Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because if they lack the capacity to decide who is in Washington representing them, making decisions that will dictate the future of their government, then they lack the ability to make these changes. That is where the threat to liberty is at its greatest. That is why we should be so concerned about S.J. Res. 19. It is important for us to remember we are creative Americans not because of who we are but because of what we do. We have set in motion a sequence of events. We have adopted a Constitution, a rule book that has itself fostered the development of the greatest civilization and the strongest economy the world has ever known.

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source