amendment gives congress the power to regulate those web sites.

now, listen, i get, there are members in this body on both sides of the aisle that find it really pesky when citizens dare criticize us. if you don't want to be criticized, don't run for office. democracy is messy. i guarantee you, there is no one in this country who really believes money is not speech. it's a talking point, but those examples are unquestionably speech and they have been from the very first days of our republic. a second canard is corporations are not people. that's often said. citizens united said corporations are people. well, mr. president, of course corporations are not people but that's not the right question. never was the question. nobody thinks corporations are people. don't don't breathe, they don't

walk, they're not human beings. the question is, do corporations have rights under our constitution. and, again, i guarantee you every person in this chamber, every person in the gallery believes the answer to that question is yes. if you don't, "the new york times" is a corporation. do we really think "the new york times" has no first amendment rights? if the canard were true, corporations are not people so they don't have rights, congress could pass a law tomorrow that says "the new york times" can never again criticize any republican member of congress. now, i think the paper would probably go out of publication if it had to remove that from its content. but it of course cannot. why can't it?

because corporations have rights. every one of us knows that. we would be horrified. that legislation would be blatantly unconstitutional. why? because "the new york times" has a first amendment right to speak about politics however it likes, whether wrong-headed or rightheaded and the group i mentioned before, the naacp is a corporation, i challenge any senator here to stand up and say the naacp has no first amendment rights. but you know what? every senator who has said on this senate floor corporations aren't people, they have no rights, you've just said the naacp has no constitutional rights. if you were a first-year law student and you put that answer in any constitutional law class in the country, you would get an f. it wouldn't be a d plus or a d minus, it would be an f. it is an obviously, blatantly

false statement. and yet 49 democrats rely on it to justify trying to gut the first amendment. now, the third red herring that the democrats in this body point to is they paint a specter of evil billionaires coming to steal our democracy. we have all heard of our friends the koch brothers now, in part because the majority leader has launched an unprecedented slander campaign on two private citizens. almost on a daily basis the majority leader stands up and demagogues two private citizens who have committed the sin of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, being successful in the private sector, and then

exercising their first amendment rights to speak out about the grave challenges facing this country. now, mr. president, if one member of this body impugns the integrity of another member of this body, we can rise on a point of personal privilege. i ask you, mr. president, where's the point of personal privilege for a private citizen when the majority leader drags his name through the mud day after day after day? what senator reid is doing to two private citizens who are fighting to exercise their free speech rights is reprehensible. it is an embarrassment to this institution. and yet perhaps, one might say there is some truth to the matter. we're told that these nefarious

brothers are responsible for almost everything bad in the world. and so it must be that they are playing a huge role in our body politic. well, if you go bhook at open secrets which compiles campaign giving for the last 20 years, it compiles them from the biggest giver down to smaller givers. now, if you look at first 16 names on that list, i've heard what our democratic members of this body have said. there's evil, nefarious republicans trying to steal our democracy and the implication is "and they're backing republicans." so, my assumption is, as i luke at the list of the top donors, the top 16, how many of them

give predominantly to republicans? well, one would assume, given how great the magnitude is, it's got to be a lot of them, probably all of them, or if not all of them, most of them. at least half of them. mr. president, do you know how many of the top 16 groups give predominantly to republicans? zero. the top 16 political donors in this country all give either overwhelmingly to democrats or, at best, evenly between the two parties. you have to fall to number 17 to find a group that gives more heavily to republicans thank to than to democrats. now, that's curious given the story that's being told by our democratic friends about these evil republican billionaires stealing democracy. gosh, the top 16 donors aren't republicans. and how about the koch brothers that we're told are somewhat

like th the grinch who stole christmas? where do they fall? you have to go down to number 59 on the throi list to find koch industries. but perhaps, mr. president, you believe that there is something to this claim of secret money. that, too, is a red herring. the federal election commission estimates that over $7 billion was spent in the 2012 election cycle. now, we've heard from democrat after democrat after democrat that secret money, money where the donors are not disclosed, is this enormous problem in our democracy that justifies phutting the first amendment -- gutting the first amendment of of that $7 billion, i assume at lovlot of that is secret money.

if you were to assume that you would be wrong. the center for responsive politics estimates that in 12012 that about $315 million was spent by groups that don't disclose awful their donors. that's less than 4 50eu% of all the political speech in 2012. so this entire effort to gut the first amendment, to give congress the power to ban movies, books, and the naacp from speaking about politics is justified because of 4 30e.5% of political spending, a whole bunch of which is being spent to help democrats. those are the facts. as john adams said, "facts are stubborn things." so it raises the question, if the problems they're telling us about aren't real, why are the

democrats doing this? why are we spending a week debating this constitutional amendment, the most radical constitutional amendment this body has ever considered, particularly because every single member of this body knows the outcome? there are not sufficient votes to adopt this amendment of the democrats all know this. the republicans all know this. then why would they be doing it? well, madam president, if you're a democrat running for reelection in 2014, you can't run on the commitment of the obama economy is a disaster. millions of people are out of work. the people who've been hurt the most by the obama economy are the most vulnerable among us -- young people, hispanics, african-americans, single moms. we have not seen such a low

labor force participation since 1978, since the stin stagnation, misery and the jimmy carter economy has created that. so if you are are a democrat, you kawnts are up on the disastrous economic record of the obama administration. if you are a democrat, you certainly can't run on obamaca obamacare. the most harmful social services legislation in modern times that has cost millions of americans their jobs, their health care, their doctors. and if you don't believe me, take a look at how the democrats are running in their states. you don't see democrats running saying, we passed obamacare. when you take away millions of people's health care and docto doctors, and when you look in the tv camera and repeatedly state falsehoods, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it, if you like your doctor, you can keep it, you don't really want to remind the

american people that you deliberately lied to them. and the democrats certainly cannot run on the obama-clinton foreign policy, a policy which we heard last week hope lifully the president has no strategy for dealing with the great threats facing this country. leading from behind is not a strategy, and we can see the consequences of the obama-clinton foreign policy, which is that the entire world is on fire. so if you're democratic senator running for reelection in 2014, you have got a profnlt you can't run on our record because the record is abysmal. so what is done instead? it is smoke and mirrors, it is distraction. the only explanation i can come up with for why we're spending a week with all the challenges in the world, a week debating an amendment that will never, ever pass is this is designed to fuel a bunch of tv commercials for

democratic senators, to paint the picture of new england natureious billionaires -- nefarious billionaires coming to steal our democracy. facts don't get in the way of their story. but yet the breadth of this is rather enormous. i serve on the constitution subcommittee with the senator from minnesota, who before being a senator was a very, very talented comeedic actor and come comedic actor on saturday night live. saturday night live has had some of the most tremendous political satire for decades. who can forget chevy chase tripping and falling over just

about everything? who can forget portrayals -- dana carvey's george herbert walker bush, "not going to do it." who can forget bill clinton, ronald reagan, al gore? who can forget in 2008 saturday night live's wickedly funny characterization of the republican vice-presidential nominee sarah palin? it was wickedly funny and also had a profoundly powerful effect on people's perception of sarah palin, a friend of mine. what i asked the senator, do you believe congress should have the constitutional authority to prohibit saturday night live from making fun of politicians?

the good senator promptly reassured me he had no intention of doing any such thing. but, madam president, what we are debate something is not the intentions mucintentions of 100. what we are debate something a constitutional amendment that 49 disems are proposing to -- democrats are proposing to be inserted into the bill of rights. so the only question is not the intention of those senators but, rather, what would that amendment say. and what the amendment says is for any corporation congress would have the constitutional authority to prohibit it from engaging in political speech. well, nbc, which airs saturday night live, is a corporation. under this amendment, 49 democrats have signed their names to, congress would have the power to make it a criminal offense -- lorne michaels could

be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician. that is extraordinary. it is breathtaking, and it is dangerous. you know, the idea of banging books-- --the idea of banning books is not new. advocates of government power, statists have long favored silencing the citizen rhode island it is why our first amendment was such a revolutionary concept. the idea that the individual citizen has the authority to challenge any elected official from local magistrate all the way up to the president of the united states. but if you are an advocate of government pork the citizens have the liberty to speak out is

inconvenient. it can lead to inconvenient truths. and so on some level it should not be surprising. that the modern democratic party which has become the party of government power over every aspect of our lives would take it to the final conclusion of giving government the power to silence our political speech and to ban books. i'm reminded in ray bradbury's immortal book "fahrenheit 451" of the words of captain baity. "you don't want a man unhappy political plily, don't give him two sides after question to worry. give him one. better yet, give him none." that was of course the chief fireman in charge of burning bug

books in the book. that's the tefn at which book paper ignites. it breaks my heart that today we're seeing the fahrenheit 451 democrats. today we have seen 49 democrats put their name to a constitutional amendment that would give congress the power to ban books. now, some might dismiss it and say, what does it senate it's an exercise in politics. they don't really believe it. they know it is not going to pass. politicians will be politicians. no wonder the american people are cynical. i'd be embarrassed if one senator put his or her name to an amendment repealing the free speech protections of the first ainlamendment. instead of one, it is 49. much like with sherlock holmes,

the dog that didn't bark, every bit is troubling as the 49 names of the senators who are willing to repeal the free speech protections of the first amendment are the senators who are not speaking out. in particular, we have not seen a single democrat have the courage to speak out against this abominable provisions. it within always so. there was a time not long ago when there was bipartisan agreement on questions of civil liberties. there was a time when you could find democrats for whom the first amendment meant something. in 1997 democrats attempted a similar amendment to give congress the four regulate free speech, and that lion of the left ted condition did i stood up and said, in the entire

history of the constitution, we have never asmedded the bill of rights -- amended the bill of rights. and now is no time to start. madam president, where are the ted kennedys? where are the democrats? where are the liberals? also in 1997 senator russ fine 2k3w0e89d, another passionate liberal, stood up and said, "the constitution of this country was not a rough draft. we must stop treating it as such." the first amendment is the bedrock of the bill of rights. it has as its under-pinks that each individual has a natural and fundamental right to disagree with their elected leaders. madam president, i agree with ted kennedy, i agree with russ feingold. and i will tell you privately, i have urged democratic colleagues to come and join me in defense

of the first amendment. the handful who have not put their names to this amendment, and all i can surmise is that the partisan pressures of washington are too much. now, this amendment's not going to pass, but it is profoundly dangerous that in the united states senate, not a single democratic senator will come to the floor in defense of the first amendment. it is profoundly dangerous that the modern democratic party now thinks it's good politics to campaign on repealing the first amendment. the #don'trepeal 1a has echoed

through twitter as individual citizens are amazed. earlier this year we saw all 55 democrats stand together against religious liberty, supporting an amendment that would gut the religious freedom restoration act which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by bill clinton. it used to be on religious liberty, you had a bipartisan consensus. the same used to be the truth on free speech. when did democrats abandon the bill of rights? when did democrats abandon civil liberties? and, madam president, i assure you if it were my party proposing this egregious

amendment, i would be standing on the floor of this senate giving the very same speech, trying to hold my party to account. because, you know, at the end of the day when we take our oath of office, it's not to the democratic party or the republican party. it is to represent the citizens of our state -- in my case, 26 million texans -- to fight for their rights and to defend and uphold the constitution of the united states. there is nothing the united states has done in the just under two years that i've been in this body that i find more disturbing, more dangerous than the fact that 49 democrats would put their name to a proposal to repeal the first amendment. madam president, when my daughter's caroline and catherine came to washington for

a weekend to visit and they came up from texas -- caroline is six, catherine is three -- i took them to a museum, a terrific museum. the front facade of the miewrm has in -- of the museum has in gigantic letters the text of the first amendment. the text of the first amendment carved in granite. if the democratic party has its way, the bill of rights will be forever altered. we will have to send workmen up to that facade to carve with jack hammers the words of the first amendment out of the granite in the front of that museum. and i would note, by the way, madam president, in the senate judiciary committee, i

introduced a substitute amendment. it was an amendment to replace every word of this extraordinarily dangerous amendment with the following words: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a regress of grievances." it was word for word verbatim the text of the first amendment to the constitution of the united states, and i am sorry to tell you every single senate democrat on the judiciary committee voted against the text of the first amendment. it was a straight party-line vote. madam president, you go back to

senator kennedy. senator kennedy and i would have agreed on very, very little. on matters of policy, he was a big-government man and i most assuredly am not. on matters of foreign policy, he supported a far weaker military than do i and a far weaker defense of our nation. but i will tell you this. on the question of the first amendment, i am proud to stand side by side with ted kennedy. and what does it say about the modern democratic party? that not a single democrat is willing to honor senator kennedy's legacy.

his words are every bit as true now as they were in 1997. in the entire history of the constitution, we have never amended the bill of rights. and now is no time to start. madam president, it is my plea to the democratic members of this body that you reconsider the decision of putting your name on this amendment. it may seem like harmless election-year politicking that will help in political campaigns, but it is dangerous when 49 senators come together and say we no longer support the first amendment. and it is even more dangerous -- we have a two-party system. a two-party system on which there should be robust debate. it is even more dangerous when

one of the two parties becomes so extreme and so radical that it becomes seen as good politics to campaign against the first amendment. this won't pass this week, but i hope that my democratic colleagues will have second thoughts. i hope that we can return to the day where there's a bipartisan consensus in favor of civil liberties, in favor of protecting the free speech rights of every american. i hope that we will listen to the wise counsel of senator kennedy and i hope that we will recognize, as senator kennedy and senator feingold observed, that there are no james madisons or thomas jeffersons serving in this body today. the bill of rights is not a rough draft, and the united states senate should not be

proposing repealing the first amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: leav weland wist, for the duration of today, september 9, 2014. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, listening to the good senator from texas, i feel as though i'm in some sort of a parallel universe. i rise today in support of senate joint resolution 19, an amendment to the united states constitution that assures our democracy is for the people --

for the people -- not for corporations. i'm proud to cosponsor this measure. i'm also proud to stand with the overwhelming majority of this country in support of restoring common sense and fair campaign finance rules. the current supreme court has been noted as among the most pro-corporate supreme courts in our history. in decision after decision, a narrow conservative majority of the court has placed the voices of corporations and special interests over the voices of the people. the court decided citizens united in 2010. corporations are people with free speech rights said the courts 5-4 majority. under this construct, corporations are people, this ruling -- citizens united -- granted special interests the right to use corporate treasuries to drown out the

voices of the people without being subject to meaningful disclosure requirements. we've already seen the impact of this decision. according to the center for responsive politics, this election year, outside groups have spent triple the amount they had at the same time in 2010. and the election is still months away. the court thrust the wide gates even wider with the ruling in the mccutcheon case. this ruling struck down aggregate limits on contributions by individuals. so now billionaires could spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the elections, and they are doing just that. in these two decisions, the majority willfully ignored the reality of the corrupting influence of big money in our democracy. it is clear to me that the court got it wrong in both cases.

to fix what has been done, congress must act. the need for action is not just a democratic or republican issue. nearly 80% of americans support overturning the supreme court's citizens united decision. campaign spending is out of control and the american people strongly support reform. 71% believe that individual contributions should be limited, and 76% believe that spending by outside groups should also be limited. the american public is clear on this issue. only in washington, d.c. has this become such a polarized debate. unchecked and unaccountable spending on campaigns impacts politics and policy across the country, even at the state and local levels. from arizona to montana to my home state of hawaii, the supreme court's extreme

decisions on campaign finance are undermining fair democratic processes. the citizens united and mccutcheon cases also limit the ability of congress and the states to fix the problems caused by these decisions. why? because the supreme court has decided that unfettered spending in elections is a constitutional right. so the only way we can fix these wrong decisions is by amending the constitution. the supreme court's majority claims that allowing unlimited spending in elections is essential to protecting the first amendment. that unlimited spending by corporations and individuals is a constitutional right. and guess what? before the supreme court's decision in citizens united and mccutcheon, the first amendment constitutional rights were alive and well. so the court argued that restricting campaign spending would limit the right of

individuals and groups to participate in a democratic process. never mind that they have been participating in our democratic processes before these decisions. in reality, these rulings institutionalize the power of big money in politics at the expense of regular americans. the court's decision have the effect of saying that in our democracy, those with the most money should have the loudest voices and that the very identity of those voices can be hidden from the voters. the huge undisclosed expenditures that these decisions allow have diluted the core principle of democracy, one-person, one-vote. the vast majority of american people disagree with the supreme court's unprecedented interpretation of the first amendment. the court has left us with the option we're pursuing today in

amending the u.s. constitution. when the supreme court said that women did not have the right to vote, congress and the people passed the 19th amendment. so amending the constitution to protect our democracy is not some new or radical idea. when the supreme court said the states could impose poll taxes on the poor, congress and the people passed the 24th amendment. and the list goes on. why? because the supreme court, made up of human beings, and as human beings, sometimes get it wrong, as they did in the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. as retired justice john paul stevens wrote in his dissent to citizens united -- quote -- "the court's opinion is a rejection of the common sense of the american people who have recognized the need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding and who have fought

against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of theodore roosevelt." end quote. justice stevens has a right, so does the overwhelming majority of americans. republicans, democrats, and independents all agree that the court's rulings in citizens united and mccutcheon stand for something that is completely inconsistent with america's constitution, history and values. and i say again, the first amendment was alive and well before the citizens united and mccutcheon decisions. the constitutional amendment before us today does not real estate peel anything in the constitution. rather, it undoes the damage that five members of the supreme court have done to free and fair elections. and by the way, money buys

speech. it is not speech. i urge my colleagues to support senate joint resolution 19, and i yield back my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. and let me first of all say how much i appreciate all of my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about this amendment. senator hirono is here. i know senator wows is coming down, a parade of senators have come down and spoken very eloquently. the presiding officer has also taken a good, strong position on this, and we so much appreciate all of her good work. you know, an earlier speaker said that the naacp is against this amendment. well, in fact, the naacp is for

this amendment, and i would ask consent to put in the record off their webpage their endorsement of the constitutional amendment that i am going to talk about. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. some of our opponents have come down to the floor and asked why do this now? why bother? well, i would answer ask the american people. i think they will tell you people are listening, not just democrats but republicans, too, all across the nation. they are listening and here's what they are hearing. they are hearing that the supreme court has put a for sale sign on our elections. they are hearing that our political process is on life support, drowning in cash. and most of it coming from just a few people. 60% of all super pac money in

2012 doled out by 100 billionaires and corporations, and they are hearing about elections bought and paid for, by shadowy outside groups, given a green light by the supreme court, special interests shelling out at least $216 million in 2014 and likely $1 billion by election day. that's 15 times more money than in 2006, before citizens united, before the supreme court defied commonsense and said corporations are people. they are hearing that a lot of money is hidden when over half the money spent in this year's top nine senate races is not fully disclosed. over half not fully disclosed. so in two months, we will know

the outcome of these elections, but we will not know who paid for them. the result is not surprising. the american people have lost faith in us as they watch this merry-go-round, this constant money chasing and very little else getting done. this is a vital debate about what democracy we will have and whether democracy will survive, one that caters to billionaires and the privileged few or one that listens to the american people, one that keeps chasing money from special interests or one that says it's the quality of our ideas, not the size of our bank accounts that should matter. a democracy that answers to the middle class or the moneyed class. this debate is crucial, this debate is actual crucial to the future of our country. and i believe that the american

people are not only listening, they are demanding to be heard because every voice counts. that's why a majority of americans support reform. they know the system is broken. there is only one way to truly fix it -- give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to the congress and to the states. we have a job to do, but the supreme court has rendered us powerless to do it. there is one way to change this, one way for real reform, and that is a constitutional amendment. that is what this debate is all about. the supreme court opened the flood gates. the american people want us to close them. the huffington post published an article yesterday titled -- "is washington the only place where campaign finance is a partisan issue?

" the answer is yes. poll after poll shows this. a strong majority of democrats and republicans outside of washington want reform. republicans like my good friend, former senator al simpson from wyoming. yesterday, "the hill" published an op-ed that al and i wrote together. as most people know, he has always been someone to speak his mind. when al edit our draft, the playing field in our democracy is far from level, and that is driving cynicism, distrust and mistrust of the political process to dangerous levels." end quote. sadly, he is right. it's time for us to listen to our constituents. over three million people have signed petitions in support of a constitutional amendment. 16 states, over 550 cities and towns pushing for reform, demanding a more level playing

field and fairness, including 75% of the voters in montana, a state where mitt romney won by a ten-point margin. so this is a partisan issue only in washington and in the back rooms of billionaires determined to keep the money flowing and the influence intact. and so opponents have ramped up the noise and the distraction about the first amendment and free speech. i would not lose any sleep about billionaires and their free speech, but a lot of us are up late nights thinking about the rest of america. as justice breyer wrote in his dissent to mccutcheon, where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. too many americans feel like they are not being heard. the first amendment has already been hijacked. our amendment rescues it. congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, of doing its job and standing up to

big money and powerful interests. we can go all the way back to 1867, later the pendleton act, the hatch act, the bipartisan campaign act of 2002, a long history, and i would argue an honorable one and without banning books, suppressing preachers or shutting down newspapers. reforms have been modest, reasonable and responsive, passed by both houses of congress, signed by presidents. the other side can talk about imaginary horribles, that's one way to go, but that argument is not supported by history, by logic or by the law. our amendment is not radical. it's a simple idea. it will give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to congress and to the states. that's it, period. what is so carifying about this? not -- what is so terrifying about this?

not one thing, except to wealthy special interests who have their place at the table, bought and paid for, and they want to keep it. that is the bottom line. they oppose any reforms, any restrictions on campaign spending. they are listening to and their message is very clear and unyielding -- no reform, none. they want to keep writing their checks and to stay at the head of the table. this debate is really about special interests, trying to buy elections in secret with no limits. the supreme court says that's just fine. we say no. in fact, it isn't. our amendment has a long bipartisan position back to 1983 when senator ted stevens, a republican, was the lead sponsor. it's common sense, it's fair. we do not dictate specific reforms. we do not say the congress has a duty and a right to enact.

we do say the congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible campaign finance reform. any specific proposals are debatable and answerable to the american people. this amendment has the support of most americans because they understand beyond all the noise, beyond all the tortured logic of our opponents, we have a train wreck and we need to get the train back on track before yet another scandal, before we are back in the watergate era. the voice of politicians should not be drowned out, hiding in the corner with gold-plated megaphones. it's time to limit the power of big money, to give everyone a say, not just the rich, not just the powerful, everyone. americans are listening, they are watching and they are waiting because they know and we know a simple truth.

we can't hand our democracy over to the biggest spender. thank you, madam president. i ask that the op-ed i mentioned authored with senator simpson and the huffington post article i referenced be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of senator walsh's remarks i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. walsh: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. walsh: i rise today to speak in support of senate joint resolution 19, a constitutional amendment that would give both states and congress the power to undo the damage caused by citizens united and restore our democratic traditions. passing this amendment is vital if we are going to begin to roll back the coercive influence of money in our democracy. because of the supreme court's decision in citizens united, political power has become

increasingly concentrated in the hands of corporations and modern day. in fact, less than one-third of americans provide more than two-thirds of the money spent on elections. the voices of everyday americans are simply being silenced. in montana, we have seen firsthand the damage to the process. turn of the century mining companies made rich off the cop per seines under butte, montana, my hometown. they bought up the state press and bought off the state legislature. in response to these abuses, montana banned corporate spending by citizens initiative over 100 years ago. however, the recent supreme court citizens united decision overturned this centuries-old protection in an instant, silencing montana voices with dark, secretive money and corporate political spending. montana's experience with the

butte copper kings shows that corporate political spending, even if it is supposedly independent, corrupts the political process. we cannot let anonymous, unaccountable corporate spending drown out the voices of everyday americans. when the voices of individual voters become less relevant to politicians, policy decisions are divorced from the folks they impact. we simply cannot allow a dysfunctional system of campaign finance to eliminate our government's responsiveness to its citizens or its ability to tackle our most pressing issues. montana's history should be learned from, and it is our responsibility to ensure that it never happens again. that is why this amendment is so important to the american people. in 2012, montana voters overwhelmingly directed the congressional delegation to work to overturn citizens united, to

get corporate money out of politics. i have heard from thousands of montanans that they want congress to refocus on issues that are important to them, to come together and to do our jobs, and, madam president, passing this amendment will help us do just that. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, before i give my time to wake up speech, i want to just react to something that was said on the senate floor about this joint resolution to correct the error of citizens united. what was said on the floor was that the position of those of us who support this joint resolution and who think that citizens united was wrongly decided, that that position is

an attack on the first amendment, that we are attacking the first amendment. now, that may have some rhetorical utility, but it's simply not accurate. the very question we are here to answer is whether the first amendment properly allows un limited corporate spending. it never did. it never did. until citizens united came along. so the question before this body is, was citizens united correctly decided, to say that we are attacking the first amendment is to presume that citizens united was correctly decided. you don't win an argument by presuming that you're right.

you win on argument by making the case why you're right. and i frankly have great reverence for the first amendment and i think it is extremely unfortunate that an argument would be made that is really nothing more than a rhetorical trick, and that does not respond to the gravamen of the dispute which is whether the first amendment should protect unlimited corporate spending when in the history of this country, until the decision by citizens united, it never had. it never had. so the first thing that i want to do is to take just a moment to express my gratitude to dr. aaron goldner who has been instrumental in helping me research and prepare these time to wake up speeches and whose fellowship in my office dame to an end yesterday. aaron earned his ph.d. in

earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at purdue university. he came to my office as an american geophysical union congressional science fellow whose research specialty was the development of sophisticated models to help build greater understanding of the past and present and future effects of carbon pollution on our climate. he lent his considerable scientific expertise and analysis to these floor speeches, he also did research for ladies and gentlemen and -- legislation and prepared for works in the public works committee. since we somehow weren't keeping him busy enough, he managed to find the time to publish a peer-reviewed article this summer in the prestigious journal "nature" on the climb attic conditions surrounding the origination of the antarctic ice cap.

aaron said this week he gained a sense of humor working here which is fitting for a scientist having to deal with this body and its -- in its present state. but i gained the benefit of aaron's hard work and gracious spirit, and the senate and the american people gained the benefit of aaron's passion for bringing the best scientific thinking to address our greatest challenges. aaron's now taking his talents to the department of energy where he will continue to help our government tackle these important questions. i'm grateful for his service in my office, and wish him the best success. so the 113th congress is now winding down, an election is upon us that will decide the makeup of the next congress, and i'm here for the 77th time to say that it's time for my republican colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. both for the good of our country and our world, and ultimately

for the good of their own party. no political party can long remain a credible force in our democracy if their position on one of the defining threats of our time is to deny its existence. or to plead total ignorance about it. i'm not a scientist, some have begun to say. well, when it comes to interfering with women's rights they don't say i'm not a gynecologist. but where it's carbon pollution, then it's "i'm not a scientist." well, some would say if you're not a scientist, all the more reason to listen to the scientists. and look at what the scientists are saying just today. the world meteorological organization, which knows a little bit about this area, the top person at the world meteorological association just

said we know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. we know without any doubt. but here's the point -- i'm not a scientist is not the stance of a party that is ready to lead. it's the stance of a party that is beholding to polluting interests. petrified of losing the millions in polluter campaign spending supporting their candidates. we have heard over and over again during the last six years that republicans want president obama to lead. it's a familiar chorus. it's time to lead, where is the leadership? why isn't america leading?

one of my republican colleagues said it this way -- every american can agree the light of peace and liberty will benefit our world but who will spread it if not america? despite the challenges we face at home, america must continue to hold this torch. america must continue to lead the way. well, on climate change we are finally leading the way thanks in large part to president obama 's climate action plan and secretary kerry's passionate efforts. and they criticize the obama administration's leadership on climate change because other countries like china and india are also big carbon emitters. so republicans want america to lead except on climate change. on this one issue, they prefer

to await leadership from china or india. how convenient that is when you think of all the polluter money funding the republicans. and how badly out of step with america. just look at the numbers. a recent "wall street journal" poll showed notwithstanding years of relentless polluter propaganda, 61% of americans agree that climate change is occurring and that action should be taken. and 67% of americans support the administration's proposed rule to limit carbon pollution from power plants. and here's my personal favorite -- a survey conducted for the league of conservation voters found that more than half of young republican voters, to be specific, 53% of republicans under the age of 35, would

describe a politician who denies climate change is happening as -- and i quote -- "ignorant, out of touch, or crazy." that's the young republican view of the republican position on climate change. on september 21, thousands of concerned americans will converge on new york city for what will be known as the people 's climate march. organizers expect as many as a half million people will take part in this historic citizen action to call attention to the global crisis of climate change. however you look at it, the american people are sending a message loud and clear. they want responsible relationship on carbon pollution. what is the republican answer?

well, look at the house. given control of the house, republicans over there have already forced over 100 votes to undermine e.p.a. that's even more than they have voted to repeal obamacare. paul ryan, the republican chairman of the house budget committee, said last week that republican strategy next year will be send the president bills they know he will veto, including approval of the key tony x.l. tar sands crude pipeline, and thereby create shutdown by veto. over here in the senate, our republican leader already threatens if the republicans win the senate, to force onto key legislation what he called -- and i'll quote -- "a lot of

restrictions on the activities of the bureaucracy." gee, what agency could he possibly mean? the threat is plain. give the republicans polluter- backed, anti-environment legislation, or they'll shut down the government. again. this is the republican version of leadership. what about out on the campaign trail? republicans in congress ignore the public's call for climate action, but our republican candidates out there listening to the people, or are they listening to the polluters led by the infamous koch brothers? look at how much money the polluters are spending on republicans and take a wild guess. news flash -- they're not

listening to the people. the republican nominee for senate in iowa has said of climate change, i'm skeptical. it's been changing since the dawn of time, i'm not going to blame it on the human race. in new hampshire, the leading republican senate candidate recently said he does not believe manmade climate change has been scientifically proven. never mind that the underlying science was first measured back when abraham lincoln was president. in north carolina, the republican nominee has referred to climate change as -- quote -- "false science." well, madam president, in the last year, i visited iowa and new hampshire and north carolina, and i saw firsthand how climate change is already affecting those states.

i heard over and over again deep concern about climate change. i heard about cold weather sports and tourism threatened by warming temperatures in new hampshire. i heard about crops threatened by shifting weather patterns and about how a booming wind power industry has emerged in iowa. i heard in north carolina about homes and businesses, even air bases threatened by rising seas. if you doubt me, go to the state universities in iowa and new hampshire and north carolina. they're not denying. they're actively working on climate change and warning about climate change. iowa state has an entire climate

science program and wants to be a -- quote -- "leader in the science of regional climate change." university of new hampshire scientists told me about the danger to new hampshire's iconic moose from tick infestations because of climate change. researchers from the university of north carolina, duke university, and north carolina state took me out on a research vessel to see firsthand the effects of climate change on north carolina's shoreline. the home state universities are clear, it's just the polluter-funded candidates who are denying. and it's the same story across the country. republicans running for the senate from alaska to georgia from colorado to west virginia question or outright deny the established climate science. figure it out. do the math. there's overwhelming consensus

among knowledgeable scientists that climate change is real and is being causeed by humans. denying that fact serves the economic interest of a narrow group of big-spending polluters, and the polluters are spending vast fortunes to support climate deniers. senate republican candidates even attended a secret retreat organized by the koch brothers earlier this year and praised the koch brothers' political network for helping to support their campaigns. the polluter political life line to the republican party. a lot of blame here attaches to the republicans' confederates on the supreme court. the five republican appointed judges who kicked open the floodgates of corporate spending for the republicans in the disastrous citizens united decision of january, 2010. with citizens united in their pocket the polluters went right

to work. by the 2012 election cycle, "the washington post" and center for some of politics determined a donor network organized by the koch brothers spent $400 million to influence that election. this graphic shows the complex apparatus that the koch brothers used to pull those political strings. in the 2014 election cycle, the government accountability group common cause has tallied over $34 million in political donations all right. from 30 of the country's largest oil, gas, coal and utility corporations. that does not include the dark money that fossil fuel corporations have given to political groups which do not disclose their donors. groups such as the american petroleum institute,