[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1933-S1940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Coons):
S. 2215. A bill to create jobs in the United States by increasing
United States exports to Africa by at least 200 percent in real dollar
value within 10 years, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2215
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Increasing American Jobs
Through Greater Exports to Africa Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Export growth helps United States business grow and
create American jobs. In 2010, 60 percent of American exports
came from small- and medium-sized businesses.
(2) On January 31, 2011, the President mandated an
executive review across agencies to determine where the
United States Government could become more competitive and
helpful to business, including help with promoting exports.
(3) Several United States Government agencies are involved
in export promotion. Coordination of the efforts of these
agencies through the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
lacks sufficient strategic implementation and accountability.
(4) Many other countries have trade promotion programs that
aggressively compete against United States exports in Africa
and around the world. For example, in 2010, medium- and long-
term official export credit general volumes from the Group of
7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and the United States) totaled
$65,400,000,000. Germany provided the largest level of
support at $22,500,000,000, followed by France at
$17,400,000,000 and the United States at $13,000,000,000.
Official export credit support by emerging market economies
such as Brazil, China, and India are significant as well.
(5) Between 2008 and 2010, China alone provided more than
$110,000,000,000 in loans to the developing world, and, in
2009, China surpassed the United States as the leading trade
partner of African countries. The Export-Import Bank of the
United States substantially increased lending to United
States businesses focused on Africa from $400,000,000 in 2009
to an anticipated $1,000,000,000 in 2011, but the Export-
Import Bank of China dwarfed this effort with an estimated
$12,000,000,000 worth of financing.
(6) Other countries such as India, Turkey, Russia, and
Brazil are also aggressively seeking markets in Africa using
their national export banks to provide concessional
assistance.
(7) The Chinese practice of concessional financing runs
contrary to the principles of the Organization of Economic
Co-operation and Development related to open market rates,
undermines naturally competitive rates, and can allow
governments in Africa to overlook the troubling record on
labor practices, human rights, and environmental impact.
(8) The African continent is undergoing a period of rapid
growth and middle class development, as seen from major
indicators such as Internet use and clean water access. In
2000, only 6.7 percent of the population of Africa had access
to the Internet. In 2009, 27.1 percent of the population had
Internet access. Seventy-eight percent of Africa's rural
population now has access to clean water.
(9) Economists have designated Africa as the ``next
frontier market'', with profitability and growth rates among
many African firms exceeding global averages in recent years.
Countries in Africa have a collective spending power of
almost $9,000,000,000 and a gross domestic product of
$1,600,000,000,000, which are projected to double in the next
10 years.
(10) Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to have the fastest
growing economies in the world over the next 5 years, with 7
of the 10 fastest growing economies located in sub-Saharan
Africa.
(11) When countries such as China assist with large-scale
government projects, they
[[Page S1934]]
also gain an upper hand in relations with African leaders and
access to valuable commodities such as oil and copper,
typically without regard to environmental, human rights,
labor, or governance standards.
(12) Unless the United States can offer competitive
financing for its firms in Africa, it will be deprived of
opportunities to participate in African efforts to close the
continent's significant infrastructure gap that amounts to an
estimated $100,000,000,000.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create jobs in
the United States by expanding programs that will result in
increasing United States exports to Africa by 200 percent in
real dollar value within 10 years.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Africa.--The term ``Africa'' refers to the entire
continent of Africa and its 54 countries, including the
Republic of South Sudan.
(2) African diaspora.--The term ``African diaspora'' means
the people of African origin living in the United States,
irrespective of their citizenship and nationality, who are
willing to contribute to the development of Africa.
(3) AGOA.--The term ``AGOA'' means the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
(4) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives.
(5) Development agencies.--The term ``development
agencies'' includes the Department of State, including the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the United States
Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).
(6) Trade policy staff committee.--The term ``Trade Policy
Staff Committee'' means the Trade Policy Staff Committee
established pursuant to section 2002.2 of title 15, Code of
Federal Regulations, and is composed of representatives of
Federal agencies in charge of developing and coordinating
United States positions on international trade and trade-
related investment issues.
(7) Multilateral development banks.--The term
``multilateral development banks'' has the meaning given that
term in section 1701(c)(4) of the International Financial
Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(4)) and includes the
African Development Foundation.
(8) Sub-saharan region.--The term ``sub-Saharan region''
refers to the 49 countries listed in section 107 of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3706) and
includes the Republic of South Sudan.
(9) Trade promotion coordinating committee.--The term
``Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee'' means the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee established by Executive
Order 12870 (58 Fed. Reg. 51753).
(10) United states and foreign commercial service.--The
term ``United States and Foreign Commercial Service'' means
the United States and Foreign Commercial Service established
by section 2301 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 (15
U.S.C. 4721).
SEC. 4. STRATEGY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
comprehensive United States strategy for public and private
investment, trade, and development in Africa.
(b) Focus of Strategy.--The strategy required by subsection
(a) shall focus on--
(1) increasing exports of United States goods and services
to Africa by 200 percent in real dollar value within 10 years
from the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) coordinating United States commercial interests with
development priorities in Africa;
(3) developing relationships between the governments of
countries in Africa and United States businesses that have an
expertise in such issues as infrastructure development,
technology, telecommunications, energy, and agriculture;
(4) improving the competitiveness of United States
businesses in Africa, including the role the African diaspora
can play in enhancing such competitiveness;
(5) exploring ways that African diaspora remittances can
help governments in Africa tackle economic, development, and
infrastructure financing needs;
(6) promoting economic integration in Africa through
working with the subregional economic communities, supporting
efforts for deeper integration through the development of
customs unions within western and central Africa and within
eastern and southern Africa, eliminating time-consuming
border formalities into and within these areas, and
supporting regionally based infrastructure projects;
(7) encouraging a greater understanding among United States
business and financial communities of the opportunities
Africa holds for United States exports; and
(8) monitoring--
(A) market loan rates and the availability of capital for
United States business investment in Africa;
(B) loan rates offered by the governments of other
countries for investment in Africa; and
(C) the policies of other countries with respect to export
financing for investment in Africa that are predatory or
distort markets.
(c) Consultations.--In developing the strategy required by
subsection (a), the President shall consult with--
(1) Congress;
(2) each agency that is a member of the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee;
(3) the multilateral development banks;
(4) each agency that participates in the Trade Policy Staff
Committee;
(5) the President's National Export Council;
(6) each of the development agencies;
(7) any other Federal agencies with responsibility for
export promotion or financing and development; and
(8) the private sector, including businesses,
nongovernmental organizations, and African diaspora groups.
(d) Submission to Congress.--
(1) Strategy.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
Congress the strategy required by subsection (a).
(2) Progress report.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of the strategy
required by subsection (a).
(3) Content of report.--The report required by paragraph
(2) shall include an assessment of the extent to which the
strategy required by subsection (a)--
(A) has been successful in developing critical analyses of
policies to increase exports to Africa;
(B) has been successful in increasing the competitiveness
of United States businesses in Africa;
(C) has been successful in creating jobs in the United
States, including the nature and sustainability of such jobs;
(D) has provided sufficient United States Government
support to meet third country competition in the region;
(E) has been successful in helping the African diaspora in
the United States participate in economic growth in Africa;
(F) has been successful in promoting economic integration
in Africa; and
(G) has made a meaningful contribution to the
transformation of Africa and its full integration into the
twenty-first century world economy, not only as a supplier of
primary products but also as full participant in
international supply and distribution chains.
SEC. 5. SPECIAL AFRICA STRATEGY COORDINATOR.
The President shall designate an individual to serve as
Special Africa Export Strategy Coordinator--
(1) to oversee the development and implementation of the
strategy required by section 4; and
(2) to coordinate with the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee, (the interagency AGOA committees), and development
agencies with respect to developing and implementing the
strategy.
SEC. 6. TRADE MISSION TO AFRICA.
It is the sense of Congress that, not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Commerce and other high-level officials of the United States
Government with responsibility for export promotion,
financing, and development should conduct a joint trade
mission to Africa.
SEC. 7. PERSONNEL.
(a) United States and Foreign Commercial Service.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
ensure that not less than 14 total United States and Foreign
Commercial Service officers are assigned to Africa.
(2) Assignment.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with
the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and the Special
Africa Export Strategy Coordinator, assign the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service officers described in
paragraph (1) to United States embassies in Africa.
(3) Multilateral development banks.--
(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
assign not less than 1 full-time United States and Foreign
Commercial Service officer to the office of the United States
Executive Director at each multilateral development bank.
(B) Responsibilities.--Each United States and Foreign
Commercial Service officer assigned under subparagraph (A)
shall be responsible for--
(i) increasing the access of United States businesses to
procurement contracts with the multilateral development bank
to which the officer is assigned; and
(ii) facilitating the access of United States businesses to
risk insurance, equity investments, consulting services, and
lending provided by that bank.
(b) Export-Import Bank of the United States.--Of the
amounts collected by the Export-Import Bank that remain after
paying the expenses the Bank is authorized to pay from such
amounts for administrative expenses, the Bank shall use
sufficient funds to do the following:
(1) Assign, in consultation with the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee and the
[[Page S1935]]
Special Africa Export Strategy Coordinator, not less than 3
full-time employees of the Bank to geographically appropriate
field offices in Africa.
(2) Increase the number of employees of the Bank assigned
to United States field offices of the Bank to not less than
30, to be distributed as geographically appropriate through
the United States. Such offices shall coordinate with the
related export efforts undertaken by the Small Business
Administration regional field offices.
(3) Upgrade the Bank's equipment and software to more
expeditiously, effectively, and efficiently process and track
applications for financing received by the Bank.
(c) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--
(1) Staffing.--Of the net offsetting collections collected
by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation used for
administrative expenses, the Corporation shall use sufficient
funds to increase by not more than 5 the staff needed to
promote stable and sustainable economic growth and
development in Africa, to strengthen and expand the private
sector in Africa, and to facilitate the general economic
development of Africa, with a particular focus on helping
United States businesses expand into African markets.
(2) Report.--The Corporation shall report to the
appropriate congressional committees on whether recent
technology upgrades have resulted in more effective and
efficient processing and tracking of applications for
financing received by the Corporation.
SEC. 8. TRAINING.
The President shall develop a plan--
(1) to standardize the training received by United States
and Foreign Commercial Service officers, economic officers of
the Department of State, and economic officers of the United
States Agency for International Development with respect to
the programs and procedures of the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
the Small Business Administration, and the United States
Trade and Development Agency; and
(2) to ensure that, not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act--
(A) all United States and Foreign Commercial Service
officers that are stationed overseas receive the training
described in paragraph (1); and
(B) in the case of a country to which no United States and
Foreign Commercial Service officer is assigned, any economic
officer of the Department of State stationed in that country
shall receive that training.
SEC. 9. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK CAPITALIZATION.
(a) In General.--Section 6(a)(2) of the Export-Import Bank
Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635e(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``2011,'' and
inserting ``2011, $95,000,000,000;''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) during fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year
thereafter through fiscal year 2016, $150,000,000,000; and
``(G) subject to paragraph (4), during fiscal year 2017 and
each fiscal year thereafter, $175,000,000,000.''.
(b) Special Rule for Increase in Applicable Amount.--
Section 6(a) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C.
635e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Special rule for increase in applicable amount.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2017, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the applicable amount under paragraph
(1) shall be $175,000,000,000, if the Comptroller General of
the United States determines pursuant to subparagraph (B)
that the increase in the applicable amount under paragraph
(1)(F) has been effective in increasing viable loans to
further United States exports, including to Africa.
``(B) Report by gao.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the operations of the Bank
and the effectiveness of increasing the applicable amount
under this subsection. Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit a report to Congress regarding the Comptroller
General's determination on the effective use by the Bank of
the increase in the applicable amount under this
subsection.''.
(c) Percent To Be Used for Projects in Africa.--Section
6(a) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C.
635e(a)), as amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(5) Percent of increase to be used for projects in
africa.--Not less than 25 percent of the amount by which the
applicable amount under paragraph (1) is increased under
paragraph (2) (F) or (G) over the applicable amount for
fiscal year 2011 shall be used for loans, guarantees, and
insurance for projects in Africa.''.
(d) Availability of Portion of Capitalization to Compete
Against Foreign Concessional Loans.--Not less than
$250,000,000 of the total bank capitalization of the Export-
Import Bank shall be available annually for loans that
counter below-market rate, preferential, tied aid, or other
related non-market loans offered by other nations for which
United States companies are also competing or interested in
competing.
SEC. 10. TIED AID CREDIT FUND.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Export-Import Bank should use its Tied Aid Credit Fund to
aggressively help United States companies compete for
projects in which a foreign government is using any type of
below market, preferential, or tied aid loan. The Bank shall
make use of any loan products available, including pursuant
to section 9(d), to counter these foreign offerings.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Export-
Import Bank shall report to the appropriate congressional
committees if the Bank has not used at least $220,000,000 in
tied aid credit during the preceding fiscal year. The report
shall include--
(1) a description of all requests for grants from the Tied-
Aid Credit Fund or other similar funds (established under
section 10 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C.
635i 3)) received by the Bank during that fiscal year;
(2) a description of similar concessional (below market
rate) loans made by other countries during that fiscal year;
and
(3) a description of any such grant requests that were
denied and the reason for such denial.
SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.
Section 22(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649(b))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee,'' after
``Director of the United States Trade and Development
Agency,''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``regional offices of
the Export-Import Bank,'' after ``Retired Executives,''.
SEC. 12. BILATERAL, SUBREGIONAL AND REGIONAL, AND
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS.
Where applicable, the United States Trade Representative
and officials of the Export-Import Bank shall explore
opportunities to negotiate bilateral, subregional, and
regional agreements that encourage trade and eliminate
nontariff barriers to trade between countries, such as
negotiating investor friendly double-taxation treaties and
investment promotion agreements. United States negotiators in
multilateral forum should take into account the objectives of
this Act. To the extent any such agreements exist between the
United States and an African country, the Trade
Representative shall ensure that the agreement is being
implemented in a manner that maximizes the positive effects
for United States trade, export, and labor interests as well
as the economic development of the countries in Africa.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr.
Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2217. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore
integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity
payments and benefits; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural America
Preservation Act of 2012. I appreciate Senators Johnson of South
Dakota, Enzi, Brown of Ohio, Gillibrand, Harkin, and Nelson of Nebraska
for joining on this bill, and in this effort.
As the Senate Agriculture Committee continues working on the next
Farm Bill, one thing seems to be clear. The title one safety-net is
going to look quite different than current programs. It appears the
direct payment program may be done away with entirely. Some of my
colleagues and agriculture groups have proposed a variety of new ideas
as possible replacements to the current commodity title.
No matter what commodity program we create, my bill sets the marker
on payment limitations. I introduced a similar payment limits bill last
year, but this bill should better address whatever type of safety-net
program we adopt going forward. The premise remains the same. We need
firm payment limit. We need to close loopholes.
I support having a safety-net for farmers. This nation enjoys a safe
and abundant food supply. Certainly a lot of that can be attributed to
the ingenuity and hard work of the American farmer. But the farm
safety-net helps small and medium-size farmers get through tough times
that are out of their control.
We need an effective safety-net to assist farmers. But equally
important is for Congress to develop a defensible safety-net. I will
continue to work with my Agriculture committee colleagues to figure out
what type of program will be most effective.
But we already know the steps that need to be taken to make it more
defensible. Defensible means setting firm caps on the farm payments any
one farmer can receive. The current approach does not have any overall
cap. There is nothing wrong with farmers growing their operations. But
big farmers shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars
[[Page S1936]]
to get even bigger. When the largest 10 percent of farmers receive 70
percent of farm payments, something is wrong. There comes a point where
some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial
times on their own. Smaller farms do not have the same luxury, but they
play a pivotal role in producing this nation's food.
If you want to witness how farm payments to big farmers creates a
barrier for small and beginning farmers, look at land prices. The
current system puts upward pressure on land prices making it more
difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy ground. This is not
unique to Iowa. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in
many other states.
This bill proposes an overall cap of $250,000 for a married couple.
In my State, many people would say this is still too high. But I
recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and
so this is a compromise. Strong payment limits will ensure farm
payments are helping those who payments were originally created for,
the small and medium-size farmers.
Having an overall cap is more defensible from a Federal budget
standpoint as well. This Nation needs to make tough decisions regarding
all government programs. We need to find savings across the board.
Setting strict caps on all commodity programs should be a no-brainer as
we look to find savings and increase accountability in farm programs.
Having a defensible safety-net also means closing loopholes in the
current law.
For all the rhetoric that comes out of Washington, D.C. about
eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, making sure non-farmers don't game
the system is a common sense step to take. It's simple, if you are not
a farmer, you shouldn't get a farm payment. The bill I introduced last
year, and this bill, has language that closes the loopholes.
After I introduced the bill last year, we received some questions
regarding the language from two camps of people. The first camp of
people I would say were critical because they don't want the loopholes
closed. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact people game the
system. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact we have
nonfarmers who claim to help ``manage'' the farm by participating in
one or two conference calls a year. To those people, I cannot satisfy
your concerns. I will not turn a blind eye to abuses. These are
loopholes that need to be closed.
To the other camp of people, who have provided constructive feedback,
I would say, we have listened. The revisions we made addressed the
issues raised. We have improved the language closing the loopholes.
This bill provides a tangible, workable, and fair approach. Closing
these loopholes is the right thing to do for the American taxpayer. It
is the right thing to do for the American farmer.
Hard caps on farm payments and closing loopholes should be supported
by anyone who wants an effective and defensible farm safety-net. As the
Senate Agriculture Committee heads toward a mark-up of the Farm Bill, I
invite my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2217
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Rural America Preservation
Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.
Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Legal entity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `legal entity' means--
``(i) an organization that (subject to the requirements of
this section and section 1001A) is eligible to receive a
payment under a provision of law referred to in subsection
(b), (c), or (d);
``(ii) a corporation, joint stock company, association,
limited partnership, limited liability company, limited
liability partnership, charitable organization, estate,
irrevocable trust, grantor of a revocable trust, or other
similar entity (as determined by the Secretary); and
``(iii) an organization that is participating in a farming
operation as a partner in a general partnership or as a
participant in a joint venture.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `legal entity' does not include
a general partnership or joint venture.'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) through (d) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Limitation on Payments for Covered Commodities.--The
total amount of payments received, directly or indirectly, by
a person or legal entity for any crop year for 1 or more
covered commodities (except for peanuts) under title I of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et
seq.) (or a successor provision) may not exceed $125,000, of
which--
``(1) not more than $75,000 may consist of marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments under subtitle B or C of
title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 8731 et seq.) (or a successor provision); and
``(2) not more than $50,000 may consist of any other
payments made for covered commodities under title I of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et
seq.) (or a successor provision).
``(c) Limitation on Payments for Peanuts.--The total amount
of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or
legal entity for any crop year for peanuts under title I of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701
et seq.) (or a successor provision) may not exceed $125,000,
of which--
``(1) not more than $75,000 may consist of marketing loan
gains and loan deficiency payments under subtitle B or C of
title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 8731 et seq.) (or a successor provision); and
``(2) not more than $50,000 may consist of any other
payments made for peanuts under title I of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et seq.)
(or a successor provision).
``(d) Spousal Equity.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c),
except as provided in paragraph (2), if a person and the
spouse of the person are covered by paragraph (2) and
receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or gain covered
by this section, the total amount of payments or gains (as
applicable) covered by this section that the person and
spouse may jointly receive during any crop year may not
exceed an amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts
specified in subsections (b) and (c).
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Separate farming operations.--In the case of a
married couple in which each spouse, before the marriage, was
separately engaged in an unrelated farming operation, each
spouse shall be treated as a separate person with respect to
a farming operation brought into the marriage by a spouse,
subject to the condition that the farming operation shall
remain a separate farming operation, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(B) Election to receive separate payments.--A married
couple may elect to receive payments separately in the name
of each spouse if the total amount of payments and benefits
described in subsections (b) and (c) that the married couple
receives, directly or indirectly, does not exceed an amount
equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in
those subsections.'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(B) of subsection (f), by adding at the
end the following:
``(iii) Irrevocable trusts.--In promulgating regulations to
define the term `legal entity' as the term applies to
irrevocable trusts, the Secretary shall ensure that
irrevocable trusts are legitimate entities that have not been
created for the purpose of avoiding a payment limitation.'';
and
(4) in subsection (h), in the second sentence, by striking
``or other entity'' and inserting ``or legal entity''.
SEC. 3. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE
FARMERS.
The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended by striking
section 1001A (7 U.S.C. 1308 1) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 1001A. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE
FARMERS.
``(a) Substantive Change.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of the application of
limitations under this section, the Secretary shall not
approve any change in a farming operation that otherwise
would increase the number of persons or legal entities to
which the limitations under this section apply, unless the
Secretary determines that the change is bona fide and
substantive.
``(2) Separate equipment and labor.--For the purpose of
paragraph (1), any division of a farming operation into 2 or
more units under which the equipment and labor are not
substantially separate shall not be considered bona fide and
substantive.
``(3) Family members.--For the purpose of paragraph (1),
the addition of a family member to a farming operation under
the criteria established under subsection (b)(3)(B) shall be
considered to be a bona fide and substantive change in the
farming operation.
``(4) Primary control.--To prevent a farming operation from
reorganizing in a manner that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
simultaneously attribute payments for a farming operation to
more than 1 person or legal entity, including the person or
legal entity that exercises primary control over the farming
operation, including to respond to--
[[Page S1937]]
``(A)(i) any instance in which ownership of a farming
operation is transferred to a person or legal entity under an
arrangement that provides for the sale or exchange of any
asset or ownership interest in 1 or more legal entities at
less than fair market value; and
``(ii) the transferor is provided preferential rights to
repurchase the asset or interest at less than fair market
value; or
``(B) a sale or exchange of any asset or ownership interest
in 1 or more legal entities under an arrangement under which
rights to exercise control over the asset or interest are
retained, directly or indirectly, by the transferor.
``(b) Payments Limited to Active Farmers.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive, directly or
indirectly, payments or benefits described as being subject
to limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with
respect to a particular farming operation, a person or legal
entity shall be actively engaged in farming with respect to
the farming operation, in accordance with paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4).
``(2) General classes actively engaged in farming.--
``(A) Definition of active personal management.--In this
paragraph, the term `active personal management' means, with
respect to a person, management duties carried out by the
person for a farming operation that are personally provided
by the person on a regular, continuous, and substantial
basis, including the supervision and direction of--
``(i) activities and labor involved in the farming
operation; and
``(ii) onsite services directly related and necessary to
the farming operation.
``(B) Active engagement.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3), for purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall
apply:
``(i) A person shall be considered to be actively engaged
in farming with respect to a farming operation if--
``(I) the person makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of--
``(aa) capital, equipment, or land; and
``(bb) personal labor or active personal management;
``(II) the share of the profits or losses of the person
from the farming operation is commensurate with the
contributions of the person to the operation; and
``(III) a contribution of the person is at risk.
``(ii) A legal entity shall be considered to be actively
engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if--
``(I) the legal entity makes a significant contribution, as
determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value
of the farming operation), to the farming operation of
capital, equipment, or land;
``(II)(aa) the stockholders or members that collectively
own at least 51 percent of the combined beneficial interest
in the legal entity each make a significant contribution of
personal labor or active personal management to the
operation; or
``(bb) in the case of a legal entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members, any
stockholder or member (or household comprised of a
stockholder or member and the spouse of the stockholder or
member) who owns at least 10 percent of the beneficial
interest in the legal entity makes a significant contribution
of personal labor or active personal management; and
``(III) the legal entity meets the requirements of
subclauses (II) and (III) of clause (i).
``(C) Certain entities making significant contributions.--
If a general partnership, joint venture, or similar entity
(as determined by the Secretary) separately makes a
significant contribution (based on the total value of the
farming operation involved) of capital, equipment, or land,
the partners or members making a significant contribution of
personal labor or active personal management and meeting the
standards provided in subclauses (II) and (III) of
subparagraph (B)(i) shall be considered to be actively
engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation
involved.
``(D) Equipment and personal labor.--In making
determinations under this subsection regarding equipment and
personal labor, the Secretary shall take into consideration
the equipment and personal labor normally and customarily
provided by farm operators in the area involved to produce
program crops.
``(E) Significant contribution of personal labor or active
personal management.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of
subparagraph (B), a person shall be considered to be
providing, on behalf of the person or a legal entity, a
significant contribution of personal labor or active personal
management, if the total contribution of personal labor and
active personal management is at least equal to the lesser
of--
``(I) 1,000 hours; or
``(II) a period of time equal to--
``(aa) 50 percent of the commensurate share of the total
number of hours of personal labor or active personal
management required to conduct the farming operation; or
``(bb) in the case of a stockholder or member (or household
comprised of a stockholder or member and the spouse of the
stockholder or member) that owns at least 10 percent of the
beneficial interest in a legal entity in which all of the
beneficial interests are held by family members who do not
collectively receive payments directly or indirectly,
including payments received by spouses, of more than twice
the applicable limit, 50 percent of the commensurate share of
hours of the personal labor or active personal management of
all family members required to conduct the farming operation.
``(ii) Minimum labor hours.--For the purpose of clause (i),
the minimum number of labor hours required to produce a
commodity shall be equal to the number of hours that would be
necessary to conduct a farming operation for the production
of each commodity that is comparable in size to the
commensurate share of a person or legal entity in the farming
operation for the production of the commodity, based on the
minimum number of hours per acre required to produce the
commodity in the State in which the farming operation is
located, as determined by the Secretary.
``(3) Special classes actively engaged in farming.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the following persons shall be
considered to be actively engaged in farming with respect to
a farm operation:
``(A) Landowners.--A person or legal entity that is a
landowner contributing owned land, and that meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), if, as determined by the Secretary--
``(i) the landowner share-rents the land at a rate that is
usual and customary; and
``(ii) the share received by the landowner is commensurate
with the share of the crop or income received as rent.
``(B) Family members.--With respect to a farming operation
conducted by persons who are family members, or a legal
entity the majority of the stockholders or members of which
are family members, an adult family member who makes a
significant contribution (based on the total value of the
farming operation) of active personal management or personal
labor and, with respect to such contribution, who meets the
requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i).
``(C) Sharecroppers.--A sharecropper who makes a
significant contribution of personal labor to the farming
operation and, with respect to such contribution, who meets
the requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph
(2)(B)(i), and who was receiving payments from the landowner
as a sharecropper prior to the effective date of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 246; 122
Stat. 1651).
``(D) Farm managers.--A person who otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection other than paragraph (2)(E)
if--
``(i) the individual--
``(I)(aa) provides more than 50 percent of the commensurate
share of the total number of hours of active personal
management required to conduct the farming operation; and
``(bb) is, with respect to the commensurate share of the
individual, the only party who is providing active personal
management and who is at risk, other than a landlord, if any,
described in subparagraph (A); or
``(II)(aa) is the only individual qualifying the farming
operation (including a sole proprietorship, legal entity,
general partnership, or joint venture) as actively engaged in
farming; and
``(bb) qualifies only a single sole proprietorship, legal
entity, general partnership, or joint venture as actively
engaged in farming;
``(ii) the individual does not provide active personal
management to meet the requirements of this subsection for
persons or legal entities that collectively receive, directly
or indirectly, an amount equal to more than the applicable
limits under subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1001;
and
``(iii) the individual manages a farm operation that is not
jointly managed with persons or legal entities that
collectively receive, directly or indirectly, an amount equal
to more than the applicable limits under subsections (b),
(c), and (d) of section 1001.
``(4) Persons and legal entities not actively engaged in
farming.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), except as
provided in paragraph (3), the following persons and legal
entities shall not be considered to be actively engaged in
farming with respect to a farm operation:
``(A) Landlords.--A landlord contributing land to the
farming operation if the landlord receives cash rent, or a
crop share guaranteed as to the amount of the commodity to be
paid in rent, for such use of the land.
``(B) Other persons and legal entities.--Any other person
or legal entity, or class of persons or legal entities, that
fails to meet the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), as
determined by the Secretary.
``(5) Personal labor or active personal management.--No
stockholder or other member of a legal entity or person may
provide personal labor or active personal management to meet
the requirements of this subsection for persons or legal
entities that collectively receive, directly or indirectly,
an amount equal to--
``(A) more than the applicable limits under subsections (b)
and (c) of section 1001; or
``(B) in the case of a stockholder or member in conjunction
with the spouse of the stockholder or member, more than the
applicable limits described in subparagraph (A).
``(6) Custom farming services.--A person or legal entity
receiving custom farming services will be considered
separately eligible for payment limitation purposes if the
person or legal entity is actively engaged in farming based
on paragraphs (1) through (3).
[[Page S1938]]
``(7) Growers of hybrid seed.--To determine whether a
person or legal entity growing hybrid seed under contract
shall be considered to be actively engaged in farming, the
Secretary shall not take into consideration the existence of
a hybrid seed contract.
``(c) Notification by Legal Entities.--To facilitate the
administration of this section, each legal entity that
receives payments or benefits described as being subject to
limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with
respect to a particular farming operation shall--
``(1) notify each person or other legal entity that
acquires or holds a beneficial interest in the farming
operation of the requirements and limitations under this
section; and
``(2) provide to the Secretary, at such times and in such
manner as the Secretary may require, the name and social
security number of each person, or the name and taxpayer
identification number of each legal entity, that holds or
acquires such a beneficial interest.''.
SEC. 4. FOREIGN PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES MADE INELIGIBLE
FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.
Section 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308 3) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``PERSONS'' and
inserting ``PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Corporation or
Other'' and inserting ``Legal'';
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``a corporation or
other entity shall be considered a person that'' and
inserting ``a legal entity''; and
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``an entity'' and
inserting ``a legal entity''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``person'' and inserting
``legal entity or person''.
SEC. 5. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, Mr.
McCain, and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
S. 2218. A bill to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire
Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing
legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate
Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this
bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International
Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire
Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am
proud to have their support.
Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first
responders around the country will get the essential training,
education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths
and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and
natural.
Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire
Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives
among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is
also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against
natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our
nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support
them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire
Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a
wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely
on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer--
always answer the call.
In a report released in September, the United States Fire
Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number
of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent.
During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in
civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be
proud of this progress.
According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death
rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the
industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time
period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300
injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to
improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American
families.
We must also continue to educate and train current and future
generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the
professional development of fire services personnel through the
National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention
Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as
well as many other critical courses.
My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the
importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine
Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year
through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is
17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from
only nine in 2010--both are too many.
With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the
valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can
make further progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in
our nation.
I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.
______
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Webb, Mr.
Conrad, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Casey, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 2219. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor
organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the
DISCLOSE Act of 2012, and we are informally closing DISCLOSE 2.0 in
recognition of the original bill that Senator Schumer worked so hard to
get passed a few years ago.
The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and
special interest money in elections, bringing about an era where
corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of
voters in our political system.
Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous so the public does
not even know who is spending millions to influence our elections. Here
is how my home State newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained the
Citizens United decision:
The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending
economic interests will determine who gets elected. More
money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns.
Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their
voices will count for even less than they do now. They will
simply be drowned out by the big money.
I think events have proven the Providence Journal correct. Senator
John McCain recently described these events. He said:
I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with
their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck
down [the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law], that there
would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparency,
unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening.
If we look at the 2006 and 2010 congressional elections where there
was not a Presidential race going on after Citizens United in 2010,
there was a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other
outside groups compared to what occurred in 2006, with nearly three-
quarters of that political advertising coming from sources that were
prohibited from spending money in 2006--three-quarters of it.
Also, in 2010, those 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations spent more
than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. Anonymous
spending rose
[[Page S1939]]
from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 47 percent of outside
spending in 2010. Nearly half of the money spent through these outside
organizations is anonymous and secret.
If we look at the 2012 race that we are in right now, a Presidential
race, and compare it to the last Presidential race, we are already
seeing similar ominous signs about the influence of money. The Federal
Election Commission predicts that over $11 billion will be spent on the
2012 elections, about double what was spent in 2008.
Super PACs, mostly linked to individual candidates, spent about $100
million through the Super Tuesday contest in the Republican
Presidential primary, again, about twice what was spent over the same
period in 2008. In the two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside
PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three
times as much as the candidates themselves.
Our campaign finance system is broken. Immediate action is required
to fix it. Americans of all political stripes, whatever their
persuasion, are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous
corporate cash in our elections and by campaigns that succeed or fail
depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their
pockets.
Editorial boards across the country decry this new pollution of our
politics. Republicans, such as former Governors Mike Huckabee and Tom
Ridge, have concluded that super PACs are, in Mr. Huckabee's words,
``one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.''
Seven in ten Americans, including a majority of both Republicans and
Democrats, believe super PACS should be illegal. Countless Rhode
Islanders are fed up with the influence of corporate money in
elections. I hear them at my community dinners; I read their mail.
Charles in Little Compton wrote to me,
[I]t is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further, in
this instance solely because they have more money, should
drown out another person . . . [C]orporations have no problem
getting their views aired.
Hope-Whitney in Bristol wrote,
[J]ust the idea that a corporation is considered an
individual in regards to politics goes against everything
American to me. . . . [T]hey have become the Emperors as they
have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. . . . I'd
be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do
not agree with their political representation.
Elizabeth in Wakefield wrote:
Big business should not control our elections. It is bad
enough that they deeply influence our politicians through
lobbyists.
But because of a 5-to-4 decision by the conservative Justices in
Citizens United, Congress cannot prohibit super PACs from drowning out
the voices of ordinary Americans in our elections. That leaves us with
one weapon left in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of
money from special interests. That weapon is disclosure, daylight,
information.
Today, along with 34 other Senators, I am introducing legislation
that will shine a bright light on these powerful shadowy interests.
With this legislation, every citizen will know who is spending these
great sums of money to get their candidate elected. I am delivering
this speech at a time that Senator Bennet, the distinguished junior
Senator from Colorado is presiding. I am very conscious and aware as I
deliver it of the immense amount of work that he has put in in the
process of preparing this legislation, working on a strategy for going
forward, working with our leadership to commence that strategy.
I am grateful to him and the other Senators I will mention later. For
now I will give the Presiding Officer the lead. In 2010, under Senator
Schumer's leadership and guidance, we came within one vote of passing
his original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous and
unaccountable corporate money has become dramatically worse, and
Americans are losing faith in our political system as a result.
More and more people believe their government responds only to
wealthy and powerful corporate interests. As they see their jobs
disappear and their wages stagnate, and bailouts and special deals for
the big guys, they lose faith that their elected officials are
listening to them. For our democracy to remain strong, this trend
cannot continue. We must redouble our efforts and pass the DISCLOSE Act
of 2012.
The bill we are introducing today has been trimmed down so it just
does two simple things: One, if you are an organization such as a
corporation, a super PAC or a 401(c)(4) group spending money in an
election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you
have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are
spending it on in a timely manner. That should not be a controversial
idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking special
influence.
If you are a top executive or a major donor of an organization
spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, you have to take
responsibility for those ads by having your name on the ad, and in the
case of an executive appearing in the ad yourself. That is it. Two
simple provisions. Disclosure and a disclaimer. These are reasonable
provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans
alike.
The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, the DISCLOSE 2.0 Act, trims down the
original DISCLOSE Act in another way. We have raised the threshold for
donations that require disclosure from $600 to $10,000. It may sound as
though $10,000 is a ridiculously high threshold, as though that is an
awful lot of money, but when we look at what is happening in these
super PACs, $10,000 in this particular world is no big deal.
Ninety-three percent of money raised by super PACs in 2010 and 2011
that can be traced to specific donors came in contributions of $10,000
or more. So we will catch probably 93 percent of the money in this
reporting provision, while leaving smaller donations and dues payments
to membership organizations private.
The act also does not require the disclosure of nonpolitical
donations, affiliate transfers, business investments, and other
transfers of money that have nothing to do with electioneering.
At the same time, however, the bill also contains strong provisions
to prevent the use of dummy organizations or shell corporations to hide
their donations from public view. The way this bill is drafted, if
somebody sets up a phony organization to take a contribution and, in
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization and, in
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization, before it
finally lands in a super PAC that is benefiting a candidate, we will be
able to trace that series of transactions.
So it is a good law, a simpler law, an effective law. It only goes
after high-dollar givers. Passing it would prove to the American people
that Congress is committed to fairness, that we are committed to
equality, and that we are committed to the fundamental principle of a
government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''
In closing, I thank Senator Schumer for his exemplary leadership and
determination on this vitally important issue, as well as Senators
Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom
Udall, all of whom have worked very closely on this legislation. I also
thank the act's other cosponsors--all 35--who, similar to myself,
understand that the legitimacy of our democratic process and the
integrity of our democratic elections are at stake.
I look forward to working with any of my colleagues in the Senate who
believe the voices of American citizens should be defended, and I hope
all will join me in supporting this critical piece of legislation to
restore integrity to our elections.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse,
Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts
to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme
Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by
Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help
to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the
narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in
Citizens United.
Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices
overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from
corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to
strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and
ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from
[[Page S1940]]
direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and
remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to
corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process
that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.
Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations
do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests.
Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal
constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this.
Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow
majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.
When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's
decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to
mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that
Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain-
Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that
corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.
Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act,
preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having
an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the
DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy
corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out
the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in
our elections.
By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the
flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and
unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would
continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks
that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding
precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American
people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican
primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead
of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative
advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to
the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the
time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of
government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the
decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the
people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones
would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is
clear those concerns were justified.
By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the
effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The
DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and
accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans
know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward
restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard
and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate
influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that
Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable
corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this
important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the
McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''
Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate
money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to
corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and
transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It
would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend
all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning
board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those
corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's
hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all
Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election
Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic
process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont
refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of
Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to
each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate
spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support
the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure
the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and
fair elections.
____________________