[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14196-14197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now that the President has conducted 
initial consultations with our allies and stated his objective to 
degrade and destroy ISIL, it is time to present a strategy to Congress. 
I hope he will begin to do that today.
  He needs to identify military objectives and explain how those ends 
will be accomplished. He needs to present this plan to Congress and the 
American people, and where the President believes he lacks authority to 
execute such a strategy, he needs to explain to Congress how additional 
authority for the use of force will protect America. The threat from 
ISIL is real and is growing. It is time for President Obama to exercise 
some leadership in launching a response.
  We know the administration has authorized military actions to protect 
American lives. Now we need to hear what additional measures will be 
taken to defeat ISIL.


                           Speech Suppression

  Earlier today one Democratic Senator urged his colleagues to get 
serious about the real challenges facing our country--challenges such 
as dealing with the threat of ISIL. He implored fellow Democrats not to 
focus all their time instead ``doing things that are of lesser 
importance.''
  Yet his voice seems to have been ignored by the Democrats who run the 
Senate, because here we stand debating their proposal on whether to 
take an eraser--an eraser--to the First Amendment. Here we are debating 
whether to grant politicians the extraordinary authority to ban speech 
they don't like. That is what Democratic leaders have brought to the 
floor this week as their top priority. It is a measure so extreme it 
could even open the door to government officials banning books and 
pamphlets that threaten or annoy them. That is not my argument. That is 
essentially the Obama administration's own position, one that his own 
lawyers advocated in the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. As 
one USA Today columnist put it at the time: ``It isn't often that a 
government lawyer stands before the Supreme Court and acknowledges 
that, yes, it would be constitutional to ban a book. But that is what 
happened.''
  Truly shocking.
  These are the depths to which the Obama administration and its 
Democratic majority appear willing to drag our country in order to 
retain their hold on power. They are tired of listening to criticism of 
their failed policies. They are sick of having to sell the middle class 
on ideas that actually hurt the middle class. And with the Democrats' 
fragile Senate majority hanging by a thread, it seems they are done 
playing with the normal rules of democracy. It seems they would rather 
just rewrite the rules altogether to shut up their critics and shut 
down their opponents, even as they continue to give a path to leftwing 
tycoons they like--folks who preach higher taxes and more regulations 
for everybody else--while jealously guarding pet projects and 
sweetheart deals for themselves.
  The aim here, just as with the IRS scandal, is to use the levers of 
power to shut down the voice of we the people when we the people don't 
see things their way. The First Amendment is the only thing standing in 
the way.
  We all know the real reason Senate Democrats are so determined to 
push this measure now. They are not actually all that serious about 
passing it this week. In fact, they designed it to fail because they 
think its failure would help turn more leftwingers out to the polls. 
The entire spectacle is mostly about saving the jobs of Democratic 
Senators come November. Yet it must be admitted that it is getting 
harder to tell which of our Democratic friends are cynical in their 
support of this and which are sincere, because the number of true 
believers in speech suppression appears to be growing on the other 
side, and that is really worrying for the future of our democracy.
  So look, if the Democrats who run Washington are so determined to 
force the Senate into debate over repealing the free speech protections 
of the First Amendment, then fine, let's have a full and proper debate. 
Let's make the country see what this is really all about. Let's expose 
this extremist effort to the light of public scrutiny.
  I suspect our Democratic friends don't really want that, though. I 
suspect they hope to just drop a few talking points, have their 
proposal fail, shoot some indignant e-mails to their supporters and 
move on. I don't think they counted on Senators standing up for the 
American people. I don't think they counted on Senators exposing their 
plans to entrench the tools of government speech suppression. So they 
would rather not have a debate they can't win.
  Then here is a better idea. We all just spent the past several weeks 
back in our home States talking to our constituents. They have a lot on 
their minds these days--important issues they expect the Democrat-run 
Senate to address--things such as high unemployment, rising health care 
costs, and an ongoing crisis at the border. I, for one, will be 
interested to hear how repealing part of the First Amendment creates 
jobs for Americans or reduces health care costs. The answer of course 
is it doesn't, and the Republican-controlled House has already sent 
over countless bills that continue to collect dust on the majority 
leader's desk. There are many bills on job creation alone, including 
legislation that passed the House, with significant bipartisan support.
  So if Senate Democrats want to take up some of that serious House-
passed legislation instead of endless designed-to-fail political votes, 
we will be happy to do it. Just say the word.
  Let's end the Democrats' endless gridlock and get some bills to the 
President's desk for once because Americans are not demanding that 
Congress repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment. 
That is certainly not on their minds. They are looking to us to work 
together to get some things done for them for a change, and we can as 
soon as our Democratic friends want to get serious.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I agree with the Republican leader's defense 
of the First Amendment, but the constitutional amendment before us is 
not about limiting free speech. My Democratic colleagues and I are 
trying to address the special interest money that threatens to create a 
government of elected officials who are beholden to a few wealthy 
individuals.
  As the respected Justice John Paul Stevens recently told us, money is 
not speech. Of course it isn't, and we know that.
  Last week there was a recorded speech given at the Koch brothers' 
secret meeting place in San Diego or thereabouts. It was a secret 
meeting on their political strategy. They called it a summit. They had 
security guards. They cleared everybody who could come. It was very 
delicate. You had to be the right person or they would not let you into 
the meeting. However, there was one person who was able to record what 
went on at that meeting.
  One of the speakers who was recorded--no others--was a man by the 
name of Richard Fink, who is vice president of Koch Industries. He is a 
big shot with the Koch brothers. Of course the Koch brothers were there 
listening to his speech. He said some pretty terrible and vicious 
things about unemployed Americans. He basically called them lazy. He 
went on to say that the minimum wage leads to fascism. I am not making 
this up. That is what he said--fascism. He even compared minimum wage 
with tactics utilized by Nazi Germany and modern-day suicide bombers. 
That is what the Koch brothers' representative said in their presence 
and in the presence of a number of higher ranking Republican officials.
  He has a right to say whatever he wants; that is the country we live 
in. But as Senators we have a responsibility to stand for constituents 
who are unemployed or on minimum wage, and on this side of the aisle we 
have done that. The American people agree with us--not just Democrats 
and Independents. Republicans believe there should be an increase in 
the minimum wage.
  The Republican leader was at the summit the very day Mr. Fink made

[[Page 14197]]

his offensive remarks. He was there. Why has he not gone on Record 
repudiating these vicious and unfair comments about the poor? In fact, 
it has been reported the Republican leader referred to the speeches 
given at the Koch brothers' conference that day as inspiring--
inspiring.
  There are 150,000 unemployed Kentuckians. Are they leaning toward 
fascism? There are families in Kentucky who live on minimum wage--or 
try to. I don't think my friend the Republican leader views them as 
fascist stooges or lazy, but he should stand and repudiate what the 
Koch brothers, through their representatives, said at the conference he 
attended. If any Member of this body said as much, I have no doubt my 
friend would come to his constituents' immediate defense. But be 
careful what you say about the Koch brothers. They are very sensitive. 
They want that to protect their $75 billion. There are two of them, and 
together they are worth $150 billion. Nobody messes with them because 
they have money to try to buy America, and that is what they are trying 
to do.
  Do we need campaign finance reform? Of course we do. I gave some 
quotes earlier, and my friend the Presiding Officer is a very smart 
man. As well as being a Rhodes Scholar, he graduated from one of the 
most famous educational institutions in the world, Stanford University. 
He is a pretty bright guy as a Presiding Officer. But you don't have to 
be a bright guy to understand the flip-flop. I don't know how else to 
describe it. He gave his little speech a minute ago about the First 
Amendment. I am not making this up. This is what the man said. The same 
man complaining about how the First Amendment has been violated is the 
same man who has sponsored basically the same legislation we are now 
trying to pass.
  I will give some of his quotes again. Let's make sure they are spread 
across the Record.

       What we ought to do is eliminate the political action 
     committee contributions, because those are the ones that 
     raise the specter of undue influence. And those can be gone 
     tomorrow. We can pass a bill tomorrow to take care of that 
     problem.

  Here is another quote:

       We Republicans have put together a responsible and 
     Constitutional campaign reform agenda. It would restrict the 
     power of special interest PACS, stop the flow of all soft 
     money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office.

  Hallelujah. I am glad he said that.
  He also said:

       We would eliminate PACs altogether. It will be interesting 
     to see whether our colleagues--

  Talking about Democrats--

     on the other side of the aisle will be willing to eliminate 
     PACs altogether. And we would have the money come from 
     individuals in small and fully undisclosed amounts.

  Next quote:

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what 
     is appropriate. These are the reforms which respect the 
     Constitution and would enhance our democracy.

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

       We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do 
     is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions 
     and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so 
     that you include the major political players in America. Why 
     would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?

  He also went on to say:

       Money is essential in politics, and not something that we 
     should feel squeamish about, provided the donations are 
     limited and disclosed, everyone knows who's supporting 
     everyone else.

  I repeat. The Presiding Officer is one of the smartest people we have 
in the entire Senate. With all due respect to the Presiding Officer, 
you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar or a graduate from Stanford 
University to understand how absolutely irrational my friend is with 
what he just came and said. He said this constitutional amendment is 
violating the First Amendment of our Constitution. I am using his 
remarks to state and show the importance of our amendment.
  Congress and the States have the authority--or they should have the 
authority--to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. It is just 
common sense. Americans clearly believe in this amendment. The 
amendment would restore the authority back to Congress and the States, 
not to two wealthy brothers who are trying to buy America--two wealthy 
brothers who control most of the tar sands in the world. They have a 
huge oil, gas, and chemical interest. They control lots of stuff.
  Today the paper said they are going to spend their millions to tell 
everybody what great people they are. That is all over the news today. 
Be aware of the Koch brothers because they have unlimited sums of 
money. They are going to tell you how they are all about apple pie and 
motherhood and great for America. They are not great for America. They 
are trying to buy America.

                          ____________________