[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 130 (Thursday, September 11, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5531-S5543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BANK ON STUDENTS EMERGENCY LOAN REFINANCING ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 409,
S. 2432.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 409, S. 2432, a bill to
amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the
refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for other
purposes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to S.J. Res. 19 occur at 1:45
p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
West Africa
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, this is an uneasy time in our world. There
is no shortage of crises that demand our attention and our action. The
President called on us last night to step up to the very real challenge
posed by the terrorist group ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Russian aggression
against Ukraine demands our attention. A fragile cease-fire continues
between Hamas and Gaza. There is the Central American exodus to our
southern border that riveted the attention of many this summer; and
there is continuing negotiations to seek an end to Iran's illicit
nuclear weapons program.
Behind all of this there is another and equally important challenge I
wanted to draw this body's attention to for a few minutes today--the
spread of a quiet and vicious virus throughout West Africa. While the
Nation's attention today for good reason is on remembering the tragic
events of 9/11, and the President's strategy for combating ISIS today,
I would like to speak to another urgent challenge to our country and
world, and that is the need to dramatically increase our support as
communities across West Africa struggle to confront and combat Ebola.
I met and have spoken with Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.
She is a Nobel Prize winner and impressive leader who has brought her
country back from a terrible civil war and was making huge progress
toward the development of Liberia. I had the honor of meeting with her
here and visiting her country. In my role as the chair of the African
Affairs Subcommittee, I have met few others who have impressed me as
much as President Johnson-Sirleaf.
Leaders throughout this region are doing everything they can to save
lives, but in my most recent communications with President Johnson-
Sirleaf it is clear that Ebola is rapidly getting beyond the capacity
and ability of these communities and countries to contain it and to
recover from it. They need our action.
Individuals on the ground from groups such as Doctors Without Borders
and Samaritan's Purse have done remarkable, heroic, and extraordinary
work by putting their own lives on the line to help others, and they
have borne the overwhelming majority of the risks, service, and
sacrifice so far.
The news has just been announced that the Gates Foundation will
contribute $50 million to this fight, which is critical, as public
funds alone will not be enough to end this crisis.
Our own people, through the U.S. Government, can and must do more. It
need not be the role of the United States alone to resolve this
problem, but it is our responsibility to stand side by side with those
working tirelessly to stop it. It is our responsibility to not just
lend a hand but to help lead in ways that only we can and to use our
unique capabilities to address this crisis. If Ebola's spread reveals
one thing it is that we are more interconnected today than we have ever
been in our human history and that disease truly knows and respects no
borders. We need to continue to act, not only because we are morally
compelled to help the tens of thousands who are facing an immediate
threat, but also because we have a direct stake in the resolution of
this crisis.
This is a manageable public health crisis that we know how to solve,
but doing so requires our focus, our attention, our resolve, and our
resources, tools that only the United States has.
Let me briefly outline five specific steps I believe we should take
now.
First, I think it is critical the United States has one leadership
point--that the White House designate a coordinator to oversee the U.S.
whole-of-government emergency response. There are many ways the United
States is currently helping across many agencies from the Department of
Defense to the Centers for Disease Control to the State Department and
USAID. Those agencies are doing great work as part of the disaster
assistance response team on the ground.
At a time when the U.S. Government is also facing and addressing
crises in Iraq, Ukraine, and elsewhere, I think we need one organizer,
one coordinator, one responsible figure addressing this crisis who is
appointed by the White House to coordinate all of our resources and all
the people necessary from the U.S. Government for this growing effort.
President Obama should designate an official to manage our country's
response both overseas and here in the United States, including
preparing us for the remote chance this virus might reach American
soil.
Our ambassadors on the ground in the three most affected countries
are playing the primary role in coordination right now, and they are
doing remarkable work, but I will remind my colleagues in this body
that in Sierra Leone there is no currently confirmed U.S. Ambassador.
The nominee, John Hoover, has been waiting almost 8 months to be
confirmed. This is just one painful reminder that the dysfunction of
this body has prevented us from confirming nominated ambassadors to
dozens of countries around the world. To be effective we need to
coordinate our U.S.-based and our field-based efforts through
ambassadors on the ground.
Second, we must begin to deploy U.S. military support to the maximum
extent possible. Let me be clear: I don't mean combat capabilities, I
mean the unique logistical capabilities of the U.S. military, their
ability to deploy through their logistical capabilities. We have
resources that no other country can bring to bear as quickly and as
successfully as we can.
I was encouraged to hear an announcement this past week from the
administration that they plan to use our military to establish a new
hospital facility in Liberia to distribute equipment, to provide
infrastructure and transportation support. I will admit I am concerned
it will take weeks to deploy.
On my visit to Liberia last August, I was struck at how poor and
underdeveloped this nation of brave and inspiring people currently is
and how paved roads and the ability to move at any speed rapidly ends
just a few miles from the capital, and how strained the infrastructure
and the public health systems are by this rapidly growing crisis.
This is not everything we can and should be doing. We need to build
more field hospitals for civilians in Liberia and beyond so there are
facilities for health workers and civilians fighting the disease. We
also can and should provide airlift of supplies from private donors.
I have heard from organizations that have worked at the
transportation facility and have donated supplies that can fill cargo
plane after cargo plane, but they are having difficulty getting it from
here to West Africa. We need to deepen our coordination with foreign
militaries. Other Nations possess similar advance capabilities, as we
do, and we will be able to combat this crisis more effectively if we
all work together.
I appreciate Ghana's efforts and partnership as it allows us to use
some of their facilities as an air bridge for logistics. As more air
resources are poured into this fight against Ebola, we need other
countries in the region to lend a similarly open hand.
My third point is directed to our private sector, to international
organizations, to the American people, and to citizens of other
developed nations. We need your support and your generosity and we need
it now.
This is a letter that Liberia's President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf sent
to President Obama this week, and I wish to read from it briefly.
Mr. President, as you know, the outbreak has overwhelmed
the containment and treatment measures we have attempted thus
far.
[[Page S5532]]
Our already limited resources have been stretched to the
breaking point and, up to now, only a private charity,
Medecins Sans Frontiers, has responded robustly in all the
affected countries. But they, too, have reached their limits.
My friend President Sirleaf is right: It is time for the rest of us
to step up.
The World Health Organization has issued an Ebola Response Roadmap
that calls for $490 million and more than 10,000 additional health
workers, and we are far short of reaching those goals today.
So far the U.S. Government has contributed more than $100 million and
has announced a commitment of another $88 million that we in this body
will hopefully approve before we end this session.
The Gates Foundation, as I mentioned, has also made an impressive and
incredible addition of $50 million, but the fact remains we need more.
I have heard from many in my State and across the country eager to
give support. If you have the means, I urge you to go to usaid.gov/
ebola for links to some of the impressive nongovernmental organizations
that are doing what they can on the ground to stem this humanitarian
crisis.
As much as this crisis needs money and equipment and supplies, it
most importantly needs nurses and doctors, paramedics, and other
medical professionals--literally thousands of them. The health systems
of these countries, which were already among the least well resourced
in the world, are overwhelmed, and so I am asking today for your help.
We are asking for you to save lives. If you are a trained medical
professional and willing to help, I urge you to please go to usaid.gov/
ebola and consider how you might serve to help in this crisis.
Fourth, we need to develop and deploy a treatment and vaccine as
rapidly as possible. Here is where in some ways America's unique gifts,
our talents, and our strength in terms of the development and discovery
of new pharmaceuticals, of new treatments, and of a new vaccine are a
unique contribution we can make.
American scientists are making progress on both fronts, but the
reality is it will be hard to confront and ultimately end this disease
in the long term without either. Much of the $88 million President
Obama has requested from Congress will go toward this most important
goal. It is critical we support that funding in this Chamber on a
bipartisan basis and prepare for the reality that this is only the
first investment we will need to make to quickly develop and deploy
these lifesaving drugs and these critically preventive vaccines.
Lastly, we need to invest in the governing and economic institutions
in the countries that have been so devastated by this disease.
It is not a coincidence that this outbreak has emerged in countries
with some of the weakest health care systems on Earth--countries that
face severe shortages of health care workers, labs essential for
testing and diagnosis, clinics and hospitals required for treatment,
and the medical supplies and protective gear such as latex gloves and
face masks that are commonly available in the United States but are now
completely exhausted in the countries of Sierra Leone, Guinea, and
Liberia.
We know how to combat this disease with practices such as isolation,
meticulous infection control, good public health and burial practices,
case investigation, and contact training. But all of these things
require trained personnel and many more resources than are currently
available.
In the short term we absolutely can fill many of these gaps with the
additional resources I have just outlined but we need to act quickly.
In the long term we need to think more deeply about why investing in
local health care systems and institutions in the developing world is
so critical, why a little preventive investment can go a long way
toward making the country more resilient in a crisis such as this.
As we act now to do what we must to stop Ebola, we also must consider
the actions we can and should take together to prevent the next public
health crisis.
To that end, yesterday I introduced a resolution in the Senate with
my colleagues Senators Menendez, Flake, Durbin, and Corker, outlining
some of these very steps and recognizing the severe and real threat the
Ebola outbreak poses to West Africa and, if not properly contained, to
other regions across the globe.
Here is the bottom line: We have what it takes to halt the spread of
Ebola in West Africa and to save tens of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands, of lives in the process. Unlike other foreign interventions,
doing so will take neither bullets nor bombs but rather our
willingness, our compassion, our generosity, and our determination to
act. The lives of thousands and the stability of entire countries is at
stake. It is my hope and prayer that we will rise to this occasion with
everything we have.
ISIS Strategy
Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning to speak about
our military's critical mission to defeat and degrade the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist organization that threatens the
stability and security of tens of thousands across these two nations.
As we consider more deeply involving the U.S. military into a new
combat mission, I am reminded of the brave young men and women who will
carry out that mission with unparalleled courage and professionalism.
This past Saturday I had the opportunity to join hundreds of fellow
Delawareans to welcome home and celebrate 70 men and women of the 3rd
Battalion of the 238th Army National Guard Aviation Regiment who were
returning from 1 year of service in Kuwait. Many of them were returning
not just from one tour of duty but from what was their second or third
deployment, having previously served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet
these volunteer citizen soldiers were and remain willing to continue
serving. I have had the honor of knowing several current and former
members of this unit, and my heart was heavy this weekend, thinking
about how many more units such as these, how many soldiers and airmen
and their families will be asked to continue serving in combat or in
distant and difficult places supporting combat missions in the years
ahead.
After more than a decade of conflict in the exactly 13 years since
September 11, 2001, I know Americans are tired of war. I know we are
weary of war. As the President spoke last night, it was clear he is as
well, as am I.
But I would challenge my colleagues and my friends, as I challenge
myself, that though we are weary, we cannot ignore the very real
threats we face today. We cannot ignore the brutal events that have
taken place in northwestern Iraq and in eastern Syria. We cannot ignore
the threat that brutality poses to America and our allies. ISIS is a
brutal terrorist organization. It has killed innocent Americans, such
as the two brave journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, whom they
beheaded. Thousands of innocent Iraqis and Syrians have perished at
their hands, and it will continue to do so unless the world comes
together to stop it.
Let us not forget, one of the biggest reasons we first acted against
ISIS militarily in Iraq this summer was to prevent the imminent
genocide of a religious minority, the Yazidi people in Iraq. Images of
tens of thousands of Yazidis and Christians who were being hounded and
persecuted and threatened by ISIS and who then ultimately retreated to
the top of a mountain I think transfixed the American people this
August, and the action our President took and our military executed, to
allow them to safely flee, encouraged all of us to know there are times
and places when American military might can and should be used for
good.
Just as the ISIS terrorists threaten the Yazidis, they too threaten
the very survival of Christians, Kurds, Turkmen, and other ethnic and
religious minorities in the region.
Last night, with my Republican colleague Senator Kirk, I cochaired
the first meeting of the Senate Human Rights Caucus. We heard from
representatives from Iraq's minority communities in a conversation that
focused on ISIS's atrocities against innocent civilians simply because
of who they are or how they worship. As we expand our campaign against
ISIS, we must continue to engage with the people of Iraq and Syria and
the region to learn from the past and continue to prevent massacres of
innocent men, women, and children. ISIS is a group
[[Page S5533]]
bent on the destruction of all people, of whatever background or
religion, who do not subscribe to their hateful ideology.
Our President is right. What makes the United States a global force
for good is that we are still willing to do what is hard because we
know it is right. That is the responsibility that comes from being a
nation uniquely founded on principles of freedom, of liberty, of
justice, and of having built one of the most capable and powerful
militaries in the world, of being a nation and a people born of
immigrants who came from all over this world and who remain connected
to it and touched by the things that happen in the far reaches of our
globe.
Last night President Obama addressed our Nation to make the case for
expanding military action against ISIS. Already, sadly, today there are
critics of his strategy, just as there have been over the past few
weeks. In fact, in the 4 years I have served here, I have rarely seen a
day in the Senate when the President isn't challenged, criticized,
blocked, and harried by his opponents. There is always some way he
could have acted more quickly or with more strength. Critics claim we
would be better served by a sterner tone or a more eager finger on the
trigger. I must say I was struck when former Vice President Cheney this
past week criticized President Obama's restraint, as he has throughout
President Obama's tenure. I remind my friends we can do better--we
could do better--than to listen to the voices of those who misled this
country into war in Iraq a decade ago, especially when it is clear they
have learned none of the lessons of that tragic strategic blunder.
Surely, as we consider carefully taking expanded military action now,
we should applaud our President for proceeding with caution and
humility.
Critical to our current strategy and what sets it apart from some
past actions is this fact: We are not going alone. Seeking to lead a
multilateral coalition is not leading from behind. It is not weakness.
A muscular multilateralism is recognizing we are an indispensable
nation, we are a leading nation, but we are not the only Nation that
should take on and tackle the challenge ISIS presents. Much of the
allure of ISIS is the illusion they have created that the Muslim world
is at war with the West, when the truth is ISIS does not reflect or
represent Islam and ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other people.
The President's strategy of building a broad coalition of support,
including across the Arab and Muslim world, is crucial to our success.
This is not just an American problem, it is a regional and global
problem, and it will not be solved without the hard work of those
living in the communities and countries most at risk, most affected,
most harmed by ISIS.
We cannot and should not do this alone. That is the only way this
works. It is a critical reason I support the President's strategy for
expanded action.
Central to this strategy's success is our military action as well as
diplomatic resources and pressure. Let's remember one of the reasons
this has even happened is because of the abject failure of Prime
Minister Maliki and his Iraqi Government to act in a pluralistic,
inclusive way, as he had pledged he would, and has instead acted more
as a Shia warlord over the last few years, sewing the seeds of dissent
and of disconnection with his Sunni citizens that created the very
vacuum into which ISIS has charged.
That is why this administration's diplomatic efforts to build an
inclusive Iraqi Government--to demand an inclusive Iraqi Government--
have been so important. We cannot defeat ISIS without Iraqis working
hand in hand on the ground, and that requires a united Iraq whose
future every Iraqi has a stake in preserving.
As we deepen our involvement, it is also necessary that we broaden
our strategy. The fact is we cannot defeat ISIS by attacking it in Iraq
alone. As we hit ISIS from the air, we also need to be cognizant of the
fact that most of its strength and support is in Syria and that the
boundary line dividing Iraq from Syria is today on the ground largely a
fiction. So we need in Syria a strong and a moderate and an armed and a
trained Syrian opposition ready, willing, and able to fight ISIS on the
ground.
The President referred last night to our successful counterterrorism
strategy in several places in the world. Let me, as the cochair of the
African Affairs Subcommittee, briefly mention ways in which this
strategy in Syria is similar to what our strategy has been in Somalia
in combating al-Shabaab, a deadly Al Qaeda affiliate, which has
governed, ruled, and terrorized much of Somalia over the past decade.
There has been a similar strategy to the one articulated last night,
where the United States has combined training, equipment, logistics,
and tactical support with an African ground force drawn from Uganda,
Kenya, and Ethiopia, where those troops have done the hard work of
retaking and holding territory while the Somali Government and security
forces get reestablished.
In the case of Syria, Saudi Arabia has just stepped up and agreed to
provide the facilities, the funding, and the space to train and equip
Syrian coalition fighters.
In Congress, we must act swiftly and decisively to support that
training and equipment mission that the President has asked us to
support by granting our President the authority and funding he needs.
Air strikes could happen soon, and we cannot make the mistake of
taking out ISIS while giving Bashar al-Assad, the dictator who still
terrorizes Syria, the opportunity to rush in. By helping build a
cohesive, trained, and equipped moderate Syrian opposition, we can help
prevent the expansion of ISIS and the Assad regime.
In the long run, in Syria and in Iraq, it is Syrians--moderate
Syrians--who must retake their country from ISIS and undertake the very
difficult and daunting challenge of rebuilding a stable and inclusive
and hopefully someday peaceful society, after decades of dictatorship
and more than 3 years of a withering civil war. The United States and
Syria's neighbors and the entire international community need to be
invested and engaged to help them along this difficult path.
We need to be direct with the American people. This is not going to
be easy and it is not going to be swift. We must ensure our military
has the resources it needs to carry out this mission. As President
Obama said last night, the lives of brave American pilots and
servicemembers will be put at risk. But we must also be clear. In their
courage and service, they will be part of an important effort to
eradicate from this Earth one of the greatest threats currently walking
the planet.
Last night President Obama asked for the support of the American
people as our Armed Forces and our partners begin in combination to
carry out this mission. Let me say, he has mine. I am committed to
working with my colleagues as later today all Senators attend a
classified briefing, an update on ISIS, and as next week committees in
this Senate hear testimony from Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary
of Defense Hagel. I am committed to working with my colleagues and with
Chairman Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee to review,
consider, draft, and approve an authorization for the use of military
force when submitted to us by the President that gives Congress an
appropriate role in oversight and the President the authorization he
needs.
We need to do everything we can together to ensure that ISIS will be
stopped. It has already shown itself, demonstrating its capability to
commit unspeakable crimes. If left unchecked, these terrorists will
spread their reach beyond our ability to stop them. We cannot let that
happen. As my colleagues discuss and debate this mission, I only ask
that we leave the politics of the moment out of it. With an election
soon upon us, the temptation is strong to use every opportunity to
achieve any short-term partisan advantage. But this is too important.
Too much is at stake.
Today all over this country we call to mind and honor the sacrifices
of Americans who served and those who lost their lives 13 years ago
today. We must consider this new mission with the utmost gravity,
humility, and caution. I am eager then to work with my colleagues here
in the Senate and with the administration in a bipartisan way as we
move forward to take on the difficult task of defeating ISIS and
strengthening the forces of inclusion
[[Page S5534]]
and moderation in Iraq and Syria. I urge my colleagues to work together
to support this mission every step of the way.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WALSH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Montana.
Suicide Prevention For American Veterans Act
Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, I rise today to remember September 11,
2001.
We all know the changes that came out of that terrible day. I watched
the events unfold with my colleagues at the Montana National Guard, and
we all knew it would change the course of America's long-term military
strategy. That is what I want to talk about today, the victories, the
consequences, and the true costs of sending America's men and women to
defend our country.
In the 13 years that have passed since that awful day, we have
experienced more tragedy and adversity. What hasn't changed is how as a
nation we triumph over adversity. Throughout our history, Americans
have united to face our biggest challenges.
Past and present, the need to work together to support each other, to
lift each other, and to inspire each other is what makes the United
States a nation that triumphs over adversity.
Our Nation is not living up to the promises we made to the men and
women we sent to war following the attacks of 13 years ago. The
President and Congress have stepped up to provide more direction and
more resources to the VA and to the Defense Department. We are
addressing the unacceptable waiting times, and we have taken steps to
improve the services our veterans have earned.
But when it comes to the health care of our Nation's veterans, we
still have a long way to go. Twenty-two veterans die each day by
suicide. Let me say that again. Twenty-two veterans die each day by
suicide. It is simply intolerable. Imagine. If 22 servicemembers were
dying each day on the battlefield, our Nation would act.
Too many veterans have returned to their homes, to their families, to
their communities changed people. They are suffering from the unseen
wounds of war: PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and post-concussion
syndrome. As the only Member of this body who has fought in Iraq, I can
state these unseen wounds are real.
Our Nation's veterans and their families are crying out for help.
They are suffering, many of them in silence and isolation, and we must
provide them with the support they have earned from the grateful Nation
they fought to protect.
One of the first bills I introduced when I came to the Senate was the
Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, the SAV Act. With the
partnership from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the bill
now has bipartisan support in the Senate and a companion bipartisan
bill in the House.
Veterans who suffer from unseen wounds of war need access to
specialized mental health care in order to be properly treated. In
Montana, many veterans live in rural or frontier areas where access to
mental health care means long journeys and long wait times.
In August, President Obama unveiled an important Executive order to
tackle the challenge of helping our Nation's veterans better adjust to
civilian life so that no veteran ever feels as if they are left alone.
The President's action was a win for veterans and their families. This
action included several elements of the SAV Act, including better
standardization between the Department of Defense and the VA with
regard to prescription medication, improved health record sharing
between agencies, greater training to identify veterans at risk of
suicide, a new focus on recruiting more mental health care providers to
help our veterans and servicemembers, and important accountability
measures to track the success of the VA's mental health care programs.
Recently, Secretary Hagel announced that the Department of Defense
will more fully consider service-related PTSD when evaluating a
veteran's petition to upgrade his or her discharge status.
All of these are the right steps in the right direction. But even
with the President's important actions, there is still more we need to
do to prevent suicide among our veterans. One essential component of
the SAV Act addresses the need to extend combat eligibility.
PTSD can take years to manifest. We owe it to the men and women who
return from combat to give them more time to come forward to receive
treatment. Under this bill, veterans who have returned from conflicts
can seek treatment for PTSD up to 15 years after returning home. I am
committed to lengthening this eligibility time, which is currently only
5 years.
The SAV Act would also require the review of wrongful discharges for
troops who struggle with mental health issues. Behavioral health issues
are often caused by invisible wounds, and troops who have service-
connected mental health problems may have been discharged incorrectly
or cut off from the benefits and support they need to heal.
As we observe National Suicide Prevention Week and the horrific
events of 9/11, we must remember our men and women who served our
Nation so honorably. We must remember the sacrifice they made to defend
us, and for many of them the sacrifices they continue to make after
their return to civilian life. Our veterans deserve our support and we
have a responsibility as a country to provide it.
Today I ask my colleagues to join me in the fight to live up to the
promises this country has made to our veterans.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask to be recognized to speak as in
morning business for such time as I may consume and engage in a
colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ISIS
Mr. McCAIN. Today, Senator Graham and I, on the 13th anniversary of
the attacks of September 11, 2001--this anniversary--sadly, and
unfortunately, we cannot agree and we cannot say, as President Obama
did last night, that America is safer.
In fact, in many respects, America is in more danger than at any time
since the end of the Cold War. We look around the world at the
challenges, the aggression, the provocations, and the continued
slaughter of innocent Ukrainians.
It is a classic example of what happens when the United States of
America decides to withdraw from the world and create a vacuum. That
vacuum is filled by the forces of evil, innocents throughout the world
suffer, and America's security is threatened.
So I strongly disagree--and I believe that most objective observers
would strongly disagree--with the President's assertion last night that
America is safer. By no objective measurement is America safer. In
fact, when we look at Twitter and Facebook, we will see that ISIS is
threatening the United States of America and urging others to come to
the United States of America and attack the United States of America.
Yesterday, from a hearing before the Department of Homeland Security,
it was very clear that our border is not secure. That is a recipe for
at least attempts by those of ISIS who have dedicated themselves to the
destruction of the United States of America to be made possible.
Mr. Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, was once a resident in the U.S.-run
prison camp in Iraq called Camp Bucca. He spent 4 years there and then
left. On his way out he said to his American captures: ``I'll see you
guys in New York.'' I am not making that up. He said: ``I'll see you
guys in New York.'' The leader of ISIS, Mr. Baghdadi's message has
been: Attack and destroy the United States of America.
[[Page S5535]]
So, no, Mr. President, America is not safer. In fact, because of a
feckless foreign policy, America is in greater danger than it has been,
in some respects, in my lifetime--not in all but in some.
The fact is the President of the United States sees ISIS as some kind
of terrorist organization. It is not. ISIS is a terrorist army. ISIS
has the largest area in history of wealth, of military equipment and
capability than of any terrorist organization in history, and they
spread in an area larger than the size of the State of Indiana.
I would like to say the President got some things right in his speech
on ISIS. He seems to have read the op-ed piece my colleague Senator
Graham and I wrote in the New York Times 2 weeks ago because he adopted
most of our proposals--most but not all.
The President compared his plan to the counterterrorism approach he
has taken in Somalia and Yemen. It is so disturbing to think that a
strategy against ISIS would be the same as against Al Qaeda in Somalia
and Yemen. There are terrorist organizations in Somalia and Yemen and,
yes, we have been killing with drones, but we have by no means defeated
them.
To compare what ISIS has done and the slaughter that ISIS is carrying
out to the terrorist organizations in Somalia and Yemen reflects a
fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the President of the United
States of the threat that we face.
The problem also is that even Al Qaeda has not been defeated in those
countries. The President says he wants to degrade and defeat the way
they are attacking Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia--but they are not
defeated.
So what the President proposed last night can possibly, if done
correctly, degrade ISIS, but it can't destroy ISIS. And we must destroy
ISIS. Sooner or later, according to our heads of intelligence--whether
it be the Director of the CIA or the Director of the FBI or the
Secretary of Homeland Security--they want to attack the United States.
Their goal is to attack the United States of America.
So let's start with what the President got right. He described the
right goal: to degrade and to ultimately destroy ISIS. He called for
expanding air strikes, to go on offense against ISIS. He explained the
need to hit ISIS both in Iraq and Syria. He called for training and
arming moderate Syrian opposition forces, and he described elements of
a comprehensive strategy--diplomatic, economic, and military--all of
which Senator Graham and I have long championed.
He talked about the formation of a coalition--his Secretary of State
has said he wanted as many as 40 nations. So far there are 9, and the
interesting thing is there is not a single Middle Eastern country that
has joined this so-called coalition.
Why is that? Is it because they are not afraid of ISIS? Of course
they are afraid of ISIS. But they don't trust the United States of
America. I hear that directly from leaders all over the Middle East.
They don't trust us because of the President's bungling, incredibly
bad decision after he once said that if Syria crossed certain reds
lines and used chemical weapons, then we would respond. They crossed
that line. He then said we were going to respond, and then, after a 45-
minute walk with his chief of staff, he announced to the world that we
were not going to strike; he was going to Congress, knowing full well
he would not get that permission from Congress. That nuance was lost on
countries in the Middle East that were prepared to join us with air
strikes into Syria.
So it is not surprising. It is not surprising at all that so far the
President and his Secretary of State have been unable to convince any
of these Middle Eastern countries--and we need them. We need them very
badly.
One of the main things the President didn't say and should have said
is that he recognizes he made a mistake. Every President has made
mistakes. Certainly George W. Bush did in Iraq. He at least had the
courage to fire his Secretary of Defense and adopt the surge which
basically stabilized Iraq. It had stabilized Iraq--before we made the
decision not to do so.
Every one of the President's military advisers--the smartest people
that any of us know: General Petraeus, General Keen, General Allen--I
could go down the list--argued strenuously for leaving a residual force
behind. The President of the United States decided not to. Now we are
trying to rewrite history and say: Well, the President really wanted
to.
Find me one statement the President of the United States made
publicly that he wanted to leave a residual force behind, and I can
find you 50 where he bragged about the last combat troop had left Iraq
and we had left a safe, stable, prosperous Iraq behind--a lot of
howlers about how well we had done in Iraq.
If we had left a residual force, the situation in Iraq would not be
where it is today, which allowed Iraqi security forces to weaken,
squandered our influence in Iraq, and harmed our ability to check Prime
Minister Maliki's worst instincts.
Then there is his failure to support and arm the Free Syrian Army 2
years ago. I have been in Syria. I know how brave these people are. I
know how disappointed they were when we failed to arm and equip them.
Two years ago, his entire national security team--including his
Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton--strongly urged the President of
the United States to arm, train, and equip the Free Syrian Army. The
President of the United States turned them down. The President of the
United States overruled the unanimous opinion of his national security
team. That, my friends, was a huge impact--again giving rise to ISIS,
giving Bashar al-Assad the ability and capability to slaughter innocent
Syrians.
It breaks my heart that 192,000 Syrians have been massacred by Bashar
al-Assad. He continues to drop these barrel bombs which are horrible
killers.
Bashar al-Assad continues to have 150,000 Syrians dying in his prison
camps.
I wish every American could see those pictures that were smuggled out
of the tortured, killed, and starved-to-death Syrians--192,000 of them.
We could have turned that around 2 years ago.
Then 3 years ago was when the President of the United States said: It
is not a matter of whether Bashar al-Assad is leaving. It is a matter
of when. He also said 3 years ago: It is time for Bashar Assad to
leave.
Yet Bashar Assad today continues to slaughter innocent men, women,
and children. Millions of refugees have fled the country. The horrors
of this butchering continue, and what changed?
One aspect that changed the battlefield equation, when the President
of the United States said it is not a matter of if but when, was when
Iran--which some now are asking us to work with--sent in Hezbollah--
5,000 of them from Lebanon--and it changed the momentum on the
battlefield.
Senator Lindsey Graham and I were called over to the White House. We
went in to meet the President, after the President had said that he was
going to strike Syria. We sat there, and the President looked us in the
eye and he said, I want to do three things: degrade Bashar Assad,
upgrade the Free Syrian Army, and change the battlefield equation.
Senator Graham and I, taking his word for it, went out in the
driveway and said: We are backing the President of the United States.
Several days later, without being notified, we were stunned to read
that the President had changed his mind. He had not told us the truth
in the Oval Office. That is a unique experience for me, where I have
been in the Oval Office under many Presidents.
I am confident the steps the President laid out last night can
degrade ISIS. But that is not sufficient to protect our people. We need
Special Forces and advisers on the ground.
The President continues to say there will be no boots on the ground.
There are 1,700 boots on the ground right now. There will be more boots
on the ground, but they won't be in the form of combat units. If we are
really going to defeat ISIS, we are going to need close air support,
forward air controllers, intelligence capability, Special Forces, and
many others. We will soon have more than 1,500 there, and there will
have to be more.
Tell the American people the truth, Mr. President. Those young men
and women are going there, they are going to be in harm's way, and they
are going to be exposed to combat. Tell the
[[Page S5536]]
American people the truth. We need to do a lot more.
I wish to mention one other aspect before I turn to my friend from
South Carolina, who was with me in 2008 at a townhall meeting.
A man stood up at the town hall meeting and said: Senator McCain, how
long are we going to be in Iraq?
I said: We may be in Iraq for a long, long time because although we
have sustained this situation and we have stabilized it--that was after
the surge had been implemented and succeeded--it is very fragile. We
are going to have to leave a residual force behind--as we did in Japan,
in Germany, Korea, Bosnia, where we have left residual forces behind
for the sake of stability.
Well, in case any of my colleagues have forgotten, I was pilloried:
McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
Yes, I wanted a residual force in Iraq--not to engage in combat but
to provide stability, intelligence, and other capabilities. Now we know
what happened when we left Iraq. Now we know the consequences.
I hope all those people who called me all of the names which I am not
going to repeat here will render an apology, because I was right. I
said that if we left Iraq completely, then we risked the great danger
of it deteriorating.
I say to my colleagues, the situation today didn't have to be this
way. None of the challenges we now face in Iraq and Syria had to be
this dire. The rise of ISIS did not have to happen. We have lost too
much time and missed too many opportunities. But we can still defeat
our terrorist enemies, and we must protect our people and our partners
and secure our national interests in the Middle East.
The President's plan, if he implements it--if he understands that
this is not Yemen and Somalia, if he understands that this is a direct
threat to the United States of America, if he comes to Congress and
asks for--not welcomes, but asks for--debate and amendments and votes
that show the American people's representatives will support them in
this effort, then I think we have a chance of succeeding. But I have to
tell my colleagues I am not very optimistic from the start I saw last
night.
I would like to yield to my colleague from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. If I may, this is the anniversary of 9/11.
Thirteen years ago on this date our country was attacked by radical
Islamists who don't want your car, they don't want your bank account,
they don't want your television. They are not criminals. They want to
destroy your way of life. And the sooner we come to grips with the fact
that there are people like this still out there, the better off we will
be.
It is hard for the average American to understand why people think
this way. I can't explain it. I have been to the Mideast more times
than I can count, and I promise you there are plenty of devout Muslims
who worship according to the Muslim faith, the Islamic faith, who would
have plenty of places for me and you to reside in this world without
fear. There are plenty of people--the vast majority of people of that
faith we could live with in peace. But there is a strain called radical
Islam that would kill every moderate Muslim, kill every Christian,
destroy the State of Israel, and would kill as many of us as they could
if somebody doesn't stop them.
Thirteen years ago close to 3,000 Americans were killed in the
attacks on our country by the bin Laden group. The only reason it was
close to 3,000 and not 3 million is because they couldn't get the
weapons to kill 3 million of us. If they could, they would.
So what do we do? We have to keep them away from those weapons. We
have to keep the war over there so it doesn't come back here. And we
need allies. I am here to tell you that contrary to what I hear in my
own party, most people in Syria have two things in common: They don't
like Assad and they sure don't like ISIL. If you don't believe that
about Syria, you really don't know much about Syria.
This whole enterprise in Syria started when people demanded to be
free from the dictator. Our lack of attention in not responding to the
needs of those Syrians who would have defeated Assad and lived in peace
with us has cost us greatly.
Three years ago Senator McCain said: It is in our national security
interest to side with the Free Syrian Army to get rid of Assad because
he is the guy who helped kill Americans during the Iraq war. He is the
guy who is cozy with Iran.
We had them on the ropes. The Free Syrian Army was about to beat
Assad, and then in came 3,000 to 5,000 Hezbollah fighters--Iranian-
inspired militia from Lebanon--and the Russians doubled down, we
withdrew our support, and the army eventually collapsed. That happened
simultaneously with a decision by President Obama--President Obama's
decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. We disengaged from
Iraq. We had no presence there, and the rest is history.
About the speech last night, what bothered me the most was the way it
started. The President tried to tell us that as a nation we are safer
today than we have ever been. Do you believe that? I don't. There are
more terrorist organizations with more money, more capability, and more
weapons to attack our homeland than existed before 9/11. We are not
safer than we were before 9/11, and that is an unfortunate fact.
The President also said this operation against ISIL will be like
other CT--counterterrorism--operations over the last 5 or 6 years. No,
it will not. This is not a small group of people running around with
AK-47s; this is a full-blown army. They were going to defeat the
Kurdish Peshmerga--a pretty tough fighting group--if we hadn't
intervened. To underestimate how hard this will be will bite us.
Mr. President, please square. Be honest with the American people
about what we face. Somebody has to beat this army. This is not a small
group of terrorists. They have howitzers, they have tanks, and they are
flush with money. They are getting fighters from all over the world.
But they can and will be defeated, and they must be defeated.
To the family members who remember this as the day their lives were
turned upside down, you will always be in my thoughts and prayers, like
everybody else in the country. This is a day for most of us to remember
with sadness, and it is a hurtful day, but if it were one of your
family members who lost their life that day, it would be the day your
life was turned upside down.
There are four other Americans who died on September 11 whom I won't
forget--Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty. They
died 2 years ago in Benghazi. I am not going to forget them or their
families, and we are going to get to the bottom of what happened in
Benghazi. That is my commitment to you.
How do we move forward?
Mr. President, if you need my blessing to destroy ISIL, you have it.
If you need to follow them to the gates of hell, I will send you a
note--go for it. If you need Congress to authorize your actions, let me
know. You say you don't. I agree with you, but if it makes us stronger
for this body to vote in support of your plan to destroy ISIL, I will
give you my vote. But here is what I expect in return: your full
commitment to me.
I am tired of half measures. I am tired of misleading the American
people about what we face. There is no way in hell we are going to beat
these guys without an American ground component in Iraq and Syria.
There is not a force in the Mideast that can take these guys on and win
without substantial American help. We don't need the 82nd Airborne, but
we are going to need thousands of troops over time on the ground
holding the hands of the Arab armies that are going to do the fighting
along with the Syrians to make sure we will win.
One thing I can promise the American people: If we take ISIL on and
lose, we will unlock the gates of hell, and hell will come our way.
This is the last best chance to get this right, Mr. President. You
made plenty of mistakes, and so have I, and so has Senator McCain.
And Senator McCain, nobody is going to apologize to you. I think they
should, but they are not. I am not looking for anybody to apologize. We
have all made mistakes. This is the time to do some soul-searching as a
nation. You and I can do some soul-searching.
Those who have not seen the threat for what it is, all I ask of you
is to be willing to embrace reality.
[[Page S5537]]
All I am asking of President Obama is to do what President Bush did:
Change your tactics and your strategy because it is not working.
Senator McCain and I went to the White House during the Bush years,
and we told President Bush: This is not a few dead-enders, Mr.
President. It is not working in Iraq. You don't have enough troops. And
if we don't change course, you are going to lose the country.
To his credit, he went from training and advising the Iraqi Army to a
full-blown counterinsurgency strategy, taking the fight to the enemy in
the surge led by GEN David Petraeus, and it did work. That was an
admission by President Bush that he had gotten it wrong and he had to
change course.
Every President and every Senator makes mistakes. History judges you
not by the mistakes you make but by what you learn from them.
Here is what I ask of the President: Quit caveating everything. Look
the enemy in the eye and say, ``We will destroy you'' and stop. Look
the American people in the eye and say, ``We have to win. We will win.
And I will do what is necessary to win.'' Come to the Congress and say,
``We are in this together.''
The American military is tired, but they are not too tired to defend
this country. If you had a bunch of them in front of you and you asked
them to follow you--``Would you go to Iraq and Syria to fight ISIL?''--
they would say ``Send me tomorrow'' because they know what these people
will do to the rest of us. Why do they serve over and over again? Why
do they go to Iraq three and four times, Afghanistan three and four
times? They have seen the enemy up close. They know what comes our way
if we lose.
So this is the day to reflect as a nation. I am so sorry that 13
years after 9/11 we are having to deal with greater threats than before
9/11. Fifty years from now, long after I am gone, there is going to be
an American soldier somewhere in Africa or the Middle East helping
indigenous populations fight radical Islam. But over time, just as sure
as I am standing here, radical Islam will fall because--here is the
truth--what they are selling, most people don't want to buy. They don't
have the capacity yet by themselves to stand and stare these people
down.
As to Americans who are frustrated with the pace of democracy in the
Mideast and who believe those people can't do this, all I ask you to do
is to pick up an American history book. Within the first 100 years of
our country, we were at war with Canada and Mexico. Within the first
100 years of our country, we were at war with ourselves, and it started
in my State.
This is not easy. It is not easy to this day. To expect people who
have lived under brutal dictatorships and had their society divided and
destroyed for decades to get to where we are in 12 or 13 years is
unrealistic.
Here is the hope for me. There is good news. There is plenty of will
throughout the world to stand up to radical Islam. Our goal is to
provide capacity to that will. Sometimes it will be with American
soldiers; sometimes it will be clean drinking water; a small health
care clinic that you wouldn't send your child to for 5 minutes that
will save lives in Africa; a small schoolhouse where a young girl can
get an education. If we are not willing to do these things over there,
they will come here.
Mr. McCAIN. If my colleague will yield for one question.
Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of our colleague from California, so
I will make it short.
Last night I had an exchange with the former spokesperson for the
White House, and again this issue came up and the assertion, the
incredible assertion that it was the Iraqis who did not want to leave a
residual force behind--a statement that continues to amaze me, that
anyone would believe such a thing, particularly given the circumstances
which the Iraqis were left under, including--by the way, every single
one of our military leaders urged that we leave a residual force
behind, and many of them, such as General Keen, General Petraeus, and
others, predicted what would happen if we pulled everybody out.
I wonder if for the record the Senator from South Carolina would
relate the experience we had in Iraq and our personal experience with
regard to the issue of residual force behind.
Mr. GRAHAM. I remember getting a phone call from then-Secretary
Clinton asking me and Senator McCain and Senator Levin to go to Iraq
and see if we could intervene and help the Iraqis make a decision about
a residual force because we thought it was in our interest.
President Obama has always looked at this issue as fulfilling a
campaign promise. He got the answer he wanted, which was zero. The
military told him we needed some people, but he really was intent on
ending the war in Iraq.
Here is the problem: Without a residual force, we have lost
everything we fought for. When we met with Barzani, Allawi, and
Malaki, I was convinced they were willing to accept an American follow-
on force; we just had to put it on the table in a way that it mattered.
When we were talking to Malaki, they said: Senator Graham, how many
troops are we talking about?
I turned to General Austin and our then-Ambassador Jeffrey and said:
How many?
He said: We are still working on that.
We went from 18,000 recommended by General Austin--the last time I
got a number from the White House, it was below 3,000. This cascading
downward from 18,000 to below 3,000 was not because the Iraqis said it
was too many; it was because the White House couldn't pick a number
because they didn't want to stay. It is about as accurate to say the
Iraqis didn't want us to stay as it is to say the President never
called ISIS a JV team. The President did, but he is trying to rewrite
that statement because it looks pretty naive.
Look forward. Let's beat on the Republicans for a minute. The
Republican Party--the party of Ronald Reagan--embraced sequestration.
For those who don't know what I am talking about, it is a budget
proposal that will gut our military over the next decade. We have the
smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1950, and the
smallest Air Force in modern history. Republicans embraced that
concept.
If we want to defeat ISIL, we better change sequestration because we
are about to gut the military at the time we need it most. There is
plenty of blame to go around here.
Here is the key for me: We as a nation have one last chance to get
this right.
I will make the same offer to President Obama that I made to
President Bush: If you come up with a strategy that makes sense and you
are understanding and learning from your mistakes, as I try to learn
from mine, I will be there with you.
There was not much help coming from our friends on the other side
when Iraq was bad. Bush got absolutely no support when his mistakes
came back to haunt him. I will not make that mistake.
The mistakes President Obama has made are real, and they have to be
corrected. If the President will correct them, I will stand with him no
matter what the polls show about troops on the ground. And I know how
the President stands with South Carolinians--not very well. It is not
about the President; it is not about this Senator; it is about us.
So on this September 11 anniversary, I make an offer to my Commander
in Chief, Barack Obama: If you will destroy ISIL and mean it, you will
have an ally in Senator McCain and Senator Graham.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3
minutes, followed by Senator Merkley, who will speak for 8 minutes,
followed by Senator Vitter, who will speak for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The War on Terror
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I watched every word of the President's
address to the Nation last night, and I have this to say to him: Thank
you for your clarity. Thank you for taking the time you needed to put
the pieces together so that we don't march into another Iraq war.
When I hear my colleagues--cheerleaders for the war in Iraq who told
us
[[Page S5538]]
it would be over in 6 months--come down here and try to lecture this
President on how to deal with ISIL, I get the chills. When I watch Dick
Cheney come up here to talk to House Republicans and lecture them about
how they had it right--had it right? They couldn't have had it more
wrong. Because we know that the tragedy of 9/11--and as we revere the
heroes and mourn the loss of those on that horrific day--was an attack
by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Our then-President Bush turned around--he could have had the whole
world in his hand--but instead marches into Iraq. Thank the Lord I
voted no on that. I voted yes to going after bin Laden and no to going
into Iraq.
All those sunny predictions--of the war being only 6 months, and they
will have democracy, and we will get the oil and the money, and the
rest--turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster. These same
people who backed that war now come down here and tell the President:
Look me in the eye and tell me you want to do exactly what I want to
do.
Well, Mr. President, since they addressed you, I want to address you.
First, I thank you for taking your time in putting together a winning
strategy to defeat ISIL. We have to. We cannot sit by and watch a group
with tens of thousands of members who are vicious and trained--some
foreign, some I believe from this country--go around and behead people
who won't convert. They want territory. They want to make their own
state. We have to stop them with the world, with combat boots that are
combat boots of those in the region, such as we are seeing in Iraq, and
we will see in Syria if we give the President the funds he wants to
train the moderate Syrians.
Here is the deal from me: We are going to go after ISIL, we are going
to do it with a coalition of the world, we are not going to have a
drumbeat of going back into the Iraq war. This is a counterterrorism
mission, and I voted for that when I voted to go after Osama bin Laden.
I believe the President has this authority.
I also have no problem with voting to put my feelings right there and
I would be happy to take that vote. But beware of the people here who
were the cheerleaders of the Iraq war who want to get this President to
now say he is going to put combat boots on the ground. That is the
wrong recipe. We already learned that. There are 4,000 dead Americans
and tens of thousands wounded.
Let's do this the right way and the way the President laid it out--
with a coalition. Let's not make any of the same mistakes.
So, Mr. President, please keep on track--and Secretary Kerry--and
keep building that coalition. We already have nine nations and NATO and
the Arab League, and we are going to get the U.N. That is the way to
go.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor to Senator
Merkley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. I rise to address an issue affecting millions of
families across America, and that is our rising student loan debt and
the impact it is having on the vision of opportunity for every single
American. As college students return to campus this fall, they are
thinking about their hopes and dreams for the future, but increasingly,
they are also thinking about how that future might be constrained by
the debt load they will carry by the time they graduate.
Education is the key to the pathway for the American dream. When I
was young, my father took me to the schoolhouse doors and he said:
``Those are the doors to opportunity. If you study hard, you can do or
be just about anything here in America.''
My father was a millwright, a mechanic who keeps the sawmill
operating. The vision he had for America and the vision that I have for
America is that every child should have the opportunity to thrive
whether you are the son and daughter of a CEO or you are the son and
daughter of a millwright. But the cost of college and the consequential
student loan debt is diminishing, degrading, and destroying that
vision.
I was the first in my family to go to college. I never dreamed I
would have the chance to end up in this esteemed Chamber fighting for
the vision of the American dream, but throughout my service in the
Senate, that is exactly what I will do. It is the heart of what our
Nation is about. It is the ``We, the People's'' vision, not the few and
powerful's vision, but the ``We, the People's'' vision of our
Constitution, that everyone should have the opportunity to thrive.
Today we are competing in a national and world economy that is much
more knowledge based. It is a global knowledge economy, and we have to
be able to compete, and that often means a path to career technical
education and a path to college. But for too many young folks today,
the doors to college are looking a little less like doors to
opportunity and a little more like trapdoors. They see those doors and
they are not sure they see opportunity and mobility. They are concerned
they see a lifetime of unaffordable and inescapable debt.
I live in a blue-collar community, and I hear this all the time--
parents wrestling with whether their children should incur the debt
necessary to go to college, knowing that debt might be the size of a
home mortgage and will be hung around their neck like a millstone and
that possibly their monthly wages will not even be enough to pay the
loan payments. The prospect of a high level of debt and low level of
pay has parents sending a different message to their children--not the
message my parents gave to me, that everyone has the opportunity to
thrive in America, even from our blue-collar community. They are
sending the message to their kids that the path of opportunity is being
diminished by the enormous debt load and cost of college.
This situation is unacceptable. It is a threat to the future of our
children, and it is certainly a threat to our economy. The economies
that thrive in the world are the ones where the students have the
education to compete in the global economy, and that is certainly
destroying the aspirational vision of America--the American dream.
There is a lot we can do to take on this challenge. We are not helpless
in this effort. We must control the galloping costs and galloping
inflation of tuition. We need to invest more in our community colleges
because it is the most cost-effective portion of our higher education
system. We need to enhance the bridges between our community colleges
and our 4-year colleges and our high schools. We need to make sure
students have the opportunity to get some college credit in high school
through AP classes, the cheapest possible place to get that credit, and
that gives them a step up in their route to college so they can see
that vision and that path.
We should explore new models of financing, such as the pay-it-forward
model, that would eliminate the fears students have between high debt
and low pay. When Pell grants are not enough, when the job you carry at
college is not enough, when tuition is too high and students of modest
means still need loans, then those loans should be at the minimum
possible interest rate.
Loans should never be viewed, as they have been by my colleagues
across the aisle, as a source of profit to the U.S. Government. That
vision is the wrong vision for America. That is why I so strongly
support Senator Warren's proposal that our students get the same low
interest rate on their student loans that our big banks get when they
borrow money from the Federal Reserve.
Moreover, we should enable every American to refinance their student
loans, taking advantage of today's low interest rates.
In my home State of Oregon, there are 500,000 folks with student
loans, many of them at high interest rates. These students would
benefit enormously from being able to refinance. Just as you can
refinance a mortgage or refinance a car, they should be able to
refinance those loans, and not only would that help those individuals a
lot--500,000 people in a State of about 3.7 million, which is a lot of
people--but the additional purchasing power they have would enable them
to contribute to the economy and raise everyone up, making them more
likely to buy a house, for example.
Did you know that for the first time we have a situation where those
young adults 25 through 30 who have gone to college and have graduated
are less likely to own a home than are high
[[Page S5539]]
school graduates? The reason is simple: They are burdened by massive
student debt that doesn't give them the credit standing and income
necessary to buy a home. That shows how much is wrong.
So those individuals on this floor who are trapped in the few and
powerful vision of America and have forgotten the first three words of
the Constitution--that we are fighting so we can enable every child to
thrive--they need to rethink their position. They need to quit blocking
the bill that would allow every student to refinance their student
loan.
Forty percent of graduates with student loans have delayed making a
major purchase such as a car, 25 percent have put off continuing their
education or moved in with relatives to save money. In other words,
this is not an imaginary problem. This is extraordinary. It is real,
and it is having a dramatic impact.
Let us give a fair shot for every child to thrive. Let us let every
parent say to their children with confidence: If you go through the
doors of the schoolhouse and work hard, you can do just about anything
here in America.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Unanimous Consent Request--S.J. Res. 19 Amendment
Mr. VITTER. We have a significant proposal. It is a constitutional
amendment to rewrite the First Amendment to the Constitution, the first
portion of the Bill of Rights, and it would fundamentally alter and
take away certain free speech rights of millions upon millions of
Americans--not a few, not a few ultrawealthy, but many Americans.
I have a real problem with that. I think it is misguided. Instead, I
think we should focus on other proposals and other provisions that can
address what we all see and feel and hear from our constituents. They
see a huge gap between Washington and the real world, Washington and
Main Street U.S.A.
It is also unfortunate that this is, I believe, the first time in
Senate history that we are debating a constitutional amendment on the
floor of the Senate with no opportunity so far--zero opportunity of
floor amendments. That is unheard of, and that is unfortunate.
That is why I wish to bring up two proposed floor amendments that I
will strongly support that go to the real problem in America--
Washington placing itself up here, separate and apart, higher than the
American people in the real world.
The first idea was a floor amendment offered by my colleague Tom
Coburn of Oklahoma. I strongly support it. I have the leading bill
regarding this proposal in the Senate--term limits for Members of
Congress. I believe this is a significant step, but it is one,
unfortunately, necessary and long overdue because of the separation I
have described between Washington and the real world. Americans of all
political parties, all backgrounds, all races think that Washington is
on a different planet and Members of Congress just don't get it because
they come here and ``go Washington.'' We need to get back to the best
traditions of our democracy, which include having true citizen
legislators, to come here, to serve, to represent their constituents,
yes, but for a limited period of time, knowing absolutely they are
returning home after significant but limited service.
I strongly support Senator Coburn's amendment. I strongly support the
same provisions in my stand-alone bill. I urge Senator Reid to again
open the floor of the Senate. Let's have the process the Founders
intended. Don't be the first U.S. Senate leader in history to shut down
all amendments under a constitutional amendment under debate on the
floor.
The second proposal, which is a floor amendment I have at the desk,
also goes to the same concern of Washington living on a different
planet than real-world Americans, and it has to do with what I call the
Washington exemption from ObamaCare. In the ObamaCare statute, we
actually passed, through an amendment on the floor--through being able
to pass a floor amendment--language that says every Member of Congress
and all of our staff should be treated as all other Americans are
treated, who are forced to go to the so-called exchanges. We will go to
the exchanges for our health care--no special deal, no special
exemption, no special subsidy, no special carve-out. Unfortunately,
after that floor amendment passed, after the overall bill passed, I
guess some folks took Nancy Pelosi's advice that we have to pass the
bill in order to read it.
So after the fact, some folks around here started to read it and they
got to that provision and they said, Oh, you-know-what; how are we
going to deal with this? So a furious lobbying campaign began which
resulted in President Obama issuing an Executive order--a special rule
which is clearly illegal, in my opinion, because it is contrary to the
statute--to create special treatment, a special carve-out, a special
subsidy for Members of Congress and our staff. That is not right. We
should live by that original language passed right here on the Senate
floor in a floor amendment.
We should say, The first rule of American democracy should be that
what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself, and we should
treat ourselves the same way as we treat other Americans who have to go
to the exchanges under ObamaCare. That should be the first rule of
American democracy: What we pass for America, we live with ourselves,
because that is the right thing to do. That is the right principle.
Also, for a very practical reason: Because sometimes the chefs in the
kitchen should eat their own cooking, but sometimes that makes the
cooking get a whole lot better. It is a very practical rule to follow.
I urge support for this proposal and I urge an open amendment process
and a real debate which, unfortunately, heretofore has been completely
shut down. I urge consideration of this amendment. I urge us to place
ourselves along with everyday Americans in how we are treated under
ObamaCare and everything else. I urge full debate and consideration of
the measure, and then passage of it.
To further that, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes
consideration of S.J. Res. 19, that it be in order for my amendment No.
3786 to be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Reserving the right to object, the Senate has heard the
reasons for these objections before, but the fact is that staff and
Senators are covered by the exact same plan that is offered under the
exchange to millions of Americans. It works just as it has always
worked before for employees here in the Senate, and, frankly, for
millions of employees in the private sector. Senate employees, House
employees pay their premiums and the employer picks up the employer
share--no different than it has always been before.
Specifically, the law doesn't allow for any employees here to take
advantage of the tax credits that are available to many other
Americans.
This is, of course, just another attempt to undermine the law that
is, by every available metric, working. The uninsurance rate in this
country is plummeting. Health care inflation is at a record low--
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I think there was an objection to my
unanimous consent request, and I wish to reclaim the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. Outcomes are getting better, and for that reason, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor, as the Senator
knows, it is simply not true that we are being treated on the exchange
as other Americans are treated. That is flat out not true. No other
American at our income level is getting the huge subsidy that Members
of Congress are getting--I am not accepting it--but that Members of
Congress are getting under the President's illegal rule. No other
American in our country, no other American gets that deal, and that was
nowhere mentioned and nowhere included in the amendment we passed on
this topic during the ObamaCare debate. So what the Senator says is
just flat out misleading. If he wants to truly be treated as other
Americans are treated under the exchange, absolutely. That is what I am
asking for. But don't pretend that
[[Page S5540]]
present practice does that. It does exactly the opposite.
The American people are sick and tired of it. The American people are
sick and tired of being put down as second class and Congress and
Washington lifting itself up as above them. That is a fundamental thing
that is wrong with American democracy today. That is what my amendment
goes to with regard to treatment under ObamaCare. That is what Senator
Coburn's amendment goes to with regard to term limits for Members of
Congress.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Constitutional Amendment
Mr. LEE. 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
[[Page S5541]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have heard from many Vermonters
concerned about the threat posed to our democracy by recent Supreme
Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. Just
as opponents of campaign finance reform in the past described a parade
of horribles that would occur if we strengthened campaign finance
protections, today we again hear those exaggerations from the other
side of the aisle. Some Republicans have falsely asserted that this
resolution would somehow repeal the First Amendment and would even
result in the banning of books. That is pure hyperbole.
Restoring the role that Congress and the States have traditionally
had to set reasonable limits on how much a corporation or a millionaire
can spend to influence an election is simply not the equivalent of
prohibiting an individual from speaking out on a candidate. The
constitutional amendment before the Senate does not ban or proscribe
anything. It restores the ability of future States or Congresses to set
reasonable limits if they decide to act but of course those limits
would be guided by the American peoples' desire for such laws.
Over the course of this debate, we have heard Senators talking as if
the First Amendment is absolute. Most Americans can see right through
this. They know that the First Amendment does not protect child
pornography; or obscenity; or statements that incite imminent lawless
action; or defamation or slander; or speech integral to criminal
conduct; or fraudulent speech or perjury. And they know that the First
Amendment is not violated when laws restrict even political speech by
regulating the reasonable time, place, and manner of demonstrations or
protests. The idea that any future law on campaign contributions and
expenditures that has an incidental effect on speech somehow renders it
the equivalent of censorship is just not a serious argument.
The Framers of our fundamental charter anticipated that it would need
to be amended from time to time. The story of our how our Constitution
has been amended over the years is a reflection on our democracy. It is
a story of inclusion and expansion of our representative democracy. The
14th and 15th Amendments, for example, guaranteed equal protection of
the law for all Americans, and ensured that all Americans have the
right to vote regardless of their race. The 17th Amendment gave
Americans the right to directly elect their representatives in Congress
in the wake of concerns that corporations were corrupting state
legislatures to choose Senators beholden to them. The 19th Amendment's
expansion of the right to vote to women and the 26th Amendment's
extension of the vote to young people made ours an even more
representative democracy.
Those who oppose the amendment before us have made some outlandish
claims. One of them was that we cannot consider this amendment because
in their view it would be the first time that changes were made to the
Bill of Rights. What is interesting is that opponents to previous
constitutional amendments also claimed that they should not be adopted
because they impacted the Bill of Rights. In the June hearing that I
chaired before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Jamie Raskin
testified that ``the people have been forced to amend the Constitution
multiple times to reverse reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court
that freeze into place the constitutional property rights and political
privileges of the powerful against the powerless.'' The 13th Amendment
abolished slavery, stripping the absolute individual ``property
rights'' that white slave masters had enjoyed under the Fifth Amendment
as found by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
Similarly, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment completely blocked and made
illegal any future compensation of slave masters for the confiscation
of their vested ``property rights'' in their slaves. Not only did the
14th Amendment strip slave masters of their ``property,'' it also made
it impossible for them to seek restitution under the Fifth Amendment.
Opponents to the 13th and 14th Amendments felt that their rights,
granted by the Bill of Rights, were being undermined but history showed
that those Amendments were necessary to move this great Nation toward a
more perfect union. The amendment before the Senate would restore the
First Amendment. It would not repeal it. It would, however, overturn
several Supreme Court decisions that have distorted the First
Amendment. If we fail to do so, many of us are concerned that
corruption will flourish and our democracy will be distorted away from
the needs of hard working Americans.
Millions of Americans have called on Congress to restore the First
Amendment so that our democracy will be protected against corruption
and so that everyone's voices can be heard in our democratic process. I
have served in the Senate for almost 40 years and as chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for nearly 10. It is a rare moment for this Senator
to acknowledge that the threat to our democracy is so significant that
it warrants an amendment to our Constitution. I applaud the Vermonters
who have taken action on this issue. I urge my fellow Senators to join
me in voting for cloture and passage of this important constitutional
amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is almost no measure Congress
should consider more carefully than a proposal to amend the
Constitution of the United States. Such amendments are reserved only
for issues that relate to the foundations of our great American
experiment.
The value of each American vote is one such issue. Our system of
government depends on this basic principle, that every American,
whether they are rich or poor, weak or strong, whether they were born
in Michigan or Mississippi, has an equal voice in the selection of
their elected representatives. Time and again, Congress has amended our
Constitution to protect this principle.
But recently, a succession of Supreme Court rulings has unleashed a
tide of unlimited and secret special-interest money into our elections.
This
[[Page S5542]]
unregulated money drowns the voices of the public. It threatens to
transform our government of the people, by the people, and for the
people into one of campaign donors, by campaign donors, and for
campaign donors. That is not democracy, and it is not America.
That is why I support this amendment to the Constitution concerning
contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. This
amendment would allow Congress to do what we have always done, and what
our Founders intended us to do: take action to protect the integrity of
our Nation's government and electoral processes.
Posterity vindicates the moments in our Nation's history when
Congress simply did what was right. We honor those who voted to ensure
that the right to vote cannot be denied based on race, color, previous
condition of servitude or gender. We honor those who voted to ensure
that a poll tax could never again prohibit an American from voting for
their own representatives. I urge my colleagues to act in this
tradition, to simply do what is right, and to join me in supporting
this proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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
[[Page S5543]]
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Sept. 11, 2014]
An Amendment to Cut Political Cash
(By the Editorial Board)
There are 48 Democratic senators sponsoring a
constitutional amendment to restore congressional control to
campaign spending that is expected to come up for a vote
later this week. They are not under the illusion that it will
become the 28th Amendment soon, if ever. But their
willingness to undertake a long and difficult effort shows
the importance they attach to restoring fairness to American
politics by reducing the influence of big money.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in outside spending--most
of it from big business and labor interests--continue to flow
into political races after being unleashed by the Supreme
Court and lower court decisions. Each year a record is set:
already, outside spending on this year's midterm elections
($189 million so far) is more than three times what it was at
this point in 2010.
The Supreme Court has said that's fine. In several
misguided rulings, it has declared that spending money on
politics is a form of free speech, and is thus deserving of
constitutional protection. Beginning with the Buckley
decision in 1976, the court ended the limitations on
independent political spending in the name of speech, and
with the Citizens United decision in 2010, it opened the
spending floodgates to corporations and unions.
These decisions are the law of the land and cannot be
overturned by simple legislation. Congress can encourage
better behavior with public financing mechanisms, not that
Republicans will agree even to 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.
Barring a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, it
would take an amendment to reduce the flow of cash. The one
under debate in the Senate declares that Congress and the
states have the ability to ``regulate and set reasonable
limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and
others to influence elections.'' Addressing the Citizens
United decision, it says that governments can ``distinguish
between natural persons and corporations'' in setting those
regulations, thus allowing restrictions on corporate or union
spending that would not necessarily apply to individuals. To
protect the free flow of information in the news media, the
amendment adds the assurance that it will not abridge the
freedom of the press.
Republicans, fearful of deflating their cushion of cash,
are trying to portray the amendment as an assault on the Bill
of Rights. But writing unlimited checks on behalf of
politicians was never part of the American birthright. This
measure defines protected ``speech'' as it had been
understood in the First Amendment for 185 years until the
Buckley decision: actual words uttered or written by natural
persons, not money spent, and certainly not from corporate
treasuries.
The amendment would not be a cure-all. ``The press'' is an
amorphous term in the digital age, and political groups could
try to claim free-press status to get around regulation. And
amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is
a last resort to fix a grave civic problem. But the backers
of this amendment recognize that the nature of American
democracy is at stake.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________