Floor Statements

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the 200,000 seniors in Hawaii on Medicare--

--I vote no.

Madam President, I rise today to ask the Senate to adopt the Hirono-Donnelly amendment to protect Medicare and Medicaid. During his campaign, President-Elect Trump made the American people a promise that he will protect Medicare and Medicaid.

Today, we are giving Senate Republicans an opportunity to reaffirm this promise to the American people, but I am deeply skeptical that they will do the right thing because they are committed to repealing the Affordable Care Act. Senate Republicans fought for years to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would drastically cut Medicaid funding for the States, and the President-elect's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services is the architect of the Republican plan to privatize Medicare. The assault on the ACA is an assault on Medicare and Medicaid. Both of these programs can be dismantled through the language in the budget that Congress is debating right now.

The President-elect and congressional Republicans might be willing to break their promise to the American people. Instead, I, along with my like-minded colleagues, will do whatever we can, whenever we can, to protect these social safety net programs.

I am fighting for seniors like Anne and Lanny Bruder from Kauai. Lanny is 80 years old, but he is still working three jobs to make ends meet after losing the family home during the 2008 mortgage crisis. Anne has glaucoma and pays what she calls a ridiculous amount for eye drops. Lanny survived a heart attack and has two artificial knees.

Like many of our kupuna--or seniors--living on a fixed income, they simply could not afford the extra $6,000

a year they would be forced to pay if Republicans succeed in their effort to privatize and voucherize Medicare.

I am also fighting for young people like Anne, who walked into the Kokua Kalihi Valley Clinic 3 years ago. She had no health insurance, and she was pregnant at the age of 15. The doctors at the clinic helped Anne apply for Medicaid, which helped her afford prenatal care and gave her support to stay healthy and, very importantly, to stay in school. Medicaid helped Anne and her husband Dan, age 17, welcome a healthy baby boy named Joseph. Today Anne is a graduate of Farrington High School, works part time, and has plans to become a pediatric nurse practitioner. Anne, Dan, and Joseph now have insurance through Dan's employer.

These stories--and there are thousands of similar stories in Hawaii-- demonstrate just how important Medicare and Medicaid are to millions of people across the country. It is why we are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any cuts that would jeopardize these social safety net programs.

The Hirono-Donnelly amendment would prevent any partisan attempt to harm Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, it would block congressional Republicans from using budget reconciliation to privatize Medicare or increase eligibility standards. It would also prevent changes to Medicaid that reduce State funding from current levels.

Adopting this amendment would send a clear message to seniors and working families that Congress is serious about protecting their access to quality, affordable health care.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Hirono-Donnelly amendment.

I yield the floor to Senator Donnelly.

Madam President, I would like to reclaim the time that Democrats have to talk about the Hirono-Donnelly amendment. We are expecting some of our colleagues to be here. I see Senator Blumenthal.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for amendment No. 20. What this amendment does is to protect Medicare and Medicaid in a way that will help millions of people in our country, and it comports with President-Elect Trump's promise to protect Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. So I urge my colleagues to vote for amendment No. 20.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b) of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to pass a clean appropriations bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Listening to my friend the Senator from Utah, it is very clear that the Republicans' position on this bill that is before us today is totally dependent on their assertion that the President's recent actions on immigration are illegal. Democrats do not concur with that. In fact, I thought illegality of any actions should be determined by courts of law. What the President did recently is no different from like Presidential actions taken by Presidents Reagan and Bush, I might add. So we must fund DHS and resist the temptation to govern though manufactured crises and political games. Our national security is at stake.

Surely my colleagues remember when DHS was created in direct response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Just 11 days after 9/ 11, DHS started to take shape. President George W. Bush named Gov. Tom Ridge to lead an office to oversee and coordinate a comprehensive and national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any future attacks.

DHS's mission is to protect our homeland, as its name makes perfectly clear. DHS is responsible for border security and immigration enforcement. It is tasked with keeping our airports safe through TSA, with emergency management response through FEMA, and protecting our coasts through the Coast Guard.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I know how important the work DHS does is in keeping our Nation safe. Let's take a step back and remember why DHS was created in the first place and what their mission is. Why should we play politics with the Department that exists to protect America?

DHS's funding runs out at the end of this month. The clock is ticking. The nearly 200,000 who work for DHS do not want us spending valuable time scoring political points; they want the certainty that their important work will be funded by Congress. If the Department is not funded by the end of the month, we probably will once again resort to passing a continuing resolution to keep the Department going. A continuing resolution is only a stopgap; it is a waste of time and money.

DHS Secretary Johnson said: Operating in a stop-and-go cycle of continuing resolutions is like trying to drive a car across the country on no more than 5 gallons of gas at a time and without knowing the distance to the next gas station.

Of the nearly 200,000 DHS employees across the country, 2,000 are based in Hawaii. Nobody will get paid if DHS gets shut down. Some will be furloughed, while many others will be forced, as essential employees, to continue showing up for work without pay. We count on the Coast Guard, the TSA, Customs, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services--which are all part of the DHS--to be on the job every day.

Some of my Republican colleagues insist that before we fund the critical work of Homeland Security, we must first undo the President's commonsense immigration actions that helped millions of families across the country. The House bill before us holds DHS funding hostage to make political points against the President. This is a manufactured standoff.

The House bill attacks undocumented persons who have American-born children. Those are U.S. citizen children. The President's actions enabled these families to step out of the shadows, pass background checks, pay their taxes, and work in the open without the daily threat of deportation.

The House bill attacks DREAMers, the students who have been helped through the DACA problem for nearly 3 years. Just yesterday President Obama met with six DREAMers in the Oval Office who represent some of the very

best our country has to offer. The House bill says to these DREAMers: You, too, like the parents of U.S.-born children, should live under the daily threat of deportation. There are 600,000 DREAMers in the DACA Program throughout the country.

The House bill reverses longstanding enforcement priorities and directives that DHS has implemented. These directives tell immigration enforcement officers to focus on the bad guys rather than on the moms, the dads, and other contributing members of our communities. The House bill, in removing all administrative discretion on who should be deported, in effect says that all 12 million undocumented persons in our country can be deported. This is totally unrealistic and unnecessary.

I stand with my colleagues who are ready and willing to come together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. We did that last Congress with 68 bipartisan votes. As Republican Senator Heller said recently, the House bill that is before us ``only includes language that complicates the process of finding a solution when it comes to immigration reform.''

This House bill emphasizes a policy of mass deportation that would harm our economy, costing trillions in economic loss, not to mention the devastating impact on the people. Economists have told us that comprehensive immigration reform will provide an enormous boost to our economy, helping all workers across the country.

The House bill does not reform our system. The House bill does not help millions of students and families come out of the shadows. It does not provide more resources to our hard-working Border Patrol agents. It does not help those who have been stuck in our visa backlog for decades.

Rather than debating comprehensive immigration reform, the House has once again ducked the issue, this time holding DHS hostage so that a small minority of their colleagues can have their way. This is like ``Groundhog Day''--a repeat scenario that brings us continuing resolutions to keep government going in a stop-and-go fashion and indeed a scenario that brought us the government shutdown in 2013. We do not have to keep repeating failed scenarios. Let's bring a clean DHS funding bill to the floor. Let's get that done and then move on to a debate on comprehensive immigration reform that is long overdue.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on the important issue of funding the Department of Homeland Security and to urge my colleagues to come together and pass a clean appropriations bill with regard to this agency.

The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is charged with border security and immigration enforcement. DHS's role extends far beyond immigration. The agency is also responsible for aviation security, emergency management and response, counterterrorism, and cyber security.

Democrats and Republicans have long worked together to make sure our hard-working Federal officers on the border, in our airports, and at our ports can continue their critical work that keeps us safe.

Now the Republican-controlled House would irresponsibly risk shutting down the Department of Homeland Security to score political points over the President's immigration actions. Today I object to the effort to shut down DHS over the President's immigration Executive action because it is not only an irresponsible strategy from a security point of view, but it comes with a real cost in the everyday lives of students and parents.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire February 27. The President has been clear that he will veto any policy riders that undo his Executive action and harm millions of students and their families. The House Republican bill forces us to choose between shutting down the Department of Homeland Security or deporting children and families. This is an untenable choice.

Looking at the votes in the House, it is clear some Members of Congress would on the one hand say our immigration focus should be on securing our border, while on the other hand they risk turning off the lights at Border Patrol stations because they disagree with the President's immigration policies.

Last year I led a congressional delegation to McAllen, TX, and to Lackland Air Force Base to see the humanitarian crisis on the border firsthand. My colleagues and I were heartbroken after seeing children as young as 7 years old in Customs and Border Protection facilities.

But what we also saw were hard-working border agents doing the best they could under difficult circumstances in an already stressed immigration system. These agents should know that we in Washington are going to give them the resources they need to do their jobs, not irresponsibly shut down the Department of Homeland Security, for whom they work.

Instead of threatening to shut down the government's primary homeland security agency, we should be working together to once again pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans and Democrats agree our immigration system is broken.

With his Executive action President Obama took a step to bring millions across the country out of the shadows and keep U.S. citizens and their families together. Congressional action that puts families first is needed if we are to permanently fix our immigration system.

The President's Executive action helps millions of people across America by allowing certain students and families to register, work legally, and pay their taxes. His action is rooted in the reality that our immigration enforcement officers need to exercise discretion on whom to go after with limited resources and in a broken immigration system.

Those who oppose the President's action, which is reflected in the House Republican bill, say that the President and enforcement officers must act with absolutely no discretion. This position contemplates and, in fact, supports the removal of nearly 12 million undocumented people from our country. This is paramount to a policy of mass deportation.

If mass deportation were enacted, DHS would need an exponential increase in funding and resources. Billions in increased spending without any permanent fixes or reforms is not a viable option. Even if we somehow have the resources to enact the policy of mass deportation, doing so would devastate our economy, removing millions of hard-working people who would no longer be working, running businesses, buying our goods and products. That would lead to over $2.5 trillion of economic loss to our country in just a decade.

Mass deportation is not a serious solution for immigration reform. It simply is not possible for DHS to remove every undocumented person from this country.

Passing the House bill would just make life even harder for these people, many of whom are already some of the hardest working people in our Nation.

As I mentioned, there are nearly 12 million undocumented people living in communities across America. Many have been living here for years or decades. They are parents, they are small

business owners, and they are our neighbors and our children's classmates at school.

They are people such as Bianca, a woman who lives in Hawaii with her family. After moving to the United States on a visa over a decade ago, Bianca met her husband. They moved to the place where they had always dreamed of living--Hawaii, naturally--and began a family there.

Bianca's work visa and her husband's work visa were temporary, and like many immigrant families they faced a tough decision to remain after their visas expired and to continue building a life here in America. Bianca and her husband started with nothing. Today they have two small businesses on Oahu and four American children--children born in the United States. Their businesses employ American citizens. They pay their taxes, and they work hard to provide for their families and be engaged in the community.

Because of the President's order, Bianca and her family no longer live in fear every single day of being torn from the life they have built in Hawaii.

The House Republicans' mass deportation policy is a serious proposal in only one respect. It would result in serious, negative consequences for our economy, our government, and millions of families in our country.

In contrast, prioritizing deporting felons, not families and students, is simply common sense, and that is what the President's Executive order does.

Now is the time when we should be working together on commonsense and comprehensive immigration reform that the vast majority of Americans support. Comprehensive immigration reform is supported by 70 percent of the American people. In the past Congress, nearly 70 percent of the Senate supported our bipartisan immigration bill.

Our bipartisan bill was a compromise. It strengthened border security, modernized our system, addressed visa backlogs, and allowed millions of undocumented people to step out of the shadows, get in line, and work toward becoming American citizens. Comprehensive immigration reform would have spurred economic growth in our country by over $100 billion per year while helping to bring down the deficit.

The only thing that kept this bipartisan reform bill from becoming law was the fact that Speaker Boehner refused to give the bill an up- or-down vote in the House. Recklessly shutting down the Department of Homeland Security will not fix our broken immigration system. Undoing the President's Executive action will not fix our broken immigration system. We must work together, and we must fund the Department of Homeland Security so that they can continue to protect our country, and we must come together to pass commonsense reform that Americans support.

Both sides of the aisle agree that we are a nation of immigrants and our immigration system is broken. We don't need to shut down the Department of Homeland Security or round up and deport millions of families and individuals.

We can start that process with a clean DHS funding bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to bring one to the floor quickly.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator McCain pertaining to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, popularly referred to as the Jones Act.

I will, of course, start by saying that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, has a distinguished record of support for our men and women in the military and cares deeply about our national security, but on this amendment I respectfully disagree with our chairman.

I wish to take a few minutes this morning to remind my colleagues why the Jones Act is an essential component of our national security policy and shipbuilding is a foundational component of American manufacturing.

The Jones Act requires that our maritime vessels engaged in shipping goods between U.S. ports must meet three requirements: They must be built in the United States, at least 75-percent owned by U.S. citizens, and operated by U.S. citizens. The Jones Act helps to shore up our national security by providing reliable sealift in times of war. It ensures our ongoing viability as an ocean power by protecting American shipbuilders. As a result, the Jones Act provides solid, well-paying jobs for nearly half a million Americans from Virginia to Hawaii.

In short, the Jones Act promotes national security and American job creation. Therefore, I am unclear why some of my colleagues are opposed to this commonsense law. I don't say this simply as a Member from an island State where we depend on the reliability offered by American shippers for fresh food, energy, and other everyday goods, but I say this as a Senator who cares deeply about supporting our strong and growing middle class and creating American jobs.

First, shipbuilding is a major job-creating industry. According to the Maritime Administration, there were 107,000 people directly employed by roughly 300 shipyards across 26 States in 2013. Additionally, shipyards indirectly employed nearly 400,000 people across the country. This amendment would specifically knock out the Jones Act provision that requires that U.S.-flagged ships be built in the United States, jeopardizing good-paying, middle-class jobs. To me, that is reason enough to oppose this amendment.

Secondly, this is not the time to create the instability this amendment would directly cause. After struggling through tough times, America's shipbuilding industry is coming back. Both this Congress and the administration have long stressed the need for creating and keeping manufacturing jobs here at home in the United States. According to the Navy League, there are 15 tanker ships being built here in the United States right now and slated to join our U.S. flag fleet. These ships don't create quick-turnaround jobs but hundreds of thousands of well- paying, long-term manufacturing jobs. If these ships are not built here in U.S. shipyards by U.S. workers, where will they be built? Where will these jobs go? China? Other Asian countries? Europe? The shipbuilding industry in our country is rebounding.

Repealing the Jones Act is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of dismantling a policy that supports American jobs, Congress should be focused on doing more to promote and grow American jobs and American manufacturing.

Repealing the Jones Act's requirement to build ships here in the United States will unquestionably cost U.S. jobs and weaken our position as a manufacturing leader. Those are two strikes against the amendment.

The third and final strike is the fact that the amendment would undermine our national homeland security. The Jones Act's requirements--along with American shipbuilding and the maritime industries they underpin--provide American-built ships and crews for use by the Department of Defense in times of need. It is easy to see why the Navy and Coast Guard strongly oppose repeal of the Jones Act and all of its components.

The Defense Department has concluded:

We believe that the ability of the nation to build and

maintain a U.S. flag fleet is in the national interest, and

we also believe it is in the interest of the DOD for U.S.

shipbuilders to maintain a construction capability for

commercial vessels.

Therefore, there are three strikes against this amendment.

If adopted, the amendment would dismantle the Jones Act, costing American jobs, hurting American manufacturing, and undermining our national security. I ask my colleagues to stand with me--and I certainly ask the chair of the Armed Services Committee to change his mind on this amendment--and nearly half a million middle-class Americans and vote against this amendment if it is brought up for a vote.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the many accomplishments of my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu, my colleague from Louisiana, during her 18 years here in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Landrieu was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996. Prior to serving in the Senate, she had already served the people of her State for 16 years--first as a State legislator, and later as a State treasurer. Altogether Senator Landrieu's service to the people of Louisiana has spanned nearly 34 years of commitment to the people of Louisiana.

Mary served her constituents with utter conviction, dedication, and persistence--qualities that her colleagues in the U.S. Senate use to describe her.

However, Senator Landrieu's dedication can be described in other ways as well.

In her farewell remarks last week, Senator Landrieu discussed how faith and family helped drive her. She draws tremendous strength from her faith, and also her large and supportive family--a family that knows a thing or two about the ups and downs of politics.

Her father, Moon Landrieu, served as a judge, State representative, New Orleans city councilman and Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Her brother, Mitch Landrieu, was Louisiana's Lieutenant Governor, and both her father and brother have served as mayors of New Orleans--her father during an era of renewal, and her brother during an era of rebuilding.

Mary has clearly stepped up to the plate during the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the horrendous BP oil spill. Those are the kinds of challenges that none of us expect when we enter public life--but they are the challenges which show our communities what we are made of.

Senator Landrieu rose to both challenges. She has worked as hard as any Senator has ever worked to see that her constituents were taken care of. She has pushed hard on Federal agencies to help rebuild, and passed legislation to help with Gulf restoration. She has also fought to see that flood insurance rates remain affordable--not just for those in Louisiana, but across the country.

Her efforts have earned the respect of everyone she has worked with, and she earned the opportunity to serve as Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as well as the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. I know that the issues she championed on these two committees were important to her constituents and I admire her advocacy for jobs in her State and more opportunities for small businesses.

Of course, Senator Landrieu's work extended beyond these two committees. For years, she worked on adoption, education, conservation, and other issues that were near and dear to her heart.

All of us will miss Mary's drive, tenacity, and willingness to work with others to get things done. She will continue to be a tough and relentless fighter for Louisiana no matter what her next challenge will be.

Aloha, Mary, a hui hou, ``until we meet again.''

Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Sarah Saldana to serve as Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.

Before I proceed, I would like to thank the good Senator from Ohio for his tributary remarks regarding Jay Rockefeller, an uncommon man of the people.

Prior to supporting Ms. Saldana's nomination in the Judiciary Committee, I did have a chance to meet with her. Growing up in a large family near our southern border in Corpus Christi, TX, Ms. Saldana managed to overcome hardship and become the first Latina U.S. Attorney in Texas history.

Sarah Saldana is fully qualified to serve as ICE's Director. She is a senior Federal law enforcement official for a border State district that spans almost 100,000 miles. Ms. Saldana has been on the ground in Texas and fully understands the complexities and challenges we face with our immigration system.

Republicans and Democrats agree that our immigration system is broken. Until recently, we also agreed, Republicans and Democrats alike, that Sarah Saldana needed to be confirmed as the Director of ICE. However, now Republicans are playing politics with this nomination to a critical homeland security agency. ICE is responsible for important law enforcement issues that make us all safer and has been without a permanent Director for over a year.

ICE's 19,000 people are responsible for enforcement of our immigration laws, for drug interdiction, for fighting child exploitation, and for keeping us safe from national security threats. The Senate needs to do its job and let Sarah Saldana get to work as the permanent Director of ICE. I understand that some of my colleagues on the Republican side now oppose Sarah Saldana because of the President's Executive order on immigration.

President Obama's Executive action allows millions of fathers, mothers, and students to step out of the shadows, pass background checks, work legally, and pay their taxes. The President's action is rooted in the reality that our immigration system is broken and that we need to exercise prosecutorial discretion on who to go after with our limited resources.

As Director of ICE, it is Ms. Saldana's responsibility to focus on homeland security resources on deporting felons and other criminals who have crossed our borders. It is simply not possible for the Federal Government to remove all 11 million undocumented persons in this country.

That is another point on which most Republicans and Democrats agree. We have to prioritize the resources we have. That is what the President's order does. It prioritizes deporting felons, not families. Let me repeat that: Deporting felons, that is all we need to do, not breaking apart families. President Obama's action is grounded on precedent and Executive powers.

Every single President since Eisenhower has used Executive action to provide discretionary relief from deportation. Nonetheless, the President's critics have relentlessly attacked the legitimacy of his action. Some of my colleagues have emphasized that we must enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders in their opposition to Ms. Saldana.

Ironically, my Republican colleagues are opposing the nomination of the Director of an agency responsible for these very things: securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws. Some Republicans do not even want to fund the Department of Homeland Security at all.

Those who are concerned about immigration enforcement and border security should ask themselves: How does opposing Sarah Saldana's nomination and putting DHS funding in question make our borders more secure? How do these actions ensure effective enforcement of our laws? They do not.

If you want to truly and permanently address our broken immigration system, we need Congress to work together to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which the American people overwhelmingly support. It has been over a year since comprehensive immigration reform was passed on the Senate floor. Congress must continue working to pass commonsense, humane reform that puts families first.

As the President himself has said, Executive action does not replace congressional action. To those in Congress concerned with what he has done, we need to step up. We need to pass comprehensive reform. But in the meantime, we need to confirm Sarah Saldana so she can get on with the job at ICE.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on her nomination.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m.; that following the 2:30 p.m. votes, the clerk report Executive Calendar No. 1150, the Blinken nomination, and the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Senator Levin as his distinguished Senate career comes to a close at the end of the 113th Congress. Senator Levin has proudly represented the people of Michigan in the Senate for 36 years.

The desire to help others has been in Senator Levin's makeup long before coming to Washington. In fact, one might say it is in his DNA. He comes from a family with a distinguished record of public service. I served with his brother Sander in the House of Representatives, another truly distinguished Member of Congress. Their father served on the Michigan Corrections Commission. His uncle served as a chief judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and his cousin was a Michigan Supreme Court Judge.

Given this public service pedigree, it is no surprise that he got started in politics at an early age. He was elected class President at Detroit's Central High School. After Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School, he served as an assistant attorney general and general counsel of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. In 1969 he was elected to the Detroit City Council and in 1978 joined the Senate.

Senator Levin has served on the Armed Services Committee for as long as he has been in the Senate. His Armed Services Committee tenure has provided him the opportunity to work with 11 Secretaries of Defense, helping to ensure that our Armed Forces were ready and able to meet the national security challenges facing our Nation. He has long been a champion of the men and women of our military and their families. From visiting deployed troops far from home, to ensuring much needed training, equipment, and pay increases, and improving the delivery of benefits and services they have earned, Carl Levin has been there for our troops.

Senator Levin is also a problemsolver. In order to improve the way the Pentagon buys its weapons and to get the most out of the taxpayer dollars the government is entrusted to spend, he has worked hard to improve acquisition practices throughout his career. In this arena, he led the way in passing the Competition in Contracting Act and the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act.

I was fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee during my first 2 years in the Senate. I have been able to observe Chairman Levin firsthand as he led the committee with a steady hand in a very bipartisan manner. I have been proud to be part of two National Defense Authorization Acts--including the one this body passed last week, which bears his name--which preserve our readiness and provides for the well- being of our men and women of the armed services and their families.

Senator Levin also chairs the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he has led investigations in many critical areas, including the 2008 financial crisis, energy and food market speculation, abusive offshore tax havens, and unfair practices within the credit card industry. His investigations have led to many reforms and laws to fix these problems. In 2012, the National Journal wrote that ``the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is one of the few institutions in Congress that's still working. Carl Levin is a big reason why.''

The Senate is losing one of its giants--a voice of reason, integrity, and fairness. Michigan's working families are losing a lifelong advocate for their best interests who has really made a difference. Carl, thank you for your service to our country. I wish you, Barbara, and your entire family all the best as you move to the next chapter of your journey.

Aloha Carl, a hui hou, ``until we meet again.''

Tom Harkin

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, who is retiring this year.

Senator Harkin has served in the House and Senate for nearly 40 years. During those 40 years he has been a consistent and inspirational voice for the idea that America should be a place where everyone can succeed.

Tom's life experiences shaped who he fought for and why. His mother died when he was 10. His father never got beyond the sixth grade and suffered from black lung disease. He grew up in a tiny town in Iowa. He saw what the New Deal, Social Security, and Medicare did for his family and he saw government as a force that could lift people up and give them hope.

Last week, during his farewell remarks to this body, he said something that the progressives among us should take to heart. He said:

`` . . . I believe government must not be just an observant

bystander to life. It must be a force for good, for lifting

people up, for giving hope to the hopeless.''

Under Tom Harkin's watch, government certainly has not been a bystander.

One of his proudest accomplishments was gaining passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Tom stood with people with disabilities, one of the largest minorities in the United States, to enact historic legislation that changed the lives of millions of people. I was proud to cosponsor and support the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. His commitment to creating and expanding

opportunities for those with disabilities is a hallmark of his career.

Senator Harkin will also be remembered for his tireless leadership as the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. As chairman he worked to promote health care and education, fairness for workers, equal rights, and, above all, the American dream. He worked to fund those priorities for years on the Appropriations Committee.

These are some of Tom's signature issues. But equally important has been his work fighting injustice and human rights violations across the globe.

As a young Congressional staffer he travelled to Vietnam and uncovered torture on Con San Island, off of Vietnam. There people were being held in ``tiger cages''--5 foot by 9 foot cells dug into the ground where three to five people were held captive.

While he lost his staff job over the pictures he took, he shed light on atrocities that too many others had either ignored or covered up.

Tom's values and the results he has been able to achieve have made him a powerful moral and progressive voice for decades. Some of us were drawn to Tom during his Presidential run in 1992. I was. As a Hawaii State legislator, I supported the Senator from Iowa long before I ever had the privilege of serving with him in the Senate. In fact, when his bid for the presidency ended, some of us continued to support him, making buttons with a slogan I coined: ``Harkin for the Heck of It!''

Tom Harkin has done much to help build the ladders of opportunity that he so firmly believes is a big part of what government should do. His work inspires us to continue pushing to see that every individual in our country has an opportunity to improve his or her life for the better.

Last week in his farewell remarks, Tom noted that while he is retiring from the Senate, he is not retiring from ``the fight.'' He also gave those of us who are still here a list of unfinished business to continue the fight.

First, we have to do more to address income inequality and restack the deck so that working people have confidence that their government works on their behalf. Second, we have to work on addressing climate change. Third, we have to do more to give employment opportunities to the disabled, and finally, we have to pass the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

These are all big fights. But it speaks to Tom's passion for public service and improving access to opportunity that in his farewell remarks, he would give us a list of unfinished business.

I will miss him in the Senate. I am confident that Tom Harkin will be a prominent voice in American society for years to come.

Aloha Tom, a hui hou, or ``until we meet again.''

Jay Rockefeller

Mr. President, I also wish to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated nearly 50 years to public service. That is our retiring colleague Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

Jay Rockefeller's lifetime of service was shaped by his experience as a VISTA worker in a rural coal town in West Virginia. Jay told me that this experience was life changing, coming as he did from a very privileged background. Working day-to-day in that community, learning the hopes and fears and anxieties of the people, and seeing their struggles led to his lifelong commitment to improving the lot of working people everywhere.

In his farewell remarks to the Senate, Senator Rockefeller said that the Senate must be a ``place in which we embrace the commitment to be deliberative, passionate, and unrelenting.''

Senator Rockefeller embodied these qualities while serving the people of West Virginia. He has been a deliberative, passionate, and unrelenting champion, especially for those whose circumstances in life are the hardest.

His work on health care has impacted Americans in every corner of the United States, from the mountains of West Virginia, to my State of Hawaii. He was instrumental in the efforts to establish the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provides care to more than 8 million children across the Nation. More than 30,000 of those children who currently receive coverage for necessary primary and preventive health care are those children in my State of Hawaii.

From his Medicare Drug Savings Act to his Rebuilding America's Schools Act, Jay Rockefeller has truly been a champion for those who needed a hand up in life.

We are all aware of Jay's efforts to enhance our national security while also holding our Nation to the highest standards possible as a chairman and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His commitment to keeping America safe is met only by his commitment to ensure that our Nation's veterans get the care and benefits that they have earned and deserve. I have been privileged to serve with Jay on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Senator Rockefeller reminds us that to those upon whom fortune has smiled, there is no greater calling than to dedicate ourselves to fight hard for those struggling, for those hard working, and for those who put us here.

As Senators I hope that we heed Jay's words and in the coming Congress we work together on a bipartisan basis to collaborate and compromise on behalf of America's workers and families.

On a personal note, Jay and I had one of the best conversations recently on the Senate floor where we discovered that we were two pretty private people, some would even describe as introverts, who picked a most public of arenas, politics, to do our life's work of making a difference in the lives of those we are privileged to represent.

Thank you for your service, Senator Rockefeller. It has been an honor being your colleague and serving with you.

Aloha Jay, a hui hou, or ``until we meet again.''

Tim Johnson

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the contributions of Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who is retiring at the end of this year.

Senator Johnson has served South Dakota in the House and the Senate for nearly 28 years. He was elected to the House in 1986 and was elected to the Senate in 1996. During those 28 years, Senator Johnson has been an advocate for bipartisanship to get results in Congress. In fact, bipartisanship could be considered one of the campaign platforms that first got him elected to Congress. As he related in his farewell remarks on this floor last week, when he first ran for the House of Representatives, he told the people of South Dakota that neither party had all the answers, that both parties had good ideas, and that both parties had men and women of good will.

``My job, as I understood it, would be to work in a bipartisan manner, listening to all parties and reaching a good fit--also known as compromise.''

Twenty-eight years later, it is clear that he not only understood his job well then, but his efforts to compromise have paid big dividends for South Dakota. Over the years he has worked on a number of issues, from the farm bill, to highway funding, to flood relief and to protect South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base.

No one Senator can deliver results on their own, but by working across the aisle, Tim has not only done well for his constituents but has gained a good reputation here in the Senate. He has served in leadership positions on the Senate banking committee, which he currently chairs, as well as the Senate Appropriations, Energy and Natural Resources, and Indian Affairs Committees. On each of these committees, Senator Johnson has championed issues that are important to the people of his State but has always done so with an eye toward fairness--listening to all parties, promoting compromise, and doing what is right for working people across the country.

For these reasons, Senator Johnson is well-respected and has earned the good will of the Senate. When he was faced with the challenge of a lifetime--a brain hemorrhage in 2006--he was supported by a Senate community that set aside partisanship and political calculations. Everyone wanted to see him recover. When he returned to the Senate after months of recovery, he was welcomed by the whole community. Tim continues to be a profile in courage.

His legacy is one of compromise and collaboration--two attributes that are

critical to the functioning of this body and two attributes which we would do well to remember.

We will all miss Senator Johnson in the Senate. Aloha to him, his wife Barbara, his three children, and his six grandchildren, and a hui hou, ``until we meet again.''

Aloha.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Murthy Nomination

I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General of the United States.

In these brief remarks I will explain why I think he is a highly qualified nominee, why his age should not be a limiting factor at all, and finally why we need a Surgeon General now.

Dr. Murthy has been waiting for a vote on this nomination for months. I am glad that today the time has come to give him that vote.

I met with Dr. Murthy a little while ago and found him to be one of the most interesting and likeable people I have met--and that is saying a lot.

He has accomplished much already and has a deep commitment to giving back through his work. I found him to be a breath of fresh air.

I was particularly impressed by his work at a company he founded where he identified inefficiencies in clinical drug trials and came up with a solution. His innovative ideas will help medical treatments move to market faster. In other words, he wanted to get drugs faster to the people who needed them.

We often speak with admiration of Americans who are technologically proficient, and it is rare to find someone who is not only tech savvy, but is able to take that skill and combine it with the kind of medical training, creative mind, and ability to identify and solve real-world problems. In Dr. Murthy, we have that someone.

While there are some who feel Dr. Murthy is too young and inexperienced to be Surgeon General, anyone who has met and talked with him as I have would, I believe, come away impressed.

Dr. Murthy is not yet 40, but certainly his age has not prevented him from accomplishing many things. He is someone who has done much to solve public health challenges in his years as a physician, and well before that.

He has leadership experience through his work starting and running a public health advocacy organization and this includes founding a technology company.

He has a strong medical background and experience that demonstrates his ability to take complex health information and translate it for others--exactly what we need in a Surgeon General.

If anything, we should be doing all we can to get young, bright, committed people such as Dr. Murthy into public service.

Recently, this Nation found itself worried about Ebola. Misinformation and fear were palpable in our communities. We did not have a permanent Surgeon General to coordinate the information tsunami that descended on the American people from government and scientists. And without a Surgeon General, it has been a struggle to ensure that accurate, timely information about Ebola was disseminated to the public.

Today it is Ebola. We don't know what public health crisis will come next. We need a Surgeon General who will roll up his sleeves, survey the evidence, and take action.

Dr. Vivek Murthy has demonstrated he will be that kind of Surgeon General because he does not shy away from asking tough questions, listening, and then developing solutions that are driven by evidence.

His listening skills and his ability to engage and communicate with a broad spectrum of people, combined with his medical and business background--he also has a master's degree in business--will make him an extremely effective Surgeon General.

Think about this: We have a nominee who is not only a well-trained physician but also has business management skills and the ability to engage stakeholders--be they medical professionals, faith-based organizations, or the public at large.

He can start conversations and effect real change to improve the health of our communities, particularly in his priority areas of obesity and mental health.

Again, I found in Dr. Murthy a combination of an ability to be very creative, with the very important ability to listen; because although he has both a medical and business background, he doesn't think he knows more than everybody else. So this listening ability is very important, with the ability to solve real-world problems.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Murthy for U.S. Surgeon General.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I intend to call up H.R. 4329, the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act, but I would like to say a few words about the bill before I do. This bill reauthorizes programs that support housing for Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and American Indians.

Earlier this week, the senior Senator from Montana asked unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass S. 1352, the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. The bill would reauthorize programs that promote and support affordable housing for Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. My good friend, Mr. Lee, the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor this afternoon, objected to passing this important Senate bill, noting his objections to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

I am here on the floor today to offer an alternative--H.R. 4329. Like the Senate bill which was objected to earlier this week, this bill is a bipartisan bill. H.R. 4329 reauthorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program, and programs that provide support for housing funding for Native American veterans.

Let me note here that we know that Native Americans enlist in the military at a higher rate than other segments of this country. Of course, the House bill I am referring to supports many other good programs and, yes, including the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and the Section 184A Native Hawaiian Home Loan Guarantee Program.

We know the housing need in Indian country is staggering. Congress knew and recognized this fact when it created the broader Indian housing programs earlier to help address those needs and when it reauthorized these programs again and again.

Is the House bill perfect? I would say no. But I must applaud my good friend, Congressman Don Young of Alaska, my colleagues, Congresswomen Colleen Hanabusa and Tulsi Gabbard, and of course the bill's sponsor, Congressman Steve Pearce, for their work in crafting a bill that passed the House by voice vote. There were no Republican objections. There were no Democratic objections. To rely on an old adage, let us not allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. And this is a good bill.

Should we forget our promises and responsibilities to our indigenous population? I freely admit that we have not always been good stewards of our responsibilities, and we have not always been good friends with Indian Country. But we try, and with this bill we again are trying.

Let me now turn to address Senator Lee's specific early objections to the Senate bill. The Senator stated that he believes the blood quantum requirement in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is unconstitutional. I would say to my friend from Utah that in the context of Federal Indian law, which is applicable here, blood quantum requirements are not viewed as unconstitutional racial classifications. Instead, they demonstrate connectivity to an indigenous political entity which Congress can treat under the Indian commerce clause. It is why Congress set a blood quantum requirement of 50 percent or more for the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, a blood quantum requirement of 50 percent or more for the Indian Reorganization Act, and 25 percent or more for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Native Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives are indigenous people all, which my colleague Senator Lee acknowledges.

My colleague might argue that in the Supreme Court's decision in Rice v. Cayetano, the Court held that ``ancestry . . . is a proxy for race.'' I would respond to my colleague by saying that I was the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii at the time, serving under Ben Cayetano, who is named in the Rice v. Cayetano suit, and I had the opportunity to sit in the Supreme Court while the Rice case was being argued. That case is broadly, but often incorrectly, cited because it was quite narrow in its applicability. The Supreme Court in that case held that a State--a State--could not restrict who could vote for members of a quasi-State agency. In contrast to such State action, Congress has given wide latitude and broad deference in dealing with America's indigenous people.

So Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4329 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I object to the request for a modification.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. This bill has not been brought before the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over these issues. This bill affects fundamental constitutional rights and should be given the full deliberation of the Senate.

Legislation that grants the government the ability to strip citizenship from Americans is a serious matter raising significant constitutional issues. Again, we have not had the opportunity to fully consider and register a significant bill.

In addition, objections to this bill are detailed in two letters, both dated September 2014. The letters are from the bipartisan Constitution Project and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the successes of Hawaii's Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, GEAR UP. Next Monday, September 22 marks the beginning of National GEAR UP Week.

GEAR UP is a national program that provides grants for States to help low-income students with college preparation, enrollment, and completion.

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the University of Hawaii a 7-year GEAR-UP grant to improve college access and completion for low-income students. The P-20 Partnerships for Education manages this grant with its partners, the State Department of Education, the UH ten-campus system, and other public, nonprofit, and private entities.

Hawaii GEAR UP is helping reach the goal of having 55 percent of working age adults hold a 2- or 4-year degree by 2025. In shorthand, ``55 by `25.'' To reach this goal, GEAR UP Hawaii runs many programs to help low-income middle school and high school students focus on academic preparation, explore Early College options, learn more information about college access and financial aid, and improve college enrollment and completion.

In January of 2014, I had the chance to meet GEAR UP Hawaii students at Waipahu High School. The school's Early College High School program helps students earn college credit while still in high school.

One of the students I met was Juanito Moises, National GEAR UP Youth of the Year. He came to Hawaii from the Philipines at age 9, not speaking English. He took rigorous courses and eventually earned a 3.98 high school GPA. He will be the first in his family to attend a 4-year college, and thanks to GEAR UP he will already have English 100 out of the way.

Juanito is just one of the thousands of low-income students in Hawaii and nationwide who GEAR UP is working to serve. The program's results show that GEAR UP students are more likely to complete rigorous coursework, apply and enroll in college, and earn college degrees, when compared with other low-income students who do not have the opportunity to participate.

Since I first came to the House in 2007, I have supported Federal funding for GEAR UP program, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same.

During National GEAR UP Week, let's celebrate GEAR UP's success and continue our efforts to help Hawaii students enter and complete college.

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

Madam President, I rise today to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. It has been for over 50 years. Yet the law is one thing and the reality is quite another. Women still get paid far less than men for the same work.

Last year Hawaii News Now, a TV station in Hawaii, shared the story of a woman in Honolulu. She had been asking for a raise for over a year, to no avail. Her employers acknowledged that she was underpaid, but they didn't do anything about it. Then she found out a new male hire with less experience would be paid $5,000 more to do the same job.

She is not alone. In Hawaii a woman makes, on average, 83 cents for every dollar a man makes. While that is better than the national average, it is still not equal pay for equal work.

Research shows that the gender gap in pay begins with a woman's first job and widens from there. So when a young woman graduates and takes her place in the workplace, her starting line is already behind that of her male colleagues. That makes it harder for her to catch up, no matter how hard she works.

The women I know work incredibly hard. Many of them are heads of households and sole breadwinners, which makes the pay inequality that much tougher for them.

The gender pay gap persists even for workers with the same level of experience and education. The gap is even wider for older women.

Congress passed the Equal Pay Act over 50 years ago. As I said earlier, this is the law of the land. Yet the pay gap persists. While the gap has shrunk--not by much--women only earn 77 cents on the dollar nationally. As Senator Mikulski often says, in 50 years, women have only gained a few cents.

In 2009, I was proud to support and vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Act which President Obama signed into law. It was the very first bill he signed into law after his election. Without this law, women had only 180 days after their first discriminatory paycheck to challenge it, even if they only found out about it years and years later. After all, Lilly's employer did not announce they were discriminating against her in pay. So in her case it took many years, and she was far beyond the 180 days the Supreme Court said would be the timeframe in which she could try and get redress.

While the Lilly Ledbetter Act addressed one part of the equal pay problem, if we are going to make sure all women get a fair shot, we need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill would require employers to prove that pay gaps between men and women are based only on a business reason and not on gender.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will make it easier for workers to compare their salaries and figure out whether they are victims of discrimination. Right now, without this act, employers can still fire workers for sharing the basic information about how much they are getting paid. This bill strengthens penalties for companies that discriminate against women. It would bring class action protection for women in line with other civil rights laws.

The bill includes an exemption for small businesses and a phased-in time for businesses to learn what they are required to do.

In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help prevent pay discrimination in the first place by providing training for both management and workers. This past April 8 was Equal Pay Day. That is the day when women's earnings in this country caught up with men's earnings from the previous year. In other words, it took women 16 months to catch up with what their male counterparts were making in 12 months.

The very next day, here on the Senate floor, every single Republican Senator voted to filibuster the Paycheck Fairness Act, which failed on a procedural vote. I hope our Republican friends will reconsider their position on this important issue this time around.

This year President Obama signed an Executive order to implement parts of the Paycheck Fairness Act for Federal contractors. That is a major step forward for thousands of women. But there are millions more who are not covered by this executive action. Today in the Senate we have another chance to give the women of our country a fair shot, another chance for us to live up to a law that we passed 50 years ago.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act without delay. Fifty years is long enough to wait.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, listening to the good Senator from Texas, I feel as though I am in a parallel universe.

I rise to support S.J. Res. 19, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that ensures our democracy is for the people--for the people, not for corporations.

I am proud to cosponsor this measure. I am also proud to stand with the overwhelming majority of this country in support of restoring commonsense 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 the 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 Court's 5-to-4 majority. Under this construct that 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 have 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 floodgates 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 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 percent of Americans support overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Campaign spending is out of control, and the American people strongly support reform. Seventy-one percent believe that individual contributions should be limited, and 76 percent believe that spending by outside groups should also be limited.

The American public is clear on this issue. Only in Washington, DC, 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.

Guess what. Before the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United and McCutcheon, the First Amendment and 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 our 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 decisions 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 the American people disagree with the Supreme Court's unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment. The Court has left us with the option we are pursuing today--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 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 is made up of human beings, and as human beings they 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:

The Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense

of the American people, who have recognized a 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.

Justice Stevens has it right and so does the overwhelming majority of Americans. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all agree that the Court's ruling in Citizen's United and McCutcheon stand for something that is completely inconsistent with America's Constitution, history, and values. I say that the First Amendment was alive and well before the Citizens United and the McCutcheon decisions.

The constitutional amendment before us does not repeal anything in the Constitution; rather, it undoes the damage that five members of the Supreme Court have done to free and fair elections. By the way, money buys speech, it is not speech. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 19.

I yield the floor.