Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, I wish to note that this is a treaty that has attracted a fair amount of controversy. It is a treaty that was voted on in 2012 and failed to receive the requisite two- thirds majority vote in order to be ratified in this body.

This treaty received additional consideration this year in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 22 and received a 12-to-6 vote. There are a number of our colleagues, both on and off the committee, who have concerns with this treaty, who would like the opportunity to propose amendments, along with our consideration of this document. Under the proposed unanimous consent request, we would not be allowed to propose any amendments, and we would be given 2 hours--only 2 hours--to debate it.

Given the significance of treaties, and the fact that they carry the effect of the law of the land once ratified, I think this body deserves more, certainly, than the opportunity to debate it for only 2 hours. To be precluded here from the ability to present any amendments would not be an appropriate thing for to us do.

On that basis, I object.

Mr. President, at some point today or tomorrow the Senate will hastily consider, and likely pass, a massive, hodgepodge spending bill to fund every last Department and program within our Federal Government--even those programs and those Departments we know don't work, even those programs and those Departments where we know there is a lot of abuse and misuse of sacred Federal funds. The alternative, if we can call it even an alternative at all--and the only alternative--is to deny funding for every last Department and every last program within the Federal Government--even those programs and those Departments we know are absolutely essential.

All or nothing--those are our only options, the only options we are given. We have no other choice made available to us. This is government on autopilot or, alternatively, government without an engine.

The problem is that by funding the Federal Government with a massive patchwork spending bill, we force the American people to choose between two equally bad, two equally unacceptable options: Pay for everything in government or pay for nothing at all; either fund the entire Federal Government tomorrow at exactly the same level we are funding it today or fund nothing within the Federal Government, not even to pay our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, our judges, or not even to provide care for our veterans or support for the most vulnerable among us.

This kind of all-or-nothing proposition is dysfunctional, it is antidemocratic, and it prevents Congress from doing its job, which, I remind my colleagues, is to represent the American people and to be faithful stewards of their money--of the taxpayers' money--with which they have entrusted their Congress.

During the month of August, I held a long series of townhall meetings across my State, the great State of Utah. Whether I was in Cache County in the northern end of the State or in Washington County in the opposite direction or somewhere in between, the people of Utah, Democrats and Republicans alike, were clear about what they wanted. They were clear about the fact that they were demanding action. They wanted action in Washington. Their concerns weren't always the same. Some worried most about the public lands. Others were anxious about the economy. Many, of course, were troubled by the growing crisis along our southern border.

They were all looking for answers. They were all looking for solutions from someone. Everywhere I went they asked me: What are you going to do? What are you going to do to get our economy back on track? What are you going to do to deal with many of the problems within our Federal Government that seem to go unaddressed for

far too long? I would tell them: As a matter of law and by operation of our Constitution, Members of Congress have certain tools to address all of these concerns, but none of these powers is greater than the power of the purse. This is the power to allocate money, to fund the government, to fund its operations. It is what enables Congress, and only Congress, to reform dysfunctional government.

Encompassed within the power to give money is the power, necessarily, to withhold money. In this case the power of the purse is the most potent and the most effective instrument Congress can use to hold the executive branch accountable.

So when the administration fails to follow the law, as our current administration has done so freely and so frequently, Congress can demand answers and accountability by using the power of the purse as leverage.

As several of these townhall conversations continued, in the course of those townhall conversations, I began to notice that at this point in my answer, many people began to look hopeful--hoping that perhaps something could actually get done in Washington; hoping that perhaps some of the problems within our Federal Government could be corrected, could be reined in, could be turned around and set on a better course-- but then I would have to break the bad news, and here is the bad news.

I would have to tell them all those things their representatives should be able to do and have an obligation to do--such as fixing broken government programs and ensuring the solvency of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and impeding lawless actions by the executive branch--but simply cannot get done because the Democratic leadership in the Senate insists that our Federal Government operate on autopilot.

This is the problem with the continuing resolution. When Congress has only one opportunity to exercise its power of the purse by voting for or against an all-or-nothing spending package and an all-inclusive, all-or-nothing spending bill, Congress has essentially no opportunity to exercise its power of the purse--at least not in a meaningful way, at least not in a way that enables Congress to demand accountability from Government.

In the continuing resolution we will consider tomorrow, there are several provisions that deserve their own consideration and debate, such as reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, extending the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and authorizing military action in Syria. None of these measures--and certainly not something that could put American lives at risk--should be hurried through on an all-or-nothing vote.

This is why the continuing resolution matters for everyone in this country. It is the principal reason our government is so dysfunctional and so unaccountable. A government on autopilot leaves Congress effectively paralyzed--powerless to implement meaningful government reforms and powerless to hold the President and the President's administration accountable for their actions.

This is not how government is supposed to operate. This is not how this government is ever supposed to be allowed to operate. It doesn't have to be this way. There is a better way. Indeed, as you can see on this chart, until just a few years ago, the better way was the only way. The House has done this and it is still doing it today.

Let me explain what this demonstrates right here. Freestanding appropriations bills that were passed by the Congress for fiscal year 2006--we had 11 separate individualized freestanding appropriations bills. To put that in context, that is more freestanding independent appropriations bills than Congress has enacted in all of the fiscal years ever since then--just in one year. That, of course, used to be the norm. It no longer is. In fact, lately, we are not doing any of these things.

It is important to point out that the House of Representatives still routinely passes freestanding appropriations measures. For fiscal year 2015, the upcoming fiscal year, the House of Representatives has passed seven such bills. The Senate has passed zero. Not only has the Senate passed none of its own free-standing appropriations bills, it has refused even to vote on any of the seven appropriations bills passed by the House of Representatives.

The fact is that before the Democratic leadership took control of the Senate, Congress would spend most of its time during the spring and summer of each year discussing, debating, amending, and eventually figuring out how much taxpayer money to spend and on what. Congress would consider separate spending bills, one by one, individually. Each of these bills would allocate a certain amount of money to fund the Departments, the agencies, and the programs within a certain area of government, organized by government functions such as defense, transportation, homeland security or health care.

Each spending bill originated in one of the corresponding subcommittees in the House and in the Senate. This is what we call the appropriations process. It makes sense that it would take up most of our time because as Members of Congress we have a solemn obligation to represent the people and to be faithful stewards of taxpayer money--of the money that many Americans spend many months of their lives each year just to earn so that they can send it to Washington, DC.

The American taxpayer deserves better. The American taxpayer should be able to expect more out of Congress. Instead, they have come to expect so much less.

That is how Congress used to operate, according to its own rules, according to historic precedent, and--more to the point--according to basic principles of common sense. Alas, times have changed. What Congress used to deliberate on for months, we now rush through in a single afternoon without opportunity for amendment, without opportunity for a full debate.

What used to be the subject of open and robust debate is now trivialized and treated as a mere formality, as a mere technical requirement to be dispensed with and discarded as quickly as it arrives.

The American people deserve better. Indeed, as I discovered while visiting with the people from one corner of Utah to the other, the American people demand that we do better. I think we can do better. In fact, I know we can. We have in the past. We will in the future, but we have to get the regular order appropriations process back on track.

We need to dispense, once and for all, with this mindset that says we are going to fund the government with one bill. You are going to have one opportunity to vote on any and all matters relating to the funding of the Federal Government. It is a binary choice. We fund everything at current levels or we fund nothing. We keep it running just the way it is with no opportunity for meaningful reform or we don't fund anything at all and we accept all of the heartache and all of the difficulty that goes along with this. This is wrong. It violates our laws and violates our procedures and it violates common sense.

We as a Congress have asked the American people over and over to expect less. I am here to tell each of my colleagues that it is time for the American people not to expect less. It is time for the American people to expect more. They are expecting more. They are expecting freedom. They are expecting for us to honor them by debating and discussing and voting on how we are going to spend their money.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, September 11 should always be a day when we both remember those who were tragically lost on this day in 2001 and simultaneously reaffirm our solemn resolve to our country to keep America free, to keep America strong.

I rise today for a third time in opposition to S.J. Res. 19, the majority's Orwellian attempt to amend the Bill of Rights to permit the government to decide who is allowed to speak about political matters.

Make no mistake, this is an attack on the First Amendment's single most important protection. Under our Constitution, the government never gets to be the arbiter of permissible political debate--never, not ever. That is something we decided and we finally resolved back in 1791. Of all the things the government might do, it should never, it may never, it can never be the arbiter of what constitutes permissible political speech, of who gets to criticize the government, and how. That can never happen--not in our land, not in this free land, not ever.

Yet, under this proposed constitutional amendment, the one that is being debated on the floor of the Senate right now, S.J. Res. 19, Congress and the States would be given the power not just to become this kind of arbiter, not just to regulate this kind of speech, but to potentially prohibit churches, civic associations, labor unions, and even the ACLU from speaking about political matters. That is a shocking proposal, repugnant to our traditions, dangerous to our liberty, and utterly ineffective in combating corruption.

But what is even more shocking, quite frankly, is the manner in which an amendment to our Constitution has been debated on the floor of the Senate this week.

We have to remember our Founding Fathers painstakingly debated and discussed and crafted the text of the Constitution in Philadelphia for nearly 4 months. What we know today is the Bill of Rights was not even in James Madison's first draft. The first Congress extensively debated it. It eliminated objectionable parts, changed the language to better reflect Congress's consensus, and ultimately passed it and sent it out to the States for ratification. What we have seen this week, by contrast, is nothing like that. The majority leader has refused to permit any amendments to be introduced or considered or voted upon by this body--any amendments to S.J. Res. 19. Its language is not up for discussion, nor, in truth, is it really up for debate. In fact, ironically, many of the same people who have signed their names to this legislation, who have cosponsored it, who have supported it, have refused even to come to the floor to speak about it. In fact, some of those same people have been openly critical of the fact that the Senate is devoting time to debating this constitutional amendment, which would be the first time we have ever made a change to the First Amendment, or to the Bill of Rights, since 1791.

The American people should be offended that the majority thinks this is how changes to the U.S. Constitution should be discussed by the people's elected representatives in Washington. But watching the Senate this week has been a useful lesson. The majority says Congress can be trusted somehow to impose ``reasonable'' limits and ``reasonable'' restrictions on political debate, on core political activity. Look no further than this debate occurring on the floor of this legislative body to see what the majority thinks reasonable debate looks like. What it looks like here is a take-it-or-leave-it vote with no opportunity to provide amendments, no opportunity for discussion about the intricate details of this proposal.

There was very little discussion. One of the reasons I find this distressing in this particular circumstance is we are talking about what it is that enables the American people to remain in charge of their own form of government, of their own system of laws that affects their livelihood and will affect their day-to-day operations.

When we tinker with the processes that allow the American people to remain in control of their own government, we are playing with fire. Under this proposed amendment, if it were somehow to pass by a two- thirds supermajority out of this body, if it were somehow to pass by a two-thirds supermajority out of the House of Representatives, if it were somehow to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, and if it were to become say the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it would dramatically change the balance of power, not between America's two leading political parties, not between one State versus another State but between Washington, DC, and the American people.

Under this amendment, if it were to become part of the U.S. Constitution, Congress could have the power to set up a system of rules that would restrict many Americans and their ability to influence the political debate process. Under this proposed amendment, there is of course a carve-out that says it is there to protect freedom of the press. So presumably someone who owns a newspaper could still devote a lot of money, thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars, maybe millions or even tens of millions of dollars, to promoting the candidate of her choice; that is, if she is fortunate to own a newspaper company.

But if the owner of a newspaper company could do that, why not someone who chooses not to own a newspaper company or more likely cannot afford a newspaper company but wants to enter into a contract with a newspaper company to run the political advertisement. Why should someone's ability to promote the candidate of her choice be restricted and limited on the basis of whether she owns a newspaper company? It should not and nor should the American people be prohibited from entering into voluntary associations.

Most Americans are not wealthy enough to own a newspaper company or a radio broadcasting company or a television broadcasting company, but many Americans, let's say thousands or tens of thousands at a time, could pool their resources, each of them contributing what money they choose to devote to political debate and discussion in order to promote the candidates of their choice.

Why should they lack that opportunity, the same opportunity the owner of a newspaper company has, simply because they cannot afford to own a newspaper company or a broadcast company? The fact is they should not.

The fact is there are many unanswered questions about this proposed constitutional amendment, but all of those questions relate back to how we debate issues. If the manner in which this proposed constitutional amendment is presented is any indication about what this constitutional amendment would do to debate in American society, it signals caution. It signals to us that a chill wind blows if this is the direction in which we are looking.

You see, when the power of government expands, it does so at the expense of individual freedom. When the power of government expands within the area of political speech, that is perhaps where the danger is at its greatest. That is perhaps where it comes at the greatest cost to the individual liberties of Americans because that affects not just their liberties but also their ability to control their own liberties in the future.

Because if they lack the capacity to decide who is in Washington representing them, making decisions that will dictate the future of their government, then they lack the ability to

make these changes. That is where the threat to liberty is at its greatest. That is why we should be so concerned about S.J. Res. 19. It is important for us to remember we are creative Americans not because of who we are but because of what we do. We have set in motion a sequence of events. We have adopted a Constitution, a rule book that has itself fostered the development of the greatest civilization and the strongest economy the world has ever known.

This is not because we are great so much as it is because we have made good choices. We have made good choices that delineate the proper boundaries of government. We decided what belongs to the people and what belongs to the government. Where there are appropriate actions to be taken by the government, we also set out a series of rules that decided which government may do which things. This transgresses those boundaries. This would undertake a critical breach into that realm which distinctively, unavoidably belongs to the people and not to the government.

Speech is sacred. The freedom of the press is sacred. We must never allow them to be trifled with. We must never allow them to be tampered with. We must never allow them to be weakened. This would weaken them. This is what the majority would have political debate in America look like. Here we are moments before casting a critical vote on a constitutional amendment that could forever change the political dynamics of this country that have made us strong. Yet I find myself speaking to an empty Chamber. The American people deserve better. The American people can expect more out of their government. The American people can expect freedom. This is incompatible with freedom. I would encourage each of my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 19, just as they would oppose any other effort to intrude on the sacred rights of the American people to express their political views, whether they be Republicans or Democrats or belong to some other political party.

Whether they be liberals or conservatives or whether they would describe their political ideology in some other way, this is an issue that is simply an American issue. This is an issue that is simply about freedom. The American people today will choose freedom. I hope and I pray they always will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, political speech is not on the fringes of the First Amendment, it is the core freedom of democracy. The entire point of the First Amendment is to say the government has no business telling the citizens what constitutes reasonable political speech.

Congress is not allowed to ban books. Congress is not allowed to ban magazines or pamphlets. Congress is not allowed to silence dissent. The idea behind this amendment is that government should have the power to silence criticism of the government. This amendment, referring to Senate Joint Resolution 19, is an attempt to control the words Americans speak and the ideas Americans hear. Every great movement in our democracy has been based on ideas that were at one time or another at the outset deemed unreasonable by the government. It is dangerous and it is un-American in the extreme. Under this proposed amendment, the Federal Government would have the power to decide which groups, which causes, which arguments, and ultimately which citizens would be allowed to enter the public square.

The amendment would even empower Congress to distinguish between natural individuals and artificial entities; that is, rich and powerful people will still be free to influence our government but everyone else can be barred

from coming together and pooling their resources for that very purpose.

What is an artificial entity with restricted speech rights? Churches, neighborhood associations, civic groups, single-issue organizations such as the national right to life, or NARAL, trade associations, businesses or labor unions, schools. The target of this amendment is America. Civil society. When politicians talk about outside groups, they mean outside Washington. They mean ordinary citizens coming together, rallying behind a common cause. They mean the abolition movement, the women's suffrage movement, and the labor movement, as well as the civil rights movement, antiwar movements, the pro-life movement, and the consumer rights movement. They mean citizens. That is who the authors of this amendment believe are outside intruders whose speech somehow needs to be regulated, needs to be restricted by Congress--people with ideas that are ``unreasonable,'' people such as Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson and Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The true danger of the idea is even put into the text in the section 3 carveout for the press. So wealthy individuals, those who happen to own newspapers or happen to own a television station or a radio network, do, under this proposed amendment, continue to have free speech. But the people who read and watch the media do not. Or the people who do not own those companies, do they not have the same rights? Under this proposed amendment, they would not. This is Orwellian. Under this amendment, Congress could establish a Federal ministry of truth of sorts to monitor the political speech of citizens and make sure they are reasonable, to make sure the activities in which they engage, those that are attempted to influence elections, are, in fact, reasonable.

Congress would, of course, be empowered to define what constitutes journalism, what falls within the parameters of this freedom of the press carveout so that irritating bloggers and reporters and producers could perhaps be silenced, assuming they were carved out of that definition. This provision will not guarantee equality. It will rather guarantee inequality.

It is right there in the text of the amendment. Some citizens' rights to free speech would be more equal than others under this proposed amendment. It is sometimes appealing at a surface level to start from the proposition that something such as this might be desirable to some for the simple reason that we do not want any one person or any one group of persons having a disproportionate impact on the electoral process. We do not want anyone or anything to be able to buy an election. But that misses the point. This would not solve that problem. In fact, this would make that problem worse.

Consider, for example, the fact that under this proposed amendment, as I read it, and as I think most would read it, an individual would be free to spend unlimited amounts of money, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions or tens of millions of dollars supporting the candidate of her choice if that individual happens to own a newspaper or if that individual perhaps happened to own a television company or a radio broadcast network. That would be no problem. That would be beyond the scope of this proposed amendment, because under section 3 of Senate Joint Resolution 19, it makes clear that: ``Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.''

So in light of section 3, everything else in Senate Joint Resolution 19 might either do a lot or it might do a little. It might do practically nothing or it might do practically everything.

Let me explain what I mean. Let's examine the text of the first two sections of this provision.

Section 1 says: ``To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of the government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.''

If your intent is deemed to involve influencing the outcome of an election, then you are subject to these reasonable limits. Well, what people in Congress think is reasonable might be different than what the American people think is reasonable.

Then in section 2 it says that: ``Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.''

Herein lies the problem: Getting back to our hypothetical a few minutes ago, if the idea behind this is to prevent any person or any group of persons from having too much influence over elections taking place in the United States of America, this does not do that. Depending on how broadly or how narrowly Congress chooses to define this contest of freedom of the press, which it carves out and holds harmless, this legislation might do everything or it might do nothing. Let me explain what I mean.

Most of the money that is spent by political campaigns, whether by individual candidates or by organizations attempting to influence the outcome of elections, comes in the form of disseminating a message, comes in the form of either printed material, in the form of pamphlets or the electronic equivalent of pamphlets, or it comes in the form of some type of advertising. Maybe it is an advertisement in a newspaper, maybe it is an advertisement on television. But that is where most political money ends up getting spent.

As understood by the founding generation and as understood and interpreted by the Supreme Court to this day, most of that material is protected in the sense that most of that material constitutes something that falls under the category of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press, of course, does not belong solely, does not belong exclusively, to those who have a press badge or those who are part of what has historically been considered our news media.

If, on the other hand, those who have drafted this amendment--if, on the other hand, those who would decide what laws to pass under this amendment to give it force, if they were to conclude that they wanted to more narrowly define ``press'' to include only credentialed media, perhaps newspaper reporters, perhaps newspaper reporters and radio and television reporters, then they would be significantly changing the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. They would be significantly changing the nature of freedom of the press as recognized by the Supreme Court over the last two centuries.

If, in fact, they choose to do it that way, then we would find ourselves in an awful situation in which the owner of a newspaper would be able to spend potentially millions of dollars, perhaps tens of millions, promoting the candidate of her choice simply because she owns a newspaper. But what about someone who does not own a newspaper but nonetheless wants her views to be expressed, wants to have some way of contributing to the national debate? What if there is someone out there who is really concerned, concerned about a particular issue?

Let's say there is a voter who is concerned about the PATRIOT Act and she wants to contribute to an organization, let's say the ACLU, which would, in turn, perhaps make statements to try to influence the public debate about the PATRIOT Act. This could run afoul of all of that. In fact, under the plain language of it, it likely would. In fact, the ACLU itself has expressed this concern in a letter dated June 3, 2014, to Chairman Pat Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I sit.

On page 4 of that letter, the ACLU presents the following hypothetical:

For instance, would an ACLU ad urging Members of Congress

to support Patriot Act reform, which runs shortly before the

November 2004 election, when that issue is at play in the

election, be construed as an issue ad exhorting voters to

support reform, or a covert attempt to influence voters who

oppose Members who do not support reform?

Similarly, would an ad by a group urging repeal of the

Affordable Care Act, which runs before the 2012 presidential

election, be issue advocacy or covert express advocacy?

These are questions raised by the ACLU itself.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 additional minutes to wrap up my remarks.

What all of this boils down to is that the core values, the core protections underlying the First Amendment are not just important, they are not just nice to talk about, they are at the very foundation of our representative democracy. They are at the very foundation of our Republic and how it operates. If this amendment were to pass, if this were to become part of the Constitution of the United States, Congress would become more powerful at the expense of the American people.

Ultimately this will inure to the benefit of the political establishment in Washington. It would inure to the benefit, perhaps, of two political parties but everybody else would suffer. It would be more difficult for more Americans to speak on issues that concerned them. Congress would have more power and the States would have more power to restrict the speech of the American people.

It has been said in the past that this is about restricting money, not speech. It is a little bit like saying a city ordinance prohibiting people from using either an automobile or a subway car to get to a protest rally isn't restricting their access to a protest rally or the right to participate in that protest rally.

When money is the means by which the American people can have the ability to express their concern on an issue voters are facing in an upcoming election, that should concern us all. This is an attempt to weaken the most fundamental components of our rights as U.S. citizens. I must, therefore, oppose Senate Joint Resolution 19 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President:

Attention all citizens. To assure the fairness of elections

by preventing disproportionate expression of the views of any

single powerful group, your Government has decided that the

following associations of persons shall be prohibited from

speaking or writing in support of any candidate. . . .

This is a statement that I have taken directly from a dissenting opinion issued by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in a case called Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce--a 1989 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The concern expressed in that dissenting opinion, the opening line of which I have just read, comes to mind when we review the legislation in front of this body right now, S.J. Res. 19--an attempt, a wholesale effort to repeal the First Amendment of the United States, to undo its most fundamental protections, protections that protect the right of every American to speak out on issues of public concern, to try to influence the outcome of elections, to try to dictate the course of our entire country.

Now, fortunately, this precedent that Justice Scalia was expressing concerns with was overruled. It was overruled in a case called Citizens United, which has itself become the target of S.J. Res. 19. In other words, because the Constitution has now been properly interpreted to protect the right of the American people to join together and form voluntarily associations and to use those associations to try to influence the outcome of elections, my colleagues across the aisle have decided--rather than to follow the Constitution

to change it, rather than to follow its dictates to get rid of those portions that would interfere with the power of government--this is something we cannot tolerate, this is something we cannot ignore, this is something that we must do something about, and we have to do it today.

As Justice Scalia explained in his dissent in the Austin case, this principle, this type of approach whereby we allow the government to limit the expressive capabilities of the American people, to limit the ability of the American people to form voluntarily associations and speak out on matters of public concern, is utterly contrary not only to our case law but to the text of the First Amendment, and it is inconsistent with the absolutely central proof underlying the First Amendment. The idea here is that government cannot be trusted to assure through censorship--and make no mistake, that is what this is about, censorship--the ``fairness of political debate.''

So we are here ostensibly to debate the relative merits of S.J. Res. 19, which would up end well over two centuries of understanding that there are certain things the government cannot do, that there are certain things that the government can never be trusted to, that the government cannot censor our speech, particularly our political speech. We are here to debate that, and yet among those who have introduced this legislation, among those who have sponsored this legislation, we have heard, if I am not mistaken, from only three today. We have heard only three speeches today.

This is a profound and disturbing message to the American people. We are trying to upend the cornerstone of American republican democracy, and yet we have had two speeches in support of it. This is something that ought to alarm us terribly.

I was pleased to hear moments ago from my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois. I respect the senior Senator from Illinois. He and I have worked together on a lot of pieces of legislation. We have worked together most recently on the Smarter Sentencing Act, which I think is an important bipartisan attempt to reform our Federal criminal sentencing code, which is in serious need of being reformed.

I also respect the senior Senator from Illinois for some statements he made a few years ago when another amendment had been proposed. I at least respect the approach that he took in urging caution before undertaking any effort to undo, to weaken, to undermine the Bill of Rights. Here is a statement that he made on June 26, 2006: ``The Bill of Rights has served this Nation since 1791, and with one swift blow of this ax, we are going to chop into the first amendment.'' He was concerned about that.

He was concerned also when on the same day he made a similar comment, instructive here, I think, when he noted: ``It is a matter which we will likely debate the rest of this week''--the week in which he was speaking in 2006--meaning this is an urgent matter, it is a matter of great concern to the American people when we are talking about changing the First Amendment or any component of the Bill of Rights. He continued:

The reason we are going to spend this much time on it is

because this one-page document represents a historic change

in America. If this amendment were to be ratified, it would

mark the first time in our nation's history that we would

amend the Bill of Rights [to the United States Constitution].

On the same day he also said:

It takes a great deal of audacity for anyone to step up and

suggest to change the Constitution. . . . I think we should

show a little humility around here when it comes to changing

the Constitution. So many of my colleagues are anxious to

take a roller to a Rembrandt.

I could not agree more, especially when we are talking about not just freedom of speech but core political speech, which is the subject of S.J. Res. 19. Make no mistake, the fundamental purpose, the most important objective underlying the free speech clause and the free press clause was to protect the right of the people to engage in political speech. And make no mistake, the purpose of this is to enhance Congress's power to restrict political speech. In fact, its entire purpose focuses on efforts to spend money to influence elections--the core of political speech.

Let's go back for a minute to the dissenting opinion issued by Justice Scalia in the Austin case I referenced a few minutes ago. He explained in that dissenting opinion that there are some things that we understandably do not want government to do. There are a lot of things we do in the Constitution that are all about outlining what the powers of government are. We explain what power Congress has, what power the President has. We explain further that powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the States or the people.

Then we also identify in the Bill of Rights that there are certain areas that are just out of bounds for government, areas where we do not want government to tread. This is one of those areas. As Justice Scalia explained:

The premise of our Bill of Rights . . . is that there are

some things--even some seemingly desirable things--that

government cannot be trusted to do. The very first of these

is establishing the restrictions upon speech that will assure

``fair'' political debate. The incumbent politician who says

he welcomes full and fair debate is no more to be believed

than the entrenched monopolist who says he welcomes full and

fair competition.

This is what we face here. This is the risk we face here. We are assured by the proponents of this legislation--that is, both of them, both of those who have shown up so far to speak in support of this-- that this will still allow debate to occur. Yet how are we to believe this when what they are proposing is to expand Congress's power to limit that right to participate in an open, public debate, to undertake efforts to influence the outcome of elections and thus dictate the course of an entire Nation.

Justice Scalia concluded with the thought that, as he put it:

The premise of our system is that there is no such thing as

too much speech--that the people are not foolish, but

intelligent, and will separate the wheat from the chaff.

He refutes the notion:

. . . that a healthy democratic system can survive the

legislative power to prescribe how much political speech is

too much, who may speak, and who may not.

When we try to weaken this understanding, we are playing with fire. Whenever Congress attempts to expand its power--for that matter, whenever any government attempts to expand its power--it does so inevitably at the expense of individual liberty.

Here, where it tries to expand its influence over political debate, where it purports to have the ability to expand its power over core political speech, it does so--inevitably, inescapably, unavoidably--at the expense of the free expressive rights of a free people.

This is one of the main core principles upon which our country was founded. We became a nation against a backdrop in which we found ourselves subject to a large, distant, powerful national government, one headed by a king and a parliament. Our former London-based national government recognized no boundaries around its authority. It had for centuries interfered with the right of the people to express their grievances. It had for centuries supported criminal actions against persons who engaged in what they described under their laws as seditious libel. In other words, if you criticized the government--if you criticized a government official--you could be, and presumably would be, criminally prosecuted for doing so. The truth was not a defense. In fact, truth made it even worse from the viewpoint of the government, because it was more difficult to refute. So people were routinely prosecuted for criticizing the government.

We cannot--we must not--take even one step in the direction of expanding government's authority when it comes to speech that is at the core of our political system.

Look, our political system isn't perfect. Our political system isn't something that everybody necessarily is inclined to enjoy. But our political system does keep us free, and it keeps us free only to the extent that individuals are allowed to speak their mind without fear of retribution from the government, only to the extent that individuals, rich and poor alike, are able to say what they want and join together and form voluntary associations for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections so they can have some chance at standing up to a big government that affects so many of their

rights, that affects so much of how they are going to provide for the needs of their families and their communities.

When the people are intimidated by a government that recognizes no boundaries around its authority, everyone suffers. This is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic, it is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply American.

It is time for the American people to stop simply expecting Congress to continue to expand its power at the expense of their individual liberty. It is time for the American people to stop simply expecting their rights have to bow to the interests of an all-powerful incumbency in Washington, DC. It is time for the American people to expect more. It is time for the American people to expect freedom.

We expect freedom, and we will defend freedom when we defeat Senate Joint Resolution 19.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Benji McMurray, a detailee in my office from the Federal Public Defender's Office in Salt Lake City, be granted floor privileges during the duration of the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 19.

Madam President, before I get on to my remarks regarding immigration, I wish to echo briefly the sentiments expressed by my friends, Senators Ayotte and Cruz, who spoke on the floor earlier this afternoon.

I believe the Senate should immediately take up and pass the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act--a bill that cleared the House with a bipartisan voice vote and 228 House cosponsors--instead of manufacturing a crisis with a short-term extension that will let this very popular, very bipartisan policy be taken hostage.

The situation at the border is indeed heartbreaking. Tens of thousands of single adults, families, and children have made an incredibly dangerous journey north from countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. They are leaving these countries because they offer too little opportunity and are mired in poverty and violence. No one begrudges them for wanting to find a better place to live.

Americans are compassionate and they are generous. The American people have always extended and always will extend a helping hand to every other corner of the world. And even as the number of illegal border crossings has exploded over the past year, we have treated these individuals with dignity and respect.

Today we have on our southern border a multifaceted crisis that faces the entire country. But President Obama is not interested in solving the humanitarian problem or the security problem or the legal problem or the fiscal problem. He is interested only in solving a personal political problem--avoiding blame for this crisis which he himself has created.

For years the President's clear message to the world has been that he is not interested in enforcing or fixing America's immigration laws. He is unconcerned about strengthening our border, improving our entry-exit system or bolstering the workplace verification. He has made no effort to fix our visa system so that we have an efficient process to serve immigrants trying in good faith to obey the law. He has ignored serious immigration reforms that would solve these problems.

So what has the President been doing on immigration? Systematically undermining the rule of law by ignoring the laws that are already on the books, taking action he has no authority to take, and blaming others for the consequent failures.

That is what has led us here today, considering what hypothetical actions Congress can take to address the real crisis the President has created.

But the solutions to this immediate crisis and our longer term immigration needs as well begin with the President finally enforcing the law. There is no amount of money that Congress can spend. There is no new law that can solve this crisis if the President and the leadership of his party continue down their current path.

There are several steps the President can take immediately that do not require any action by Congress or another dime from the American people.

He can stop abusing what he refers to as ``prosecutorial discretion.'' He can end the DACA program, which provides administrative amnesty and work permits to those who enter the United States illegally as minors. He can close the door to any further expansion of DACA to millions of additional adults. And he can signal his commitment to this solution by quickly returning those who entered the United States illegally to their home countries.

But by announcing to the world--the entire world--that he will not enforce laws requiring DHS to process and return those who come here unlawfully, the President is encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and adults to make this very dangerous journey to come to the United States illegally. He is encouraging families to pay coyotes controlled by drug cartels thousands of dollars to smuggle their children into the United States. That is truly the humanitarian crisis.

The President's threats to widen the scope of DACA are only going to make this crisis worse. That is why I agree with my friends Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, David Vitter, Jim Inhofe, and Mike Johanns that at the very least we must take steps to prevent the President from providing any more Executive amnesty.

I understand the desire for Members of Congress to want to pass some kind of legislation. Members want to be able to go home to their constituents over the August recess armed with talking points that suggest they have done something about the border crisis. But I would argue that the bill before the Senate today is just a distraction from the true cause of and true solution to the crisis.

Congress could send the President a bill with billions of dollars in aid and multiple policy changes, but none of these will work unless the President makes a commitment to enforce our laws and secure our southern border. Congress could do that, but none of it will work unless Congress does what needs to be done.

As with so many bills Congress takes up these days, this legislation does not solve the American people's problems; it only solves Washington's problems.

President Obama already has the authority to correct the failed policy, to restore the rule of law to our immigration system and solve the crisis on the border. He just doesn't want to, and the American people are paying the price.

One of the reasons we have a constitution of separated powers is that when Presidents try to be legislators too, they tend to be bad at both jobs. The crisis on the border is of the President's own making, and its solution is already in his own power.

I stand ready to work with the President and members of his party to craft solutions to these problems--we all do--but until President Obama enforces the laws he is sworn to administer, those solutions will remain out of reach.

For all the good intentions, all the good will, with all the compromises in the world, Congress cannot do its job until the President finally does his.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, On July 21, 2014, America lost one of her finest veterans. Lt. Gen. Marc C. Reynolds, U.S. Air Force, Retired, passed away with his family by his side after a life full of tremendous achievements and honors. I share a few of those achievements from his own recollections and from the recollections of those who knew him.

General Reynolds was not always a Utahn, although we have proudly claimed him as one for decades. He was born in Chamberlain, SD in 1928 to Morris and Ione Reynolds. He grew up during the Second World War, a time--

as we sometimes forget--of tremendous sacrifice for our entire Nation. He observed that this experience shaped his entire life.

He graduated from Chamberlain High School in 1946 and subsequently moved to Colorado, where he attended the University of Denver. In 1950, the year after his graduation, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Within 24 hours of hearing the news, Marc went to the Air Force recruitment office in downtown Denver and signed up for the aviation cadet program. He trained at Perrin and Vance Air Force bases and graduated from pilot training as a second lieutenant. He subsequently attended jet interceptor training at Moody and Tyndall Air Force bases.

All of General Reynolds' moving and training was part of the American Defense Command's initiative to build forces in response to the ever- growing threat of tyranny and oppression from the Soviet Union. In 1952, he was assigned to the 83rd Fighter-Interceptor Squadron and Hamilton Air Force Base and moved with the squadron to Paine Air Force Base.

In 1953, near the end of the Korean war, he was transferred to Okinawa, where he flew F-94Bs on fighter-interceptor missions. After the war was over, he was assigned to the 437th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron as the tactical flight commander out of Otis Air Force Base. He later became a maintenance officer with the 602nd Consolidated Maintenance Squadron, also at Otis.

General Reynolds then transitioned to reconnaissance, joining the 19th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron in Europe as flight commander. He served at various posts around the world and completed Air Command and Staff College in 1966.

During this time, war was being waged in Indochina and a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet and Chinese Communist regimes was beginning to form. General Reynolds was assigned to the 460th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing at Tan Son Nhut Air Base near Saigon in South Vietnam. He arrived on December 7, 1966. In reference to the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, he occasionally joked that it was ``a good day to go to war.''

General Reynolds' achievements and endurance during this time are remarkable. Throughout his 10-month deployment to Vietnam, he flew 230 combat missions--a majority being flown at night. He also flew many missions over North Vietnam, which was heavily defended by Viet Cong radar, antiaircraft guns, and surface-to-air missiles. Flying 10 of these missions up north would merit month off of the year-long deployment.

In an interview with KUED, he recalled his first mission in Vietnam:

I had one of these ten-mile squares that was probably 80 or 90 miles south of Saigon, so it was deep down in the south. It's flat down there with no mountains, so they put the starter guys down there, where they won't run into a mountain. I had an experienced navigator, but it was my first mission. We went down there, and we found the target area. We started running up and down these preplanned lines, and I noticed on the third line what I'd call--well, I'd seen a little bit of flak in my life, but this was obviously a .50 caliber or 20 millimeter gun. I'd see these tracers go over my head. So I did . . . three of these lines, and of course, the back-seater's got his head buried in the scope, and he's concentrating seriously on keeping the airplane in the right place in the target area. When I got the end of a line, I came around and I said, ``Hey, why don't you pull your head out of the scope a minute and take a look at what's going on up here.'' And he used immediately, a long series of four letter words to describe how he felt about what was going on, but the last thing he said is like, ``Get outta here.'' I said, ``Well, he's been here longer than I have,'' so we went back to Saigon, and we talked about it. But that was my first mission.

He subsequently served in Japan as a deputy chief of the Reconnaissance Division and then as a commander of the 16th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron. Upon his return to the United States in February 1971, he was assigned to Shaw Air Force Base, where he served as assistant deputy commander for operations in the 363rd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing. He graduated from the Naval War College in August 1973 and was subsequently assigned to Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, initially as the director of distribution and later as director of maintenance.

In July 1976 he transferred to McClellan Air Force Base, CA, as director of materiel management, Sacramento Air Logistics Center. In March 1978 he became the center's vice commander. General Reynolds moved to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in May 1980 as vice commander of the Air Force Acquisition Logistics Division and took command of the division in October 1981. In July 1983 he was appointed commander of Ogden Air Logistics Center. General Reynolds subsequently received his third star and was assigned as the vice commander of the Air Force Logistics Command at Wright-Patterson, where he served until his retirement.

General Reynolds logged over 5,200 (with 475 combat) flying hours in his career--most of which were spent in physically-taxing small fighter and reconnaissance jets. His military decorations and awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with 15 oak leaf clusters and Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters.

In this storied 36-year career, General Reynolds lived all over the world, but, according to those who knew him, one of his favorite places on earth was the Hill Aerospace Museum near Ogden, UT. After he retired from the Air Force, he became a member of the Utah Aerospace Heritage Foundation board, on which he served for 26 years. He was a driving force behind making the Hill Aerospace Museum one of the premier aviation museums in the country. He was appointed chairman of the board and served in that position for more than 20 years. General Reynolds' work in preserving Air Force history was awe-inspiring and will positively affect many generations to come.

Those who worked with General Reynolds describe his conduct and character as that of a perfect gentleman. His smile was infectious and he always treated those around him with tremendous respect and dignity. I have been told that he lifted everyone around him and was committed to excellence in all that he did.

I offer my deepest sympathies to his dear wife Ellie and to his children: Pam, Barbara, Scott, Lisa, Kristan, and Karine, and to his 15 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. I was told that the date on which he passed turned out to be a bit ironic. This great patriot- statesman had a weakness, which I am sure many of us share, in that he had trouble remembering his and Ellie's anniversary date. However, in what seems to be coincidence, may have been an act of providence: Marc was able to show his love on this last mortal anniversary by his determination to hold on just one-half hour into the day of their 30th anniversary before passing. Whatever the case may be, the timing offers a sweet thought.

I praise Lieutenant General Reynolds' life as an example to all Americans. I pray that we constantly remember those who serve, who have served, and who have given all that we might maintain our rights and enjoy the blessings of liberty. As citizens of a nation made great by those who serve her, like Lieutenant General Reynolds, it is our duty to honor those who have gone before by living our lives with excellence today.

Mr. President, I would like to address another issue connected to this debate. Before I do so, I would yield a moment of my time to my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I can call up my amendment No. 3584, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are here today because our Federal highway policy status quo is not working, and it hasn't been working for a long time. This is the sixth time American taxpayers have been asked to bail out the highway trust fund since 2008--the sixth time since 2008.

None of those patches, $52 billion worth of bailouts in 7 years, fixed the problem, and neither will the $10.8 billion authorized by the bill that is before us today. It will buy us only a few months before we are right back in the same place once again, the same place where we are now.

Indeed, this debate is itself the dysfunction of Washington, DC, in miniature. Here--as in health care, higher education, assistance for the poor, energy, and so many other areas--the Federal Government has created a permanent structural problem, and it responds with duct tape. Worse, this bill solves only Washington problems, only the problems of Washington, DC, not those of the American people.

Under the broken status quo this bill not only protects but also extends, in 6 months--and in 6 years--our roads will still remain congested. Too many single moms will still live on a knife's edge trying to make it to their second jobs all the way across town. Too many dads will still have to leave for work before breakfast just to make it to their job and then do the same thing again as they try to make it home for dinner. Children will still look in vain into the empty seats at their piano recitals and at their Little League games. Commuters will still squeeze onto overcrowded subway cars, hold their breath, and hope they don't break down again. Young families will still be unfairly priced out of neighborhoods near the best jobs and the best schools, and diverse communities will still be subject to the monotonous inefficiency of an outmoded Federal bureaucracy.

But it doesn't have to be this way. There is a better way. The Interstate Highway System is one of the greatest achievements not only in the history of the Federal Government but in all of American history. It unified a sprawling continental nation by investing in our common destiny. It simultaneously met the economic, social, cultural, and security needs of an emerging superpower. It was and it remains a wonder of American innovation and self-government.

More than that, the Interstate Highway System was the daring, audacious work of a young nation literally on the move, bristling with confidence in its future and in its people. With the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Congress threw off the yoke of the status quo and it met the emerging needs of a new generation.

Yet today, some 58 years later, in a new century with new needs, new technologies, and a new economy, Congress anxiously clings to that exact same policy like some kind of a tattered security blanket.

Six decades ago, Federal highway policy represented a triumph of imagination. Today, our refusal to modernize that same policy represents a failure of imagination. So we are here with the duct tape and WD-40 trying to keep this 20th century bureaucracy in place, rather than embracing the worthy challenge of building a new mobility policy, one that is well suited for the 21st century. That is exactly what my amendment, the Transportation Empowerment Act, would do.

In 1956, it made sense for the Federal Government to collect the majority of gas taxes from around the country and then coordinate the construction of a national system. We needed it. But with the interstate system now largely complete and most transportation issues that we see today existing at the local level, there is no longer the same need for Washington to serve as the central coordinator. We have become an intrusive middleman. We need to refocus the Federal Government solely on interstate priorities and to empower a diverse, flexible, open-source transportation network controlled by the States.

My amendment would empower States and communities to customize their own infrastructure according to their own needs, their own values, and their own imagination.

It would, over 5 years, gradually transfer funding and spending authority over local transportation infrastructure projects to the States.

Today the Federal gasoline tax stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. My amendment would lower it by 2019 to 3.7 cents per gallon.

In the interim, we would gradually send States more of their allotment without strings to prepare them for the eventual transfer of this differential. After this gradual transition, Congress would retain enough revenue to continue to maintain the Interstate Highway System, which rightfully, properly remains a Federal priority and a core competence of our government at a national level, but States and communities would be newly empowered to launch a new era of local investment and local innovation.

The idea behind this plan is not only that there is a better way to improve America's infrastructure, there are 50 better ways and even thousands of better ways. In our increasingly decentralized world, there are as many ideal transportation policies as there are communities across this great country.

Washington is standing in the way, imposing obsolete conformity on a vibrant, diverse society. For if we truly love local transportation infrastructure--and who doesn't--we should set it free.

Under the Transportation Empowerment Act, Americans could finally enjoy the local infrastructure they want. More environmentally conscious States and towns could finally have the flexibility to invest in more green transit projects and bike lanes. Regions reaping the benefits of America's recent energy renaissance could accelerate their own infrastructure and their own buildouts to keep up with their explosive growth. Dense cities could invest in more sustainable public transit networks. Meanwhile, surrounding counties could reopen the frontiers of the suburbs to a new generation of far more livable communities. State and local governments will also be free to experiment with innovative funding mechanisms not necessarily tied to the unreliable, unpredictable, gasoline tax. By cutting out the Washington middlemen, all of those States, communities, and taxpayers will be able to get more for less.

My amendment would not reduce America's investment in infrastructure any more than Uber reduces America's investment in car services. In the real world, value is not a cost. Rather, my plan would empower a nation hungry for greater mobility to spend its infrastructure dollars on steel and on concrete instead of on bureaucracy and special interests.

Some of my colleagues oppose this plan. Some will offer Washington's eternal promise. The status quo will work, it just needs more money. That is all it needs, and it will work. The Federal gasoline tax has not changed since 1994, they will say. We are starving the trust fund, they will add.

But it is not true--at least it is an inaccurate and incomplete picture. For in the 12 years prior to 1994, the gasoline tax skyrocketed by an alarming 460 percent from 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 cents per gallon.

Put another way, since 1982, the Federal gasoline tax has grown by an equivalent of 6.1 percent per year. Chasing ever more money will not solve this problem. That is what we have been doing, and the bill before us today is incontrovertible proof that it hasn't worked.

Others argue that reducing Washington's role in local transportation would invite economic and infrastructural catastrophe. This makes two very peculiar assumptions.

First, it assumes that Washington is uniquely competent in the area of local transportation, even as a long train of abusive boondoggles and bridges to nowhere tell us exactly the opposite.

Even more bizarrely, this argument assumes that the 50 States of our exceptional Republic, many of which would rank among the wealthiest nations in the world on their own, are unstable banana republics nursing the development of primitive hunter-gatherer societies whose only transportation services involve the clearing of woodland paths for their pig-drawn carts.

State and local governments already pay for 75 percent of all surface transportation infrastructure projects in this country.

In my home State of Utah, one of the best run in the country, only 20 percent of our transportation money comes from Washington. The other 80 percent we raise ourselves. Of course, we raise most of that 20 percent too. It is just that under the broken status quo, Washington middlemen take their cut before sending that back to us.

Why not just leave that extra 25 percent to the States and communities who need and use it in the first place?

The States already own and maintain the highways and local transit projects that are inherently local. So why not let the Federal Government focus on interstates and let Oregonians plan, finance, and build their bike paths; San Franciscans their green energy transit experiments; and Texans their eight-lane expressways, in their own way, tailored to their local needs and their own local values? All we add to the process in Washington, DC, is unnecessary overhead and self- congratulating press releases, trying to take credit for it all.

Finally, many who admit that the status quo is unsustainable nonetheless support it because they believe their particular State benefits by receiving more money back from the highway trust fund than it puts in. Washington perpetuates the myth that transportation money is free, especially for these so-called net donee States. But as in every other middleman arrangement, the status quo policy ensures that States actually get less value back than they should.

Federal regulatory strings not only make infrastructure projects unnecessarily expensive, they specifically divert resources away from actual infrastructure and waste it on special interests and bureaucratic redtape.

The Federal Davis-Bacon Act, for instance, costs States an additional 10 cents for every single dollar they spend on infrastructure construction projects.

Numerous regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act--or NEPA, as it is frequently called--collectively cost State governments an additional 9 cents on the dollar. No wonder the trust fund needs to be bailed out every year. Washington is charging taxpayers a 20-percent processing fee off the top.

I encourage my colleagues to work out the math for their own States.

But for Utah, that means that of the $335 million we receive annually from the highway trust fund, nearly $64 million goes to political overhead instead of steel and concrete.

Everything in our economy and our society today is moving away from rigid, centralized, bureaucratic control and toward flexible, open- sourced community and individual empowerment. This is a simple question of old versus new, of bold versus unimaginative.

The Interstate Highway System met a crucial need in its time and represented a wonder of innovation, but so did Borders bookstores at one time, so did Blockbuster Video at one time, so did record stores, and so did rotary telephones.

America still needs books, movies, music, and communication, and it still gets those things. Today those goods are just delivered more efficiently, more affordably, through flexible models customized to the needs of individual customers. In the very same way Americans still need highways, bridges, subways, and bike paths. Indeed, we need them now more than ever, but Federal policy hasn't kept up with the times. That is why, even without my amendment, more than 30 States have begun or are considering their own transportation modernization programs.

This is just one more piece of evidence that the transportation renaissance America needs is one that our centralized bureaucratic status quo cannot deliver--not with another $10.8 billion or 10 times as much.

After six decades and historic successes, the time has come for a new Federal transportation policy--one that taps the creativity of our diverse Nation. Today, Americans are unnecessarily stuck in traffic, stuck in overcrowded subway cars, missing their kids' games and recitals, priced out of neighborhoods close to their jobs, and they spend almost a full 40-hour workweek per year stuck in gridlock. They deserve better than what Washington is offering--which is just the status quo, plus a little more money. A new era demands a new approach.

The Interstate Highway System is a success, and the people who created it deserve our great admiration and gratitude. But the way to honor their legacy is to stop imitating them and start emulating them by investing in an innovative transportation network for our own era, just as they did for theirs. Just as it was in 1956, the status quo is once again no longer good enough. We need to transcend it.

The future of America's mobility is not a rigid, monolithic, centralized bureaucracy frozen in amber; it is a flexible, organic, open-sourced network of empowered individuals and communities as diverse as the Nation itself.

My amendment would empower Americans to start to build that future together, and I respectfully ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I strongly, respectfully disagree with the characterization my distinguished colleague from California has made suggesting that this somehow represents an 80-

percent cut in the transportation funding. That simply is not true. The idea here is to transfer both the revenue collection authority and the spending authority back to where most of it belongs, which is at the State and the local level.

There isn't a State in the Union that wants to do away with transportation infrastructure spending. Quite to the contrary, our States and localities and those who assist the contractors, who provide the services, provide the gravel and other materials that go into these roads and bridges and transit projects--they want to get to work, but they want to put this money into steel and concrete in the ground rather than spending so much of it on lobbying, rather than spending so much of it on things that have nothing to do with steel and concrete in the ground.

I also wish to refer to something my colleague said with regard to the fact that it costs money to maintain the Interstate Highway System. I absolutely agree--I could not agree more--which is exactly why I wrote this amendment so as to retain a 3.7-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax that would be collected and spent better to make sure we would maintain the Interstate Highway System. That is exactly what we do.

A reference was made to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, expressing remorse over the fact that he is not here with us at this moment to have a discussion and wondering what he would say about it. To respond to my colleague's point, Senator Inhofe has voted for this provision in the past. In fact, in the past Senator Inhofe himself has introduced a version of this very piece of legislation.

My colleague also referred to groups that happen to oppose this legislation. I would encourage those groups to learn more about it and also point out that there are lots of groups that support my legislation, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action, Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Freedom, Freedom Works, and the list goes on and on.

It is also important to remember that our Federal gasoline tax did increase substantially between 1992 and 1994, increased from just 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 cents per gallon. During that time period we were told that if the gasoline tax was increased at the Federal level, we would be backing up the highway trust fund, that we would make sure it was secure.

Did that happen? No. What happened instead was the Federal Government overreached. The Federal Government started getting more and more involved in surface streets and things that have nothing to do with our Interstate Highway System. That is why we are here today.

I therefore yield back the floor.

Madam President, the amendment we are about to consider would empower States to collect and spend on the transportation infrastructure they need. We have a desperate need within our transportation infrastructure system that is not being satisfied by our current Federal system, one that has been bloated over the years and has centralized too much power within Washington, DC. This has resulted in gridlock within our transportation infrastructure projects. We increased the Federal gasoline tax by 460 percent between 1982 and 1994. Instead of using that to back up and secure the Federal highway trust fund, we instead overreached. We instead expanded dramatically the power of the Federal Government and the expenses we incur.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this measure which would reempower States and move our interests further in the 21st century.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Bryson Bachman, who has served as a critical member of my staff for nearly 3 years, and as my chief counsel for the past year.

Bryson Bachman is an extraordinary judicial talent. His legal pedigree began at Harvard Law School and continued in his clerkship with the Honorable Thomas B. Griffith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and later as an associate at Sidley Austin. Bryson's talent and contribution do not come solely from his impressive background and experience but from his personal commitment to making a difference and adding value in everything he does.

I have valued and benefited greatly from his deep understanding of the law and his ability to approach each issue in a thoughtful, respectful and insightful way. Above all I have come to admire and trust him as a person of unmatched integrity. As a member of the judiciary committee Bryson's assistance and guidance have been invaluable. When he briefs an issue I know he has done the often unseen and unrecognized work of truly understanding the issue from all angles. His willingness to do the heavy mental lifting on a wide range of issues always provided me great confidence going into important judiciary hearings or voting on difficult legislation.

The test of a great leader and a great lawyer is not found simply by what they do in a given role, but more importantly, how they do it. Some walk into a room and people recognize them as the smartest person in the room. True leaders, such as Bryson Bachman, walk into that same room, as the smartest person in the room, but leave everyone in the room feeling smarter and better as a result of how the dialogue and discussion were fostered. Creating space for every member of the team to participate in and contribute to a discussion, while still driving the most salient points to consider and evaluating an array of scenarios, is the hallmark of Bryson's time as a member of my staff.

Bryson will be sorely missed in our office but we wish him, his wife Destiny and son Hamilton continued success in their next season of life and work. This Congressional Record is but a small note in history of Bryson Bachman's impact on the important work done in the Senate. However, his more important work and longer lasting impact is found in the imprint he has made on the hearts and minds of those with whom he has worked. I count myself as one of those deeply influenced by Bryson. I admire him for his talent, I acknowledge him for his loyal service and thank him for his friendship.

First, I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor of this legislation. As the lead cosponsor of this bill, I attest to the fact that this is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic, it is neither liberal nor conservative, it is simply American.

It is a fundamental concept of liberty that we have to control the government. The government and the immense power of government has expanded over time with advances in technology. Our country certainly has changed to an enormous degree over the centuries since James Madison penned our Bill of Rights. But the protection of liberty afforded by the Fourth Amendment has only become more important, not less important, as the government's ability to collect information has advanced.

This legislation, which has broad-based bipartisan support, is absolutely necessary. It can be implemented in a way that will still allow the government to protect us. It will also protect us from the risk of overreach by the government.

We have to remember it is not just the government that we have in place today, even if we assume, for purposes of this discussion, that everyone who works for the government, every government agent who participates in the collection of this information is doing what is right. We can't always assume that will be the case in the future.

I see my time has expired. I once again thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, for his sponsorship of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

First, I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him as a cosponsor of this legislation. As the lead cosponsor of this bill, I attest to the fact that this is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic, it is neither liberal nor conservative, it is simply American.

It is a fundamental concept of liberty that we have to control the government. The government and the immense power of government has expanded over time with advances in technology. Our country certainly has changed to an enormous degree over the centuries since James Madison penned our Bill of Rights. But the protection of liberty afforded by the Fourth Amendment has only become more important, not less important, as the government's ability to collect information has advanced.

This legislation, which has broad-based bipartisan support, is absolutely necessary. It can be implemented in a way that will still allow the government to protect us. It will also protect us from the risk of overreach by the government.

We have to remember it is not just the government that we have in place today, even if we assume, for purposes of this discussion, that everyone who works for the government, every government agent who participates in the collection of this information is doing what is right. We can't always assume that will be the case in the future.

I see my time has expired. I once again thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, for his sponsorship of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a great Utahn and patriot, Lance Howard Turner. Lance passed from this life on Monday last, and his family and friends will dearly miss him.

There is a beautiful painting hanging on the wall of the Rex E. Lee conference room in my office. It is a painting of a majestic landscape in the Southwestern portion of United States painted by Lance Turner. This painting shows the beauty of the land that he loved so dearly and demonstrates the mastery developed over a lifetime of hard work.

During his career, Lance was able to take part in and lead many successful programs. One such program, well known to all, involves a talking bear that helps campers keep our forests safe. In 2009, KSL, a Utah news station, ran a story on Lance, who was the art director at Foote, Cone & Belding in the 1950s. Lance was tasked with marketing the newly created Smokey Bear, whose mission was to reduce manmade forest fires. The campaign was a success and remains the longest running PSA campaign in our country's history. Smokey Bear also remains a highly recognized American character and continues his original mission of encouraging fire safety.

More important than any success in his professional life, Lance was a good husband and father who, according to his children, was always willing to share the wisdom he had gained through a life of service. He was a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and made sure to always take care of those in need. He loved to hunt pheasants and had a deep love for this country.

I offer my heartfelt condolences to his children, Heidi, Josh, Chip, and Matt, and his 14 grandchildren and 22 grandchildren. I know his legacy will shine brightly through their examples of faith and patriotism. Happily, Lance leaves this life to reunite with his sweetheart Marilyn. The thought of such a joyous reunion reminds me of an old but dear hymn by Katharina von Schlegel. I close with touching words of the third verse: ``Be still, my soul: The hour is hast'ning on, When we shall be forever with the Lord, When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone, Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.

Be still, my soul: When change and tears are past, All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.''

Mr. President, the most extraordinary feature of the bill before us today is the incongruity between the bill's title and its content. The title, the ``Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act,'' is clear and straightforward. It suggests the bill is aimed at the important and worthy goal of protecting women's health. But the text of the bill plainly demonstrates that the bill's true objective is to circumscribe Americans' religious freedoms--the religious liberties of individual Americans--within the narrow confines of the Democratic Party's partisan agenda and the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

While maintaining the appearance of preserving all of the current legal protections of religious freedom in America today, this proposal quietly adds to them a subtle yet deeply problematic and inappropriate qualification. The Federal Government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion until the Federal Government decides that it wants to do so. Under this bill, your religious liberties stop at the doorstep of the Democratic National Committee.

So I rise today in opposition to this bill because it doesn't do anything to protect women's health and it does much to undermine the bulwarks of religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution that have made America the most religiously diverse and tolerant Nation in human history.

Although this proposal is only the latest maneuver attempted by my Democratic colleagues to assert their power and restrict religious freedom in America, it also represents the culmination, at least for now, of their opposition to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

On June 30 of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government may not force closely held businesses to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs in order to comply with the contraceptive mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This decision has received a great deal of attention, but it has received this attention for all the wrong reasons.

Contrary to what many critics have suggested, the Hobby Lobby decision did not promulgate national health care policy nor did it render any opinion on the virtues of contraception and religious faith. No, the issue in Hobby Lobby involved not a dispute of competing rights but a straightforward application of plainly written law.

As the Constitution states in Article III, Section 2, the role of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate legal disputes by hearing ``cases and controversies'' that arise when two laws or two parties come into conflict.

In Hobby Lobby, the two laws in dispute were the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, and a Federal mandate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, acting under the powers delegated to it by the Affordable Care Act.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA as it is sometimes called, reaffirmed Americans' commitment to the fundamental religious liberty already protected by our Constitution.

With RFRA, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, in cooperation with Republican minorities in both Houses, declared that when the Federal Government seeks to infringe on Americans' religious liberty, it must clear two thresholds. First, it must show that the law in question serves a compelling State interest. Secondly, if it does, the law must do so by the least restrictive means possible.

Given that the government openly acknowledged that there was a significant number of far less intrusive means to ensure affordable access to the drugs at issue, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that the contraception mandate violated RFRA.

However unwarranted, the overheated response to the Hobby Lobby decision among some ideological extremists on the left has led some of my colleagues to introduce a bill that would not simply overturn that modest and narrow decision but fundamentally rewrite America's social contract as it pertains to matters of personal conscience.

Whereas, the Court's ruling was limited to ``closely held'' for- profit companies such as Hobby Lobby, this bill would empower the Federal Government to coerce employers of all faiths and of no faith into violating their deepest personal convictions. It would deny any employer--devout or secular, individual or corporate, for-profit or nonprofit--conscience protection under RFRA against all present and future government mandates.

Perhaps most troubling is the warped theory of rights underlying the text of this bill. This theory holds that the American people possess constitutional and legal rights only when acting alone but not when acting in a group. These rights, along with any duties one may hold as a person of faith, must be forfeited whenever acting in association with others, on penalty of fines to be paid to the Federal Government.

This view of religious liberty might be summarized as an amendment to Matthew, chapter 18, verse 20: For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there is the IRS in the midst of them.

This view is extreme. It is out of touch with the Constitution, with commonsense, and with America's heroic history of religious tolerance.

From our earliest days as a country, one of the sources of our strength as a people and one of the reasons for our success as a nation has been our robust understanding of religious liberty. The breadth and depth of that conception has allowed and encouraged people of all faiths and all traditions to live here in friendship and in cooperation with one another.

As two members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom put it:

. . . respect for the flourishing of people requires

respect for their freedom--as individuals and together with

others in community--to address the deepest questions of

human existence and meaning. This allows them to lead lives

of authenticity and integrity by fulfilling what they

conscientiously believe to be their religious and moral

duties. . . . It also includes the right to witness to one's

beliefs in public as well as private, and to act--while

respecting the equal right of others to do the same--on one's

religiously inspired convictions in carrying out the duties

of citizenship.

Expanding as wide as possible the space in which all people can witness their faith alongside one another has for two centuries elevated, enriched, and united American society. This robust conception of religious liberty was so essential to American unity that not only did the Founding generation reinforce its protection in a Bill of Rights--which many Framers actually thought was redundant--but it was the first freedom articulated in the First Amendment.

They understood, as most Americans still do, that the proper role of government is not to define people's happiness but to protect all individuals' equal rights, to pursue happiness according to their own hopes and values and conscience.

Yet for all its legal and constitutional protections, America's exceptional tradition of religious toleration rests ultimately on the uniquely American principle of equal dignity and respect for all women and all men, not simply as ``fellow passengers en route to the grave'' but as fellow pilgrims in search of their own promised land.

The authors of this bill know all of this. They know the American people reject their intolerance of diversity and indifference to the First Amendment. We know their bill cannot become law. Indeed, we know this for a fact because if the regulations they support were actually written in the law, ObamaCare itself would never have passed. It was slipped in after the fact by bureaucrats who are not subject to public accountability and never stand for election.

This legislation is more than an insult to the people it would target; it is

an embarrassment to the party leadership that has embraced it.

I still hold fast to that principle and to the freedom it preserves and thus strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3380 to amendment No. 3378.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, Federal job training programs are seldom evaluated to determine whether they are meeting their intended purposes.

However, when the United States is $17.5 trillion in debt, we as representatives of the American taxpayers should do a better job to ensure that the programs we are funding are actually working and we are working with them.

We should pay particularly close attention to programs that receive billions of dollars every year from the Federal Government when their authorization lapsed over one decade ago.

The Murray-Isakson-Harkin-Alexander substitute amendment takes important steps to ensure title I State and local programs are more accurately evaluated, meaning performance measures and held accountable for unmet goals and resubmitted reports.

More specifically, the bill would sanction State and local programs should they continually fail to meet their performance measures or fail to submit required reports. The substitute amendment does not hold the Department of Labor to similar standards.

The Department is required to conduct evaluations and to submit separate reports to Congress. I was very pleased to work with Senators Alexander and Harkin to include in the managers' amendment a provision that would require the final evaluation reports to be made public and available

to the public. In my opinion, requiring the Department to post these reports to the Department's Web site is a commonsense step toward improving transparency in the WIOA job training programs.

In addition, I worked closely with the HELP Committee chairman and ranking member to further discuss a procurement provision within the Job Corps section of the bill. While I believe there are still some outstanding concerns that we should continue to discuss, I believe everyone's goal is to ensure that the best Job Corps operators are able to compete for these sites.

Today I would like to offer an additional good governance measure that would subject the Department of Labor to similar sanctions as the States. It would help tackle the problem of the Department of Labor delaying congressionally mandated evaluations, which routinely has been abused by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

It is a shame that Congress passing a law requiring the completion of an evaluation by a certain date is not enough to get the job done. My amendment would remedy this problem by reducing the budget of the Department of Labor's Office of the Secretary by 5 percent in the year a report is due, should the agency fail to conduct and release the independent evaluation as required by this bill. This reduction of funds would continue each year until the report is finalized.

WIOA authorizes $9 billion each year for the next 5 years, and title I represents half of that funding. Therefore, ensuring an independent evaluation of title I programs is conducted and made publicly available for review and scrutiny by Congress and the American public. It is critically important for any future modification, renewal or elimination of programs.

I would appreciate the support of my colleagues for the passage of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

If I could respond very briefly, I think it is important to point out that, yes, there may come a time when in any government office--whether it is an elected government office or appointed office--when someone who is new to the office might be affected by something that did or didn't happen during the predecessor's time in office.

But even were that to occur in the case of the Secretary of Labor, this is a position that could easily enable, could easily empower the new Secretary to come in and within a matter of months make sure our contractor gets a report done and make sure that report gets submitted.

It is also worth noting that when we entrust a Federal agency with the power to spend $9 billion of the American people's hard-earned taxpayer money, hard-earned resources, we should expect them to stand accountable, and they should certainly have the ability to have a study conducted and have that study released to the American people.

If we don't trust them to be able to issue that report and make it public, then we should have some reason to be concerned about giving them $9 billion.

But I think this is a reasonable requirement, and therefore I ask my colleagues to support this measure.