Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our continuing effort to change the Senate rules as we begin the 114th Congress. This is the same process Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I used at the beginning of the last Congress when we introduced a similar resolution. At that time, Majority Leader Reid wanted to have the debate about reforming our rules after the inauguration. He was willing to work with us and protect our interests until we could debate our proposal. By doing so, he preserved the right of a simple majority of this body to amend the rules in accordance with article I, section 5 of the Constitution. I hope Majority Leader McConnell will extend to us this same courtesy if he chooses to address other issues before rules reform. It has been the tradition at the beginning of many Congresses that a majority of the Senate has asserted its right to adopt or amend the rules. Just as Senators of both parties have done in the past, we do not acquiesce to any provision of Senate rules--adopted by a previous Congress--that would deny the majority that right. The resolution I am offering today is based on proposals we introduced at the start of the 112th and 113th Congresses. At that time, many called our efforts a power grab by the majority. But we were very clear. We would support these changes even if we were in the minority, and here we are today, reintroducing the reform package as Members of the minority. These changes do not strip minority rights. They allow the body to function as our Founders intended. The heart of our proposal is the talking filibuster. The filibuster once was a tool that was used sparingly. It allowed the minority to be heard. Today it is abused too often and far too easily. I have said many times that the Senate has become a graveyard for good ideas. The shovel is the broken filibuster and other procedural tactics. The system is broken. But in the last election I think the message was clear. The electorate said: Fix it, do your job, and make the government work. That is what our resolution is intended to do. Our reforms were not adopted in the last Congress, but we made some progress. Strong support for fixing the Senate led leaders Reid and McConnell to address the dysfunction in the Senate and make some moderate changes. Unfortunately, it did not take long for the leaders' gentlemen's agreement to break down. In November 2013 the abuse of the rules--and the obstruction--reached a tipping point, and so the majority acted within the precedence of the Senate. We changed the rules to prevent the minority from abusing the rules and obstructing scores of qualified nominees for judicial and executive appointments. I believe that drastic step was unfortunate, but it was also necessary. The minority has a right to voice objections but not to abuse the rules to obstruct justice by preventing judges from being confirmed or by preventing the President from getting his team in place. By changing the rules, the 113th Senate was able to confirm 96 judges. In fact, it confirmed more judges than any modern Congress since 1980. The 113th Congress also confirmed 293 executive nominations in 2014-- the most since 2010. That is an incredible change. It was a bold but necessary action. But it also led to even greater polarization in the Senate. That polarization could have been prevented if the Senate had adopted our reforms at the beginning of the 113th Congress. That is why I strongly urge the new majority leader to continue the change that was adopted in November. It allows most judicial and executive branch appointees to be confirmed by a straight majority vote. I urge him to continue the progress we made last Congress and adopt the rest of our proposed reforms at the start of this Congress. Anyone who has watched this Senate try to legislate in the past few years knows we still are hobbled by dysfunction. We voted on cloture 218 times just over the past 2 years. To put that in perspective, the Senate voted on cloture only 38 times in the 50 years after the rule was adopted in 1917. We cannot continue down this path. The unprecedented use of the filibuster and other procedural tactics by both parties has prevented the Senate from getting its work done. The Senate needs to return to its his historical practice and function as a deliberative yet majoritarian body, when filibusters were rare and bipartisanship was the norm. We believe the proposed rule changes in our resolution provide commonsense reforms. This will restore the best traditions of the Senate and allow it to conduct the business the American people expect. We have one goal, whether we are in the majority or in the minority: to give the American people the government they expect and deserve, a government that works. We said before, and we say it again, that we can do this--with respect for the minority, with respect for differing points of view, with respect for this Chamber, but, most of all with respect for the people who send us here. The right to change the rules at the beginning of a new Congress is supported by history and by the Constitution. Article I, section 5 is very clear. The Senate can adopt and amend its rules at the beginning of the new Congress by a simple majority vote. This is known as the constitutional option, and it is well named. It has been used numerous times--often with bipartisan support--since the cloture provision was adopted in 1917. Opponents of the Constitutional Option say that the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority, as the current filibuster rule requires. And they have repeatedly said any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' This simply is not true. The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that, ``Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.'' When the Framers required a supermajority, they explicitly stated so, as they did for expelling a member. On all other matters, such as determining the chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied. There have been three rulings by Vice Presidents, sitting as President of the Senate, on the meaning of Article I Section 5 as it applies to the Senate. In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled definitively: [W]hile the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous Congress. Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress which has the expressed or practical effect of denying the majority of the Senate in a new Congress the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. Vice-Presidents Rockefeller and Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses. In 1979, when others were arguing that the rules could only be amended in accordance with the previous Senate's rules, Majority Leader Byrd said the following on the floor: There is no higher law, insofar as our Government is concerned, than the Constitution. The Senate rules are subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution in Article I, Section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. In addition to the clear language of the Constitution, there is also a longstanding common law principle, upheld in the Supreme Court, that one legislature cannot bind its successors. For example, if the Senate passed a bill with a requirement that it takes 75 votes to repeal it in the future, that would violate this principle and be unconstitutional. Similarly, the Senate of one Congress cannot adopt procedural rules that a majority of the Senate in the future cannot amend or repeal. Many of my Republican colleagues have made the same argument. For example, in 2003 Senator John Cornyn wrote in a law review article: Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent Congress could not amend by majority vote, one Senate cannot enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the general common law principle that one parliament cannot bind another. So amending our rules at the beginning of a Congress is not ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' It is reaffirming that the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Senate rules, and that when there is a conflict between them, we follow the Constitution. And I would like to make clear that by moving on to other business, we are not waiving our constitutional right to amend the Senate's rules with a majority vote. In 1975, when the cloture threshold was reduced from two-thirds to three-fifths, the reform effort lasted until March. But on the first day of that Congress, Senator Mondale introduced his resolution and unequivocally stated that he was reserving his right to call for a majority vote at a later date. Senator Mondale made the following statement on that first day: Mr. President, I wish to state, as has been traditional at the commencement of efforts to amend rule XXII, that, by operating under the Standing Rules of the Senate the supporters of this resolution do not acquiesce to the applicability of certain of those rules to the effort to amend rule XXII; nor do they waive any rights which they may obtain under the Constitution, the practice of this body, or certain rulings of previous Vice Presidents to amend rule XXII, uninhibited by rules in effect during previous Congresses. Today, I take the same position as Senator Mondale and many other reformers did over the years. I understand that Majority Leader McConnell may move on to other business, but I am not acquiescing to any provision in the Senate rules that prevents a majority from amending those rules. We can, and should, take time to debate our proposal and have an up or down vote. I know other colleagues also have reform proposals. They all deserve consideration. This is not just about rules. It is about the norms and traditions of the Senate. They have collapsed under the weight of the filibusters. Neither side is 100-percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for obstruction. No doubt they have had their reasons, but I don't think the American people care about that. They don't want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is reasonable and that works. I hope all my colleagues, especially the new Senators, give special consideration to reform. We do not need to win every legislative or nomination vote, but we need to have a real debate--and an open process--to ensure we are, actually, the greatest deliberative body in the world. We changed the rule regarding nominations. That was an important start, but it was the beginning--not the end. We still need to reform the Senate rules. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Franken be added as a cosponsor to S. Res. 20.

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

Mr. UDALL. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, in New Mexico we are very proud to be the home of Los Alamos National Laboratory. LANL employs some of the finest scientists and researchers in the world. Each day, these brilliant public servants go to work and make vital contributions to our national security and to cutting-edge scientific and innovative advances. The dedicated men and women of LANL are a credit to my State and to our Nation. It is with regret that I rise today to remember Bret Knapp, a valued member of the LANL team, who passed away last month. Mr. Knapp received his B.A. in mechanical engineering at the California Polytechnic State University and his M.S. in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Davis. In a career that spanned over three decades, Mr. Knapp demonstrated valued expertise and leadership. His commitment to excellence was a defining element of his career, and, even as we mourn his passing, we are grateful for his service. Over the years, Mr. Knapp established an outstanding reputation for programmatic achievements, as well as for technical depth, honest and open communication, and fostering a strong sense of partnership and collaboration. He was the principal associate director for the weapons program at LANL, which plays a crucial role in supporting our country's defense, energy, and environmental needs. He also served as acting director at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Among his many accomplishments at LANL, Bret Knapp integrated the planning and execution of the stockpile stewardship program, which is a critical mission for the Nation. He received the NNSA Defense Program Individual Award for Excellence in 2000 and two NNSA Defense Program Awards for Excellence in 1998 and 1999. Those are, of course, the public and well-deserved accolades of an exemplary career. But for those who worked closely with Bret Knapp, they recall an inspiring colleague, a good friend, and someone who will be greatly missed. I offer my sincere condolences to Mr. Knapp's wife Sheryl and their sons, Trevor and Cameron. I hope that, for all of Bret Knapp's friends and family, your memories of his life will offer a measure of comfort now in your loss.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and the Presiding Officer. I will say a few words about Chairwoman Mikulski. First of all, I am honored to serve on the Appropriations Committee. For the last couple of years I served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and with her guidance and work, it has been a truly fulfilling task. I thank Senator Mikulski for the last 2 years since she has taken over and putting us on track in terms of having a good, solid appropriations process, where we make every attempt to get the appropriations bills through the Senate and in place at the beginning of the budget year. That could make a real difference, as she has indicated, for veterans, for jobs, and for all of the agencies that are funded throughout government, and particularly in my State where we have two premier national laboratories--Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. We have three Air Force bases, national parks, and national monuments. There is so much that is a part of this appropriations bill that is very important to my State. We have a lot of work to do today, and I will speak for a few minutes on some of the issues that are important to my State and our country. First, I will start out on a positive note. The Senate just recently passed the Defense authorization bill. That bill is critical to our Nation's security and for our troops at home and abroad who deserve our support and respect. In addition, this year it also includes landmark conservation measures to protect some of the most beloved landscapes in New Mexico. These are measures we have worked on for many years--since Senator Bingaman was in office--and they are the result of many years of dogged hard work by a diverse group of sportsmen, conservationists, local businesspeople, and others. With this bill, we are designating Columbine Hondo Wilderness, giving permanent congressional protection to this special area. We are increasing public access to the Valles Caldera by transferring management to the National Park Service. This will ensure financial stability for one of the best places in New Mexico for hiking, hunting, and fishing. We are dedicating a historical Manhattan Project a national park that will include Los Alamos, NM, where Americans can learn about and remember our complicated Cold War history. This bill protects the special and important places, increases tourism, and creates jobs. We also renewed a BLM pilot program to improve the permitting process for the oil and gas industry. This is critical to energy development in New Mexico and other Western States. It ensures that BLM has the resources to do all parts of its job-- managing land for conservation, grazing, and permitting for oil and gas development. I thank my colleague Senator Heinrich, who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for being a strong partner in getting these measures passed. Now the Senate has another important duty pending before us--passing an appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government, including many vital programs in my home State of New Mexico. We have not had regular spending bills in recent years, and here we are at the eleventh hour with an omnibus bill at the last minute. The fact that we have a bill is due, in great part, to the leadership of Chairwoman Mikulski, and I am glad to be part of her team on the Appropriations Committee. The alternative to this bill is a short-term CR or a couple of short- term CRs for the whole year. I think that is an unacceptable way to do business, and it would cost jobs and hurt our economy in New Mexico. New Mexico's labs and bases need certainty in their critical jobs to keep our Nation safe. Communities in my home State rely on funding through the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program to provide basic services, such as schools and public safety. I know Chairwoman Mikulski understands the PILT Program, has worked hard to make sure that PILT is funded in this bill, and it is greatly appreciated in the rural parts of the West. Let me say again that continuing resolutions are disruptive. They are inefficient. They lock in place programs that prevent us from evaluating what is working and what isn't and keep us from rooting out wasteful spending. But trying to put this omnibus bill at the end of the year is far from ideal. There was a time not long ago when having to pass an omnibus bill was a sign that work had broken down. Today it is the best possible option. I am extremely happy to have it. Again, I credit our chairwoman with fighting hard to get us to this point. It has not been easy. But the American people deserve better than this broken process. They deserve a Congress that works, that is open and deliberate, not last-minute deals and gimmicks for special interests. Our duty is to the American people, not Wall Street billionaires and bankers. I will continue to do all I can as a member of the Appropriations Committee to get back to the regular order. We cannot keep getting in just under the wire. In that respect, our colleagues in the House have to stop sending over all of these riders. We had more than 100 riders sent over from the House. As Chairwoman Mikulski knows, this isn't the way to legislate on an appropriations bill. We are not supposed to be putting riders in there. So they sent more than 100 of these over from the House of Representatives. It is disruptive. Senator Mikulski took them off and was able to work through them and get a decent, good final product. I am going to continue to do all I can to make sure we get back to the regular order. Now I wish to speak about why this bill is important and why it is important to pass this omnibus bill. First of all, this bill is critical to my State of New Mexico. New Mexico has two fine national laboratories--Sandia and Los Alamos; three Air Force bases; White Sands testing range; and a number of other Federal institutions, national parks, and national monuments. They are all funded, and when they are funded on a regular basis at the beginning of a fiscal year, it is a much better situation for everyone. For PILT funds, which our counties depend on for schools, roads, law enforcement, and anything they feel is important in their county, they can rely on these PILT funds. At this point my State is in severe drought. We have water projects such as the Navajo Gallup project that can't keep waiting. There is money in this bill to keep that project going. Communities can't just put their needs on hold because Congress is broken. Navajo communities in New Mexico still need clean water. In fact, every day we delay, their situation gets worse. That is true of so many projects that are funded by the Federal Government. Communities and businesses have to plan, and they need certainty. The needs don't go away. So let's get this done. Finally, I wish to speak a little bit about the authorization, of course, that we just produced out of the Foreign Relations Committee. I urge Congress to address another important issue--this issue of the authorization of force. We need to update the authorization of force for our military in light of our changing involvement in a variety of Middle Eastern conflicts--most notably, ISIS. If we leave without doing this, we are failing the American people, our troops, and shirking our constitutional duty. ISIS is a brutal terrorist group, and it must be stopped. We must continue to work with our allies, including those in the region, to use strategic force to stop ISIS. I am proud of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for recognizing our essential duty in defining the parameters of this fight. This is the first step, but our Constitution requires the full Congress to authorize war. This is a matter that deserves debate. It should not be taken lightly. The last 13 years of conflict in Afghanistan and in Iraq illustrate this--why it is so important to be thoughtful and deliberate about war. I urge my colleagues to stay until the work is done and we give the AUMF consideration by the full Senate. This is not easy work, but this is not a normal situation. ISIS is a rapidly growing terrorist group recruiting young people from the West. It spans two countries, with very expansive ambitions. We must defeat ISIS, but at the same time we cannot allow another open-ended war. That will yet again strain communities in my State and across the country and put us in a situation we cannot pay for. Since July I have received over 1,100 letters and hundreds of phone calls from my constituents. They are clear, and I want to be equally clear: Congress should rise to its constitutional oversight of the Nation's war powers. This is a solemn responsibility, one I have taken very seriously throughout my time in Congress. I voted for the 2001 authorization for the war in Afghanistan. I voted against the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq. I believe the new AUMF is strong in that it prohibits ground operations except in limited circumstances. Those circumstances, such as rescuing servicemembers or U.S. citizens, are specified in the text of the resolution. It also repeals the 2002 Iraq AUMF and sets a 3-year timeline for the 2001 AUMF, which is currently supporting military engagements around the world that we never intended when we originally passed them. But I would still caution that we must be watchful so that this engagement doesn't vastly change in scope without the approval of Congress or the support from our constituents. I fought to provide Congress with an even stronger role. I proposed an amendment to limit authorization to 1 year. I also cosponsored a proposal with Senator Paul to require a new authorization with Congress if U.S. forces were to be deployed outside of Iraq and Syria. We need this authorization to pass now, as the conflict has been ongoing for months, but we also must continue to be watchful. Costs should not just be charged to a credit card. Let's make sure we have a real conversation on how the generation that has decided to go to war will pay for it. Again, I urge Congress to honor its responsibility to stay and finish this critical duty. Just to wrap up, I once again want to say to my chairwoman Senator Mikulski that she has taken on a very difficult task in terms of looking at what was sent to us by the House of Representatives--more than 100 riders on all sorts of things, trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, trying to tackle and get into the IRS and diminish its ability to carry out its responsibilities, and on and on. The Senator from Maryland has worked through these amendments diligently and come up with a good product. This is much better than struggling through continuing resolutions 2, 3 months at a time and then coming back again. This gives certainty to government, gives certainty to businesses, and it shows that we are trying to react responsibly to the situation that is before us. Again, I applaud Senator Mikulski. It is a real honor to work with her on the Appropriations Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this time to talk about my cousin, Mark Udall. First, let me say to Senator Bennet, I know that Mark feels he could not have had a better partner, a better friend, and someone to work with on Colorado issues and the great national issues than Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet spoke eloquently of Mark's incredible record in public service. Two years in the Colorado legislature, 10 years in the House of Representatives, and 6 years here in the U.S. Senate. I served with Mark in the House, and here in the Senate. He is not only my cousin. He is not only an extraordinary public servant. He has been a great ally, as we have worked on the issues together. Mark has been--and will continue to be--a champion, for the environment, for civil liberties, and for a government that is as open and good as the people we are privileged to represent. Mark has been a courageous and outspoken leader in the fight against climate change. He knows that global warming is not just a threat to our environment, but to our national security and our economy. He and I have worked on this issue throughout our time in public service, pushing to expand clean energy production and for common sense steps to reduce pollution. He and I introduced, and got passed, a renewable electricity standard when we were both in the House to increase the use of renewable energy and create jobs across the country. When the Senate passes a similar RES, which I believe it eventually will, Mark you will share in that victory, for all your determination and hard work to make it happen. Our dads loved the land. They taught us to love it as well. Mark doesn't just climb mountains. He protects them, so that generations to come will enjoy this legacy of natural treasures. Together we have fought for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for wilderness preservation. He has accomplished so much that will live on, long after we all are gone. Mark has also been a true leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. He is absolutely fearless, and undaunted, in defense of our Nation, and in defense of our liberties. We both opposed the original Patriot Act, as well as its re- authorization. Mark has been eloquent and tenacious in warning of over- reaching surveillance, and secret interrogations. The Intelligence Committee released its study of the C.I.A.'s secret program this week. No one fought harder to hold our government to account, in insisting that we must not only be secure, but we must honor the values that define us. We can and must do both. History will remember his invaluable role in making it possible for the American people to have this great and necessary debate. Madam President, my dad once said that, in the end, it is not the awards you receive, it is not the trophies in the garage, or the honors on the shelf, it is what the people who know you best really think of you. To those of us who know Mark--in our family, here in Washington, and in his beloved State of Colorado--he is the real deal. I remember when Mark's dad, Mo, ran for President in 1976. Mo lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter. In his concession speech, he recalled the words of Will Rogers, ``Live your life so that whenever you lose, you are ahead.'' Mo went on to say: And I am ahead. I'm ahead in staff people who love me and believed in me. And I'm ahead because I have love, respect and admiration for all of you in this room. That was true of Mo. It is equally true of Mark. In his years of public service, and in the years to come, that will always be said of Mark. Whatever the task, whatever the challenge, he meets it head on. In the Congress, and in his day to day life, he is practical, independent, and always generous of himself. Mark, wherever you go, wherever you are, win or lose, you are ahead-- and we all are ahead whenever you are in the room. Or I might say whenever you are on the trail, or the mountainside. We find you out on the trail as likely as anywhere else. But, then, that has always been the case with Mark, and with all our family. If you are a Udall, you spend a lot of time outdoors, and gladly so. And we never know when we will run into each other. A number of years ago, I was hiking up a mountain in Argentina. All of a sudden, there on the trail at 16,000 feet, was Mark, coming back from the summit. So, I never know when I'm going to run into him, but Madam President, let me say, I am always glad when I do. Mark, for me, you have always set an example. You have always been true to the legacy of our family. I know that will never change, whatever your endeavors. So, to you, and Maggie, and Jed and Tess, Jill and I wish you all the best, in this new chapter in your lives. I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this courtesy. It is always wonderful to work with Chuck. He is a first-class Senator.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I just want to rise, similar to others in our class, and many other Senators have risen, to talk a little bit about Mark Begich and his service to Alaska and praise him for his service, because I think he has been--since I have been here, the 6 years I have served with him; he was in my class--I have seen a remarkable Senator who truly cares about his State and has been an incredible advocate for his State. I was not here for his entire speech, but I turned it on. The good thing about our offices is you can tune it in. I caught the point where he got a little bit choked up about Deborah and Jacob. I got choked up, too, in the office. I can cry but not in public. In any event, the first thing I know about Mark is how much he cares about his family and how much the toll of serving in the Senate takes on that family. His travel--I am a westerner, and I have to travel out 5 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours to get home. His flight is always--we heard the description the other day from Senator Murray. He flies all the way out to Seattle at the end of the day. It is 12:30 our time when he arrives there. Then he gets on another flight for another 4\1/2\ hours up to Anchorage, just to get home. It is not a very long weekend. Then he has to get on a flight and come back. His family is so important. I have seen him with his son Jacob. We live just across the alley from each other. I can look out my back window and look down and see the light--just four houses down--and know whether Mark and Deborah and Jacob are in town. We have spent many good times in his house there. That is the first thing I would like to say. The second is--I have seen this over and over again with Senators. You are one of the best at it--taking the issues that are involved with Alaska and that Alaskans care about and that you knew so well when you were a mayor and fitting them into this vast Federal landscape and making sure Alaskans are heard. I think you are one of the best at doing that. You stepped out on so many different issues. I remember the Native American corporations and how you would reach out in a number of areas with Senators throughout the Senate and try to reach some compromise there. I have a large Native American community. We, too, have the same kinds of issues on that front that you do. We also share many Native American tribes. As the Senator knows well, it was my father and my uncle who stood up in the 1960s and 1970s to make sure the Natives got a fair shake in Alaska. Mark--that is the way he serves when it comes to Native Americans, caring about them, caring about their issues, going up to the North Slope where it is cold. My understanding is that during this campaign he got frostbite on one occasion, being out in that terribly tough environment. Thank you for that and for working with me and working with everyone else who tries to make sure Native people get justice. They look to Washington for justice. They look for justice at the Supreme Court. They are not getting much of it over there at the Supreme Court any more. We are the last refuge. We served together on the Indian Affairs Committee. One final thing to talk about. I have been working on an issue, it is the chemical substances act, for the last couple of years with Senator Vitter. We have tried to do everything we can to bring people-- extraordinary piece of legislation--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats on this piece of legislation. We have been working to make it better. We have had Senators start joining us on both sides of the aisle. Mark, you were one of the key people to work on that. As Senator Warner said earlier, you were our liaison to the leadership. You were in all of those leadership meetings. Whenever I told you there was a problem, you would surface it, whether or not it was going to blow up the meeting. You stuck in there when it came to truly caring about issues and caring about getting things done. I think if anything is your hallmark, it is wanting to put aside the partisanship and try to get things done. So that is something that you should be tremendously proud of. Just as a final word, I love your State of Alaska. I have climbed your highest mountain. My cousin, Mark Udall, has also done the same thing, climbed Mount McKinley, which has now returned to its Native name, called Denali. I remember going up to your State as a State attorney general. It was the only State in the Nation that put in money for our conference of attorneys general and put us on an 8-hour train across Alaska so we could see all of Alaska. Alaska is a terrific State. You and I have some disagreements on what we protect in Alaska, but the wonderful thing is we understand each other's position. We are still very good friends. It has been a real honor to serve with you. I wish you and Deborah and Jacob the very best. Wherever you land--I hope to see you in Alaska again because I know I am going to come up there. But wherever you land, our door will always be open to you. Thank you and God bless you.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, our Nation and Indonesia enjoy a strong relationship, reflected in the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership of 2010. This partnership is robust and growing. It serves both of our countries for bilateral, regional, and global cooperation. The election of President Widodo in July was a step forward--part of a great democratic tradition--over the past two decades in Indonesia. We are working together for economic growth, for the environment, and for our security. This is progress--and to be encouraged. Indonesia has a major role to play as a regional and global leader, but in that role it must be an inclusive democracy. Key to this is to address past human rights abuses--specifically the mass murders committed in 1965 to 1966. Next year is the 50th anniversary of those killings. I rise today, International Human Rights Day, to submit a resolution concerning those events, which Indonesia's own Human Rights Commission has labeled a crime against humanity. But let me be clear. This is not a censure of the people of Indonesia or Indonesia's new government; it is an opportunity for justice and for reconciliation. The events took place decades ago. The reasons behind them are complex, but that cannot justify the past or forgetting those who suffered under it, nor can we ignore our own government's role during that time. My resolution proposes two things: First, I urge Indonesia's new government to create a truth and reconciliation commission to address these crimes. Second, I urge our own government to establish an interagency working group and to release relevant classified documents. We should make clear what was known to us, and we should make this information available. It is a painful history to recall. On October 1, 1965, six Indonesian Army generals were killed. According to scholars, these generals were killed by military personnel, but their deaths were blamed on Indonesia's Communist Party, which was used to justify mass murders. The next few months were horrific for the Indonesian people. The CIA has called it one of the worst periods of mass murder in the 20th century. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Many others were imprisoned, tortured, raped, starved, and disappeared across the country. These individuals were targeted for their alleged association with communism, but they came from all walks of life, including women's groups, teachers, intellectuals, and others. Most were unarmed, and none had due process of law. The United States provided financial and military assistance during this time and later, according to documents released by the State Department, and General Suharto consolidated his power, ruling from 1967 to 1998. Some may ask, why is this resolution needed? Why now? This is why. The survivors and descendents of victims continue to be marginalized. Many of the killers continue to live with impunity. Very few Americans are aware of these historical events or our government's actions during this time. These events demand our attention and resolution as we work together to build a strong Asia-Pacific partnership. I am proud to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. An important goal is the development of peaceful, stable democracies-- democracies that provide security and hope to their own people and economic opportunity for businesses in my State and across the United States. Indonesia is the world's third-largest democracy. Its population is diverse. It has the largest Muslim majority population in the world. It has faced many challenges and continues to move forward. A strong U.S.- Indonesia relationship benefits both of our countries. I offer this resolution in support of that relationship and Indonesia's continued progress as a growing democracy and a vital U.S. ally.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our constitutional amendment. I think we have had a very good debate this week--an overdue debate. I want to thank my colleagues for coming to the floor and for speaking out. But there have also been many misrepresentations by the other side about what our constitutional amendment would do. Michael Keegan, the President of People for the American Way, wrote a piece in the Huffington Post yesterday. He summed up the debate from the other side of the aisle quite well. He said, ``a good rule of thumb in politics is that the scarier someone sounds, the more you should doubt what they're saying.'' We heard some scary things in the last couple of days. Lorne Michaels is going to jail. And he is sharing a cell with a little old lady who put up a $5 political yard sign. Books and movies are banned. The NAACP, Sierra Club, and moveon.org have been prohibited from speaking about politics--scary stuff but none of it is true. Erwin Chemerinsky, a great constitutional scholar, recently wrote an op-ed in the Hill, rebutting many of the claims we have heard. He wrote: The amendment-- He is talking about our constitutional amendment here. --gives no authority to the government to ban or limit anyone's speech. It provides the government no power to ``muzzle'' messages the government doesn't like. It does not change in any way the longstanding First Amendment principle that the government cannot restrict speech based on the content of the message or the views expressed. The amendment would do no more than allow the government to regulate spending in election campaigns. That is the heart of what we are doing, regulating spending--out-of- control spending--in election campaigns, dark money, big interests weighing in in an unprecedented way. Professor Chemerinsky is right. S.J. Res. 19 reaffirms the First Amendment principle of equality. It will undo the damage done by the Court over the years, most recently with Citizens United and McCutcheon that said: Those with the most money have the most free speech. Nothing in the amendment would permit the arrest of anyone for engaging in political speech. It would not allow books or movies to be banned. All the amendment does is restore to Congress and the States the power to set reasonable limits--reasonable limits--on campaign contributions and expenditures, a traditional power that the Court has stripped from us. The amendment returns the First Amendment to its pre- Buckley interpretation when money and speech were not the same thing. Prior to Buckley, we did not see the kind of legislation against free speech that my Republican colleagues envision, offering extreme examples of laws Congress could pass. That is one way to argue against this amendment. But it ignores the long history of laws Congress did pass to protect the voices of individual voters. These reforms were not radical. They were narrowly tailored responses to restore America's faith in the political system after a lack of regulations led to scandals and corruption. Let's not forget that any law must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President. That is a significant check against any radical legislation getting passed or these days, against almost any legislation getting passed. Critics also fail to acknowledge something else. Our amendment does not give Congress free reign to pass any and all campaign finance laws. When the Court interprets any amendment to the Constitution, it reads in a reasonableness requirement. This means that even if Congress did abuse its authority and passed the extreme laws that conservatives suggest, they could still be overturned as unreasonable. But more importantly, Members of Congress who pass extreme laws can be held accountable by their constituents. The same cannot be said for Supreme Court justices willing to strike down sensible regulations by a narrow majority. We also heard a quote from the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy did oppose a similar amendment in 1997 and 2001. The truth is, we do not know if he would oppose the amendment today. Citizens United and McCutcheon changed the landscape and changed it dramatically. Senator Kennedy was a champion for the underprivileged throughout his career--in civil rights, education, health care, the minimum wage. He stood up for those who did not have a voice, the very people who are harmed by most of these misguided Supreme Court decisions. We do know some of Senator Kennedy's colleagues who also opposed the amendment in the past are still here in the Senate. They have reconsidered. Chairman Leahy, Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Constitution subcommittee. Thoughtful Senators who felt an amendment was unnecessary in the past now see that it is the only way to fix a broken system. Changing the Constitution is a big step not to be taken lightly. In the Federalist Paper No. 49, James Madison argued the Constitution should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I agree. I also believe we have reached one of those occasions. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the op-eds I referenced by Michael Keegan and Erwin Chemerinsky be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Thank you, Madam President. Let me first say how much I appreciate all of my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about this amendment. Senator Hirono is here. I know Senator Whitehouse is coming down. A number of Senators have come down and spoken very eloquently. The Presiding Officer has also taken a good strong position and we so much appreciate all of her good work. An earlier speaker said that the NAACP is against this amendment. In fact, the NAACP is for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement off their Web page of their endorsement of the constitutional amendment I am going to talk about.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Thank you, Madam President. Some of our opponents have come down to the floor and asked: Why do this now? Why bother? I would answer: Ask the American people. I think they will tell you. People are listening--not just Democrats but Republicans too--all across the Nation. They are listening and here is what they are hearing. They are hearing that the Supreme Court has put a for sale sign on our elections. They are hearing our political process is on life support, drowning in cash, and most of it coming from just a few people. Sixty percent of all super PAC money in 2012 was doled out by 100 billionaires and corporations. They are hearing about elections bought and paid for by shadowy outside groups given a green light by the Supreme Court. Special interests are shelling out at least $216 million in 2014 and likely $1 billion by election day. That is 15 times more money than in 2006 before Citizens United, before the Supreme Court defied common sense and said corporations are people. They are hearing that a lot of money is hidden when over half the money spent in this year's top nine Senate races is not fully disclosed, over half not fully disclosed. So in 2 months we will know the outcome of these elections, but we will not know who paid for them. The result is not surprising. The American people have lost faith in us as they watch this merry-go-round, this constant money chasing, and very little else getting done. This is a vital debate about what democracy we will have and whether democracy will survive. Will we have one that caters to billionaires and the privileged few or one that listens to the American people; one that keeps chasing money from special interests or one that says it is the quality of our ideas, not the size of our bank accounts, that should matter; a democracy that answers to the middle class or to the moneyed class? This debate is crucial. This debate is absolutely crucial to the future of our country, and I believe the American people are not only listening, they are demanding to be heard, because every voice counts, and that is why the majority of Americans support reform. They know the system is broken. There is only one way to truly fix it. Give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to the Congress, and to the States. We have a job to do, but the Supreme Court has rendered us powerless to do it. There is one way to change this, one way for real reform; that is, a constitutional amendment. That is what this debate is all about. The Supreme Court opened the floodgates. The American people want us to close them. The Huffington Post published an article yesterday titled ``Is Washington The Only Place Where Campaign Finance Is A Partisan Issue?'' The answer is yes. Poll after poll shows this. A strong majority of Democrats and Republicans outside of Washington want reform, Republicans such as my good friend former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Yesterday The Hill published an op-ed that Al and I wrote together. As most people know, he has always been someone to speak his mind. When Al edited our draft he added that ``the playing field in our democracy is far from level, and that is driving cynicism, disgust, and mistrust of the political process to dangerous levels.'' Sadly, he is right. It is time for us to listen to our constituents. Over 3 million people have signed petitions in support of a constitutional amendment. There are 16 States, over 550 cities and towns pushing for reform, demanding a more level playing field and fairness, including 75 percent of the voters in Montana, a State where Mitt Romney won by a 10-point margin. So this is a partisan issue only in Washington and in the backrooms of billionaires determined to keep the money flowing and the influence intact. So opponents have ramped up the noise and distraction about the First Amendment and free speech. I would not lose any sleep about billionaires and their free speech, but a lot of us are up late nights thinking about the rest of America. As Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent to McCutcheon, ``Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.'' Too many Americans feel they are not being heard. The First Amendment has already been hijacked. Our amendment rescues it. Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, of doing its job and standing up to Big Money and powerful interests. We can go all the way back to 1867, and later with the Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002--a long history and I would argue an honorable one, and without banning books, suppressing teachers, suppressing preachers or shutting down newspapers. Reforms have been modest, reasonable, and responsive, passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the President. The other side can talk about imaginary horribles. That is one way to go. But that argument is not supported by history, by logic or by the law. Our amendment is not radical. It is a simple idea. It will give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to Congress, and to the States. That is it, period. What is so terrifying about this? Not one thing, except for wealthy special interests that have their place at the table bought and paid for and want to keep it. That is the bottom line. They oppose any reforms, any restrictions on campaign spending. They are listening too. Their message is very clear and unyielding: No reform. None. They want to keep writing their checks and staying at the head of the table. This debate is about special interests trying to buy elections in secret with no limits. The Supreme Court says that is just fine. We say, no, in fact, it isn't. Our amendment has a long bipartisan tradition back to 1983 when Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican, was the lead sponsor. It is common sense. It is fair. We do not dictate specific reforms. We do say Congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible campaign finance reform. Any specific proposals are debatable and answerable to the American people. This amendment has the support of most Americans because they understand beyond all the noise, beyond all the tortured logic of our opponents that we have a train wreck and we need to get the train back on track before yet another scandal, before we are back in the Watergate era. The voice of Americans should not be drowned out by billionaires lobbying for favors, hiding in the corner with gold-plated megaphones. It is time to limit the power of Big Money, to give everyone a say, not just the rich, not just the powerful--everyone. Americans are listening, they are watching, and they are waiting because they know and we know a simple truth: We cannot hand over our democracy to the biggest spender. Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed I mentioned authored by myself and Senator Simpson and that the Huffington Post article I referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I say to my good friend the Senator from Texas that there are very important reasons for bringing up this issue now, and it is because of the elections that are going on. He makes it sound as though this is some kind of a political process. What is going on in our elections right now--and here are the nine top Senate races in the country. The blue on this chart indicates partial or nondisclosed money. This is the dark money. Nobody knows where this money is coming from. It could be billionaires or large corporations. It could be almost anyone with a secret agenda. As an example, more than half the money in this race in Arkansas is dark money. In Georgia we can see that almost all of the money is in this category of partial or nondisclosure. In Kentucky and North Carolina almost half the money is in the category of partial or nondisclosed money, and there is a significant amount of partial or nondisclosed in the other nine States. This issue has to do with what is happening right now in our elections. Just 6 months ago I went over to the Supreme Court and listened to the McCutcheon argument and the ruling--well, I went over there longer than 6 months ago. They made the ruling about 6 months ago. That ruling said one individual can give $3.6 million, and that is what this is about. We are trying to get to the bottom of what is happening in our elections and how our elections are being taken away from us and how they are being influenced in terms of dark money. This is a very good time to have this debate. I will also say to my friend from Texas, this is a bipartisan amendment. This amendment started back in 1983 with Ted Stevens, a Republican. Ernest Hollings could not be more of a bipartisan figure in the Senate, and he picked it up. From 1983 to today, we have had 11 Republicans either vote for the amendment or a similar amendment or beyond the amendment. This is not anything that should be partisan. This dark money and the impact it is having is something the American people are very worried about. I will come back to this chart in a minute. This is a crucial period in our history. Americans will go to the polls and vote. It is our heritage, it is something to celebrate, and it is something to protect. The integrity of our elections is crucial, but our campaign finance system is under siege, drowning in cash and record amounts of money. Much of the money is from outside groups and much of it is hidden. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Money has poisoned our political system. The American people have lost faith in us as they have watched this merry-go-round and constant money chasing from special interests and very little has been getting done. Folks want Congress to get to work and work together so we can find real solutions to real problems and spend our time raising hopes instead of raising cash. That is why Senator Bennet and I have introduced our constitutional amendment and that is what I wish to talk about today. Total spending on Federal elections was over $6 billion in 2012. That is double what was spent in 2000, just 12 years before. That is a lot of money. Where does it come from? Most of it comes from a tiny fraction of the population, and there are billionaires and special interests writing checks--often in dark corners with a lot of the dark money, as I talked about at the beginning of my speech. Nobody knows who is behind that dark money, and that dark money is in our elections in a big way. There are basically two questions: How did we get into this mess and how do we fix it? First, we need to look at the history, which is important to understand because folks can change the subject, but they cannot change the facts and the facts are very clear. Our campaign finance system is being destroyed by misguided Supreme Court decisions, one after another with narrow 5-to-4 decisions, giving a hammer to big money and chipping away at our democracy. Normally the tradition in the Supreme Court has been that of Justices deciding on issues with a vote of 9 to 0 or 8 to 1 after trying to work things out, but these are narrow 5-to-4 decisions which are dividing the country and dividing the Court. We can go all the way back to a Supreme Court decision back in 1976 in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, when the Court said money and free speech are the same thing. Four years ago in a case that involved Citizens United, the Court said corporations are persons and they can spend all they want. Basically the Supreme Court put a for sale sign on elections. These elections and decisions opened the door and allowed a flood of money. They ignored political reality and drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans. Most recently the McCutcheon decision knocked down aggregate contribution limits. What we are talking about in that case is that one person can dole out $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in all 50 States. Let's put that in perspective for the average American working full time and making minimum wage. He or she would have to work 239 years to make that much money. Because of the McCutcheon decision, one person can dole out $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in all 50 States. It would take the average American, working full time and making minimum wage, 239 years to make that much money. Look at the imbalance and inequality there. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a recent interview in the National Law Journal: I think the biggest mistake this Court made is in campaign finance. . . . It should be increasingly clear how [money] is corrupting our system. Justice Ginsburg is right. It is clear to most Americans, which is why opponents of reform either change the subject or muddy the water, which I will get into in a minute. But the point must be made that the five conservative Justices on the Supreme Court are not done. If left unchecked, the hammering will continue and the destruction will go on. Chief Justice Roberts made a troubling statement in the McCutcheon decision. He said preventing bribery is the only basis, the only justification for Congress to pass campaign finance laws. What does this mean? It means more bad decisions from the Court, the floodgates stay open, and the money keeps pouring in. Short of prohibiting out and out bribery, Congress is powerless to act and the American people must step aside. Billionaires will stay at the front of the line. All of this, folks, defies common sense. Senator McCain said after the ruling on McCutcheon: ``There will be scandals involving corrupt political officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again.'' I am afraid my friend is right. There will be scandals. We are setting the stage for scandals. Just look at the millions of dollars of undisclosed money pouring into our elections. How can there be reform? The Court has tied the hands of Congress. Until the Constitution is amended, we cannot enact real reforms-- reforms such as McCain-Feingold. The Court will just strike them down. We are headed back to the pre-Watergate era. In 2012 outside groups spent $450 million to influence Senate and House races. In 2008, before Citizens United, they spent $43 million. That is a tenfold increase. There is an obvious trend and it is deeply troubling. Much of that money is hidden. According to a recent report by the Brennan Center, over half the money spent in this year's top nine Senate races is not fully disclosed. So in 2 months we will know the outcome of these elections, but we won't know who paid for them. This chart is a great indication. We have the top-most contested Senate races, and here in the red we have full disclosure of the money. So the red shows us what people know and that they know who the contributors are, but the blue, which is more than half if we average it through all of the elections, represents partial or absolute nondisclosure. This clearly shows we have a broken system. There are only two ways to fix it. The Court can reverse itself--that is unlikely--or we can amend the Constitution, making clear in the Constitution that people have the right to regulate campaign finance. Until then, we will fall short of real reform. That is why a constitutional amendment is essential--because the time has come to give power back to the elected representatives of the people. Opponents say this is just an election year stunt, but, again, this ignores history. Our amendment is similar to other bipartisan amendments introduced in nearly every Congress since 1983 when Ted Stevens--a Republican--was the lead sponsor. Many prominent Republicans cosponsored and voted for these amendments over the course of three decades, people such as John Danforth, Strom Thurmond, Nancy Kassebaum, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Thad Cochran. This was always a bipartisan effort. And this was before Citizens United, before McCutcheon, when things went from bad to worse. It is not a radical idea. In fact, it is pretty simple. It would give back power to Congress to regulate campaign finance at the Federal level and to States at the State level. That is it, period. We do not dictate specific reforms. We can debate the specifics, and we should, but Congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible campaign finance reform. The American people support reform because they know a basic truth: No matter how hard some may try to obscure it, when the Court says money is free speech, there is a great risk that special interests can drown out the voices of everyone else because we know we don't get something for nothing. Folks writing those checks want something in return. Whether they are Democratic billionaires or Republican billionaires, they want value for their money, which usually means less compromise and which usually means less compromise and more gridlock. Opponents of reform are in full throttle by ignoring history and torturing logic. But let's be clear. Here is the bottom line: They oppose any limits, they oppose any restrictions on how big the checks are or even saying which billionaires are writing them. It is hard to defend that. Instead, they change the subject and talk about threats to free speech, which goes something like this: If Congress can regulate campaign finance spending, then it can also regulate free speech. I think this is a straw man argument not supported by history, logic, or the law. It isn't persuasive, and it is basically a scare tactic. Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, often in the wake of scandal. Since 1867 Congress has been in the business of regulating campaign finance by banning solicitation of campaign funds from naval yard government employees. We have had the Pendleton Act, the Tillman Act, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the Hatch Act, the Federal Campaign Election Act of 1974, and the Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002. First scandal and then reform--that is the unfortunate pattern. Every generation has faced that challenge for ethical government, for standing up to the power of big money, and the Congress has acted. It has not banned books, suppressed preachers, or stopped printing presses. Reform has been modest, reasonable, and responsive, sensible enough to pass both Houses of Congress and get the signature of the President. We have to answer to our constituents, unlike Supreme Court Justices. Further, our amendment does not give Congress free rein. There is still a reasonableness requirement in the Court's interpretation of any constitutional amendment. If Congress did pass extreme laws, the Court could still overturn them as unreasonable. The First Amendment is in full effect. So in the classic example, we protect free speech, but we cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. ``Reasonable'' is not a complicated idea--except maybe here in Washington or to billionaires who demand their way or the highway. Opponents also argue that our amendment protects incumbents. This, again, misses the point. If anything, the current system favors incumbents. Raising $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million for a Senate seat is a tall order--one many qualified candidates will decline. If a person is elected, it is just the beginning of this endless campaign cycle to compete, to keep up, to raise more money. Every Member in this body can speak to the hours on the phone dialing for dollars when our time could be better spent meeting the real needs of our constituents and serving the folks who sent us here in the first place.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to sum up.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, this is not about free speech, and the American people know it. It is about the wealthiest interests trying to buy elections in secret, with no limits, period. That is it. Let me finally say that I have had a great group of Senators working with me on this amendment over the years. One of them we are going to hear from right now--Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. All of us-- Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin on the Judiciary Committee--have worked and refined this amendment to do everything we can to make sure that it is responsive to the American people and that it will make us responsive to the American people in terms of having a good, solid electoral system other than the one the Supreme Court is leading us down the path with. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I am pleased that today we were able to put aside the partisan politics and vote for what was right for the American people. I hope my colleagues will also vote for the final bill. We must protect American jobs and eliminate tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs overseas. Creating and supporting well-paying American jobs should be our top priority. The debate about jobs in America and New Mexico is not about politics; it is about people. This past weekend I visited with some New Mexicans who are facing a very real and personal challenge as far as their future and their livelihood. In Questa, NM, miners have worked for nearly a century. But that mine is now closing--less than 2 weeks from today--and 300 people will lose their jobs. For the workers, for their families, and for local businesses, it is a hard time, with tough questions and uncertain answers. Just this past Sunday I met with the miners to talk with them and, most importantly, to listen about what has happened in Questa and the future of a great community. This is about more than Chevron Corporation's decision to close the mine; it is about workers who feel they were kept in the dark, who worry that help will be too little and too late. My office is working closely with the community for trade adjustment assistance to get the training and help they will need. Folks there are struggling, but they are committed to mapping out a new future for Questa, a post-mining economy, including ecotourism and renewable energy. Families have lived and worked in Questa for generations. They know hard work, grit, and determination. No one needs to tell them about that. They helped build our country. They support their community, and they follow the rules. They ask for one thing in return: a fair chance--that is all, just a fair chance. Let's be clear. For the Supreme Court, for those who seem to be confused on this point, these miners are people, their families are people. Corporations are not people. Super PACs buying our elections-- they are not people. They are special interests with a lot of money and a lot of demands, such as special tax breaks--tax breaks that make no sense to real people with real problems who are looking for real jobs. We need to be doing all we can to create jobs, to keep building our economy. The Bring Jobs Home Act would help--a tax policy that brings jobs home, not one that rewards sending them away. Almost 2.5 million jobs have gone over the past 10 years, shipped overseas and paid for by the American taxpayers, by families such as those in Questa footing the bill. The Bring Jobs Home Act would do two important things: First, it would end the tax loophole for outsourcing jobs. If corporations want to send a job overseas, they can do so but at their own expense, not at the expense of the American taxpayers. Second, it would create the right incentives, giving a tax credit for companies that bring jobs back home. This is a pretty simple idea. Let's reward what helps and stop rewarding what doesn't. The Bring Jobs Home Act will do something else too. For the middle class in this country, for workers and families, it will say: We hear you. Your voice matters too. And all the super PAC dollars can't change that. We can create jobs right here at home. We can keep growing our economy and help communities with a tax policy that builds them up and invests in the future. That is something to fight for. That is the kind of fairness folks want and deserve in Questa, in my State and in our country. The mine will close in Questa. We can't change that. We can't bring it back. Some folks say that it will feel like a death the day that door closes, that it almost feels like a funeral, as if a part of them dies with the mine. And I am sure it does. It has been the lifeblood of the community for so many years and for so many generations of families. But folks there said something else too: When bad things happen, friends and family show up to do what they can to help. We need to start showing up for the American worker, for the middle class, for towns all across our Nation where the factory closed, where the jobs went away. The Bring Jobs Home Act is a start to create jobs, to build our economy here at home, and to help communities in a world that is changing awfully fast. It is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, with deep regret I wish to speak about a very tragic event that occurred recently in my State. On Friday afternoon, May 23, a plane crashed in Arenas Valley, just outside Silver City. It is with great sorrow that we say goodbye to four New Mexicans: Ella Kirk; 14, Michael Mahl, 16; Ella Myers, 16; all of Silver City, NM; and Dr. Peter Hochla, 67, of Albuquerque. Ella Kirk, Michael Mahl, and Ella Myers were talented, gifted students. They had just finished their sophomore year at Aldo Leopold Charter School in Silver City. They were not only fellow classmates, they were close friends, and they were also dedicated to protecting the environment. Each served on the Youth Conservation Corps ecological monitoring crew, which won first place at the New Mexico EnviroThon competition earlier this year. On Sunday, June 1, friends and families gathered at a memorial service in Silver City. Their recollections, as reported in the Silver City Sun-News, recall the three remarkable young people taken so suddenly from our midst. Ella Kirk, despite her youth, was a passionate advocate for protecting the Gila River. Her tireless work to save the Gila from a diversion project resulted in a petition of over 6,400 signatures from New Mexico and around the world. She delivered that petition to the Governor and she testified before the New Mexico State Legislature. Ella played the fiddle, loved dance and music, and was talented in both. At the memorial service, Patrice Mutchnick paid tribute to her daughter, saying, ``She thought every choice she made affected others, and that's the kind of caring individual she was.'' Michael Mahl was an honor student. He also was a musician. Michael performed at his first open mic night at Diane's Parlor in Silver City just 1 month earlier. Michael's father, John Mahl, also performed that night. He recalled later to the Sun-News that his son was a tough act to follow. Michael was also a student leader, and was elected by his classmates to be their next student body president. Like Michael, Ella Myers was an honor student. She was a prolific writer and an athlete. Ella was looking forward to attending the summer arts program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. At the memorial service, her father, Brian Myers, said simply, ``She was a remarkable, gifted, talented artist. She had poise, grace, and elegance.'' Jim McIntosh, a teacher at Aldo Leopold, noted the talents and distinction of these students. ``Michael had a little bit of Elvis in him. Ella Jaz was polite and razor sharp. Ella Myers wanted to know what she was made of and proved that when she rode the 31-mile Tour of the Gila with a borrowed bike with me.'' We remember these gifted young people, who left us far too soon. We honor who they were, and we mourn who they might have become and what they might have accomplished. But even in their tragically short time in this world, they touched many lives and inspired all who knew them. We also remember Dr. Peter Hochla, and his legacy of service to our nation and our State. Dr. Hochla was born in Slovakia and immigrated to the United States as a child. He was a physician for the New Mexico Veterans Administration, and a retired Air Force colonel. As a psychiatrist with the Albuquerque VA hospital, he piloted his own plane to provide care to veterans throughout New Mexico. He leaves behind his wife of 35 years, Dr. Cheryl Greene Hochla, a son, and a daughter. Dr. Hochla dedicated his life to defending the freedoms that we hold dear and to caring for his fellow veterans. The memory of those we have lost is ever with us, and so is the sorrow. We do not know why this tragedy occurred. We do not know why these lives were taken so suddenly. But what we do know is that in Silver City and in Albuquerque, there are families and friends whose hearts are breaking, who are dealing with grief that is so hard to bear, and almost impossible to comprehend. Words cannot alter, cannot change, this profound loss. My wife Jill and I wish to extend our deepest condolences. We share in your sorrow, and we pray that you will find comfort in memories of your loved ones and in the mercy of time and God's grace.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Thank you very much, Madam President, and I thank my colleague from the Foreign Relations Committee for a very good speech on a critical issue that our Nation faces right now. On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was exploded at the Trinity site in New Mexico. For residents of the Tularosa Basin, it marked the beginning of decades of cancer, chronic illness, and suffering that continues to this day. Next month there will be a candlelight vigil organized by the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. Folks will once again gather as they have done now for each year for the past 5 years. They will stand shoulder to shoulder, they will light candles, and they will remember. They will remember that an injustice was done and has yet to be righted. The Trinity explosion paid little attention to surrounding communities. Radioactive debris fell from the sky, killing cattle, poisoning water, poisoning food, the air we breathe. The damage was done and would remain long after the test was finished, for generations. The suffering it caused is very real and so is the sadness, disappointment, and anger. Attention was not paid then, but it must be paid now. That is why I have introduced legislation in this Congress to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to recognize the Trinity site, to include the New Mexicans who have suffered for decades, who still wait for justice, who still wait for compensation from the Federal Government for their injuries almost 70 years later--still waiting. We cannot change the past. We cannot restore the lives of those who have passed away or erase the years of health problems, the years of suffering endured by too many and for too long, but fair compensation will make a difference and provide badly needed help. The original RECA legislation required years of work on the ground. My father helped lay the groundwork for RECA a quarter of a century ago. Through his work with radiation exposure survivors and their families, compiling stories and records and histories of victims, the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium continues this critical work and I encourage them to keep up the fight. This is a bipartisan effort and driven by simple fairness for American citizens who should have been helped but were ignored instead. Our bill would expand the downwind exposure area to include seven States from the Trinity and Nevada test sites and would include Guam from the Pacific side. It would also help post-1971 uranium miners to be eligible for compensation and it would fund a critical public health study of those who live and work in uranium development communities. I will continue to push for this legislation. It is the right thing to do, and we should get it done. When folks gather in Tularosa and stand together as candles flicker in the New Mexico sky, we will take a moment and remember those who have been affected by cancer, who have been brought down by radiation- related diseases, and we will remember those who passed away and those who continue to suffer. We offer our prayers and support to those who are still fighting. We stand with you. We know you have suffered. We know justice has not been done, and we will not rest until it is. I wish to commend the Tularosa Downwinders Consortium, folks such as Tina Cordova and the late Fred Tyler, who will be greatly missed--great advocates, dedicated, committed, and refusing to give up. Thank you for making your voices heard, making your stories known, and for not giving up the fight. Together we will work for fairness until the day comes that we can stand together in Tularosa and light candles of celebration that justice has been done. I yield the floor.