Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to start today by reading a few quotes on the issue of campaign finance reform. Here is the first one from 1987:

What we ought to do is eliminate the political action

committee contributions because those are the ones that raise

the specter of undue influence. And those can be gone

tomorrow. We can pass a bill tomorrow to take care of that

problem.

Another quote from the next year:

We Republicans have put together a responsible and

constitutional campaign reform agenda. It would restrict the

power of special interest PACs, stop the flow of all soft

money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office.

Two years later, 1990:

We would eliminate PACs altogether. It would be interesting

to see whether our colleagues on the other side of the aisle

will be willing to eliminate PACs altogether. And we would

have the money come from individuals in small and fully

disclosed amounts.

A few years later, 1997:

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what

is appropriate. These are reforms which respect the

Constitution and would enhance our democracy.

Three years later, in 2000, another quote:

We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do

is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions

and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so

that you include the major political players in America. Why

would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?

A quote from 2003:

Money is essential in politics and not something we should

feel squeamish about, provided the donations are limited and

disclosed, everyone knows who is supporting everyone else.

So, Mr. President, who did these statements come from? Tom Udall, the sponsor of the vote that we had last night? Michael Bennet from Colorado? He and Tom Udall sponsored the constitutional amendment. Did it come from them or some other Democrat?

No, that is not the case.

Let me quote a few more things:

Keep wealthy individuals from buying public office and stop

the flow of soft money and public campaign contributions and

spending should be expedited so voters can judge for

themselves what's appropriate.

Those are quotes. Did these quotes come from Bernie Sanders, who is known as being a liberal? He has been an outspoken advocate for campaign finance reform.

The author of these quotes is none other than my friend the distinguished Republican leader, the senior Senator from Kentucky. These are all his quotes word for word. The senior Senator from Kentucky has a track record of campaign finance reform spanning two decades or more. I was with him

there 25 years ago, fighting the undue influence of unlimited campaign donations. I cosponsored his 1989 constitutional amendment that would have given Congress power to enact laws regulating the amount of independent expenditures. I was there with him. But I guess times have changed. I am aware that the Republican leader has stated that his views on the matter of campaign finance have changed over the years. What a gross understatement. But as Victor Hugo wrote:

Change your opinions, but keep your principles. Change your

leaves, but keep your roots.

At one time the Republican leader was rooted in the principle that the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy public office whether for themselves or for others. Even as recently as late in 2007 he was preaching donor disclosure. What has changed in the last few years?

Over the last several years we have witnessed the Koch brothers trying to buy America, to pump untold millions into our democracy, hoping to get a government that would serve their bottom line and make them more money. The news today says they are out promoting themselves, and that is easy to do because they are worth $150 billion.

So we are watching the corrupting influence that the Republican leader foretold 27 years ago and many years thereafter before our very eyes. He switched teams. What could have possibly convinced the senior Senator from Kentucky that limitless, untraceable campaign donations aren't really that bad after all?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader's defense of the First Amendment, but the constitutional amendment before us is not about limiting free speech. My Democratic colleagues and I are trying to address the special interest money that threatens to create a government of elected officials who are beholden to a few wealthy individuals.

As the respected Justice John Paul Stevens recently told us, money is not speech. Of course it isn't, and we know that.

Last week there was a recorded speech given at the Koch brothers' secret meeting place in San Diego or thereabouts. It was a secret meeting on their political strategy. They called it a summit. They had security guards. They cleared everybody who could come. It was very delicate. You had to be the right person or they would not let you into the meeting. However, there was one person who was able to record what went on at that meeting.

One of the speakers who was recorded--no others--was a man by the name of Richard Fink, who is vice president of Koch Industries. He is a big shot with the Koch brothers. Of course the Koch brothers were there listening to his speech. He said some pretty terrible and vicious things about unemployed Americans. He basically called them lazy. He went on to say that the minimum wage leads to fascism. I am not making this up. That is what he said--fascism. He even compared minimum wage with tactics utilized by Nazi Germany and modern-day suicide bombers. That is what the Koch brothers' representative said in their presence and in the presence of a number of higher ranking Republican officials.

He has a right to say whatever he wants; that is the country we live in. But as Senators we have a responsibility to stand for constituents who are unemployed or on minimum wage, and on this side of the aisle we have done that. The American people agree with us--not just Democrats and Independents. Republicans believe there should be an increase in the minimum wage.

The Republican leader was at the summit the very day Mr. Fink made his offensive remarks. He was there. Why has he not gone on Record repudiating these vicious and unfair comments about the poor? In fact, it has been reported the Republican leader referred to the speeches given at the Koch brothers' conference that day as inspiring-- inspiring.

There are 150,000 unemployed Kentuckians. Are they leaning toward fascism? There are families in Kentucky who live on minimum wage--or try to. I don't think my friend the Republican leader views them as fascist stooges or lazy, but he should stand and repudiate what the Koch brothers, through their representatives, said at the conference he attended. If any Member of this body said as much, I have no doubt my friend would come to his constituents' immediate defense. But be careful what you say about the Koch brothers. They are very sensitive. They want that to protect their $75 billion. There are two of them, and together they are worth $150 billion. Nobody messes with them because they have money to try to buy America, and that is what they are trying to do.

Do we need campaign finance reform? Of course we do. I gave some quotes earlier, and my friend the Presiding Officer is a very smart man. As well as being a Rhodes Scholar, he graduated from one of the most famous educational institutions in the world, Stanford University. He is a pretty bright guy as a Presiding Officer. But you don't have to be a bright guy to understand the flip-flop. I don't know how else to describe it. He gave his little speech a minute ago about the First Amendment. I am not making this up. This is what the man said. The same man complaining about how the First Amendment has been violated is the same man who has sponsored basically the same legislation we are now trying to pass.

I will give some of his quotes again. Let's make sure they are spread across the Record.

What we ought to do is eliminate the political action

committee contributions, because those are the ones that

raise the specter of undue influence. And those can be gone

tomorrow. We can pass a bill tomorrow to take care of that

problem.

Here is another quote:

We Republicans have put together a responsible and

Constitutional campaign reform agenda. It would restrict the

power of special interest PACS, stop the flow of all soft

money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office.

Hallelujah. I am glad he said that.

He also said:

We would eliminate PACs altogether. It will be interesting

to see whether our colleagues--

Talking about Democrats--

on the other side of the aisle will be willing to eliminate

PACs altogether. And we would have the money come from

individuals in small and fully undisclosed amounts.

Next quote:

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what

is appropriate. These are the reforms which respect the

Constitution and would enhance our democracy.

I didn't rewrite this. This is a direct, word-for-word quote. Next:

We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do

is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions

and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so

that you include the major political players in America. Why

would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?

He also went on to say:

Money is essential in politics, and not something that we

should feel squeamish about, provided the donations are

limited and disclosed, everyone knows who's supporting

everyone else.

I repeat. The Presiding Officer is one of the smartest people we have in the entire Senate. With all due respect to the Presiding Officer, you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar or a graduate from Stanford University to understand how absolutely irrational my friend is with what he just came and said. He said this constitutional amendment is violating the First Amendment of our Constitution. I am using his remarks to state and show the importance of our amendment.

Congress and the States have the authority--or they should have the authority--to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. It is just common sense. Americans clearly believe in this amendment. The amendment would restore the authority back to Congress and the States, not to two wealthy brothers who are trying to buy America--two wealthy brothers who control most of the tar sands in the world. They have a huge oil, gas, and chemical interest. They control lots of stuff.

Today the paper said they are going to spend their millions to tell everybody what great people they are. That is all over the news today. Be aware of the Koch brothers because they have unlimited sums of money. They are going to tell you how they are all about apple pie and motherhood and great for America. They are not great for America. They are trying to buy America.

Mr. President, it is so good to see the President pro tempore and to be back in this place where we have spent a lot of years of our lives. I am glad to see everybody here ready to go so we can wrap up this double lame duck session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 471.

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. this evening. During that period of time until 5:30 p.m. Senators will be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees.

At 5:30 p.m. the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote and confirmation of a nomination to fill the vacancy in the Eleventh Circuit--Jill Pryor. Following the disposition of the Pryor nomination, there will be a rollcall vote on the nomination of Henry J. Aaron to be a member of the Social Security Advisory Board, followed by three voice votes in relation to Aaron, Cohen, and Chen.

Following disposition of these nominations, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the constitutional amendment.

Therefore, Senators should expect up to three rollcall votes after 5:30 p.m.

Senator Hollings

The President pro tempore and I served for a long time with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Fritz Hollings, who retired. Dealing with the constitutional amendment was his issue, and I can remember seeing this dignified, handsome, very articulate Senator talking about its importance. Before he left he spoke on this on many occasions. So it brings back memories--all very positive--about the good work that this man did before he left. By the way, he is still strong and vibrant, 90 years old or thereabouts, still playing tennis and as strong as we knew him when he was here.

Measures Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272

Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings as to both of these bills.

Mr. President, as the Senate returns from the State work period, we have a number of vitally important matters that require our attention. I only mention a few of them. There is a lot more than this. The matters coming out of the Judiciary Committee alone would fill this whole page and more, but we have been stopped from doing virtually everything for the last two Congresses, and so we are not getting much done. But I will mention a few of them.

We need to pass appropriations legislation to keep the government from shutting down as it has in the past because of the obstruction of the Republicans. We need to pass the extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act; we need

to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank; we need to pass the Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the House a short time ago; and we need to reconsider the issues of college affordability and equal pay for women.

But the bill before us today is Senator Udall's and Senator Bennet's constitutional amendment. The good Senators from New Mexico and Colorado have joined together on a very important issue and we are going to consider that. The first vote will be tonight.

We have had in this country a flood of very dark money coming into this Nation's political system which is threatening to tear apart the fabric of American democracy. During the 2012 Presidential campaign, outside groups spent about $1 billion. That is about as much spending as took place in the previous 10 elections combined.

Last year was a Presidential election, so the money this year is focused on the Senate and House races. They will again break all records. This spike in the amount of money being pumped into elections is not surprising, as alarming as it is. Recent decisions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases have destroyed our campaign finance laws and have left the American people with the status quo in which radical billionaires are attempting to buy our democracy.

Meanwhile, hard-working families who don't have endless funds to dump into political campaigns are expected to sit on the sidelines and watch as two brothers try to fix every election in America to their liking. And when I say every election--they are involved in elections in the State of Virginia--not for the Senate, but they are involved in that, I am sure, too--but for secretaries of State, and State legislative races in Vermont. All over the country they are spending money as if there is no end to it, and I guess with them there is no end to it.

Hard-working families, though, don't have those endless funds to dump into political campaigns. So they just sit on the sidelines and watch. When I say that Americans are watching the Koch brothers trying to influence November elections, I mean that literally.

Last week it was reported that Charles and David Koch and their political empire have funded 44,000 political ads for television so far during this election cycle--44,000. But that doesn't count money they hide in other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations' ads they helped fund. But we can identify directly Charles and David Koch with 44,000 separate 30-second TV spots.

Putting that in perspective, if for 16 days there was nothing else on television except their 44,000 ads, the 30-second ads would run for 16 consecutive days, 24 hours a day. That is 16 consecutive days, around- the-clock, 30-second political ads, and that is just from them. Imagine--16 consecutive days of nonstop political ads, no 24-hour news coverage, no ESPN, no football games, no baseball games, no SportsCenter, no reality television, no anything--just the Koch brothers' paid ads and deceitful messaging all day, everyday for more than 2 weeks. This is the political environment that the Citizens United decision has hatched. It is a society inundated by the wrath of political misgivings and I guess some of the musings of the two billionaire brothers. They are multibillionaires.

While the Kochs and other special interests are using their vast resources to make their voices heard, Americans are being systematically disenfranchised from our democracy. To say that is wrong is a gross understatement. I don't know how else to say it. Our involvement with the government should not be dependent on somebody's checkbook. The American people reject the notion that money gives billionaires, corporations or special interests a greater voice in the government than our own voice, the voice of the voters. The American voter believes, as I do, that the Constitution doesn't give corporations a vote, and it doesn't give them--because of the dollars they have--extra votes.

The only people who don't see it that way are the Republicans here in Congress. They see money as speech. In fact, the Republican leader has said: ``In our society spending is speech.''

If spending is speech, where does that leave the rest of the American people? Should their role in democracy be diminished because they are paying a mortgage and sending kids to college? Should a family hard hit by a recession--let's say they are out of work--does that mean they shouldn't have any say at the ballot box? Should families hard hit by the recession take a back seat in our government to a couple of billionaires? Right now the answer is yes.

How could everyday American families afford to have their voices heard if spending money is speech? Families cannot compete with billionaires. Rich families can't, poor families can't, working families can't. The only people that would have a vote are these megabillionaires who are trying to buy our country.

They are trying to buy America at every level of government. Why? Because they want to make more money. They control vast amounts of tar sands, oil, gas, coal, chemicals, and on and on. They want to make more money. What they have now is not enough.

So we are faced with a choice: We can keep the status quo or we can change the system and restore the fundamental principle of one American, one vote.

When I was in law school one of the classes I had sent us over to the Supreme Court to listen to an argument--Baker v. Carr. The decision was on one man, one vote; one woman, one vote. I didn't realize that when I was there listening. Frankly, I didn't really understand a lot of the talk that went on before the Supreme Court, but I came to learn later. I have been in public office now for a few years, and I can remember the first time I ran for the State legislature in Nevada. Clark County, where Las Vegas is, was really growing at the time, but they had not totally reapportioned the State. They had done a little. Clark County is only 1 of 17 counties. They had 9 incumbent assemblymen. So I ran against those 9 incumbent assemblymen. Now the assemblymen run in single districts because reapportionment has taken place because of Baker v. Carr. When I was elected in the legislature one person, one vote did not apply. They hadn't completed that work yet. So I do believe that we should be a society where one vote equals one person.

Corporations should not have a vote and dollar bills should not have a vote. But that is where we are now. We are faced with a choice: Keep the status quo or change it. Senators Udall of New Mexico and Bennet of Colorado want to change this system. Their constitutional amendment is about restoring freedom of speech for everyone in America. Whether you are a billionaire, a millionaire, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, poor, homeless--that is for whom we are fighting. It grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for Federal political campaigns.

Senators Udall and Bennet's amendment will rein in the massive spending of super PACs, which has grown exponentially since the Supreme Court's misguided decision in Citizens United. It also provides States with the authority to institute campaign spending limits at the State level, which they should have a right to do. This is common sense. It is a solution to an issue that is plaguing our political system. Yet, instead of joining with us to expel the undue influence of special interests from our government, Senate Republicans are doing their best to keep the status quo. What they are going to do, Mr. President--we are going to have a cloture vote tonight to stop debate on this, and they say: Well, great. We will go ahead and support that because we can stall.

They want us to not be able to do anything here. Remember, their whole political mantra is this: We have a Democratic President; we have a Democratic Senate. And they have done their best for the 6 years of the Obama administration to stop everything. That is what they agreed to do--stop everything. They have two goals: not allow the President to be reelected--they failed there miserably. During the first Congress of his Presidency, we had a lot of Democratic Senators so we were able to get a lot done during that time, but in the last two

they have been experts at stalling everything. That is what they are going to do again today.

But we are going to go ahead and vote on this tonight, and we are going to vote on it again Wednesday. There will be no amendments. It is not a difficult issue. You are either for campaign spending reform or not. So my Republican colleagues can stall for time. We are going to be very patient. We are going to see if there is a single Republican who believes an election in America today should be determined by how much money you have. That is what this vote is all about.

I am going to move this legislation forward regardless of any Republican obstruction because this issue is important. Simply put, this constitutional amendment is what we need to bring back sanity to elections and restore Americans' confidence in our democracy. We must overturn the status quo created by the Supreme Court and instead put in place a system that works for all Americans, not just the richest of the rich.

It is such a shame what this Republican-driven tea party has done in Congress to try to stop everything. Virtually everything is a filibuster. I do not know how much longer the American people are going to put up with it. These are artificial numbers anyway. Should not we be a democracy? We are not because everything in this Senate requires 60 votes. That is not the way of the Founding Fathers. And, of course, a number of the Founding Fathers were from the Presiding Officer's State. None from Nevada; we were not a State. But the Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves. They must be looking down at this and saying: What in the world are they doing to our country?

We must overturn the status quo. This is what the entire issue boils down to: whether our democracy, as President Lincoln said, is a ``government of the people, by the people and for the people.'' That is what Lincoln said, and we know that is what he meant--or as we have it today: a government of the rich, by the rich, and exclusively for the rich.

Is America for sale? The American people want change. They want their place in government to be protected. The constitutional amendment before the Senate protects working families. It protects Americans. It protects their voice and participation in government because our voice--not the wealth of a few--is the very essence of American democracy.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of this afternoon.

Mr. President, have we finished all of our work on the last vote?

Mr. President, we are now going to have three voice votes on nominations. There will be one more rollcall vote tonight. That is it.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 39; also, as part of that unanimous consent request, I ask that the joint resolution be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. President, I am told S. 2779 is due for its first reading.

I object to any further proceedings with regard to this matter at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning, September 9, at 10 a.m.; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, there be a period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 19 postcloture; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.; finally, that the time during any period of morning business, adjournment or recess count postcloture.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, may I say, while our good chaplain is still in the Chamber, he has such a way with words. I am so impressed with the prayer this morning, where he recognized the way to get things done--as little as it is. If we could do more, we would get more, with this good staff. So I really appreciate the prayer and the Chaplain.

I extend my appreciation for the hard work of this staff. Everyone in this room works hard, whether they are police officers or enrolling clerks. They do everything. I am really grateful for what they do to help us all look better. I wish we did more so we would look better, but that is the way it is.