solar, geothermal, and create huge numbers of jobs. why don't you create our crumbling buildings and roads and waste water plants. why don't you raise the minimum wage to a living wage. that's what people tell me in vermont and that's what people are saying all over this country. and people ask that today, despite the modest gains of the affordable care act, how does it happen that the united states is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right? we have 40 million people uninsured, even more paying large co-payments, and premiums how come we don't join the rest of the world and guarantee health care to all of our people? and the answer is very, very simple. and the answer is that members who get elected to the house and

the senate increasingly are dependent upon big-money campaign contributions in order to win their seats. that is not what democracy is about. that is what oligarchy is about. oligarchy is when you have a nation owned and controlled by a handful of wealthy families. and that is where we are moving today. mr. president, on issue after issue the american people are very clear about -- about where they want to be going. on this issue of citizens united, the american people are very clear that we need real campaign finance reform to prevent billionaires from buying elections. that's what the american people want, that's what they say in

poll after poll, and yet it remains to be seen whether in a few days when we vote on this issue whether we will get one republican vote. and i can understand that because the republicans today are the beneficiaries in a very big-time way of all of this billionaire money. you know, mr. president, a couple of months ago a constituent of mine in vermont made a very interesting suggestion. he said you know, bernie, do you ever see these guys on nascar, the racing car drivers and they wear their jackets and their jackets have all of the sponsors on their coats, their sponsored by goodyear tire company and sponsored by this oil company and sponsored by this brake company. maybe we should have the members of the united states senate wear jackets which tell us who is sponsoring them. so somebody could come forward in a nice blue blazer and say i

am owned and sponsored by the koch brothers. and somebody else come forward and say i'm owned by the oil industry. or i'm owned by big energy. or i'm owned by wall street. and it would be very instructive when you see people get up in votes about why they don't want to raise the minimum wage to find out that they are controlled by significant contributions coming from large corporations. i think it would be very interesting to see members of the congress wear those type of coats. mr. president, the men and women of our country know that there is something profoundly wrong when 95% of all new income generated in this country goes to the top 1%. they know that there is

something profoundly wrong when one out of four profitable corporations pays nothing in federal taxes at in any given year. and yet the reason that we are unable to come up with real tax reform so that we can find the money to help our kids go to college, so that we can deal with the fact we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world among children, has everything to do with large corporations not paying their fair share and that has everything to do with the type of campaign contributions these institutions make. mr. president, when you go out, just a poll that came out the other day and they asked the american people should we cut social security? and you know what the american people say whether they're progressive, moderate, conservative? they say you got to be nuts. we can't make it on social security benefits today and you want to cut social security?

you want to cut medicare? but, mr. president, that is exactly what the business roundtable from corporate america wants us to do. so we're living in two separate worlds. on one hand, you have an agenda here in the house and among many of my republican colleagues that say what we need to do is give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people and the largest corporations. is that what the american people want? overwhelmingly, they do not want that. you have an agenda among many who say we have to cut social security, medicare and medicaid. is that what the american people want? no, they don't. there is an agenda among some republicans that say not only should we not raise the minimum wage, we should do away with the concept of the minimum wage so that high unemployment areas people could work for $4 or $5 an hour. is that what the american people want? quite the contrary. they want to raise the minimum

wage to at least $10.10 an hour. you have an amazing dynamic right now in american society. on one hand, in the real world outside of the beltway, ordinary people are hurting, they're struggling, they're worried about their kids, they're worried about their grandchildren, they're worried about their parents, and they want the united states government to do something, to create jobs, to raise the minimum wage, to change our disastrous trade policies. they want us to do something to make college affordable, to lower interest rates on student debt, they want us to create jobs by rebuilding the infrastructure, they want everybody in this country to have health care as a right, they want us to address the crisis of global warming but we don't do that. why not? because increasingly, the united states congress is not responsive to the needs of ordinary americans.

they are responsive to the big-money campaign contributors, and that has everything to do with this constitutional amendment overturning -- beginning the process to overturn citizens united. so of all of the issues out there, whether you're concerned about education, health care, the environment, the economy, the most important issue underlying all of those issues is the need to end this disastrous supreme court decision which allows billionaires to buy elections. that is not what people fought and died for in the name of democracy. that is called oligarchy. abraham lincoln talked about a government of the people, by the people, for the people, not a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires. and that is where we are today. so, mr. president, i hope that the american people are watching.

the media has not paid for interesting reasons a lot of attention to this issue, but there is no domestic issue i can think of more important for the future of this country. do we elect members of congress who are beholding to the constituents back home, to the middle class, the working families, or do we elect members of congress who are beholding to corporate america and the billionaires class? do we fight to sustain the democratic foundation of this country, or do we move toward an oligarchic form of society controlled by a handful of billionaire families? that is the issue, that is what this debate is all about and that is what this vote in a few days is about. and i hope very much that the american people will demand that every member of the senate vote for this piece of legislation which begins the process of overturning this disastrous

citizens united supreme court decision. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thanks, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thanks. i want to follow up on -- now the presiding officer, then senator sanders' comments a moment ago about the crux of this issue, why -- why this big money in campaigns is so bad for our country. and, you know, the public doesn't really care who's got an advantage or disadvantage, they don't care if a republican wins or a democrat wins, they care about what we do here and we can help people's lives. the presiding officer talked about the minimum wage. i used to be his first year in the senate, my first year in the senate, my first speech on the senate floor, five desks over from here was about the minimum wage. it passed the senate with a bipartisan vote, signed by a republican president increasing the minimum wage. that was then. today we can't even get a minimum wage out of the senate because of republican

filibuster. the minimum wage -- the minimum wage is worth a third less in real dollars in purchasing power than it was in 1968. the subminimum wage, the tipped wage has been stuck at $2.13 an hour for 20 years. people that work that push wheelchairs in airports, valets, waiters in downtown diners can make as little as $2 or $3 an hour and they hope to get up to 7-point or 8-point or 9-point on tips. fought it weren't for the political pressure, the money that just sweeps across, that, that rolls across the political landscape, washing across, we could pass the minimum wage but members of the senate they think about the big money that might come in against them if they vote for the mange. i'm convinced if we could pass this constitutional amendment, we could begin to address the

issues of wall street and oil companies and big tobacco buying elections, spending not millions, not even tens of millions but hundreds of millions of dollars, we could pass minimum wage, we could pass a real jobs bill, we could reform wall street, we could pass consumer protections bills, invest in education and community colleges in federally qualified health centers, in veterans' benefits the way that we should. that's why this constitutional amendment is so important on campaign spending. that's why it matters. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior snow senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i would ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: as we all know, we're discussing a constitutional amendment sponsored by 45 members of the democratic party to restrict free speech. so this constitutional amendment

pending before the senate is a real threat to one of the two most vital developments in our nation's legal and constitutional history. one of those legal successes was the development of a body of civil rights laws to protect the basic freedoms of all americans. that took a long time and required massive effort and even bloodshed, as well as judicial rulings. the second development was the enhancement of free speech, as protected by the first amendment. that process also required massive time and effort and judicial rulings. both of these struggles were made necessary because the supreme court failed to give

effort to the intent of the authors of the first and 14th amendments in guaranteeing liberty and equality. it took president jefferson assuming office -- not the courts interpreting the first amendment -- to address the criminalization of free speech under the alien and sedition acts. when congress in the 1830's and 2840's denied the trite petition for redress grievances for sthoas who oppose slavery, it took john quincy adams and congress, not a court relying on the first amendment, to change those rules. so reality is that the first amendment had a very limited scope until well into the 20th century. after a judicial sea change, the courts now give broad protection to free speech.

political speech is now constitutionally protected unless the government has a compelling interest and the re-tricks is narrowly -- and the restriction is narrowly tailored to further that compelling interest. those free speech battles took many years to win, and if the arguments that proponents of this constitutional amendment are making were adopted, we would be turning the clock back on 100 years of progress of protecting free speech. the constitutional amendment before us is a content-based restriction on free speech. speech influencing campaigns for elective office would be restricted. no other speech content, however, would be restricted. some of that speech by corporations and other entities

could be prohibited entirely and those who engage in such speech could be criminally prosecuted. the supreme court has allowed content-based restrictions on speech in only a very few cases, such as objec obscenity, defama, child pornography and threats. the proposed constitutional amendment would restrict the most important speech, th the ft amendment protects and that happens to be core political speech. it would treat that speech as if it were like child pornography. in the judiciary committee, one democrat actually compared core political speech to child pornography. to everybody, that's incredible that that would be said,

comparing the core political speech to the video recording of an unspeakable crime against a child doesn't make any sense. that same senator and the sponsor of the amendment on the floor both argued that campaign-related speech can be restricted because free speech doesn't include the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. this is the argument that would reduce free speech protection in this country to the minimal level that it enjoyed 100 years ago before there was this expansion of protection under the first amendment. when justice holmes made that famous statement in that fire case, the supreme court wasn't being asked to rule on the

legality of a conviction of someone who had falsely yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. rather, the case involved a man who was convicted of distributing leaflets urging young men not to comply with the draft laws during world war i. justice holmes compared that peaceful protest to a shout that would immediately lead to serious bodily injury and perhaps loss of life for a larger number of people. that is obviously a false analogy. and those who speak in support or opposition to candidates are comparable then to those who pass out leaflets in opposition to government policy. it's obviously false analogy to compare that speech designed to

persuade fellow citizens in their voting to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. it's easy for the government to determine whether a cry of "fire" is true or false, but a campaign ad isn't often clearly false. even a false ad doesn't create the risk of death. when a government prosecutes those who falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater, that prosecution will have the beneficial effect of deterring others from engaging in that same conduct. but when government criminalizes ads that it determines are false or limits how much can be spent on those ads backed up by criminal penalties, that in fact will produce the harm of reducing the likelihood that others will speak about public

-- important public subjects. hence, weakening our democracy. justice holmes quickly came to realize the airs o errors of hi. in subsequent supreme court decisions, he and justice brandeis dissented when the majority applied the clear-and-present danger test that the fire-in-the-theater analogy supported. they voted to protect peaceable free speech. they understood that in a free country, the way to address controversial speech was through speech by others with different views, not by shutting up people with the threat of jail. now, it took a long 50 years for the court to adopt the protections for free speech that justice holmes and judge learned

hand had advocated to no avail. and if this amendment passes, this constitutional amendment passes, that glorious history of the understanding of the importance of free speech in a democracy will be undone. . it was only a few years after its 1969 ruling providing strong constitutional protections of free political speech that the supreme court ruled on its first campaign speech case. that's buckley vs. valeo. in that case the court ruled that the independent expenditures couldn't be limited. the decision wasn't the work of supposed conservative judicial activists. wealthy individuals have been able to spend unlimited amounts on campaign related speech since then. that isn't a novel development that dates only to citizens

united, and buckley also permitted nonprofit corporations to engage in independent expenditure designed to influence campaigns. corporations and others could contribute to these nonprofit entities. in context, citizens united represents an advance over the prior law, especially in promoting transparency. as floyd abrams, the nation's foremost first amendment litigator, wrote to the judiciary committee in questions for the record -- quote -- "what citizens united did do, however, is to permit corporations to contribute to pacs that are required to disclose all donors and engage only in independent expenditures."

continuing quote -- "if anything, citizens united is a prodisclosure ruling which brought corporate money further into light -- into the light." end of quote. so i don't think my colleagues are correct in saying that this amendment is about so-called dark money. and limiting speech is totally separate from the disclosure of speech. this amendment says nothing about disclosure, and it's the constitutional amendment, not citizens united, that fails to respect precedent. it doesn't simply overturn one case. the supreme court has repeatedly found that engaging in campaign speech is fully protected by the bill of rights. time after time it has ruled correctly that because effective speech can only occur through

the expenditure of money, government cannot restrict campaign expenditures by candidates or others. repeatedly the court has recognized that effective campaign speech requires that individuals have the right to form groups that will spend money for campaign speech. those supreme court decisions were joined by and sometimes written by great liberal justices. this proposal represents a radical departure from long-established free speech protections. it's a war with an entire body of jurisprudence. it extends well jond -- beyond corporations. despite the sponsors of this amendment limiting their counterterrorism to one or two cases, the -- limiting their

counterterrorism to one or two cases the amendment would overturn not just a few cases but 12 decisions according to that expert mr. abrams. as the amendment has been redrafted, it may be only 11 1/2 cases now, depending upon what the word "reasonable" mean and why the word "reasonable" was left out in the first place and why it was included now, i don't know. but it's included now because people realized the extremities to which this constitutional amendment could take you. but even with the word "reasonable," that extreme position would take us down a slippery slope amending the bill of rights. i don't think we want to go down that slope. justice stevens, whom the committee democrats relied on at length in support of the amendment, voted with the majority in three of the cases

the amendment would overturn. it's hard to imagine what would be more radical than the congress passing a constitutional amendment to overturn a dozen supreme court decisions that have protected individuals' rights. free speech would be dramatically curtailed. that is why the arguments made here on the senate floor that matters were fine before citizens united four years ago are beside the point. also off point is the argument by another democrat that the debate here concerns only whether citizens united was correctly decided under the first amendment and that the overall protection of free speech is not any issue whatsoever. the amendment before us doesn't just reverse citizens united.

it doesn't take us back just four years. it reverses decades of precedent that gave broad protection to free speech. that's why the stakes are so high and why we're spending so much time debating this constitutional amendment. now yet another argument was raised on the floor that overturning citizens united through a constitutional amendment is comparable to overturning earlier supreme court decisions on women's suffrage or poll taxes. in response to a written question from the judiciary committee, the same scholar, mr. abrams, forcefully rejected any such comparison, so he wrote this back to us senators -- quote -- "the notion that a supreme court opinion protecting first amendment rights should be viewed as comparable to one

depriving slaves or women of their rights is both intellectually flawed and morally repugnant. how can a constitutional amendment assuring freedom of slaves or equality for women possibly be viewed as analogous to taking away -- emphasis on taking away -- citizens' first amendment rights?" end of quote. this morning the lead sponsor of the amendment contended that the amendment wouldn't lead to banning books or putting people in jail. he also claimed that congress had not provided for such results in earlier years and would not do so now. and he said that even if congress tried, it would be very unlikely that both houses would pass such a measure. and he maintained that even if such extreme measures were enacted, the supreme court would strike them down as

unreasonable. remind you that the alien sedition laws never put anybody in prison. but this sponsor did not deny that congress could in fact pass legislation that would have the effects the opponents have raised. what does he think about what happened if someone violated the reasonable spending limits? some government agencies would have to enforce them with criminal penalties. violating them would subject people to jail for speaking. the obama justice department, which would enforce those criminal laws, told the supreme court that if citizens united had been decided as the sponsors of the amendment desired, it would prosecute book publishers. and in this country,

constitutional rights do not depend on the kindness of politicians not infringing them. otherwise we wouldn't have alien sedition acts. those limits prevent congress from violating rights in the first place. the bill of rights was adopted precisely because the citizens rejected the argument that the constitution's difficult passage through legislative enactment by itself was adequate to protect fundamental liberties like freedom of speech. and it's cold comfort that after the election is over and they have been barred from speaking, citizens can spend money to ask the court to reverse their convictions. i have made clear that this amendment abridges fundamental

freedoms that are birthright of americans. the arguments made to support it are very unconvincing. the amendment will weaken, not strengthen, democracy. it will not reduce corruption but will open the door for elected officials to bend democracy rules to benefit themselves. and that's benefiting incumbency. the fact that the senate is considering such a dreadful amendment is a great testament to the wisdom of our founding fathers in insisting upon and adopting the bill of rights in the first place, a necessary forerunner to whether or not the colonies would approve the constitution in the first place. as justice jackson famously wrote -- and this is a very long

quote by justice jackson -- "the very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principle to be applied by the courts. one's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote. they depend on the outcome of no elections." end of justice jackson's quote. we must preserve our bill of rights, including our rights to free speech. we must not allow officials to did i -- diminish or ration that right. we must not let this become part

of the supreme law of the land. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i'd ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: you know, i became a practicing physician over 30 years ago. i delivered well in excess of 4,000 babies. and i feel like right now in my senate career and where the senate is that i'm like the father in the waiting room. i keep wondering when we're going to make any progress, when we're actually going to have the

delivery of something positive for the country. and what we're seeing this week is really disappointing to me, because if you read just the headlines -- just the headlines -- in the last week, last four days, here's the headlines about congress. here's-to-do "politico." the lamest lame duck looms over congress. ducks will do nothing in the congress. december will be the lamest lame duck session in a long time. "the economist" -- congress is useless. america's legislature has become something of a joke in recent years. a place where good policy ideas go to die and where decent policy ideas go to be twisted into something incomprehensible. it's enough to make one lose faith in representative democracy, i tell you. and then cnn, congress has taken off the whole year.

but here's the current math. what's less than nothing? and if you do less than nothing, at what point does it become completely counterproductive and silly? that's our debate, the sum total of our big ideas right now. not wanting to start any fights within your own party, unity above all heading into the midterm election, so what's the political solution? no substance, no ideas, no serious debate that might actually engage voters. each side suits up, armed with the slogans and its bromides. cnn -- congress defined -- useless, worthless, a joke. that's according to the most recent response, popular responses on cnn's web site, 5,000 respondents on social media. still trying to get a pulse on the most common feelings toward congress, the other words on the top ten list are incompetent,

corrupt, lazy, inept, idiots, selfish and dysfunctional. i describe congress with two words, he said -- term limits. then cnn, according to a "washington post" poll, a majority of americans feel their representatives in congress are part of the problem. "washington post," congress is making a lot of history by being so unpopular. you know, the real topic of today is what is not happening in the u.s. congress. let me describe where we are. we're going to have in excess of $500 billion in money this year that we borrowed that we won't pay for. we have got a continuing resolution coming with -- with $49 billion worth of fake dollars in it so everybody can say they stayed within the --

the requirements of the ryan-murray agreement, so there is no integrity in that. we have done nothing to markedly increase the opportunity for jobs in america. what's not happening is a reversal of the decline in the median family income in this country which is now at 1988 levels. the big story is what is not happening. the big story is as congress is not addressing the needs of the nation. the big story is congress hasn't passed the first appropriation bill. the big story is what is not happening. it's not what's happening here. what's happening here is a political farce. everybody knows it. it's all about the election. it's all about re-emphasizing where we are, and the country suffers for it. so we know that there is no

opportunity to actually amend the bill on the floor, but i have filed an amendment which would place term limits on members of congress, because you see the number one requirement right now in this body for most politicians on both sides is get re-elected. that's why we're not addressing the real issues. that's why we're not addressing the fraud and the social security disability system. that's why we threw $30 billion at the v.a. system rather than effectively rearranged and totally rewrote the v.a. health care system. cybersecurity is an important

thing for this country. bills have passed out of the homeland security committee. bills have passed out on -- these are all bipartisan bills, have passed out of the senate intelligence committee. what's not happening, they are not coming to the floor even though that's a great threat to our country right now because what's important is what's important to the politicians and not what's important for the long run best thing for our country. so what we really ought to have if we're going to amend the bill of rights and if we're going to take free speech away from people in this country, what we ought to do is at least do something to secure the future to say that our own worst tendencies won't be exaggerated in the future by putting term limits on members of congress. this system is rigged for

incumbents. it's totally rigged for incumbents. you know, at one point last year, the approval rating for congress got down to 8%. that means only one in 12 people in this country thought congress -- and it's barely better than that now. i think it's 12% or 14%. one in six or seven people have confidence that we have their back, that our motivations are pure in terms of we want to fix the problems with our country. they see the lack of leadership, they see the political posturing, and they don't like what they see. because what they see is selfishness. they see politicians putting themselves first and the country second. that's where we are.

it's -- it's the dirty little secret that people won't talk about but innately americans outside of washington know is true. so we have a bill on the floor to amend for the first time in history the bill of rights to limit first amendment speech why? because supreme court rulings have maybe changed the dynamics in terms of elections. well, if you didn't care if you got re-elected, you wouldn't care about that. so we find ourselves only going to be here in session actively in congress before the election in early november seven, eight more days. so everybody that's up for re-election and those that aren't can go out and campaign

and raise money so that we can continue the progress of career politicians and the rigged incumbent advantage stay in process. so i know it's not in order to offer my amendment. it's been filed. but one way to fix that is put term limits on members of the senate. oklahoma had term limits for its members of congress. oklahomans believe in it. it's actually a 72% to 80% issue all over the country. americans believe it. but the politicians in washington are never going to vote for it because it puts them second and the country first.

we have a defense authorization bill that needs to be passed critical for the future of our country. we're not talking about it. we're not doing anything on it. we have, as i mentioned, several cyber bills that need to be passed that have gone through committee that have been bipartisan bills. not on the floor. we have significant appropriation bills that need to have the attention of the members of congress -- and this is not the committee's fault. the committee is a bipartisan committee that has done good work. this is a leadership problem within the senate. they have done their work but can't come to the floor because we don't want to have to take votes and defend those votes back home. so when you read what the press says about congress, they're actually pretty nice to us, given where we are.

we're lame ducks. we've taken the year off. we're worthless. we're a joke. we're useless. incompetent, corrupt, lazy, inept. i don't think those words are too harsh. we're repeating votes that we have already voted that are political votes that are designed to enhance turnout in certain groups, and so what this place is, it's a show place. and the down side is, is the country suffers, our country. whether you're a conservative male 66 years old like me or you're a liberal latino female at 18, our country suffers.

because our eye's off the ball. our eye's off our oath that we took. our eye is off our commitment, and the historical lineage that has been here before us of members of congress willing to do what was necessary to solve the problems for the country. what's not happening in the senate is there is no leadership in the senate. it's called leader, but there is no leadership in the senate because the leadership of the senate now is totally disconnected from what is needed by the country. so instead of the greatest deliberative body in the world, what you have in the senate today is the greatest political

body in the world that doesn't care about deliberation. only cares about women in the next election. there is a lot of ways to cure that. and when you read and see the polling about congress and you read the words and you look at the majority of americans today believe their member of congress is part of the problem and the average member of congress has a lower re-elect than non-re-elect, the american people get it. the question is what can they do about it, and what you have to do is you have to eventually have term limits so that we take the inherent bias of the career politician out of the mix and we make it not about the politicians but we return the

senate to about what's in the best interests of the country. and quite frankly for the last three and a half years, that hasn't been what's been happening in this body. it's a soulful, shameful period in the history of our country. as the thoughts and creative power of our founders, as they instituted a body that was meant to consider very extraordinarily, very solemnly, every issue that came that was meant to drive consensus, to force consensus, we have no consensus when the whole goal is not to solve problems for the country but to win elections.

you know, i'd love to be able to take a poll of democrat, republicans, whition, independents -- whigs, independents and everybody else who has ever been in this body. it's less than 2,500. i don't know the exact number. and see what they would say about how the senate operates today and how it is not doing its job and what is not happening at a time when our country's economic growth is anemic at best, when job creation is -- doesn't come anywhere close to what we need, where deficit spending is kind of a yawn, and the moral fact that we mortgage every day the future of the next two generations. i'd love to hear what the other senators who stood in this building would say about what we're doing today.

i think it would be a rousing round of condemnation. do i think it's important for the american people to look at the senate right now and say what are we doing. what aren't we -- it's true, social security disability will go bankrupt next year. that's true. it's true that in less than 15 years, medicare will be bankrupt. it's true that in less than 18 years, social security will be gone. those are all true things. it's true that we're going to run $500 billion in a deficit -- at least $500 billion. that's about $1,400 a person we're spending more than what we're taking in this year, and we're charging it to the 2 and 3 and 5 and 6-year-olds in this country today. those are true statements.

is that anywhere close to integrity? is there any moral value in mortgaging the future of the next generation? i think not. i've listened to a lot of the speeches on the floor this week. i hardly ever come down to talk. i talk about once every two weeks now, since we have no opportunity to offer amendments or debate our amendments. but i just wonder what the american people must be thinking about what we're not doing, what we're not addressing. the problems that are unfixed that need a fix, that need a bipartisan solution, that need compromise, that need the power of the original senate with the rights of minority and the majority running towards a compromise that gives us the best we can get based on where we are as a country. there's no opportunity for that anymore in this body.

we don't pass muster. you know, we don't pass muster, not because there's a lot of -- on both sides of the aisle that don't want to pass muster. it's because the leadership isn't there. the senate has been run into the ground as far as its intended function and intended working. i think that's highly unfortunate for our country. i think it's highly unfortunate for our children. and in this time of world just morass, in trouble all around the world, conflict, complications, difficulty and in this time when we're having trouble ourselves staying above

water in almost every aspect of what we're doing, we need a vigorous, alive, functioning senate that's full of rivetting debate about the issues of today that are presented to our country today. and instead we have political games. and we're going to have political games the rest of the week. i wonder what our future holds when we have this kind of leadership. what does it portend for the country when the senate of the united states no longer debates the current topics of the issues before the country and spends all its time trying to get its

members reelected? that's a sad, sad commentary, and it's a senate that's investd it's a senate that's very far away from the senate i joined 10 years ago. i yield the floor. i 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 colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. mr. president, i first want to acknowledge the severity of the challenges that we face as a country right now, whether it's military action to stop the threat from isis or in the crisis in ukraine, colorado is waiting anxiously to hear from the president tonight and we are all concerned with that as we should be. today on the floor of the senate, mr. president, is a constitutional amendment, and while the proposed amendment and while it's on the floor i wanted to take a minute to talk about

it. tonight in colorado, a swing state, families will endure an avalanche of political ads and many come from object secured interests -- obscured interests with happen names as the government integrity network, citizens for a working america and so on and so forth and there will be no way to tell who these folks are because under the laws of the united states many of these organizations don't have any obligation to disclose where their money comes from, a privileged status that individual americans do not have when it comes to funding political campaigns. it's enough to make everyone in our state in colorado hate their tv much less american politics and probably not in that order. in washington, on the other hand, and i questions i should say only in washington which has

become a disneyland when it comes to any sense reality, there are people defending the current system, the current campaign finance system on the grounds it's a great victory for free speech and a great victory for our democracy. it's the position -- it's the position of the defenders of the current system that what we need in our politics is more money, not less, that more money is going to help our politics, not less. i have never met a coloradan who thinks what's wrong with our politics is that we don't have enough money in it. in fact, they believe the reverse. them the exact opposite -- they believe the exact opposite. that's because they know our system of financing campaigns, far from being about alewis dating the truth is -- alewis dating the truth is designed to obscure the truth.

it's really good for the special interests and the occupiers of the past and really terrible for the american people and for our future. over the last several months almost every one of us at some point has lamented the senate's inability to address the big issues facing our nation, whether it's reforming our broken immigration system or creating a more competitive tax code that encourages innovation and helps produce an committee economy that lifts middle-class family mcnorth carolina again this this country, energy, education and infrastructure are left unanswered as we barely summon the votes to approve another noncontroversial judge or nominee. my colleagues, we share the pathetic distinction of being on target to becoming the least productive congress ever, ever. close readers of american history will know this is a particularly ignominious

achievement. how will it feel, mr. president, when the next history books are written to know that we managed to do even less than the do-nothing congress? that's how you acquire a congress that now has a 14% approval rating. below president nixon even had during the height of watergate. this less than do nothing congress is not just failing the american people on the big issues, we've given up on those for now around here. we're struggling to pass basic appropriation bills to keep the highway trust fund solvent over the long term. some of my colleagues in this chamber, this land of flickering lights, have argued that the tea party and obstruction are to blame. others have argued that the majority's limits on debate and floor amendments are at the root of the problem. but i think it all starts with

our broken campaign finance system, which has never been perfect, but recently has become substantially worse. first let me say when i first studied the court's most significant prior opinion on finance, the case of buckie against vallejo decided in the early 1970's, it seemed to me even then if the court had actually understood what had happened as a result of that decision they might reconsider their holding that money is speech. but by then it was abundantly clear the wealthier you are, the louder your voice and out come seemed to me at odds with the notion of one person, one vote. this isn't to say, mr. president, that we should expect to live in a country where everyone has equal speech. we could never succeed in ensuring that and we would certainly fail if we tried. but we could address unfair

practices and advantages. we could devise commonsense regulations of our campaign finance laws to make sure that our government could actually function. we could hope to lift the voices in the town square and on every street corner in the country and reward the effort of each individual american no matter what they believe, no matter who theyer, who became involved in politics to help create the future of this country. we could do that and, in fact, we did do that for decades. we we could do it until citizens united was decided when the court not only didn't whines at its holding in buckley but doubled down, holding among other things that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, an absurd proposition on its face to anyone who serves in the united states congress. also in mccutcheon, another

opinion, the supreme court held that there is -- quote -- "only one legitimate governmental interest for real estate stricting campaign finance -- restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption." that's it. it can't be regulated to do anything else. the court went ton hold that -- quote -- "spending large sums of money in connection with elections but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption, nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner influence or access to elected officials or political parties." think about that for a minute. the majority in mccutcheon doesn't believe that an individual that spends large sums of money would garner influence or access to elected officials? the court didn't think they're trying to influence our official

duties? could anyone in this chamber really conclude with this conclusion with straight face? in fact, some do agree. but there isn't a single soul in colorado who does. but to me, the more significant point is that the court failed to recognize how unlimited an undisclosed spending corruption corrupts the very act of governing. this extends far beyond the traditional notion of quid pro quo corruption. in searching pretty much in vain -- not entirely but pretty much in vain for the pitiful politician hiding cash in his icebox, the court missed the real corruption and in doing so, the looming threat of unchecked spending has led to almost complete prarl sis. the end of principled compromise on behalf of the public interest.

in his dissent in citizens united, justice stevens warned of this poe teption problem when he wrote -- quote -- "the influx of unlimited corporate money into the electoral realm also creates new opportunities, new opportunities for the mirror image of quid pro quo deals, threats, pose explicit and implicit. starting today," he wrote, "corporations with large war chests to employ on electioneereering may find democratly elected bodies becoming much more more tuned to their interests. "that's precise what i we found. inertia has become the new reality in the senate and the house. congress is now frozen by its own fear of taking on incumbent interests, whether it is our failure to address long-term deficits or create a coherent energy policy. you can see this corruption in the difficult decisions that we

avoid. it's the tough vote that we won't take. i.t. thit's the bill that we cas even in the faces urgent need. it is the deal that can't be reached. i.tit's the speech that's never made. it's the story of the "do less" than the "do nothing" congress. this corruption by its nature is difficult to approve because it is invisible. but it suets the incumbent interests just fine. the court imagined a world where people with bags of money are wandering around capitol hill and only then could you regulate it, trying to get femme do something for them. -- trying to get people to do something for them. 9090% what happens around here is people coming trying to keep from you doing something, trying to keep things the same. trying to keep the incumbent interests embedded in our tax code, in our regulatory code, and our statute book. the supreme court was silent completely on that corruption,

and i would argue that is at the core of our dysfunction as a congress. there is a reason the the function that is so hated by the people i represent coincided with an era -- with the era of these supreme court opinions. and this is why everybody in colorado continues to scratch their headheads wonder y. how we can be so -- and wonder how we can be so disconnected from their set of priorities, so decoupled from their set of priorities, what they care about four the future of their bis families and businesses and how we can come here all week and just vote on judges p. to my knowledge there are no super pacs devoted to votes on judges one way or another, which is why maybe that's what we

spent our time doing. i have a lost p for the supreme court, as i know the presiding officer does, and the separation of powers, and i know how serious it is to consider a constitutional amendment, an amendment to the constitution, which is why it should be a last, not a first, resort. but the court got it wrong when it came to the practical day-to-day operations of this united states congress and the way campaigns work, and it's decisions have unleashed -- -- leashed -- the torrent of new spending that's corroding the vibrancy of our democracy, and i think it's useful for us to take a moment to think about or consider the practical effects of these decisions. during the entire 2010 election cycle -- that's the year citizens united was decided -- super pacs spent a total of $63 million in this country. so far -- i guess we're o on

september 10 -- super pacs have spent $116 million. that's almost twice what was spent in 2010, and it is only the beginning of september. there are states where you cannot buy tv because so much tv time has been bought by these outside groups. for the three election cycles before citizens united, outside spending totaled about $^1 13 million. in in traft in the three election cycles since citizens united was decided, outside spending has totaled about $530 million. this is almost a fivefold increase in spefnedding. -- in spending. there probably are people around the country that aren't beneficiaries of this incredible speech. unfortunately, folks in colorado are, because we're a swing state, as i mentioned at the beginning. and you can't practically at this point watch anything else on your television. in 2012 the top 100 individual

donors to super pacs, the top 100 people -- people -- along with their spouses represented 1% of all individual donors to super pacs. but their donations totaled 67% of the funding and, therefore, 67% of the spending. but the spending doesn't only affect how this place works, as i mentioned earlier. it affects what we work on here. arntiondz mr. president, that's why congress has repeatedly enacted reasonable limits on campaign spending, which have largely been upheld until very, very recently, until 2010. in fact, as recently as 2003, in f.e.c. v. beaumont, the supreme court found that "any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate

political contributions goes against the current of a century -- a century -- of congressional effortses to curb corporations' potentially deleterious influentials on federal elections." court made the point that our current laws grew out of the late-19th century belief that aggregated capital "unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption." an influence that stops the work of the united states senate and the house dead in its tracks. and this concern about aggregated capital and its effect on our democracy actually goes back to the thiest days of our -- to the earliest days of our country in "the federalist," james madison wrote, "we may define a republic to be or at least may be bestow that name on a government which derives all

its powers, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the people. it is essential that suc do to a government that it be derived from the great body of its citizen, not a favored classifies it. so there is nothing un- unpresent dented about seeking to regulate campaign fend d spending. what's unprecedented is the ease by which the supreme court hondurans done decade of campaign finance laws which has led to the dysfunction higher and the misery that folks in colorado are suffering as they watch these ads. what's unprecedent the is the sheer volume of money that's flooding races. and what's unpress dented is the cumenting influence this money is having on the institution of the united states congress. impious of this unlimit world of spending, members of copping are a lot less likely to see com

than they once were and work together if they know that they may become the target of a super pac from people that are -- that can write checks that are larger than my imagination. reasonable limits on campaign spending can help address this problem. we believe for decades and decades and decades that the constitution allowed us to do that. the supreme court has now decided that we can't and we're looking at this choice. i would say also just on this point, mr. president, that notwithstanding my observations about the court, it is also true that eight of nine supreme court justices have said that disclosure requirements are constitutional, that disclosure does not require a change to the constitution, and i, for one, say at least let's pass that. republicans and democrats coming together and saying, you know what? we've always had an expectation

about the first amendment that we're going to be willing to stand up and say who you are. why do we let -- or maybe we'll just say at the end, paid for people that are so embarrassed about what they're doing that they refuse to put their actual names on this advertisement. but it seems to me that if we can be required to say, i'm senator so and so, and i paid nofor this message, we ought toe able to say that about everybody who's advertising these political ads. chapping these riewcialtion i -- changing these rules, i think would become more compromise and consensus-building to this institution but most important -- most important, above all else, it would help give individual families a greater say in the political process. we offer this amendment not as a one-size-fits-all solution but to allow congress and the states to place reasonable limits on campaign spending to experiment with what works, put away what

doesn't work, similar to the rules that had existed for decades, similar to the rules that existed when the congress actually functioned, similar to the rules that existed when democrats and republicans didn't seem to have such difficulty working across the aisle. thank you, 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:

mr. reid: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business with senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that clinton fuchs, a detailee be granted floor privileges during the duration of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this is a request by senator leahy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 480. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 480, a bill to amend the public health service act to reauthorize the emergency medical services for children program. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bills as amended be read a third time, passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 549. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 549, s. 2323, a bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5 u.s. code to provide that fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for treatment in the civil service. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? if not, without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we now proceed to calendar number 487. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 487, h.r. 1233, an act to amend chapter 22 of title 44 u.s. code properly known as the presidential records act and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the committee reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 466. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: designating the week of october 22 as national drug take-back week. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to h.j. res. 120. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 120 approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the more than 5,000 slaves and free black persons who fought for independence in the american revolution. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 5078 an act to preserve existing rights and responsible with respect to waters of the united states and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask

for a second reading and i do this to place the bill on the calendar under the provision of rule 14, but then i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the bill will be read a second time on the next day. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding rule 22 following the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s.j. res. 19 the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 544, 977, 685, 867, 976, 917, 914 and 758. that there be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or designees prior to each vote and that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations listed, that any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length, if any nomination is confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to the nomination,

any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and the president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, for the information of senators, we expect this agreement to be confirmed, these nominations to be confirmed by voice vote. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, september 11. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following that prayer and the pledge, there will be a moment of silence to pay tribute to the thousands of americans whose lives were taken on september 11, 2001. following l