Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me talk a little bit this evening about amendment No. 77 that I filed. This is an amendment I filed to the bill that is pending that we are now on, what I would call the oil sands pipeline. It has been called a jobs bill, I know, on the other side. But, you know, the reality is, there are good construction jobs here. But as soon as the pipeline is built, the permanent jobs are really very small.

What we need to do--my belief--in terms of energy, is work to where there are larger numbers of jobs. I do not

know whether people know this, but the energy that is being added to the system now worldwide and in the United States is renewable energy. Sometimes it is wind, sometimes it is solar, to a lesser extent biofuels, biomass and things like that. But the renewable sector is growing. The new energy is growing. Some of this is rather dramatic in terms of the numbers and the size. That is the direction clearly we need to head, because we want to in the future be lessening our carbon footprint. There is absolutely no dispute that we need to be moving in that direction. That is where all the scientists are.

We are even seeing today in the amendments that we have on the floor our friends across the aisle agreeing that we have got a real problem with climate change and that human beings are causing this and we need to address this. I applaud them stepping forward and saying that. How do you do this? How do you encourage more of the renewable forms of energy?

Let me say before I get into that, my hope is to have a discussion with the two Senators who are on side who are leading the debate here, Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell, about offering this amendment and getting in line in the next tranche of amendments.

But how do you get moving in the direction of more renewable energy? Well, we already know we have got a very good pattern here. We have started in the States and started in the District of Columbia, where more than half of our States in the United States of America have adopted what have been called renewable electricity standards. New Mexico has one. We have 15 percent by 2015. Some of our bigger States have been more aggressive. States such as California and New York are really pushing the envelope. They are saying by about 2025 we are going to have 30 percent or close to 30 percent renewable energy. So, really, what they are doing by putting a standard in place is they are saying to their power companies in their State: This is important to do. We know it is cost effective. Go out and develop your portfolio so that you put more renewable energy in it.

The remarkable thing, looking around the country, is how many States have done this. We have seen 29 States, I believe, including the District of Columbia, for a number of years now that have put a renewable electricity standard in place. So that is something that we know is working at the State level.

In fact, my Senator from New Mexico--who retired just a couple of years ago, Senator Bingaman--one of the things he did was go out to Stanford and study all of these renewable electricity standards that were in place and came up with ideas on the best practices and where there were disadvantages. He has actually published a report with a bunch of other researchers. So there is good wealth of knowledge about what is working and what isn't working.

But the major thing that is working is when we encourage a marketplace in renewable energy. We don't necessarily call out winners and losers. I know that is something that on both sides of the aisle we object to when we said: This is going to be a winning form, that is not going to be a winning form.

What we are doing is saying: Let's try to move toward renewables. Let's put a goal out there and then let's let the marketplace work on that. Let's see innovation. Let's move forward down that road. We have seen the 29 States do it and the District of Columbia.

My proposal in this amendment--and it is one I have worked on--has a good history. One of the things we know is when Senator Bingaman was in the Senate and head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he was able to pass through the Senate three times, over his career as chairman, a renewable electricity center out of the Senate.

When I was in the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008, my cousin Mark Udall and I worked on a renewable electricity standard in the House. For the first time we were able to get a bill through the House of Representatives. So our big challenge always was we were never able to match the House bill and the Senate bill and put in place something that a President can sign and have a national standard. That is where we are today. We have had good support, and really what this amendment would do is set up a national marketplace. Many States across the Nation, and almost every State, have renewable energy. If you go into the South, it may be more biomass than it is of solar. If you go to the West and Midwest, it may be more wind and solar, but it depends on location.

What is clear from all of the experts who looked at this is it is very easy to focus on when you have a goal, and you say, in the case of this amendment, by 2025, let's get 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources. So if we have a goal like that, we could get there.

I am urging everybody to take a look at this amendment to see what it is that we should be doing.

If we are talking about moving down the road with this proposal that we have before us, where we are scavenging, in a way, for the dirtiest forms of energy, these tar sands--which are much dirtier than the environmental impact statement said. Not only are they dirtier by about 17 percent, but when you tear down all those forests, which are taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you are putting yourself in a position where you are headed down the wrong road in terms of easing our carbon footprint.

I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this amendment. I will visit with the leaders on the floor about this amendment and see if we can't get it in line in terms of being considered.

This is an important debate about our energy future. There is a lot of work to be done. I hope we can work together.

We are at a crossroads in our energy policy. We can lead the world in clean energy production with wind, solar, and advanced biofuels. We can reduce global warming pollution. We can become energy independent--and create permanent American jobs.

That is our future. That should be our priority. We have the technology. We have the resources. We need the commitment. That is why we need a national Renewable Electricity Standard. It takes us forward.

My amendment would require utilities to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable resources--by 2025.

There are many benefits to a national RES. It would create 300,000 jobs. Over 50 percent of these jobs are in manufacturing. It would save consumers $64 billion by 2025--and $95 billion by 2030--in their utility bills. There would be $263 billion in new capital investment. It would provide over $13 billion to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners in the form of lease payments, creating new economic activity in rural communities across the U.S. It would add more than $11 billion in new local tax revenues--and revitalize communities, especially rural communities.

I have pushed for this ever since I came to Congress. The House passed it. The Senate has passed a version of this three times.

New Mexico and over half the States already have an RES. The States are moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that direction.

I have long said we need to do it all, and do it right as an energy policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both. We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 12,000 New Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and other public services.

We invested in the oil industry. We also need to invest in wind, solar, and biofuels.

The U.S. has incredible wind energy potential--enough to power the Nation 10 times over. My State has some of the best wind resources in the Nation--enough to meet more than 73 times the State's current electricity needs.

Wind power has almost no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no water. It already saves folks in my State 470 million gallons of water a year.

The U.S. solar industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more than coal and natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster than the national average.

These are well-paying, local jobs. These are permanent jobs, and they won't be shipped overseas.

Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home-- now, not later. We can't lose this market to our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere. They can see the future too--and they are going after it.

A national Renewable Electricity Standard gives certainty to business, to companies that are looking to invest billions of dollars in our economy, to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy components.

We have a great opportunity to grow our manufacturing sector, to create jobs, and to move toward a cleaner energy future.

This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground, and let's move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me say to my cousin, my heart goes out to you, and my condolences on what you have talked about here today. I really appreciate you coming down and talking so sincerely about that.

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

Mr. President, climate change is one of the greatest challenges of this century. We have a profound choice before us. We can deny that our climate is warming, we can fall behind our economic competitors, we can ignore the danger to our planet and to our security--that is one choice--or we can move forward with the diversified energy portfolio that includes clean energy, with an energy policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will keep our Nation strong.

There is a lot of work to be done. We can work together, we can find common ground, become energy independent, move us on a path to energy independence, grow our economy, and fight climate change. But instead, unfortunately, our focus today is on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The new majority has not chosen to start with energy policy as a whole or innovation or manufacturing policy or our response to climate change. Instead, we are debating on the floor of the Senate just one pipeline project, which primarily benefits another Nation.

There is really one basic question. Is the Keystone Pipeline in our Nation's interest--not Canada's interest or Wall Street's interest but our Nation's interest. I do not believe it is. I say this for two reasons. First, we are being asked to do something I believe is unprecedented--for Congress to step in and promote a bill for one private-sector energy project, to wave ahead a private pipeline for a private foreign company so that Canadian oil can be piped to Texas for export to other nations. Again, how does this serve our Nation?

We are told it is about jobs. Keystone will create jobs, and, of course, we are all for that. But how many jobs? About 3,900 temporary construction jobs. But how many permanent jobs--jobs that American families can count on for years to come? Maybe about 50. Yet with all the challenges we face, at home and abroad, this is the priority. This is priority No. 1 for the new Republican Congress. This is one choice. It is the wrong choice and the wrong priority.

This brings me to my second point. We are at a crossroads in our energy policy. We can still lead the world in clean energy production-- wind, solar, advanced biofuels--to reduce global warming pollution, to become energy independent, and to create permanent American jobs. That is our future. That should be our priority.

New Mexicans are already seeing the impact of global warming. The Southwest is at the eye of the storm, with historic drought, with severe flooding when it does rain, and with more and more wildfires. I talk to farmers and ranchers in my State, and they are struggling. According to a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory, by 2050--not far away--we may not have any forests left in my State. It will be as if New Mexico were dragged 300 miles to the south. Our climate will resemble land that is now in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert.

I am not a scientist; neither are my colleagues. But the experts at Los Alamos National Laboratory and scientists all over the world are clear: If we do nothing, it will only get worse. We are already seeing the impact. Recently the Government Accountability Office issued a warning: Climate change will continue to increase costs to taxpayers for the Federal Flood and Crop Insurance Programs. FEMA is already $24 billion in debt due to extreme weather events such as Hurricane Sandy and last year's floods in New Mexico. The cost of the Federal Crop Insurance Program has increased 68 percent just since 2007. If left unchecked, these costs will continue to skyrocket.

But this is more than numbers, disturbing as they are. This is the burden of climate change on farmers, ranchers, and our communities. The damage is real. The threat is here. But so are the solutions and the opportunities, and there are many opportunities. With the right priorities, we can encourage the production of clean energy. We can create a clean energy economy that leads the world. We can create the jobs of the future right here at home and revitalize rural America.

I have long said we need a ``do it all and do it right'' energy policy. That includes traditional energy sources. Oil and gas play an important role in my State. New Mexico is a leading producer of both oil and gas. We have strong, independent companies. They employ over 12,000 New Mexicans. They help pay for our schools and our other public services. They are an important part of the mix, and so are renewables such as wind and solar. The United States has incredible wind energy potential, enough to power the Nation 10 times over. New Mexico has some of the best wind resources in the Nation, enough to meet more than 73 times the State's current electricity needs. Wind power emits almost no carbon pollution. It uses virtually no water. It already saves folks in my State 470 million gallons of water a year. The U.S. solar industry employs more than 143,000 Americans--more than coal and natural gas combined. Solar jobs grew 10 times faster than the national average. The majority are in installation, sales, and distribution. Those are well-paying local jobs. Those are permanent

jobs, and they won't be shipped overseas.

Now is the time to build on the momentum and invest in a clean energy economy. Now is the time to create energy at home and jobs at home. Now. Not later. And we need to do it before we lose too much of the market to our overseas competitors in Germany, China, and elsewhere. They can see the future too, and they are going after it.

A national renewable electricity standard would help us get there. The proposal I have introduced for many years would require utilities to generate 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. New Mexico and over half the States already have one. The States are moving in that direction. The Nation needs to move in that direction. We need a national standard. Experts have said a national standard could create 300,000 new jobs. I have pushed for this ever since I came to Congress. The House of Representatives has passed it. The Senate has passed a version of this three times. We have to get it right. We have to do this. Let's get it done.

America can lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the technology, and we have the resources. We just need the commitment and the cooperation.

This is a new Congress. Let's find common ground where we can move forward. Just as we invested in the oil industry, we need to invest in wind, solar, and biofuels. We should support tax credits for renewables. We should encourage important cutting-edge energy research at great institutions such as Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. What we don't need is Congress simply acting as a permitting agency for a Canadian pipeline.

I understand the frustration that this project has been pending for so long. I believe the President should make a decision now. The necessary studies have been done. The recent litigation is over. We have debated this project extensively in this Congress and in several elections. If the President decides to approve it without some strong conditions that mitigate its climate impact, I will be very disappointed. If the President rejects it, the supporters can raise this issue in the next election. But Congress should move on to real, pressing policy debates.

Let's get our heads out of the tar sands and work together for our economy, for our energy independence, and for our future.

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

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

Mr. President, I have a resolution at the desk of which Senator Merkley and I are cosponsors.

I ask for its immediate consideration and to send the resolution over, under the rule, I, therefore, object to my own request.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our continuing effort to change the Senate rules as we begin the 114th Congress. This is the same process Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I used at the beginning of the last Congress when we introduced a similar resolution. At that time, Majority Leader Reid wanted to have the debate about reforming our rules after the inauguration.

He was willing to work with us and protect our interests until we could debate our proposal. By doing so, he preserved the right of a simple majority of this body to amend the rules in accordance with article I, section 5 of the Constitution.

I hope Majority Leader McConnell will extend to us this same courtesy if he chooses to address other issues before rules reform.

It has been the tradition at the beginning of many Congresses that a majority of the Senate has asserted its right to adopt or amend the rules. Just as Senators of both parties have done in the past, we do not acquiesce to any provision of Senate rules--adopted by a previous Congress--that would deny the majority that right.

The resolution I am offering today is based on proposals we introduced at the start of the 112th and 113th Congresses. At that time, many called our efforts a power grab by the majority. But we were very clear. We would support these changes even if we were in the minority, and here we are today, reintroducing the reform package as Members of the minority.

These changes do not strip minority rights. They allow the body to function as our Founders intended. The heart of our proposal is the talking filibuster. The filibuster once was a tool that was used sparingly. It allowed the minority to be heard. Today it is abused too often and far too easily.

I have said many times that the Senate has become a graveyard for good ideas. The shovel is the broken filibuster and other procedural tactics.

The system is broken. But in the last election I think the message was clear. The electorate said: Fix it, do your job, and make the government work. That is what our resolution is intended to do.

Our reforms were not adopted in the last Congress, but we made some progress. Strong support for fixing the Senate led leaders Reid and McConnell to address the dysfunction in the Senate and make some moderate changes.

Unfortunately, it did not take long for the leaders' gentlemen's agreement to break down. In November 2013 the abuse of the rules--and the obstruction--reached a tipping point, and so the majority acted within the precedence of the Senate. We changed the rules to prevent the minority from abusing the rules and obstructing scores of qualified nominees for judicial and executive appointments.

I believe that drastic step was unfortunate, but it was also necessary. The minority has a right to voice objections but not to abuse the rules to obstruct justice by preventing judges from being confirmed or by preventing the President from getting his team in place.

By changing the rules, the 113th Senate was able to confirm 96 judges. In fact, it confirmed more judges than any modern Congress since 1980.

The 113th Congress also confirmed 293 executive nominations in 2014-- the most since 2010.

That is an incredible change. It was a bold but necessary action. But it also led to even greater polarization in the Senate. That polarization could have been prevented if the Senate had adopted our reforms at the beginning of the 113th Congress.

That is why I strongly urge the new majority leader to continue the change

that was adopted in November. It allows most judicial and executive branch appointees to be confirmed by a straight majority vote. I urge him to continue the progress we made last Congress and adopt the rest of our proposed reforms at the start of this Congress.

Anyone who has watched this Senate try to legislate in the past few years knows we still are hobbled by dysfunction. We voted on cloture 218 times just over the past 2 years. To put that in perspective, the Senate voted on cloture only 38 times in the 50 years after the rule was adopted in 1917. We cannot continue down this path.

The unprecedented use of the filibuster and other procedural tactics by both parties has prevented the Senate from getting its work done. The Senate needs to return to its his historical practice and function as a deliberative yet majoritarian body, when filibusters were rare and bipartisanship was the norm.

We believe the proposed rule changes in our resolution provide commonsense reforms. This will restore the best traditions of the Senate and allow it to conduct the business the American people expect.

We have one goal, whether we are in the majority or in the minority: to give the American people the government they expect and deserve, a government that works.

We said before, and we say it again, that we can do this--with respect for the minority, with respect for differing points of view, with respect for this Chamber, but, most of all with respect for the people who send us here.

The right to change the rules at the beginning of a new Congress is supported by history and by the Constitution. Article I, section 5 is very clear. The Senate can adopt and amend its rules at the beginning of the new Congress by a simple majority vote. This is known as the constitutional option, and it is well named.

It has been used numerous times--often with bipartisan support--since the cloture provision was adopted in 1917.

Opponents of the Constitutional Option say that the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority, as the current filibuster rule requires. And they have repeatedly said any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' This simply is not true.

The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that, ``Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' When the Framers required a supermajority, they explicitly stated so, as they did for expelling a member. On all other matters, such as determining the chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied.

There have been three rulings by Vice Presidents, sitting as President of the Senate, on the meaning of Article I Section 5 as it applies to the Senate. In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled definitively:

[W]hile the rules of the Senate have been continued from

one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of

the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its

own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself,

cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a

majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate

rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed

or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in

a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it

desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair,

unconstitutional.

Vice-Presidents Rockefeller and Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses.

In 1979, when others were arguing that the rules could only be amended in accordance with the previous Senate's rules, Majority Leader Byrd said the following on the floor:

There is no higher law, insofar as our Government is

concerned, than the Constitution. The Senate rules are

subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. The

Constitution in Article I, Section 5, says that each House

shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at

the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be

bound by the dead hand of the past.

In addition to the clear language of the Constitution, there is also a longstanding common law principle, upheld in the Supreme Court, that one legislature cannot bind its successors. For example, if the Senate passed a bill with a requirement that it takes 75 votes to repeal it in the future, that would violate this principle and be unconstitutional. Similarly, the Senate of one Congress cannot adopt procedural rules that a majority of the Senate in the future cannot amend or repeal.

Many of my Republican colleagues have made the same argument. For example, in 2003 Senator John Cornyn wrote in a law review article:

Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent

Congress could not amend by majority vote, one Senate cannot

enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by

majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the

general common law principle that one parliament cannot bind

another.

So amending our rules at the beginning of a Congress is not ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' It is reaffirming that the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Senate rules, and that when there is a conflict between them, we follow the Constitution.

And I would like to make clear that by moving on to other business, we are not waiving our constitutional right to amend the Senate's rules with a majority vote. In 1975, when the cloture threshold was reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths, the reform effort lasted until March. But on the first day of that Congress, Senator Mondale introduced his resolution and unequivocally stated that he was reserving his right to call for a majority vote at a later date.

Senator Mondale made the following statement on that first day:

Mr. President, I wish to state, as has been traditional at

the commencement of efforts to amend rule XXII, that, by

operating under the Standing Rules of the Senate the

supporters of this resolution do not acquiesce to the

applicability of certain of those rules to the effort to

amend rule XXII; nor do they waive any rights which they may

obtain under the Constitution, the practice of this body, or

certain rulings of previous Vice Presidents to amend rule

XXII, uninhibited by rules in effect during previous

Congresses.

Today, I take the same position as Senator Mondale and many other reformers did over the years. I understand that Majority Leader McConnell may move on to other business, but I am not acquiescing to any provision in the Senate rules that prevents a majority from amending those rules. We can, and should, take time to debate our proposal and have an up or down vote. I know other colleagues also have reform proposals. They all deserve consideration.

This is not just about rules. It is about the norms and traditions of the Senate. They have collapsed under the weight of the filibusters.

Neither side is 100-percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for obstruction. No doubt they have had their reasons, but I don't think the American people care about that. They don't want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is reasonable and that works.

I hope all my colleagues, especially the new Senators, give special consideration to reform. We do not need to win every legislative or nomination vote, but we need to have a real debate--and an open process--to ensure we are, actually, the greatest deliberative body in the world.

We changed the rule regarding nominations. That was an important start, but it was the beginning--not the end. We still need to reform the Senate rules.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Franken be added as a cosponsor to S. Res. 20.

I yield the floor.

I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and the Presiding Officer.

I will say a few words about Chairwoman Mikulski.

First of all, I am honored to serve on the Appropriations Committee. For the last couple of years I served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and with her guidance and work, it has been a truly fulfilling task.

I thank Senator Mikulski for the last 2 years since she has taken over and putting us on track in terms of having a good, solid appropriations process, where we make every attempt to get the appropriations bills through the Senate and in place at the beginning of the budget year. That could make a real difference, as she has indicated, for veterans, for jobs, and for all of the agencies that are funded throughout government, and particularly in my State where we have two premier national laboratories--Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. We have three Air Force bases, national parks, and national monuments. There is so much that is a part of this appropriations bill that is very important to my State.

We have a lot of work to do today, and I will speak for a few minutes on some of the issues that are important to my State and our country.

First, I will start out on a positive note. The Senate just recently passed the Defense authorization bill. That bill is critical to our Nation's security and for our troops at home and abroad who deserve our support and respect.

In addition, this year it also includes landmark conservation measures to protect some of the most beloved landscapes in New Mexico. These are measures we have worked on for many years--since Senator Bingaman was in office--and they are the result of many years of dogged hard work by a diverse group of sportsmen, conservationists, local businesspeople, and others.

With this bill, we are designating Columbine Hondo Wilderness, giving permanent congressional protection to this special area. We are increasing public access to the Valles Caldera by transferring management to the National Park Service. This will ensure financial stability for one of the best places in New Mexico for hiking, hunting, and fishing.

We are dedicating a historical Manhattan Project a national park that will include Los Alamos, NM, where Americans can learn about and remember our complicated Cold War history.

This bill protects the special and important places, increases tourism, and creates jobs. We also renewed a BLM pilot program to improve the permitting process for the oil and gas industry. This is critical to energy development in New Mexico and other Western States.

It ensures that BLM has the resources to do all parts of its job-- managing land for conservation, grazing, and permitting for oil and gas development.

I thank my colleague Senator Heinrich, who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being a strong partner in getting these measures passed.

Now the Senate has another important duty pending before us--passing an appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government, including many vital programs in my home State of New Mexico. We have not had regular spending bills in recent years, and here we are at the eleventh hour with an omnibus bill at the last minute.

The fact that we have a bill is due, in great part, to the leadership of Chairwoman Mikulski, and I am glad to be part of her team on the Appropriations Committee.

The alternative to this bill is a short-term CR or a couple of short- term CRs for the whole year. I think that is an unacceptable way to do business, and it would cost jobs and hurt our economy in New Mexico. New Mexico's labs and bases need certainty in their critical jobs to keep our Nation safe. Communities in my home State rely on funding through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program to provide basic services, such as schools and public safety.

I know Chairwoman Mikulski understands the PILT Program, has worked hard to make sure that PILT is funded in this bill, and it is greatly appreciated in the rural parts of the West.

Let me say again that continuing resolutions are disruptive. They are inefficient. They lock in place programs that prevent us from evaluating what is working and what isn't and keep us from rooting out wasteful spending. But trying to put this omnibus bill at the end of the year is far from ideal.

There was a time not long ago when having to pass an omnibus bill was a sign that work had broken down. Today it is the best possible option. I am extremely happy to have it. Again, I credit our chairwoman with fighting hard to get us to this point. It has not been easy. But the American people deserve better than this broken process.

They deserve a Congress that works, that is open and deliberate, not last-minute deals and gimmicks for special interests. Our duty is to the American people, not Wall Street billionaires and bankers.

I will continue to do all I can as a member of the Appropriations Committee to get back to the regular order. We cannot keep getting in just under the wire.

In that respect, our colleagues in the House have to stop sending over all of these riders. We had more than 100 riders sent over from the House. As Chairwoman Mikulski knows, this isn't the way to legislate on an appropriations bill. We are not supposed to be putting riders in there. So they sent more than 100 of these over from the House of Representatives. It is disruptive. Senator Mikulski took them off and was able to work through them and get a decent, good final product. I am going to continue to do all I can to make sure we get back to the regular order.

Now I wish to speak about why this bill is important and why it is important to pass this omnibus bill.

First of all, this bill is critical to my State of New Mexico. New Mexico has two fine national laboratories--Sandia and Los Alamos; three Air Force bases; White Sands testing range; and a number of other Federal institutions, national parks, and national monuments. They are all funded, and when they are funded on a regular basis at the beginning of a fiscal year, it is a much better situation for everyone.

For PILT funds, which our counties depend on for schools, roads, law enforcement, and anything they feel is important in their county, they can rely on these PILT funds.

At this point my State is in severe drought. We have water projects such as the Navajo Gallup project that can't keep waiting. There is money in this bill to keep that project going. Communities can't just put their needs on hold because Congress is broken. Navajo communities in New Mexico still need clean water. In fact, every day we delay, their situation gets worse. That is true of so many projects that are funded by the Federal Government. Communities and businesses have to plan, and they need certainty. The needs don't go away. So let's get this done.

Finally, I wish to speak a little bit about the authorization, of course, that we just produced out of the Foreign Relations Committee. I urge Congress to address another important issue--this issue of the authorization of force. We need to update the authorization of force for our military in light of our changing involvement in a variety of Middle Eastern conflicts--most notably, ISIS. If we leave without doing this, we are failing the American people, our troops, and shirking our constitutional duty.

ISIS is a brutal terrorist group, and it must be stopped. We must continue to work with our allies, including those in the region, to use strategic force to stop ISIS. I am proud of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for recognizing our essential duty in defining the parameters of this fight. This is the first step, but our Constitution requires the full Congress to authorize war. This is a matter that deserves debate. It should not be taken lightly. The last 13 years of conflict in Afghanistan and in Iraq illustrate this--why it is so important to be thoughtful and deliberate about war.

I urge my colleagues to stay until the work is done and we give the AUMF consideration by the full Senate. This is not easy work, but this is not a normal situation. ISIS is a rapidly growing terrorist group recruiting young people from the West. It spans two countries, with very expansive ambitions.

We must defeat ISIS, but at the same time we cannot allow another open-ended war. That will yet again strain communities in my State and across the country and put us in a situation we cannot pay for.

Since July I have received over 1,100 letters and hundreds of phone calls from my constituents. They are clear, and I want to be equally clear: Congress should rise to its constitutional oversight of the Nation's war powers. This is a solemn responsibility, one I have taken very seriously throughout my time in Congress. I voted for the 2001 authorization for the war in Afghanistan. I voted against the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq.

I believe the new AUMF is strong in that it prohibits ground operations except in limited circumstances. Those circumstances, such as rescuing servicemembers or U.S. citizens, are specified in the text of the resolution. It also repeals the 2002 Iraq AUMF and sets a 3-year timeline for the 2001 AUMF, which is currently supporting military engagements around the world that we never intended when we originally passed them. But I would still caution that we must be watchful so that this engagement doesn't vastly change in scope without the approval of Congress or the support from our constituents.

I fought to provide Congress with an even stronger role. I proposed an amendment to limit authorization to 1 year. I also cosponsored a proposal with Senator Paul to require a new authorization with Congress if U.S. forces were to be deployed outside of Iraq and Syria. We need this authorization to pass now, as the conflict has been ongoing for months, but we also must continue to be watchful. Costs should not just be charged to a credit card. Let's make sure we have a real conversation on how the generation that has decided to go to war will pay for it.

Again, I urge Congress to honor its responsibility to stay and finish this critical duty.

Just to wrap up, I once again want to say to my chairwoman Senator Mikulski that she has taken on a very difficult task in terms of looking at what was sent to us by the House of Representatives--more than 100 riders on all sorts of things, trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, trying to tackle and get into the IRS and diminish its ability to carry out its responsibilities, and on and on. The Senator from Maryland has worked through these amendments diligently and come up with a good product. This is much better than struggling through continuing resolutions 2, 3 months at a time and then coming back again. This gives certainty to government, gives certainty to businesses, and it shows that we are trying to react responsibly to the situation that is before us.

Again, I applaud Senator Mikulski. It is a real honor to work with her on the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in New Mexico we are very proud to be the home of Los Alamos National Laboratory. LANL employs some of the finest scientists and researchers in the world. Each day, these brilliant public servants go to work and make vital contributions to our national security and to cutting-edge scientific and innovative advances.

The dedicated men and women of LANL are a credit to my State and to our Nation. It is with regret that I rise today to remember Bret Knapp, a valued member of the LANL team, who passed away last month.

Mr. Knapp received his B.A. in mechanical engineering at the California Polytechnic State University and his M.S. in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Davis.

In a career that spanned over three decades, Mr. Knapp demonstrated valued expertise and leadership. His commitment to excellence was a defining element of his career, and, even as we mourn his passing, we are grateful for his service.

Over the years, Mr. Knapp established an outstanding reputation for programmatic achievements, as well as for technical depth, honest and open communication, and fostering a strong sense of partnership and collaboration. He was the principal associate director for the weapons program at LANL, which plays a crucial role in supporting our country's defense, energy, and environmental needs. He also served as acting director at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Among his many accomplishments at LANL, Bret Knapp integrated the planning and execution of the stockpile stewardship program, which is a critical mission for the Nation. He received the NNSA Defense Program Individual Award for Excellence in 2000 and two NNSA Defense Program Awards for Excellence in 1998 and 1999.

Those are, of course, the public and well-deserved accolades of an exemplary career. But for those who worked closely with Bret Knapp, they recall an inspiring colleague, a good friend, and someone who will be greatly missed.

I offer my sincere condolences to Mr. Knapp's wife Sheryl and their sons, Trevor and Cameron. I hope that, for all of Bret Knapp's friends and family, your memories of his life will offer a measure of comfort now in your loss.

Mr. President, I just want to rise, similar to others in our class, and many other Senators have risen, to talk a little bit about Mark Begich and his service to Alaska and praise him for his service, because I think he has been--since I have been here, the 6 years I have served with him; he was in my class--I have seen a remarkable Senator who truly cares about his State and has been an incredible advocate for his State.

I was not here for his entire speech, but I turned it on. The good thing about our offices is you can tune it in. I caught the point where he got a little bit choked up about Deborah and Jacob. I got choked up, too, in the office. I can cry but not in public. In any event, the first thing I know about Mark is how much he cares about his family and how much the toll of serving in the Senate takes on that family.

His travel--I am a westerner, and I have to travel out 5 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours to get home. His flight is always--we heard the description the other day from Senator Murray. He flies all the way out to Seattle at the end of the day. It is 12:30 our time when he arrives there. Then he gets on another flight for another 4\1/2\ hours up to Anchorage, just to get home. It is not a very long weekend. Then he has to get on a flight and come back.

His family is so important. I have seen him with his son Jacob. We live just across the alley from each other. I can look out my back window and look down and see the light--just four houses down--and know whether Mark and Deborah and Jacob are in town. We have spent many good times in his house there. That is the first thing I would like to say.

The second is--I have seen this over and over again with Senators. You are one of the best at it--taking the issues that are involved with Alaska and that Alaskans care about and that you knew so well when you were a mayor and fitting them into this vast Federal landscape and making sure Alaskans are heard. I think you are one of the best at doing that. You stepped out on so many different issues. I remember the Native American corporations and how you would reach out in a number of areas with Senators throughout the Senate and try to reach some compromise there.

I have a large Native American community. We, too, have the same kinds of issues on that front that you do. We also share many Native American tribes. As the Senator knows well, it was my father and my uncle who stood up in the 1960s and 1970s to make sure the Natives got a fair shake in Alaska. Mark--that is the way he serves when it comes to Native Americans, caring about them, caring about their issues, going up to the North Slope where it is cold.

My understanding is that during this campaign he got frostbite on one occasion, being out in that terribly tough environment. Thank you for that and for working with me and working with everyone else who tries to make sure Native people get justice. They look to Washington for justice. They look for justice at the Supreme Court. They are not getting much of it over there at the Supreme Court any more. We are the last refuge. We served together on the Indian Affairs Committee.

One final thing to talk about. I have been working on an issue, it is the chemical substances act, for the last couple of years with Senator Vitter. We have tried to do everything we can to bring people-- extraordinary piece of legislation--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats on this piece of legislation.

We have been working to make it better. We have had Senators start joining us on both sides of the aisle. Mark, you were one of the key people to work on that. As Senator Warner said earlier, you were our liaison to the leadership. You were in all of those leadership meetings. Whenever I told you there was a problem, you would surface it, whether or not it was going to blow up the meeting. You stuck in there when it came to truly caring about issues and caring about getting things done.

I think if anything is your hallmark, it is wanting to put aside the partisanship and try to get things done. So that is something that you should be tremendously proud of.

Just as a final word, I love your State of Alaska. I have climbed your highest mountain. My cousin, Mark Udall, has also done the same thing, climbed Mount McKinley, which has now returned to its Native name, called Denali. I remember going up to your State as a State attorney general. It was the only State in the Nation that put in money for our conference of attorneys general and put us on an 8-hour train across Alaska so we could see all of Alaska.

Alaska is a terrific State. You and I have some disagreements on what we

protect in Alaska, but the wonderful thing is we understand each other's position. We are still very good friends. It has been a real honor to serve with you. I wish you and Deborah and Jacob the very best. Wherever you land--I hope to see you in Alaska again because I know I am going to come up there. But wherever you land, our door will always be open to you.

Thank you and God bless you.

Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this time to talk about my cousin, Mark Udall. First, let me say to Senator Bennet, I know that Mark feels he could not have had a better partner, a better friend, and someone to work with on Colorado issues and the great national issues than Senator Bennet.

Senator Bennet spoke eloquently of Mark's incredible record in public service. Two years in the Colorado legislature, 10 years in the House of Representatives, and 6 years here in the U.S. Senate. I served with Mark in the House, and here in the Senate. He is not only my cousin. He is not only an extraordinary public servant. He has been a great ally, as we have worked on the issues together.

Mark has been--and will continue to be--a champion, for the environment, for civil liberties, and for a government that is as open and good as the people we are privileged to represent.

Mark has been a courageous and outspoken leader in the fight against climate change. He knows that global warming is not just a threat to our environment, but to our national security and our economy. He and I have worked on this issue throughout our time in public service, pushing to expand clean energy production and for common sense steps to reduce pollution. He and I introduced, and got passed, a renewable electricity standard when we were both in the House to increase the use of renewable energy and create jobs across the country. When the Senate passes a similar RES, which I believe it eventually will, Mark you will share in that victory, for all your determination and hard work to make it happen.

Our dads loved the land. They taught us to love it as well. Mark doesn't just climb mountains. He protects them, so that generations to come will enjoy this legacy of natural treasures. Together we have fought for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for wilderness preservation. He has accomplished so much that will live on, long after we all are gone.

Mark has also been a true leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. He is absolutely fearless, and undaunted, in defense of our Nation, and in defense of our liberties. We both opposed the original Patriot Act, as well as its re- authorization. Mark has been eloquent and tenacious in warning of over- reaching surveillance, and secret interrogations. The Intelligence Committee released its study of the C.I.A.'s secret program this week. No one fought harder to hold our government to account, in insisting that we must not only be secure, but we must honor the values that define us. We can and must do both. History will remember his invaluable role in making it possible for the American people to have this great and necessary debate.

Madam President, my dad once said that, in the end, it is not the awards you receive, it is not the trophies in the garage, or the honors on the shelf, it is what the people who know you best really think of you. To those of us who know Mark--in our family, here in Washington, and in his beloved State of Colorado--he is the real deal.

I remember when Mark's dad, Mo, ran for President in 1976. Mo lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter. In his concession speech, he recalled the words of Will Rogers, ``Live your life so that whenever you lose, you are ahead.'' Mo went on to say:

And I am ahead. I'm ahead in staff people who love me and

believed in me. And I'm ahead because I have love, respect

and admiration for all of you in this room.

That was true of Mo. It is equally true of Mark. In his years of public service, and in the years to come, that will always be said of Mark. Whatever the task, whatever the challenge, he meets it head on. In the Congress, and in his day to day life, he is practical, independent, and always generous of himself.

Mark, wherever you go, wherever you are, win or lose, you are ahead-- and we all are ahead whenever you are in the room. Or I might say whenever you are on the trail, or the mountainside. We find you out on the trail as likely as anywhere else.

But, then, that has always been the case with Mark, and with all our family. If you are a Udall, you spend a lot of time outdoors, and gladly so. And we never know when we will run into each other. A number of years ago, I was hiking up a mountain in Argentina. All of a sudden, there on the trail at 16,000 feet, was Mark, coming back from the summit. So, I never know when I'm going to run into him, but Madam President, let me say, I am always glad when I do.

Mark, for me, you have always set an example. You have always been true to the legacy of our family. I know that will never change, whatever your endeavors. So, to you, and Maggie, and Jed and Tess, Jill and I wish you all the best, in this new chapter in your lives.

I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this courtesy. It is always wonderful to work with Chuck. He is a first-class Senator.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, our Nation and Indonesia enjoy a strong relationship, reflected in the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership of 2010. This partnership is robust and growing. It serves both of our countries for bilateral, regional, and global cooperation. The election of President Widodo in July was a step forward--part of a great democratic tradition--over the past two decades in Indonesia. We are working together for economic growth, for the environment, and for our security.

This is progress--and to be encouraged. Indonesia has a major role to play as a regional and global leader, but in that role it must be an inclusive democracy. Key to this is to address past human rights abuses--specifically the mass murders committed in 1965 to 1966. Next year is the 50th anniversary of those killings.

I rise today, International Human Rights Day, to submit a resolution concerning those events, which Indonesia's own Human Rights Commission has labeled a crime against humanity. But let me be clear. This is not a censure of the people of Indonesia or Indonesia's new government; it is an opportunity for justice and for reconciliation.

The events took place decades ago. The reasons behind them are complex, but that cannot justify the past or forgetting those who suffered under it, nor can we ignore our own government's role during that time.

My resolution proposes two things:

First, I urge Indonesia's new government to create a truth and reconciliation commission to address these crimes. Second, I urge our own government to establish an interagency working group and to release relevant classified documents. We should make clear what was known to us, and we should make this information available.

It is a painful history to recall. On October 1, 1965, six Indonesian Army generals were killed. According to scholars, these generals were killed by military personnel, but their deaths were blamed on Indonesia's Communist Party, which was used to justify mass murders.

The next few months were horrific for the Indonesian people. The CIA has called it one of the worst periods of mass murder in the 20th century. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Many others were imprisoned, tortured, raped, starved, and disappeared across the country. These individuals were targeted for their alleged association with communism, but they came from all walks of life, including women's groups, teachers, intellectuals, and others. Most were unarmed, and none had due process of law.

The United States provided financial and military assistance during this time and later, according to documents released by the State Department, and General Suharto consolidated his power, ruling from 1967 to 1998.

Some may ask, why is this resolution needed? Why now? This is why. The survivors and descendents of victims continue to be marginalized. Many of the killers continue to live with impunity. Very few Americans are aware of these historical events or our government's actions during this time. These events demand our attention and resolution as we work together to build a strong Asia-Pacific partnership.

I am proud to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. An important goal is the development of peaceful, stable democracies-- democracies that provide security and hope to their own people and economic opportunity for businesses in my State and across the United States.

Indonesia is the world's third-largest democracy. Its population is diverse. It has the largest Muslim majority population in the world. It has faced many challenges and continues to move forward. A strong U.S.- Indonesia relationship benefits both of our countries. I offer this resolution in support of that relationship and Indonesia's continued progress as a growing democracy and a vital U.S. ally.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Deepa Ghosh, a foreign affairs fellow in my office, and Kaveh Sadeghzadeh, a natural resources fellow, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Madam President, we have had an important debate this week. A debate about bringing sanity back to our elections. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have joined this fight. And I want to thank the millions of Americans, regardless of party, who stand behind us.

Over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln saw the danger of too much money in politics. Lincoln warned about ``corruption in high places . . . until the Republic is destroyed.''

Changing the Constitution is a big step. As James Madison said, it should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I agree; but I also believe we have reached one of those rare occasions. The Supreme Court put up a ``for sale'' sign on our elections. On the foundation of our democracy. It is wrong. It is dangerous. It cannot stand.

Amending the Constitution can take a long time. The 19th amendment was first introduced in 1878. Opponents called it impractical, and immoral, for daring to give women the right to vote. It took more than 40 years to pass. But its proponents did not give up, and they eventually prevailed.

Today's vote is a step forward in that long process. One more step toward restoring our democracy. We will keep pushing until this amendment is reality.

But that will take the support of my Republican colleagues. I was disappointed that none of them voted in support of our amendment today, as it has a bipartisan history. Some of them have cosponsored and voted for similar amendments in the past, before the Supreme Court's Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions destroyed many of the bipartisan campaign finance laws that took years to pass.

Some of them said this was just an election-year stunt. But that ignores reality. This movement started decades ago--by a Republican. Many of our predecessors from both parties understood the danger. They knew the corrosive effect that money from sources across the political spectrum has on our electoral system. They spent years championing the cause.

In 1983--the 98th Congress--Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican icon from Alaska, introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court decision that established the flawed premise that money and constitutionally protected speech were the same thing.

Senator Stevens already saw the deteriorating effect unlimited campaign expenditures were having on Congress. In a speech on the Senate floor on the day he introduced the amendment, Senator Stevens said:

I, for one, would like to see the time come when there

would be a limitation on the expenditures and the upward

pressure on candidates, so that those who are seeking

reelection, those who are seeking to challenge incumbents, or

those who are seeking to fill a vacancy would not have this

pressure that is brought about by the necessity to raise

ever-increasing amounts to campaign for Federal office.

Senator Stevens recognized over 30 years ago that we were in an arms race--that the drive for money would only get worse and Congress's ability to function would suffer.

This was only the beginning of the movement to amend the Constitution. In every Congress from the 99th to the 108th, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to S.J. Res. 19. Senators Schumer and Cochran continued the effort in the 109th Congress. Even Minority Leader McConnell once had his own constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money on our elections.

That was all before the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, before things went from bad to worse. The out-of-control spending since those decisions has further poisoned our elections.

But no matter how bad things get, an amendment can only succeed if Republicans join us in this effort, as they have in the past. I know the political climate of an election year makes it even more difficult, but today's vote is not the end. I will reintroduce this amendment in the next Congress, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me. Poll after poll shows that our constituents--across the political spectrum--want this amendment. It's time we listened to them.

We had a great debate this week. It raised awareness of the issue across the country. But we also heard a lot of hysteria on this floor from some of my colleagues across the aisle. Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way, summed up the debate from the other side of the aisle quite well. He said, ``A good rule of thumb in politics is that the scarier someone sounds, the more you should doubt what they're saying.''

So, we have been treated to a parade of imaginary horribles. Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels is going to jail for writing political satire. So is the little old lady next door for putting up a $5 political yard sign. Books and movies will be banned. The NAACP and Sierra Club will be muzzled. Pretty scary stuff. And complete nonsense.

Congress has a long history, since 1867, of campaign finance reform. Any reading of this history is very clear. The reforms were sensible and reasonable. If they were not, they would have little chance of passing both houses of Congress. Or being signed by the President. And even under our constitutional amendment, extreme legislation can still be struck down by the Court. The other side knows this.

For over 150 years, Congress had a say in how money affects our elections. And it needed to. In the wake of scandals, it acted to curb excess and corruption. Reform was bipartisan. It was responsible. And it did not shut down the New York Times or the Heritage Foundation. Comedians and actors did not go to jail. It has not threatened free speech.

Those who think that money is speech need to look at where that flawed premise has led our country. Historically low approval ratings for Congress, polarization of the electorate, and a failure to compromise on the most pressing issues facing the Nation. Senator Hollings recognized the deterioration of our legislative branch due to the increasing influence of money on our elections. In a Huffington Post piece titled ``Money is a Cancer in Politics,'' he wrote:

Money has not only destroyed bi-partisanship but corrupted

the Senate. Not the senators, but the system. In 1966 when I

came to the Senate, Mike Mansfield, the Leader, had a roll

call every Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock in order to be

assured of a quorum to do business. And he kept us in until

5:00 o'clock Friday so that we got a week's work in. . .

Today, there's no real work on Mondays and Fridays, but we

fly out to California early Friday morning for a luncheon

fundraiser, a Friday evening fundraiser, making individual

money appointments on Saturday and a fundraising breakfast on

Monday morning, flying back for perhaps a roll call Monday

evening.

I agree with his assessment, and also remember when fundraising was not the priority it is today. My father was elected to Congress in 1954, when I was in first grade. Back then, the legislative branch was a Citizens' Congress. Members were in Washington for 6 months, and then they went home for 6 months and worked at their profession. But during those 6 months in session, Congress focused on legislating.

Unfortunately, our current campaign finance system has locked Members of Congress into an endless campaign cycle. Elected officials spend far too much time raising money for campaigns, and not enough time carefully

considering legislation or listening to constituents. The drive to raise money is constant, and allowing vast new amounts of special interest money into the system will only increase the pressure. This causes a deterioration of Congress's ability to function, including its ability to adequately represent and respond to its constituents.

As the money raised and spent on campaigns by special interests continues to climb, Members of Congress will have to devote more time trying to keep up in the fundraising race. It is no wonder that, as the pursuit of campaign money has come to dominate politics, the American people have become increasingly dissatisfied with Congress' performance.

That is the whole point. That is why we are here. Because our elections cannot be for sale to the highest bidder. The Supreme Court has opened the floodgates. The American people are demanding that we close them.

Because they know, and we know, that we have a broken system. Today's New York Times editorial sums it up well. It states that, ``As long as money is officially categorized as protected speech, there will be no brake on the ability of the rich and special interests to drown out other voices.''

The First Amendment has already been hijacked by billionaires and special interests. Our amendment rescues it.

Here's the bottom line. Billionaires want to stay at the head of the table and our amendment will not let them. Let's be clear, they oppose any restriction. Any reform. Today's vote may have been along party lines, but I will leave it to the American people to judge why.

We will continue this fight. The momentum continues to grow, and we will eventually win. The American people hate the influence of money on our elections. They want elections to be about the quality of ideas, not the size of bank accounts. They want us to fight for the middle class, not the moneyed class. They want us to spend our time raising hopes, instead of raising cash.

As I said in my remarks earlier this week at the beginning of this debate, there is a well-known quote from the Watergate era. ``Follow the money.'' Because we all know the truth: The road to corruption, to undue influence, is paved with money. We need to get off that road. For the integrity of our electoral system. For the people who send us here. For the future of our country.

As we wrap up this week's debate, and this historic vote, I want to thank several people. Senator Bennet joined me in this effort over 4 years ago. Our amendment in the 111th Congress had four cosponsors. Today it has 49. I also want to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman Leahy and Senator Durbin, and thank their staff, particularly Josh Hsu and Albert Sanders. The amendment received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. It went through markups in Senator Durbin's subcommittee and in the full committee. It was debated, and revised, and improved.

I want to thank the diverse coalition of groups who have worked tirelessly to build support for our amendment. Groups like People For the American Way, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech For People, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and all the organizations working under the banner of United For The People.

I ask unanimous consent that today's New York Times editorial, ``An Amendment to Cut Political Cash,'' be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our constitutional amendment. I think we have had a very good debate this week--an overdue debate. I want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and for speaking out. But there have also been many misrepresentations by the other side about what our constitutional amendment would do.

Michael Keegan, the President of People for the American Way, wrote a piece in the Huffington Post yesterday. He summed up the debate from the other side of the aisle quite well. He said, ``a good rule of thumb in politics is that the scarier someone sounds, the more you should doubt what they're saying.''

We heard some scary things in the last couple of days. Lorne Michaels is

going to jail. And he is sharing a cell with a little old lady who put up a $5 political yard sign. Books and movies are banned. The NAACP, Sierra Club, and moveon.org have been prohibited from speaking about politics--scary stuff but none of it is true.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a great constitutional scholar, recently wrote an op-ed in the Hill, rebutting many of the claims we have heard. He wrote:

The amendment--

He is talking about our constitutional amendment here.

--gives no authority to the government to ban or limit

anyone's speech. It provides the government no power to

``muzzle'' messages the government doesn't like. It does not

change in any way the longstanding First Amendment principle

that the government cannot restrict speech based on the

content of the message or the views expressed. The amendment

would do no more than allow the government to regulate

spending in election campaigns.

That is the heart of what we are doing, regulating spending--out-of- control spending--in election campaigns, dark money, big interests weighing in in an unprecedented way.

Professor Chemerinsky is right. S.J. Res. 19 reaffirms the First Amendment principle of equality. It will undo the damage done by the Court over the years, most recently with Citizens United and McCutcheon that said: Those with the most money have the most free speech. Nothing in the amendment would permit the arrest of anyone for engaging in political speech. It would not allow books or movies to be banned.

All the amendment does is restore to Congress and the States the power to set reasonable limits--reasonable limits--on campaign contributions and expenditures, a traditional power that the Court has stripped from us. The amendment returns the First Amendment to its pre- Buckley interpretation when money and speech were not the same thing.

Prior to Buckley, we did not see the kind of legislation against free speech that my Republican colleagues envision, offering extreme examples of laws Congress could pass. That is one way to argue against this amendment. But it ignores the long history of laws Congress did pass to protect the voices of individual voters.

These reforms were not radical. They were narrowly tailored responses to restore America's faith in the political system after a lack of regulations led to scandals and corruption. Let's not forget that any law must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President. That is a significant check against any radical legislation getting passed or these days, against almost any legislation getting passed.

Critics also fail to acknowledge something else. Our amendment does not give Congress free reign to pass any and all campaign finance laws. When the Court interprets any amendment to the Constitution, it reads in a reasonableness requirement. This means that even if Congress did abuse its authority and passed the extreme laws that conservatives suggest, they could still be overturned as unreasonable.

But more importantly, Members of Congress who pass extreme laws can be held accountable by their constituents. The same cannot be said for Supreme Court justices willing to strike down sensible regulations by a narrow majority.

We also heard a quote from the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy did oppose a similar amendment in 1997 and 2001. The truth is, we do not know if he would oppose the amendment today.

Citizens United and McCutcheon changed the landscape and changed it dramatically. Senator Kennedy was a champion for the underprivileged throughout his career--in civil rights, education, health care, the minimum wage. He stood up for those who did not have a voice, the very people who are harmed by most of these misguided Supreme Court decisions.

We do know some of Senator Kennedy's colleagues who also opposed the amendment in the past are still here in the Senate. They have reconsidered. Chairman Leahy, Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Constitution subcommittee. Thoughtful Senators who felt an amendment was unnecessary in the past now see that it is the only way to fix a broken system.

Changing the Constitution is a big step not to be taken lightly. In the Federalist Paper No. 49, James Madison argued the Constitution should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I agree. I also believe we have reached one of those occasions.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the op-eds I referenced by Michael Keegan and Erwin Chemerinsky be printed in the Record.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.