[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 106 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4985-S5003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 446, 
S. 3369, the DISCLOSE Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 3369, a bill to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide 
     for additional disclosure requirements of corporations, labor 
     organizations, super PACs, and other entities, and for other 
     purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 5 p.m., the Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider the nomination of Kevin McNulty to be 
United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey.
  At 5:30 p.m., there will be two rollcall votes. The first vote will 
be on confirmation of the McNulty nomination. There will then be 10 
minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to 
the DISCLOSE Act.


               Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 6079

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told H.R. 6079 is at the desk and due 
for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the bill by 
title for the second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6079) to repeal the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

  Mr. REID. I now object to any further proceedings on this matter.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will 
be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.


                            The DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest 
Presidents, once said,


[[Page S4986]]


       The end of democracy . . . will occur when government falls 
     into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed 
     corporations.

  Campaign finance reform protections we have in place--and have had 
for many years--have solved the problem Jefferson talked about by 
limiting political spending by corporations. Then out of nowhere came 
the Supreme Court to issue its Citizens United opinion, rolling back a 
century of work to make elections transparent and credible.
  The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special-
interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable 
motives. Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who put a 
stop to unlimited corporate donations, has America seen this kind of 
out-of-control spending to influence elections.
  Democrats and the majority of Americans believe the Supreme Court got 
it very wrong with Citizens United. Anonymous spending by so-called 
nonprofits, often backed by huge corporate donors or a few wealthy 
individuals, used to make up 1 percent of election spending. This year 
it will make up well over half of the spending. There is no question 
Citizens United opened the door for big corporations and foreign 
entities to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence 
elections and undermine the fairness and integrity of the process. Let 
us look at Nevada. Through the first part of this year, more money has 
been spent per capita on TV ads in Nevada than in any other State in 
the country. Most of the ads have been funded by anonymous groups flush 
with cash from these huge oil interests, Wall Street, moneyed 
interests, foreign gambling interests, and other interests seeking 
greater influence in Washington.
  Voters in Nevada and across the country deserve to know who paid for 
these ads. We have proven it is possible to remove the veil of secrecy 
from outside money and make the process more transparent. We have done 
that before and we need to do it again. We can require large political 
donors to disclose their identities so voters can at least judge their 
motivations for themselves.
  Requiring large donors to disclose their entities is not a new 
concept. In fact, my counterpart, Senator McConnell, and many of his 
Republican colleagues, have supported this in the past. The legislation 
today before the Senate--the DISCLOSE Act--would require disclosure of 
donations in excess of $10,000 if they are used for campaign purposes.
  The bill treats all political entities equally--whether unions, 
corporations, business associations, or super PACs. And contrary to 
Republican claims, this legislation would not require organizations to 
turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors. Rather, it 
would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front 
groups to shield their donations from disclosure.
  Yet my Republican colleagues, with rare exception, have lined up 
against this commonsense legislation. Their newfound opposition to 
transparency makes one wonder who they are trying to protect. Perhaps 
Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to 
contribute nine figures to sway a close Presidential election.
  If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 
17 angry old White men will wake up and realize they have just bought 
the country. That is a sad commentary. About 60 percent or more of 
these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people.
  These donors have something in common with their nominee. Like Mitt 
Romney, they believe they play by their own set of rules. Mitt Romney 
has refused to release his tax returns. I think everybody in America 
now knows that. From the one and only return we have seen, we know Mitt 
Romney pays a lower tax rate than most middle-class families. We know 
he has a Swiss bank account. We know he takes advantage of tax shelters 
in the Cayman Islands and tax shelters in Bermuda. But we can only 
guess what new secrets would be revealed if we could examine a dozen 
years of his tax returns. His father, George Romney, set the standard 
for Presidential elections. He released 12 years of tax returns so 
Americans could evaluate his record for themselves. His son should also 
let his records out so we can evaluate his record for ourselves.
  Even nominees for Cabinet posts are required to release 3 years of 
tax returns and declare financial holdings worth more than $1,000. 
Romney's refusal to be open and honest would disqualify him from even 
being a Cabinet secretary. And his penchant for secrecy makes Americans 
wonder: What is he hiding?
  Thomas Jefferson famously argued: Democracy depends on an informed 
electorate. If that is true--and I believe it is--it stands to reason 
disclosure can only strengthen our democracy. But don't take my word 
for it. As my friend Senator McConnell has said, ``Disclosure is the 
best disinfectant.''
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                            The DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later today Senate Democrats will show 
where their legislative priorities truly lie.
  At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest 
economic recovery in modern times, and just 5\1/2\ months away from the 
culmination of tax hikes and spending cuts already being referred to 
around the world as America's fiscal cliff, Senate Democrats want us to 
waste our time on the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that has only two 
discernible purposes: to create the impression of mischief where there 
is none, and to send a signal to unions that Democrats are just as 
eager to do their legislative bidding as ever.
  Think about it. We have had 41 straight months of unemployment above 
8 percent. It has been more than 3 years since the Democratic Senate 
passed a budget, but this is what they want to do.
  For months Republicans have been urging Democrats to do something 
about the approaching fiscal cliff now, before it is too late. The 
American people don't expect us to see every crisis that comes around 
the corner, but they should be able to expect us to do something about 
the problems we do see and that we know are coming. Yet last week 
President Obama signaled that he and his campaign advisers think it is 
good politics to keep the threat of these looming tax hikes on everyone 
right on the table as supposed leverage in an effort to raise taxes on 
nearly 1 million business owners right now.
  As the Washington Post reported this morning, not only do Democrats 
in Congress agree with him, they are ready and willing to go right off 
the fiscal cliff if they don't get their way. In their near fanatical 
crusade to inflict even more pain on American businesses, Democrats are 
now openly admitting that they plan to wait until this debate reaches 
full throttle and Americans are panicked about the outcome to do 
anything because they think it will make it more likely they will get 
their way. And if they don't, then so be it. They are ready to accept 
the economic and fiscal consequences. They see a crisis coming, and 
they don't want to waste it.
  The Congressional Budget Office has said that not doing anything and 
walking off this fiscal cliff would lead to a recession. The IMF chief 
says it would threaten the global economy. Yet Senate Democrats today 
are announcing they are perfectly ready and willing to accept all that 
if Republicans don't allow them to raise taxes on the very businesses 
we are counting on to create the jobs we need.
  This is what passes for governance among Democrats these days: Put 
the American people up against a wall, pick their pockets, and then 
hope that in the midst of the scuffle they will blame it--and the 
recession that would follow--on the Republicans.
  Now, let's make no mistake. What the Democrats are proposing today is 
an entirely avoidable high-stakes game of chicken with the single-
minded goal of taking more money from those who earn it for government 
to waste. The President made it very clear over the

[[Page S4987]]

weekend that he doesn't think entrepreneurs are responsible for their 
own success. They owe it to the government. Successful entrepreneurs 
owe their success to the government. That is the attitude driving 
everything this President and his Democratic allies in Washington are 
doing right now. Their one-point plan for getting America back on track 
is clear: You earn, we take. And if they don't get to impose it, then 
they will welcome a recession.
  They are so single-mindedly focused on taking the earnings of others 
for themselves and spreading it around--in the President's famous 
phrase--that they are recklessly ignoring any proposal to prevent the 
coming crisis in order to achieve it.
  Last week Senate Republicans proposed a legislative solution which 
ensures that no one sees their income tax go up--no one--at the end of 
the year, legislation that creates a path for the kind of fair, broad-
based comprehensive tax reform members of both parties claim they want 
and which would give individuals and businesses the certainty they have 
been asking us to give them since the very beginning of the 
administration.
  We could have passed this completely reasonable proposal last week 
and put the anxiety of millions of Americans at ease with a single 
vote, but Democrats, of course, refused. They would rather keep the 
crisis unresolved, keep it looming out there on the horizon. They think 
it gives them a political edge. They think it is good politics. And 
they should be ashamed. They should be ashamed.
  Consider this: It has been nearly 1 year since the President demanded 
$500 billion in automatic cuts to defense at the end of this year. Yet 
with the date now fast approaching, we still don't know how he intends 
to handle it. The President's campaign wants people asking whether his 
opponent is hiding something on a 10-year-old tax return. How about 
what this President is actually concealing about his plans to slash 
defense? With just a few months to go before these cuts devastate 
communities all across the country, the President has yet to outline 
his plans.
  Republicans in the House have already passed, and Senate Republicans 
have proposed, concrete plans to avoid these devastating cuts to our 
national defense. Our uniformed military deserves the certainty that 
their operations, training, support, and weapons systems will be fully 
funded. Meanwhile, the President hasn't demonstrated the least bit of 
interest in this issue--no interest whatsoever. He hasn't said a thing. 
He is apparently more interested in blowing smoke about his opponent's 
tax returns than in talking about the tax hike he actually plans to 
impose on the very businesses we are counting on to create the jobs 
Americans need--not some other day but right now.
  He would rather spend his time raising unfounded suspicions about a 
guy whose entire professional career has been a dress rehearsal for 
bringing order to a government that has become so bloated, so 
inefficient, and so bureaucratic that it is crying out for the kind of 
leadership and reform Democrats simply refuse to provide. He would 
rather attack a guy who has succeeded at just about everything he has 
ever done than propose a solution himself. And the reason, of course, 
is perfectly clear: Washington Democrats are worried he might succeed 
at reforming government too. They don't want to give him the chance.
  Think about it. The economy is flat on its back, millions are 
struggling to find work, and Democrats aren't outlining a solution. 
They are plotting about how to take advantage of it to advance an 
ideological agenda most Americans oppose and to cast doubt about 
anybody who poses a serious threat to the crony-capitalist bureaucratic 
favor factory right here in Washington.
  Where the rest of us see the worst economic recovery in modern times, 
Democrats see another opportunity to use a crisis to grow the 
government, and that is what they are focused on--not on providing hope 
and relief for already struggling Americans but providing more tax 
dollars for the government to waste and misdirect. In the meantime they 
will waste our time with bills like this one which they know will not 
pass but will give them a chance to make a fuss about a problem that 
doesn't exist--and blow a kiss to the unions for good measure.
  But if we are going to have to vote on proceeding to this bill, I 
would like to take a moment to explain why it is not only exhibit A in 
how completely irresponsible Democrats are being right now, but why it 
is such a terrible idea in itself.
  First, a point on process. When the history books are written, the 
112th Congress may well be known as the Congress of irrelevant 
committees--the Congress of irrelevant committees. There once was a day 
when committees held hearings on bills, debated them, offered 
amendments, and reported them out for full Senate consideration. Now it 
is find a bill, put it on the calendar, move to proceed, file cloture, 
lose, and repeat. That is today's Senate. Committees are not being used 
to generate good legislation. In other words, they are viewed as an 
obstacle to overcome in the effort to make a point in front of the 
cameras on the Senate floor. The latest such effort is the DISCLOSE 
Act, a bill aimed at doing something about people exercising their 
first amendment rights to participate in the process.
  My question is, do something about what? Do something about races 
which previously would not have been competitive but now are? Do 
something about individuals and organizations criticizing unpopular 
positions and policies? Do something about groups advocating on behalf 
of their members to promote or oppose the very positions for which 
their members joined? As George Will has pointed out, the political 
process is not a private club with the parties and the candidates 
controlling membership. Under the Citizens United decision of 2010, 
independent groups are now able to speak, again, under the first 
amendment regardless of who, when, and about what they are speaking. 
This is something Democrats should be celebrating, not excoriating.
  The Founders envisioned a nation in which speech would be promoted as 
widely as possible. That is what the first amendment is all about, 
particularly when it comes to the political process. The purpose of 
this legislation is totally clear. After Citizens United, Democrats 
realized they could not shut up their critics so they decided to go 
after the microphone instead by trying to scare off the funders. As 
Senator Schumer put it during debate on an earlier version of this 
bill, `` . . . the deterrent effect should not be underestimated.'' 
That was Senator Schumer on the real purpose of this bill: ``The 
deterrent effect should not be underestimated.''
  Just as with the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, this amounts to nothing more 
than member and donor harassment and intimidation and is all part of a 
broader government-led intimidation effort by this administration. 
There are parallel efforts going on at the FCC, the SEC, the IRS, the 
DOJ, and the White House itself to silence its critics.
  The creation of a modern day Nixonian ``enemy's list'' is currently 
in full swing and, frankly, the American people should not stand for 
it. As I have said before, no individual or group in this country 
should have to face harassment or intimidation or incur crippling 
expenses defending themselves against their own government simply 
because the Government does not like the message they are advocating. 
But that is what we are seeing.
  My own view has always been, if you cannot convince people of the 
wisdom of your policies, then you need to come up with some better 
arguments. Instead, the left has resorted to tactics such as the 
pending legislation. This legislation is an unprecedented requirement 
for groups to publicly disclose their donors, stripping a protection 
recognized and solidified by the courts. As a result of this 
legislation, advocacy groups ranging from the NAACP to the Sierra Club, 
to the Chamber of Commerce, all of which already disclose their donors 
to the IRS, would now be forced to subject their members to public 
intimidation and harassment. Why? For supporting organizations and 
groups whose goals they agree with.
  Predictably, unions are exempted from the kind of disclosure 
Democrats now want to impose on everybody else. The so-called stand by 
your ad provision in an earlier version has done a

[[Page S4988]]

David Copperfield and entirely vanished.
  I am not advocating for the provision but simply to note its absence, 
which proves the primary goal of this bill is not good government or 
transparency but targeted speech suppression. That is what this is 
about--targeted speech suppression.
  I have to give the authors credit, whoever they are. They actually 
list labor unions as a covered organization in the bill. However, 
through an elaborate scheme of thresholds and triggers, they might as 
well have saved the ink, since unions are largely given a free pass by 
this bill, despite the fact they are, by far, the biggest players in 
political campaigns in our entire country. No one else comes close--
almost all of it, of course, on the Democratic side.
  As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, labor unions spent a 
total of $4.4 billion on campaigns from 2005 to 2011, a staggering 
amount of money and perfectly within their rights, I would add, under 
the first amendment.
  Let's be clear. The other side may be able to whip the media up into 
a lather over the increased participation of individuals and groups 
that do not like the direction this President has taken our country, 
but the big money is coming from the left in the form of mandatory dues 
to labor unions. To the left, big money from individuals and 
corporations is a problem. But the nearly $800 million spent by unions 
in 2008, oh, that is just fine and dandy--as long as nearly 100 percent 
of it goes to their own campaigns.
  As supporters of this legislation have readily admitted, the real 
target of this bill is to protect themselves from criticism over their 
wildly unpopular policies and positions. This is precisely why this 
legislation has been opposed by business groups from coast to coast and 
opposed by everyone from the NRA--which is key voting this vote--to the 
ACLU, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I greatly appreciate all the 
effort these folks have put into educating and advocating on this 
issue.
  I will certainly do everything in my power to protect the first 
amendment rights from DISCLOSE, the sequel, and I ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to join with me in voting no. We have many 
serious problems in this country. Too much free speech is not one of 
them.
  Democrats can call this bill whatever they want, but they cannot 
conceal its true intent, which is to encourage their allies and 
discourage their critics from exercising their first amendment right to 
speak their mind. If Democrats do not like the level playing field 
ensured by the first amendment and reaffirmed by Citizens United, they 
should do a better job convincing the American people of the wisdom of 
their policies and focus on real problems instead of inventing ones 
that do not exist. To this point, I once again urge our friends to put 
the political games aside and do something now about the fiscal cliff 
that is approaching before it is too late. Our Nation has been mired in 
an economic coma for years. More people signed up for disability last 
month than found a job. The number of Americans on food stamps 
continues to climb. It is all about to get worse, and we have a 
President who is on a single-minded crusade to punish business owners 
even more.
  Republicans have proposed serious, concrete ideas for addressing the 
problems we face, but we cannot do any of it if the President and his 
Democratic allies in Congress refuse to join us. Unfortunately, that is 
where we are. Democrats have made their priorities perfectly clear and, 
sadly, the American people they were elected to serve appear to be very 
much at the bottom of the list.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Arkansas now be recognized to deliver remarks regarding a 
casualty from his home State--for which I will take this opportunity to 
send my condolences and the condolences of the people of Rhode Island--
and at the conclusion of his remarks that I be recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me a few 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.


                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

                       SERGEANT MICHAEL STRACHOTA

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, we are aware that our freedoms are not 
truly free and our soldiers give the greatest sacrifice in freedom's 
defense. The sacrifices of Americans in uniform and their families 
embody the courage, honor, and patriotism that we must always remember.
  Today I am here to pay my respects to Army SGT Michael Strachota, an 
Arkansas soldier who sacrificed his life for the love of this country 
in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
  Sergeant Strachota graduated from Pine Bluff High School in Pine 
Bluff, AR in 2002. In 2007 he enlisted in the Army and was assigned to 
the 96th Transportation Company, 180th Transportation Battalion, 13th 
Sustainment Command at Fort Hood, TX.
  Sergeant Strachota was aware of the dangers he faced having served a 
previous deployment to Iraq in 2009. His family says that Michael was 
proud of his job and recalled to Arkansas newspapers how excited he was 
about his position and how he wanted to pursue a new direction in the 
military as an Army Ranger or pilot.
  Sergeant Strachota's family said he was known for his friendly, out-
going, and generous nature and his love of the outdoors and riding 
motorcycles. Most of all he was devoted to his family. He delayed his 
R&R to be home for his son's birthday on July 5th.
  Sergeant Michael Strachota answered the highest call for this 
country. He is a true American hero. I ask my colleagues to keep his 
wife Lauren, son William and the rest of this family and friends in 
their thoughts and prayers during these difficult times. I humbly offer 
my sincerest gratitude for his selfless service and patriotism for this 
Nation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the DISCLOSE Act 
of 2012, legislation that will shine some much needed light into the 
flood of secret money that is now polluting our elections. I would like 
to open with thanks to Senators Chuck Schumer, Mike Bennet, Al Franken, 
Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom Udall for their hard work in our 
task force that developed this legislation. I look forward to 
continuing to work with them through this debate.
  On Thursday, Majority Leader Reid moved to proceed to this vital 
piece of legislation, and we will vote on it this evening. I thank the 
leader. I and many of my colleagues are looking forward to the 
opportunity to make the case for this important measure. But in a 
sense, for the American public, the case has already been made. As 
anyone who watches television knows, our airwaves are filled with 
political attack ads. The organizations paying for many of these ads 
have patriotic and benign-sounding names with words such as 
``prosperity'' and ``freedom'' and ``future'' frequently to be found. 
These names sound harmless, but all too often the ads are actually paid 
for by secret special interests, such as billionaires and wealthy 
corporations seeking secret special influence in our democracy. In the 
process, they drown out the voices of regular American families who 
wish to participate in elections.
  The Republican leader indicated we were going after the impression of 
mischief where there is none. Many Americans certainly have the 
impression of mischief.
  As U.S.A. Today put it last week in an editorial supporting this 
DISCLOSE Act:

       Everybody's watching what's expected to be by far the most 
     expensive presidential campaign in history, and not without a 
     dose of horror. Freed by the Supreme Court from spending 
     limits, all manner of special interests are opening the 
     spigots to buy influence.

  Here is how my home State paper, the Providence Journal, explained 
the Citizens United decision that unleashed this torrent of special 
interest money.

       The [Citizens United] 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

[[Page S4989]]

     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 the Providence Journal hit the nail right on the head. What 
has happened since the Citizens United decision has, in fact, proved 
them right. Senator John McCain said earlier this year:

       The United States Supreme Court--in what I think is one of 
     the worst decisions in history--struck down the restrictions 
     in the so-called McCain-Feingold law, and a lot of people 
     don't agree with that, but I predicted when the United States 
     Supreme Court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens 
     in politics, struck down that law, that there would be a 
     flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted 
     for, and this is exactly what is happening.

  Senator McCain is right. This is exactly what is happening. It is not 
an impression of mischief, it is mischief on the loose.
  Richard Posner, a leading conservative legal scholar and a Federal 
judge, recently said:

       Our political system is pervasively corrupt due to our 
     Supreme Court taking away campaign-contribution restrictions 
     on the basis of the First Amendment.

  Our political system is pervasively corrupt. This is from a 
conservative Federal judge.
  The impact of Citizens United has been very clear. In the 2010 
midterm elections, the first after Citizens United, there was a more 
than a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other 
outside groups compared to 2006--$69 million up to $305 million--with 
nearly three-quarters of political advertising coming from sources that 
were prohibited from spending money back in 2006. Also, in 2010, those 
501(c)(4)s and (c)(6) not-for-profit organizations spent more than $135 
million in unlimited and secret political contributions. Anonymous 
spending rose from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 44 percent 
in 2010.
  We are already seeing the influence of money on the 2012 elections. 
Super PACs and other outside groups have spent over $150 million in 
this election cycle, about twice of what was spent in the same period 
of 2008 during the last Presidential election.
  Nondisclosing groups, said the New York Times, ``have accounted for 
two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside 
spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle . . . with close to $100 
million in issue ads.''
  Campaigns are no longer waged by candidates and parties fighting over 
ideas, they are now waged by shadowy political attack groups posing as 
social welfare organizations run by the likes of Karl Rove and other 
political operatives and fueled by millions of undisclosed dollars from 
secret special interests. When these secret special interests take over 
our elections this way, it drowns out the voices of regular individual 
Americans. It also puts in jeopardy some of the key pillars of a strong 
middle class, pillars such as Medicare, Social Security, and Pell 
grants that have paved the way for generations to achieve the American 
dream but have always been the targets of special interests.
  These special interests have motives. They have motives to spend this 
kind of money. If those motives were good for America and were welcomed 
by the average American, they wouldn't need and wouldn't want to keep 
them secret. We need to ask ourselves a very important question: What 
are they hiding? Why do they demand secrecy? Whatever the answer, one 
thing is clear: Americans who worry that Washington is too beholden to 
special interests now need to be concerned more than ever. Hang onto 
your wallets, here come the special interests, and you won't even know 
who they are.
  As recently reported in the New York Times, secret spending groups 
have accounted for two-thirds of this advertising. Two-thirds of ad 
spending from groups, other than candidates or parties, has come from 
secretive corporations and billionaires whose names and agendas the 
voters may never know and who will have no accountability for how that 
money is spent. Impression of mischief, indeed.
  Of course, when we don't have accountability, there is no limit to 
what people will say. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the 
filth that is so often part of the American political debate is that 
candidates have to stand by their ads. If someone says something that 
is awful, if they engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may 
charge them a price for that. They may find that unwelcome. That, of 
course, disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living 
person or corporation. It is just an entity, a sham, a phony, a shell.
  How has this worked out? Not well for the American public. An April 
study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have 
been negative. That is up from only 9 percent through the same period 
in 2008. In 2008, 9 percent of ads in that time period had been 
negative. In this cycle, 70 percent have been negative. Over the last 6 
months, if we look at the four top-spending political 501(c)(4) 
organizations, the ones that don't have to disclose their donors, they 
spent an estimated 85 percent of their election spending on ads 
containing deceptions. So 70 percent of the stuff out there is 
negative, up from only 9 percent, and 85 percent of the big spenders 
are spending their money on ads that have been determined to be 
deceptive.
  The names of the organizations sound lovely: Americans for 
Prosperity, American Future Fund, American Energy Alliance, and 
Crossroads GPS. Without knowing who funds these shadowy groups, the 
American voter has no idea what mischief they are up to.
  This is all a result of the Supreme Court's disastrous and misguided 
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This is the 
decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited and secret corporate 
and special interest money pouring into our elections.
  This chart shows how easy it is under our current system for wealthy 
interests to skirt existing disclosure rules and spend secret millions 
in election ads. This amounts to a form of legalized political money 
laundering or, to use the phrase Senator McCain and I used in our brief 
to the Supreme Court, ``identity laundering.''
  Super PACs are supposed to disclose their donors under current law, 
but that can sometimes be weeks or months after a deceptive ad runs. If 
a donor wants to avoid even that disclosure, it can set up a shell 
corporation, which may be nothing more than a P.O. box someplace, and 
send the money through that super PAC through a shell corporation 
without a real name showing up on a disclosure form. They just launder 
it through the shell corporation, and the next thing they know the 
money is doing their work.
  They can also pass the money through a 501(c)(4) social welfare 
organization. I put the words ``social welfare'' in quotes because that 
is the IRS phrase that is used for these organizations. There is very 
little social welfare being accomplished by the big political donor 
groups known as social welfare associations. The IRS gives nonprofit 
status to these groups whose primary purpose--and in many cases their 
only purpose--is to shield big spenders from having their identities 
disclosed. In many cases, these 501(c)(4) so-called social welfare 
groups are so closely affiliated with the super PACs that they have all 
the same staff and the same office space. It is a 501(c)(4) independent 
social welfare organization for the IRS with the same staff and the 
same office space as a super PAC. Please. Of course, the 501(c)(4) 
groups still don't have to disclose their donors, even when they are 
the same staff and the same office as the super PAC.
  On this chart, we see the money raised by one of them, Citizens 
United, by Republican political operatives, including Karl Rove. They 
raised money through the Crossroads PAC. It is a super PAC, and it is 
supposed to disclose its donor. It has attached to it Crossroads GPS, a 
501(c)(4) group that is not the super PAC and it can maintain complete 
secrecy for its donors. Guess which one has raised the most money. It 
is an easy question. It is the 501(c)(4) group that doesn't have to 
disclose its donors. The group raised $76.8 million through 2011 as 
opposed to only $46.4 million raised by its sister super PAC. This is 
by no means a unique situation.
  As the New York Times wrote in an editorial last Sunday in support of 
the DISCLOSE Act, ``Corporations love the secrecy provided by Mr. 
Rove's group because it protects them from scrutiny

[[Page S4990]]

by nosy shareholders and consumers.'' They want a big influence on 
elections but without leaving any tracks.
  An unnamed corporate lobbyist told the newspaper Politico earlier 
this year that nondisclosure is always preferred by corporate donors. 
Why is it preferred? Because it makes it impossible for the public and 
law enforcement to track down the corrupting influence of the money 
that these corporations spend in elections. The DISCLOSE Act puts an 
end to this nonsense. It puts an end to using 501(c)(4) groups and 
shell corporations to shield the identities of big donors.
  One thing that should not be lost in the discussion of anonymous 
spending is the fact that there is one person to whom this spending is 
never anonymous; that is, the candidate who is either benefited or 
punished. Although the donors have managed to hide their identities 
from the public, they can sure tell the candidate how much money they 
are putting in the candidate's super PAC and, by the way, what position 
they want that candidate to take on issues. What this creates is a 
perfect recipe for corruption--wealthy corporations, individuals, and 
special interests secretly spending millions of dollars to influence a 
candidate in ways the public never sees.
  A rich donor can secretly threaten massive spending against a 
candidate without even putting up the money. If the candidate doesn't 
take the right position on an issue, then they can pull the trigger, 
but they can make the threat quietly.
  Political scientist Norm Ornstein recently said:

       I had this tale told to me by a number of lawmakers. You're 
     sitting in your office and a lobbyist comes in and says, 
     ``I'm working for Americans for a Better America. And I can't 
     tell you who's funding them, but I can tell you they really, 
     really want this amendment in the bill.'' And who knows what 
     they'll do. They have more money than God.

  If the candidate complies, of course, the expenditure is never made, 
there is no paper trail, no trace of that threat. Yet the system has 
been corrupted. Let's also dispense with the fiction that this spending 
is independent. The whole rationale for unlimited spending was that it 
was to be done independently of candidate campaigns. The reality is 
that super PACs are anything but independent. Campaigns and super PACS 
share fundraising lists, donors, former staff, and consultants. 
Candidates appear at fundraisers for their super PACs. Super PACs 
recycle ads that were originally run by the candidates. They share 
film. They are free to act as the evil twins of candidate campaigns, as 
one FEC Commissioner put it, raising unlimited, secret money, and then 
spending it on massive amounts of advertising--most of it negative--to 
benefit their preferred candidates.
  Our campaign finance system is broken, and it lends itself to 
corruption in new and unprecedented ways. Immediate action is required 
to fix it. Today we are debating a bill that will at least bring some 
transparency and accountability into this election spending. This 
should not be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue, and in the 
past, it has not been. It has always had bipartisan support because it 
is about protecting our Democratic process. We need to pass the 
DISCLOSE Act now.
  The USA Today editorial said:

       Citizens United left the public only one way to protect 
     itself from the rising threat: Disclosure. At the federal 
     level, this would be achieved by the DISCLOSE Act.

  I thank USA Today for supporting this bill.
  The Supreme Court also made it crystal clear in this very Citizens 
United decision that disclosure was an appropriate and even a necessary 
part of a healthy campaign finance system. Here is what Justice Anthony 
Kennedy wrote, writing for the majority:

       [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide 
     shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold 
     corporations and elected officials accountable for their 
     positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether 
     their corporation's political speech advances the 
     corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can 
     see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called 
     moneyed interests.

  The new version of the DISCLOSE Act will do exactly this. It says 
nothing more and nothing less than when corporations and other wealthy 
interests spend money--more than $10,000--to influence our elections, 
their identities must be disclosed.
  There is no question where the American people stand on this issue. 
Americans of all political stripes 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 candidate 
has in his pocket--or advisers, perhaps. More and more, people feel 
their government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests. They 
see their jobs disappear. They see their wages stagnate. They see 
bailouts and special deals for the big guys. And they lose faith that 
their elected officials will listen to them.
  Six in ten Americans say the middle class will not catch a break in 
this economy until we reduce the influence of lobbyists, big banks, and 
big donors. Seven in ten Americans, nearly, including a majority of 
both Democrats and Republicans, agree that ``new rules that let 
corporations, unions, and people give unlimited money to super PACs 
will lead to corruption.'' Notwithstanding what the NRA and the chamber 
and other big DC lobbying powerhouses want, they are at odds with the 
regular American people. Indeed, one in four Americans says they are 
actually less likely to vote because big donors to super PACs have so 
much more influence over elected officials than average Americans.
  These numbers should be a call to arms for anyone who believes our 
American democracy is one of our world's shining jewels and should be 
scrupulously, carefully, ardently protected. Indeed, people are 
answering this call to arms in numbers that are increasing every day.
  I have with me today here on the Senate floor 213,000 Americans--
213,000 citizen cosponsors of this DISCLOSE Act, which were collected 
by CREDO Action. My colleagues can leaf through them and see people 
from Apple Valley, MN; from San Francisco, CA; from Ashland, OR; from 
Austin, TX; from Long Beach, NY; from Imperial, NE; from Yorktown 
Heights, NY; from Brick, NJ; from Schaumburg, IL; people from all 
across the country--nearly a quarter of a million of them now--coming 
from all 50 States, and more than 1,000 Rhode Islanders are in this 
group. Unlike the corporations and the billionaires who are spending 
hundreds of millions of dollars to buy our elections and who insist on 
doing it in secret, these regular people are unashamed to stand up for 
what they believe in. Their pride in civic engagement reflects the best 
values of America, and their numbers show that this is an issue where a 
broad cross-section of Americans demand a change to what is happening 
in our elections.
  Justice Antonin Scalia has written:

       Requiring people to stand up in public for their political 
     acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is 
     doomed.

  Our friends who have signed on as citizen cosponsors have that 
courage, and the biggest campaign spenders in the world should as well. 
Frankly, even those big campaign spenders should be patriotic enough to 
understand, as Justice Scalia did, that democracy is doomed without 
civic courage, and they should step up on their own. But, instead, they 
are hiding behind the rules and hiding their identities and trying to 
buy influence.
  I will conclude by saying that prior to Citizens United, there was a 
long bipartisan tradition supporting laws that require disclosure of 
spending in elections. This bipartisan consensus may be reemerging. 
Senator John McCain of Arizona and I recently filed with the Supreme 
Court a brief that urged the Court to reconsider the flawed premise of 
its decision in Citizens United--the false premise that independent 
expenditures can't lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption. 
As the statistics about anonymous spending and public perception I have 
cited make clear, this premise has been fully discredited.
  Although the Supreme Court declined this opportunity to put our 
elections back on a saner path, I am proud to have worked in a 
bipartisan fashion on that brief with Senator McCain, who has long been 
a leader in this Congress and in this country on campaign finance 
issues. I hope our partnership will mark the beginning of greater 
cooperation across party lines on this issue of vital importance to our 
democracy.

[[Page S4991]]

  There are some misconceptions about the act that have colored the 
public debate. We plan to explain during the course of the debate why 
the critics of this bill have gotten so many things just plain wrong. 
This act contains only the most basic provisions requiring outside 
groups to disclose campaign-related fundraising and spending. The 
legislation has been streamlined from the DISCLOSE Act that nearly 
passed the Senate in 2010. It places fewer burdens on covert 
administrations. It contains no prohibitions on spending, no special 
exemptions for any group or type of group. Contrary to what the 
Republican leader said, it does not require grassroots organizations to 
disclose their donors, and it treats every organization exactly the 
same right across the board.
  Some have complained, such as a Republican witness in the Rules 
Committee hearing on this bill, that the so-called stand-by-your-ad 
requirements originally in the bill were too burdensome. He described 
them, actually, as radical. So we removed them. We have tried to 
accommodate. I know that many of my colleagues, including Senator Ron 
Wyden, who authored this stand-by-your-ad legislation and who has 
heroically fought for it for many years, remained very supportive of 
these provisions, and I hope we will be able to reintroduce them at 
another time. But we didn't, so that complaint should be closed off. 
Some complain that this was just an attempt to influence this election. 
Well, its effective date is January 1, 2013, so it will not, to the 
regret of many, influence this election.
  According to Republican former FEC Chairman Trevor Potter, the 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is ``appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, 
clearly constitutional and desperately needed.''
  I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues, Democrats or 
Republicans, who want to make this bill better, but we can't use 
complaints--particularly unjustified complaints--as an excuse to do 
nothing.
  While the status quo of unlimited secret money may work to benefit 
some politicians for the moment, in the long run it will hurt us all, 
regardless of party. Unlimited money is not a force that anyone can 
ultimately hope to control, and unlimited secret money is even more 
dangerous. More important, the American people, who are already 
beginning to lose faith in our electoral system, can reasonably fear 
that their elected officials will only care about the anonymous donors 
writing eight-figure checks in deals and gifts that they will never 
see.
  Many of my Republican colleagues in the Senate know this, and they 
have supported disclosure in the past. Senator Mitch McConnell, the 
Republican leader, for instance, was once a great advocate for 
disclosure. As he said in 2000, ``Republicans are in favor of 
disclosure,'' adding, ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a 
lot of disclosure?'' That question is as timely today as it was then.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in passing this 
important piece of legislation. Help us restore the fundamental 
principle of a government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people.
  The Washington Post wrote yesterday in an editorial supporting this 
DISCLOSE Act:

       We'd like to see a few courageous Republicans rise in the 
     Senate on Monday and declare: Enough is enough.

  If our friends across the aisle decide to block this legislation 
which clearly reflects the will of the American people, I am prepared 
to force this issue by debating this bill long into the night. If they 
are unwilling to join us in our mission to shine a light on secret 
money elections, we will keep the lights on here.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Fiscal Policy

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about two related 
subjects. Both are very much in the news, and both relate to the fiscal 
condition in the United States and what happens on January 1 if the 
U.S. Congress and the President allow a tax increase to be imposed upon 
the American people that will amount to the largest tax increase in the 
history of our country--about $4.5 trillion over 10 years. That tax 
increase is slated to go into effect unless we stop it. The effect of 
that tax increase on economic growth, on job creation, and on our small 
businesses and families will be devastating unless we act. The other 
subject, which is also pertinent to tax policy, is a subject that has 
been raised by many in the Obama Presidential campaign relating to 
outsourcing of jobs. Let me speak to that first because it has a direct 
relationship to this question of taxation.
  In today's Wall Street Journal, there is an op-ed piece by Arthur 
Laffer and Ford Scudder called ``The Tax Cliff is a Growth Killer.'' 
Let me quote just two sentences from it:

       The United States faces economic collapse thanks to massive 
     tax increases on Jan. 1, and continued deficit spending for 
     years on end.

  They go on to say:

       The blunt reality is that we cannot have a prosperous 
     economy when government is overspending, raising tax rates, 
     printing too much money, overregulating and restricting the 
     free flow of goods and services across national boundaries.

  Now, what does this have to do with outsourcing? There has been 
criticism of companies that send jobs to another country or that hire 
people in other countries to do work for them. The same thing can be 
said when a business no longer expands in the State in which it is 
headquartered or operating and moves part of its business to another 
State. We have seen our States actually compete for business. The 
reason they do this, in many cases, is because the business conditions 
under which they operate in the first State are no longer conducive to 
competition, for them to be able to make products or provide services 
that are competitive with those who are working to compete against 
them. So they have to go where labor is cheaper, where the costs are 
less, where the regulation is not as onerous, and where taxes are 
lower, perhaps--in other words, where the conditions for doing business 
are more favorable so they can continue to compete.
  The same thing is true when jobs are sent overseas. The reality is 
American businessmen are not sitting around wondering how they can be 
evil, how they can fire American workers, how they can go overseas to 
do business. It is much easier to stay right here in the good old USA. 
For a whole lot of reasons, they make a lot of sacrifices to keep their 
businesses here. But there comes a point in time when American tax 
policy, regulatory policy, and the uncertainty of doing business here 
finally gets to the point where--in order to stay in business, in order 
to remain competitive--they have to find places elsewhere where they 
can do their work that enables them to remain competitive.
  When we go to the store, and we are looking at the goods on the 
shelf, and we see the very same thing, where in one case it costs $5 
and in the next case it costs $10, chances are we are going to buy the 
$5 product. If a company has to make that product overseas in order to 
stay competitive, that is exactly what they are going to do. It ends up 
helping the American consumer. It is not good for American workers who 
cannot work in that particular industry.
  But what is the cause for it? Is it because there are entrepreneurs 
out there, business folks--your neighbors and mine--who want to somehow 
hurt American workers, who are not patriotic or who are evil people? 
Think about it. The answers, of course, are no. The only reason they 
are hiring work to be done in foreign countries is because that is how 
they can stay competitive, how they can offer that same product for $5, 
as their competitor does.
  What causes them to have to do that? Well, the first thing is 
American tax policy. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the 
world. Of all industrialized countries, we are No. 1. In this case, No. 
1 makes it more difficult to do business. We have the most progressive 
tax system; that is, the people at the highest end pay the highest 
amount of taxes of anyone in any country in the industrialized world. 
When

[[Page S4992]]

you take the corporate tax rate and add to it the capital gains and 
dividends, we have the highest tax rate--the integrated tax rate is 
what they call it--in the industrialized world for dividends and the 
second highest for capital gains.
  What about regulations? We impose far more in the way of regulatory 
burdens on our businesses--ranging from environmental regulations to 
labor regulations, you name it--than most of the other industrialized 
countries do.
  What about uncertainty? Well, we have this new law called ObamaCare 
that has put a tremendous amount of burden on American businesses. They 
are either going to have to continue to provide insurance for their 
employees or pay a fine. They have to pay new taxes. There are some 
$800 billion in taxes under ObamaCare--some 21 different taxes.
  The problem here is not that there are evil businessmen who hate 
American workers. They bend over backwards to keep their business here; 
it is a lot easier. But the reason sometimes they have to go abroad is 
because their government treats them unfairly compared to their 
competitors overseas. We tax them too much. We regulate them too much. 
And there is too much uncertainty.
  So when we are debating this subject about outsourcing, about people 
abroad making products that are then sold in the United States, ask 
yourself the question: Why would an American company do that? The 
answer is, they do it when they have to, when their own government's 
policies make it impossible for them to compete effectively here in the 
United States.
  That leads to the second. Why would the President be proposing to add 
more taxes, both on American businesses and American families, at a 
time when we are in the middle of a very severe economic downturn, and 
when the President himself a year and a half ago said: To raise taxes 
under these circumstances would be a blow to the economy? Again, he 
said: You don't raise taxes in a recession.
  When he said those things, our gross domestic product growth was 
about 3 percent. We were growing at a rate of about 3 percent. Today, 
it is under 2 percent, and we still have 8.2 percent unemployment. So 
the circumstances today are, if anything, worse than they were a year 
and a half ago when the President said: We should not raise taxes 
because it will be a blow to the economy. You don't raise taxes in a 
recession.
  So why would the President be proposing it now? And what is he 
proposing? He says we should raise taxes on any individual who makes 
over $200,000 a year and a family who makes over $250,000. We should 
raise capital gains taxes to the rate of 23.8 percent; dividends the 
same; the death tax to 45 percent. So your dad created a business, 
built it up; he passed away, you and your sister are the heirs, and the 
day he dies, Uncle Sam says: That will be 45 percent of the value of 
the business, please, minus whatever the exemption is. It is 
unconscionable we would do that in this country.
  When the President was asked by Charlie Gibson in one of the 
Presidential debates, when he was campaigning the first time: Senator 
Obama, would you raise taxes on capital gains even if it did not bring 
in any more revenue--because economists all agree that frequently 
raising the rate actually results in less tax collection because people 
do not sell the property that would be subject to the tax under those 
circumstances--what did he answer? He said, yes, he would still raise 
it, even if it did not bring in more revenue. And the reason is because 
he wanted to redistribute the wealth from people who made money to 
other people to whom it would be given, presumably.
  So this is not about deficit reduction as much as it is about a 
theology that we need to raise taxes, and we need to raise it on people 
who are the productive, successful people in our society who make 
money.
  If you take the top quintile of taxpayers--the top 20 percent, high 
income earners--they already pay 90 percent of the taxes in the 
country. Is it fair that top 20 percent should pay 90 percent of the 
taxes? Well, you can argue whether it is fair, but I think for the 
President to say that is unfair, they should pay even more, raises the 
question: Well, how much more? Should they pay all of it? Should 20 
percent of our citizens pay all of the taxes for everybody else? Nobody 
else has to pay anything? As it is, the rest of us only pay 10 percent.
  So what is fair? Why is it fair to take away from people what they 
have earned and what they want to save in order to give it to somebody 
else or to have the government spend the money as if the government was 
wiser in spending money than the citizens are?
  The reality is the people who are successful, who make money, create 
capital, which is then invested in businesses, and that investment 
promotes job creation and economic growth, raising the gross domestic 
product for all of us. That is the economics of success and it is the 
opportunistic society this country has held sacred for over two 
centuries. Give people an opportunity to succeed, and when they do, do 
they put their money--the money they earn--do they put it in a 
mattress? Well, not anymore. You either put it in a bank or you invest 
it with a mutual fund or in some other kind of investment.
  What happens when that money is put in the bank or in the mutual 
fund? It creates capital for somebody else to use, to create a job, to 
invent a new product, whatever it might be. It helps business expand.
  So why would you change your mind, a year and a half after you said 
it would be a blow to the economy, to now suggest raising taxes? And 
who are these people who make $200,000? Well, it turns out about a 
million of these people--940,000, to be exact--are business owners. 
These are the small business folks who create the jobs--most of the 
jobs coming out of the recession. In fact, they account for 25 percent 
of all jobs in America. A quarter of all of the jobs are by these very 
folks on whom you are going to raise the taxes.
  I know some people said: Well, that is only a small percentage of the 
business owners, it is only 3 percent. Yes, and that 3 percent accounts 
for 53 percent of the income taxes paid. In other words, these are the 
businesses that are creating the jobs. They employ a quarter of all of 
the people in country. They are paying 53 percent of the taxes in this 
tax bracket. The reality is, when raising taxes on that group, you are 
going to make it more difficult for them to grow their businesses, to 
add more people.
  Here is an example. A woman by the name of Karen Madonia, who is the 
CFO of a family business in Aurora, IL--it is called Illco, and it 
supplies ventilation and heating and air conditioning and refrigeration 
equipment--testified before the House Small Business Committee in May. 
Among the things she said was--and I am quoting her now:

       We don't have money sitting in the bank to pay more taxes--
     all our profit is invested in the business. If we have to pay 
     more taxes, that means we can't hire workers or buy trucks 
     and inventory.

  That is typical of small businesses. The money is plowed back into 
the business. And when the owner passes away, it goes to his heirs--and 
then subject to the kind of tax we are talking about here? That would 
be devastating to this kind of business.
  One of the objections from those who support the President's idea of 
raising taxes is that: Well, the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthy 
more than anybody else. Bear in mind that the Bush tax cuts applied to 
everybody. That is the tax rate that has been in existence now for a 
decade, and everybody's taxes were reduced to some extent.
  They say: Well, that contributed to the deficit. How much did it 
contribute to the deficit? The Congressional Budget Office, 
nonpartisan, recently issued a report, and in that report they 
calculated the difference between the projections of a surplus and then 
the resulting deficit and what was the reason for that. Do you know 
what they found? That the amount of tax relief to this top 20 percent 
of taxpayers--the high income earners--accounted for all of 4 percent 
of the deficit. And how much did the new spending and the interest cost 
on that spending account? Over 12 times as much. So the reality is the 
Bush tax cuts, which helped everyone, did not help the wealthy more 
than everybody else, did not contribute to the deficit, and, in fact, 
those taxpayers are now paying 94 percent of income taxes, up from 81 
percent before

[[Page S4993]]

the Bush tax cuts went into effect. So that high income group is paying 
more now in taxes than it did before the Bush tax cuts went into 
effect.
  My point here is, when the President demagogs this issue, suggesting 
that somehow it was only the rich who got the benefit of the Bush tax 
cuts and we have to take that money away from them, they are paying 
more than they did before, and it only accounted for 4 percent of the 
deficit. And these are the very people who are creating the jobs in 
America today. So why would we want to raise taxes at this point on 
anybody, including on this group of people?
  My final point: Again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
has issued a report in which they say that this fiscal cliff--the 
combination of across-the-board sequestration and the expiration of the 
existing Tax Code on January 1--will result in a new recession; that we 
will have growth next year of only one-half of 1 percent if we allow 
that to happen. Why would the President be willing to raise taxes on 
America and take a chance that we are going to drive ourselves even 
deeper into economic trouble than we already are?
  I urge my colleagues to work together to forestall these new tax 
increases on all Americans and to forestall the sequestration--a 
combination of which will drive us back into recession.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. BINGAMAN. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
following my remarks, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I came to speak on the DISCLOSE Act. I 
would say parenthetically that I congratulate my colleague from Arizona 
for his statement earlier--a spirited defense of those U.S. business 
leaders who choose to shift jobs overseas. That is a subject for 
another day. I will not engage in that debate today, but I think it 
admirable that he feels compelled to make that case here on the Senate 
floor today.
  I want to speak in support of the DISCLOSE Act. If there is one thing 
that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on, it is that 
our campaign finance system is broken. My colleague from Rhode Island 
made that point earlier, and I certainly agree with that.
  With the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, corporations, 
unions, and other groups are able to raise millions of dollars through 
secret contributions and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence 
Federal elections, as long as they do not directly coordinate with a 
candidate.
  According to the Federal Election Commission, it is expected that 
something over $11 billion will be spent over the course of the 2012 
elections. That is about twice the 2008 level of spending. This is a 
staggering amount of money, and the source of much of that money will 
be completely in the dark. As a result, extraordinarily well-financed 
special interest groups dominate the airwaves, and it is nearly 
impossible for the average citizen to know who is behind campaign ads. 
In fact, it is nearly impossible for experts to know who is behind 
particular campaign ads.
  This is not good for public discourse, and it is not good for our 
democracy. In a healthy democracy, voters need to be able to make 
informed decisions about the information that is presented to them. The 
lack of transparency that currently exists in our political system 
makes that incredibly difficult.
  I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens 
United case, but the reality is that short of a constitutional 
amendment or a decision by the Court to reverse its opinion--both 
occurrences are unlikely anytime in the near future--the ability of 
Congress to restrict independent expenditures is very limited.
  There is something we can do now that would make a difference. We can 
enhance transparency with respect to the high-volume spending that is 
influencing our elections. We may not be able to stop the flood of 
unlimited spending, but we can shed some light on the process and 
enable the public to at least see where the money is coming from.
  The enactment of legislation requiring greater transparency about who 
is spending on campaigns was specifically called for by the Supreme 
Court in the Citizens United decision. The Republican leader in the 
Senate has argued against the DISCLOSE Act on the theory that it would 
squelch political speech.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my 
remarks an opinion piece in Politico this morning entitled, ``Mitch 
McConnell dead wrong on DISCLOSE Act.'' It was written by Adam Skaggs, 
the senior counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for 
Justice at the New York University School of Law.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In that opinion piece Mr. Skaggs points out that there 
is no legal or logical basis to support the Republican leader's 
argument. The DISCLOSE Act is an important step in the direction of 
requiring transparency. The legislation would require certain 
organizations that make more than $10,000 in campaign-related 
expenditures to file a disclosure report with the Federal Election 
Commission and to report the names of any donors who contributed over 
$10,000.
  About 93 percent of the money raised by super PACs in 2010 through 
2011 came from donors giving over $10,000, and this legislation would 
shed some light on where this money is coming from. The disclosure 
requirements apply to corporations, to labor unions, to 501(C)(3) 
nonprofit organizations, and to 527 election advocacy organizations, 
but they would not apply to 503(c)(3) charitable organizations.
  The legislation also includes mechanisms to protect legitimate 
nonpolitical donations from disclosure and prevents funding sources 
from being hidden by laundering funds through third-party groups. It is 
clear our campaign laws are outdated. They are in desperate need of 
revision. Frankly, I wish there was a consensus in Congress to make 
more fundamental reforms to our campaign finance system than we are 
considering today. Unfortunately, this is not presently the case, but I 
hope that we could build bipartisan support for some basic disclosure 
provisions and for this narrowly tailored bill that is pending in the 
Senate.
  A much more comprehensive version of the DISCLOSE law was 
filibustered by Republicans in 2010. The revised version we are 
currently debating has been narrowed significantly. The provisions 
banning campaign spending by foreign entities and government 
contractors were removed. Corporate campaign spending is no longer 
required to be reported to shareholders, and lobbyists will not have to 
report their campaign spending in their annual disclosure reports under 
the bill being considered in the Senate.
  The new bill also raises the disclosure trigger from $600 to $10,000 
to focus only on large donations and to reduce the burden on 
organizations. The newest version dropped the ``stand-by-your ad'' 
provision that required the listing of donors in TV and radio ads.
  I am not unsympathetic to first amendment concerns regarding the 
rights of politically active groups that want to be engaged in the 
discussions regarding the future of our country, but enabling 
corporations and special interest groups to use what are essential 
shell organizations for the simple purpose of spending vast sums of 
money to influence elections, and to do so in secret, is incredibly 
harmful to our democracy.
  Requiring the disclosure of large donors is a reasonable mechanism to 
maintain the integrity of our electoral system without infringing on 
the ability of organizations to actively participate. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the political aisle to take this 
opportunity to support the modest but important reforms that are 
included in the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                     [From Politico, July 15, 2012]

               Mitch McConnell Dead Wrong on DISCLOSE Act

                            (By Adam Skaggs)

       Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has launched 
     a full-throated attack

[[Page S4994]]

     on the DISCLOSE Act, which Democrats are set to bring to the 
     Senate floor on Monday. DISCLOSE supporters say it ensures 
     transparency and accountability in U.S. elections. McConnell, 
     however, contends it's a vehicle for intimidation that will 
     squelch political speech and let the Obama administration 
     compile an ``old-school enemies list'' to punish critics.
       Central to McConnell's strongest indictment is that the 
     bill is a lawless end run to get around the Supreme Court's 
     Citizens United decision. McConnell seems to suggest the 
     Democrats' actions are not only wrong--they're un-American.
       But McConnell's critique fundamentally mischaracterizes the 
     relationship between the Supreme Court and other branches of 
     our government. By intimating that it is illegitimate for the 
     legislative and executive branches to develop policy in 
     response to Supreme Court decisions, the Senate leader 
     displays ignorance of the basic hydraulics in the founders' 
     system of separated powers.
       Indeed, suggesting that enhanced disclosure undermines 
     Citizens United takes what Justice Antonin Scalia might call 
     ``a particularly high degree of chutzpah.'' The decision 
     endorsed robust disclosure--by a near-unanimous, 8-1 vote.
       ``The First Amendment protects political speech,'' Justice 
     Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, ``and disclosure 
     permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of 
     corporate entities in a proper way.''
       McConnell, by arguing that disclosure undermines the First 
     Amendment, is in fact turning Citizens United on its head.
       He also misrepresents the relationship between branches of 
     government. To be sure, the role of the elected branches is 
     distinct from that of the judiciary. It is emphatically the 
     job of the courts to say what the law and Constitution mean, 
     and the President and Congress may not trump the Supreme 
     Court's interpretation. But once the high court announces its 
     interpretation, it is appropriate, sometimes even expected, 
     that elected officials develop new statutes and policies that 
     fit the new parameters.
       That is exactly what Congress is seeking to do with 
     DISCLOSE. Citizens United posited the benefits of a 
     ``campaign-finance system that pairs corporate independent 
     expenditures with effective disclosure,'' explaining that 
     ``disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and 
     citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and 
     elected officials accountable for their positions and 
     supporters.''
       But, because of numerous loopholes in current law, 
     effective disclosure exists today only in theory--not 
     reality.
       The proposed law would remedy that deficiency by requiring 
     groups that run campaign ads to disclose their major 
     contributors--while letting donors who earmark contributions 
     for nonpolitical purposes remain anonymous. The bill 
     represents a clear constitutional exercise of congressional 
     power--consistent with the guidelines laid out by the court 
     in Citizens United.
       This back-and-forth dialogue among the branches of 
     government, driving the creation and development of law and 
     public policy, is healthy, even essential, for democracy. 
     This policymaking in response to Supreme Court decisions is 
     also routine--contrary to McConnell's specious argument.
       After the court read the Civil Rights Act to limit certain 
     gender discrimination claims, for example, Congress responded 
     by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to extend the 
     statute of limitations for such claims. In another case, soon 
     after the court struck down the military commissions the Bush 
     administration had set up to try Guantanamo detainees, 
     Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to create new 
     panels it hoped would pass muster before the high court.
       Policymaking in the states follows the same dynamic. After 
     the Citizens United decision, more than 10 states responded 
     by amending their laws--many to require disclosure of the new 
     corporate political spending that the ruling enabled.
       There is nothing out of the ordinary--and certainly nothing 
     untoward--about these or countless other examples of 
     lawmakers responding to legal precedent. The only remarkable 
     thing is McConnell's contention that this legislative action 
     is somehow illicit.
       In fact, legislative responses to Supreme Court rulings can 
     sometimes be necessary. When a court rests its decisions on a 
     policy assumption that turns out to be wrong, elected 
     officials have an obligation to address that discrepancy. 
     Citizens United conditioned corporations' right to unlimited 
     political speech on transparency--pairing corporate spending 
     with ``effective disclosure''--so voters could better 
     understand what groups are trying to influence their votes.
       By passing DISCLOSE, Congress can ensure that reality 
     conforms to the idealized disclosure system that the Supreme 
     Court assumed existed.
       While they're at it, Congress should address one more 
     Citizens United problem. The ruling allows corporations to 
     make independent expenditures because, it said, spending 
     wholly independent of candidate campaigns could not lead to 
     corruption.
       Unfortunately, much of the outside spending now dominating 
     the 2012 election has come from candidate-specific super 
     PACs, functioning like de facto arms of the candidate 
     campaigns. About as far from ``wholly independent'' as can be 
     imagined.
       Congress should adopt meaningful coordination rules to 
     police the ties between campaigns and super PACs--and ensure 
     that groups claiming to be ``independent'' really are.
       It is not an ``end run'' around a Supreme Court ruling that 
     embraced transparency and independence for Congress to ensure 
     transparency and independence. Despite McConnell's `Chicken 
     Little' rhetoric, it's what democracy is about.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                             FISCAL POLICY

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking more time to 
debate a bill that will have little consequence for the American 
people--all people, that is, but those who work in the White House on 
President Obama's reelection campaign.
  We are in our 41st straight month with unemployment above 8 percent, 
but the Senate is again taking up precious time--time that could be 
devoted toward creating jobs--to address legislation that is instead 
designed to create votes for the President's flagging reelection 
efforts. I would be outraged at this partisan display if it were not so 
pathetic, but in the end I think the American people will have enough 
outrage to spare.
  It is important for the American people to know what the Senate 
Democratic leadership considers pressing business. Today the world's 
greatest deliberative body, the Senate, takes up one of the most 
deliberately political pieces of legislation you will ever see. 
Meanwhile, my friends on the other side of the aisle are now saying 
that when faced with the choice of addressing the fiscal cliff we are 
facing at the end of this year by raising taxes on small businesses, 
they will take their stand with tax hikes.
  This is remarkable. Rather than stop the country from going over the 
fiscal cliff and preventing the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax 
relief, they are prepared to ``Thelma and Louise'' the American economy 
right off the cliff.
  This is an astonishing admission, but it is not surprising. We hear 
from the other side about Republican orthodoxy on tax relief, but we 
rarely hear them come clean about their own economic orthodoxy. 
Occasionally it emerges for all to see.
  On Friday in Virginia the President let his real views on economic 
matters slip. Here are his views on business owners.

       Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system 
     that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in 
     roads and bridges. If you've got a business--you didn't build 
     that. Somebody else made that happen.

  Well, the President is right that somebody did make that happen. The 
people who made it happen are called taxpayers. The President seems to 
think the Department of Transportation just made those roads and 
bridges happen, but that is not how it works. Nothing happens in this 
country--no roads, no bridges, no firefighters, no military, no public 
schools, no nothing--without taxpayers footing the bill.
  Much of that financing comes from the very small businesses on which 
President Obama was lecturing on Friday and on which he and his allies 
are desperate to raise taxes. Their economic philosophy appears to be 
that government is the engine of the economy when, in fact, the 
government ceases to exist without economic growth and the tax revenues 
that fund all of these investments the President wants to spend on.
  With this bizarre world view, it is not surprising that President 
Obama and Senate Democrats think it is more important to raise taxes on 
over 1 million small businesses than it is to prevent a recession and 
encourage job growth. If we do not address this fiscal cliff, taxes 
will go up by over $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The 
President's former Director of the Office of Management and Budget has 
suggested this might throw us into a recession. The Federal Reserve has 
suggested this dire outcome as well. But instead of dealing with it by 
extending the existing tax rates, the President and Senate allies are 
playing chicken with the economic recovery. They are playing games not 
only with the economy, but they are playing games with peoples' 
livelihoods. This is a disgrace.
  The American people understand that tax increases in the name of 
deficit reduction wind up being tax increases to fund larger 
government.

[[Page S4995]]

That has been the history of my 36 years here, and the American people 
have the last say on this matter. A recent poll found that a majority 
of the American people want all the 2001 and 2003 tax policy extended--
all of it. Then we can undertake fundamental tax reform. Why can't we 
do that? What is the other side's objection?
  There is no real policy objection. The only real objection is that it 
diverts the President and his Democratic allies from their real 
pressing business, which is apparently getting the President reelected. 
Here we are debating another bill that will do nothing to create a job 
and nothing to get our economy moving again.
  The politically motivated bill du jour is the DISCLOSE Act. I oppose 
this legislation on policy grounds, but just as importantly, I oppose 
the majority's ongoing effort to convert the U.S. Senate into a vessel 
for President Obama's political campaign. The majority knows this 
legislation will not pass in the Senate, or at least they should know, 
given the fact this Chamber has already rejected this legislation. What 
is worse is that it appears that the majority does not even want this 
legislation to pass. What they want and what has become too common in 
the Senate these days is another dog-and-pony show--another opportunity 
to demonize the business community in service of the President's class 
warfare campaign theme.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle would have you believe the 
Supreme Court's Citizen United decision has paved the way for a 
corporate takeover of our election system, that corporations are 
spending untold millions to influence elections with no accountability.
  What they will not tell you is that increased spending by super PACs 
in this campaign cycle has nothing to do with Citizens United. While 
they are touting the benefits of increased disclosure, they 
conveniently leave out the fact that super PACs are already required to 
disclose their donors and that the Supreme Court in Citizens United no 
less actually upheld those disclosure requirements.
  Furthermore, and contrary to the majority's talking points, Citizens 
United has not led to a dramatic increase in corporate campaign 
spending. Yet the majority argues that the dangers of corporate 
campaign spending are ever present and, as a result, we need to know 
the names and addresses of individual donors to such campaigns.
  So with the dangers to democracy of corporate giving and the negative 
impact of Citizens United largely straw men, what is the purpose of our 
debating this bill today? Clearly, this effort is more about 
discouraging political speech than on transparency. It is just another 
effort on the part of the Obama administration and their congressional 
allies to intimidate those who disagree with the President's policies. 
Not able to defend these policies, it is critical that the President 
discourage those who would criticize them.
  We saw this last year when the President issued an Executive order 
that would, in effect, give the President the authority to deny 
government contracts to certain companies based on their donations or 
political engagement. Earlier this summer, the IRS requested 
confidential donor information from organizations applying for tax 
exempt status, information that is protected by Federal law--the 
confidentiality of which is protected by Federal law.
  This past June I was joined by a number of my colleagues in 
expressing our concerns about these questionable IRS practices, and we 
are still awaiting a response. Liberal advocacy organizations have 
publicly stated that they plan to use campaign disclosures to 
intimidate and embarrass those who have donated to opposing campaigns. 
As we have seen in several recent news reports, many political 
operatives have already done so.
  The DISCLOSE Act would make this type of political intimidation 
easier and more common. So given the other side's track record when it 
comes to ``transparency,'' I hope they excuse me if I am a bit 
skeptical when they claim this is about good government and not about 
punishing political opponents.
  If the majority wanted us to take them seriously in this effort, they 
would have at least included provisions that would apply the same type 
of standards to the labor unions who have, for decades now, bankrolled 
Democratic election campaigns on the local, State, and Federal levels--
and to the tune of billions of dollars, and they are the best political 
operatives in the business. It is no accident that the unions are far 
more likely than corporations to engage in the type of advocacy and 
political spending the majority is deriding in this debate.
  Yet while the language of the DISCLOSE Act ostensibly applies to 
union spending, the unions' bottom-up business model of funding their 
political activities would continue unabashed under this legislation 
without a single additional disclosure on the part of most unions.
  This can hardly be a coincidence.
  Mr. President, in Citizens United, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that 
money spent in the political process is protected by the first 
amendment. While this may be accompanied by spending and speech that 
some find objectionable, such is the natural byproduct of living in a 
country that has a first amendment.
  While colleagues are free to lament the results, they should not use 
this occasion as an opportunity to silence citizens who oppose their 
agenda and discourage their critics from speaking out. Because the 
DISCLOSE Act seems designed for that very purpose, I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on cloture.
  As much as I disagree with the decision of the Senate leadership to 
play political small ball when there are pressing fiscal issues facing 
this country, I appreciate their desire to shift the debate to 
politically expedient legislation. The fact is, from a policy 
perspective this administration has come up wanting again and again.
  Last week the President, when asked to evaluate the failings of his 
administration, claimed he had focused too much on policy. This is like 
a recent college graduate saying at a job interview that one of his 
biggest shortcomings is that he cares too much and sometimes works too 
hard.
  Give me a break. For all of the trillions in new spending and tax 
hikes, there is apparently nothing in the President's policy record 
worth defending. In fact, their modus operandi is to avoid any 
discussion of any policy at all, pretend the last 4 years did not 
happen, pretend the stimulus did not happen, pretend the efforts of cap 
and tax and union card check did not happen, pretend ObamaCare did not 
happen, and, instead, just smear the opponent.
  When the President said his administration needed to focus less on 
policy and more on storytelling, I guess this is what he had in mind: 
Rather than defend his own policies, he and his campaign surrogates 
would develop a storyline that smears their political opponent. That is 
all fine and good. As they say, life is about choices, but let's not 
sugarcoat this decision. It is an ugly one, and the President will have 
to live with it.
  Should the President be forced to defend his record, he would have a 
lot of explaining to do. Just last week we learned another doozy from 
his administration.
  In essence, by the stroke of a pen--and against the clear intent of 
bipartisan majorities of the American people, Congress, and the law 
itself--President Obama's administration has attempted to undo welfare 
reform, one of the signature bipartisan policy achievements of the last 
20 years.
  Nearly 16 years ago, on August 22, 1996, after two vetoes, then-
President Bill Clinton finally signed the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act--otherwise known as welfare reform. 
This landmark legislation, the product of the Republican-controlled 
Congress, ended the entitlement to welfare and replaced it with a block 
grant to the States. This block grant, known as the temporary 
assistance for needy families--or TANF--provided States with 
unprecedented control over welfare programs in exchange for meeting 
Federal work standards.
  Since enactment of welfare reform, welfare caseloads have dropped 
dramatically. Families receiving welfare have dropped by nearly 60 
percent. People got jobs who were unemployed for years, and they gained 
self esteem from working.
  Welfare reform remains popular and is often cited as the most 
significant

[[Page S4996]]

domestic policy accomplishment in decades. The core philosophy behind 
welfare reform is the emphasis on work and moving from dependency to 
self-sufficiency.
  Despite the popularity of welfare reform, programs created under TANF 
have languished. As more States were able to get credit toward the 
Federal work requirement based on the declining caseloads, TANF 
increasingly became less of a welfare-to-work program and more of a 
funding stream to prop up other social programs.
  In 2005, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported 
that several States listed as part of their definition of a ``Federal 
work activity'' under TANF some of the following: One, bed rest; two, 
personal care activities; three, massage; four, exercise; five, 
journaling; six, motivational reading; seven, smoking cessation; eight, 
weight loss promotion; nine, participating in parent-teacher meetings; 
ten, helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands.
  My gosh.
  The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which then-Senator Barack Obama 
opposed, attempted to refocus State efforts on getting individuals 
engaged in work and closing these work activity loopholes. The funding 
authority for TANF expired at the end of fiscal year 2010.
  The Obama administration has not proposed a comprehensive 
reauthorization of TANF, and TANF has continued under a series of stop-
gap extensions. Late last week, the Obama administration quietly 
released ``guidance'' to the States, informing them that the 
administration had granted itself authority to waive work requirements 
in TANF, ``including definitions of work activities and engagement, 
specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of 
participation rates.''
  In the 16 years since the creation of the TANF, no administration has 
concluded that they have the authority to waive TANF work requirements. 
The provision in the Social Security Act, section 1115, which allows 
certain waivers, does not cite the section of the law that includes the 
TANF work requirements. In an attempt to justify the waiver scheme, the 
Obama administration cites a reference in section 1115 to a provision 
dealing with a TANF State plan. Because the State plan section refers 
to the work requirements, according to the Obama administration, this 
allows them to waive TANF work requirements.
  Mr. President, if this sketchy logic is allowed to stand, a case 
could be made that there is virtually no domestic social program whose 
rules and protections cannot be waived. For example, since Medicaid is 
referred to in section 1115, and since the foster care programs are 
referred to in the Medicaid statute, a case could be made that under 
the administration's sketchy logic the protections for children in 
foster care could be waived.
  This executive overreach is a very serious matter with major long-
range implications. The Obama administration, through this waiver 
scheme, is attempting to unilaterally disarm the legislative branch of 
the government and accomplish by executive fiat what they never even 
attempted to do through the regular legislative process.
  This administration has consistently demonstrated a flagrant 
disregard for the constitutionally mandated coequal branch known as the 
legislative branch. This is but the latest in a series of decisions 
that demonstrates the administration's sheer arrogance in attempting to 
bypass Congress without legal warrant.
  To be clear, disregard of Congress's power to make the laws under 
which we live is disregard for the American people. The essence of 
Republican governance is that the American people have a say in what 
the laws are. That say comes through their elected representatives, not 
some unelected bureaucrat putting out guidance that is in flat 
contradiction to the wishes of the people's representatives and the 
clear text of the law that is supposedly being enforced.
  Ours is a government of laws, not of men. With this action, the 
administration has shown that it will not let the constitutional 
prerogatives of Congress or the actual intent of the law stand in the 
way of their policy goals.
  We cannot let this stand. I, for one, have no intention of letting it 
stand. Let me just say when we did the temporary assistance for needy 
families bill, one of the most important provisions in that bill was 
the work activity provision. Because people had to go to work after a 
certain period of time--during which we gave them help, money, 
subsidization, and did all the necessary things to help them go to 
work--literally about 60 percent to two-thirds of those who had been on 
welfare, some for generations, went to work and gained self esteem by 
supporting themselves.
  I, for one, have no intention of letting it stand. I will shortly 
introduce legislation to halt this risky scheme and attempt to gut 
welfare reform. I urge colleagues to stand with me. Nothing less than 
the constitutional viability of the Congress is at stake.
  I can imagine if Senator Byrd, who was the majority leader for many 
years and became the principal rules person on the Senate floor for 
most of my service--if he were here today he would be having a fit over 
this type of arrogance by this administration or any other 
administration, Republican or Democrat. He would be standing for the 
rights of the Senate.
  I caution my colleagues on the other side that it is time for them to 
stand for the rights of the Senate and the House--this legislative body 
called the Congress. We have to quit this and quit relying on an out-
of-control administration to do Executive orders that modify what is 
really legislation passed by this branch of government, which is 
supposedly coequal.
  I hope we will all fight. Our country will be better off if we do.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is considering the 
motion to proceed to S. 3369, the DISCLOSE Act.
  Mr. KERRY. Senators are permitted to speak on the previously agreed-
upon time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few 
words about the DISCLOSE Act, which we are debating on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I have been involved in this issue of campaign finance reform since I 
first entered politics, when I first became involved in the political 
discourse of our country in the late 1960s and early 1970s--a long time 
ago now.
  With 27 years as a Member of the Senate, I have seen this debate over 
money in American politics. I have seen it endure its highs and also 
its lows.
  Looking back in history, I can remember back in 1990 when we summoned 
59 votes in the Senate--mostly Democrats, which will tell you a lot 
about this issue, and 4 Republicans, including Senators Cohen of Maine; 
Jeffords of Vermont; McCain of Arizona, who is still here and fighting 
on this issue; and Senator Pressler from South Dakota. We passed a 
restraint on spending in American politics, a balanced bill which would 
have, in fact, required disclosure and limitations on spending, with a 
certain ability of people to be able to be held harmless if people were 
millionaires and spent extraordinary amounts of money. It made the 
playing field in America fair, and it gave the best opportunity for the 
American citizen--about whom this entire exercise is supposed to be 
focused--an opportunity to know they were not going to be bombarded 
with unbelievable amounts of money that distort the American political 
debate. We thought we had a chance, but unfortunately that bill was 
vetoed by the President.
  It is not a coincidence that only four Republicans supported that 
bill. It is not a coincidence today, as we come to the floor of the 
Senate, that maybe no Republican or very few--very few, I think is a 
fair way to say it--will be willing to vote to disclose where our money 
comes from.
  We are not even here seeking a limitation on the amount of spending. 
We ought to be, but we are not. We are here simply trying to get the 
American people the right to know who is giving the money, who is 
paying these millions of dollars in order to affect the

[[Page S4997]]

debate in America and, in most cases, I will tell everyone, frankly, to 
distort the debate. I believe the amount of money in American politics 
today is stealing America's democracy. It is robbing Americans of the 
right to have the kind of representation and the kind of discussion 
Americans deserve.
  When I was first here back in 1985, we were working with people such 
as Bill Bradley from New Jersey and David Boren from Oklahoma and Joe 
Biden, now the Vice President, obviously, and George Mitchell, the 
former majority leader and Senator from Maine, all of whom were 
dedicated to trying to take the big money out of politics and replace 
it with a public match for Senate and House races. Fundamentally, the 
status quo won. The status quo stopped us, and the status quo is 
winning today.
  In response to the soft money scandals--maybe people have forgotten 
we had our scandals in the 1990s--we finally passed the McCain-Feingold 
bill, modest as it was. All it did was put a ban on soft money, the 
soft money, which is the big amounts of money that get poured into the 
political system. That ban had the unintended consequence of pushing 
everybody to look for the biggest loophole they could find, and they 
found a loophole. The 527 groups, as we have come to know them, came 
out and the debate was again taken away from the candidates and given 
to outside groups that had huge amounts of money.
  A lot of Americans are not aware of that. A candidate could be 
running and have one thing he or she wants to actually say, but outside 
groups can come in with enormous amounts of money and completely flood 
the ability of a candidate to control the message of that particular 
campaign and certainly have a profound impact on it. Never did we 
imagine then, however, that with one decision, the Supreme Court would 
tilt the voice of our democracy and our discourse so heavily in favor 
of large unaccountable interests at the expense of the average 
American. That, my friends, is what happened when the Supreme Court 
made the Citizens United decision, which is certainly the worst 
decision in 100 years, if not more.
  What we are talking about today is a system that is simply broken. It 
is as fundamentally broken as the campaign system in our country has 
ever been. I worry personally, deeply, about what it has done to our 
ability to govern in the public interest and what it does today to 
threaten the ability of this institution to function.
  In explaining why she is leaving the Senate, our Republican colleague 
Senator Snowe wrote: This body is not living up to what the Founding 
Fathers envisioned. She spoke of our Founding Fathers' vision for the 
Senate, where we could reach consensus in an orderly manner. There is 
nothing orderly and there is no consensus. Does anyone believe we can 
make that kind of Senate occur today, given the kind of campaign 
finance system we have, where all our time--or a huge amount of our 
time is a fairer way to say it--is spent raising money? I have heard 
the majority leader and the minority leader complain they can't have 
Senators here Mondays, Fridays, and other periods of time because 
everybody is governed by the campaign schedule. We now have secret 
donors who blow candidates out of the water with on-air distortions 
that are simply mind-boggling. I lived through many of those 
distortions in 2004, when I ran for President, so I know what I am 
talking about when I talk about the power of the lie with a lot of 
money put behind it. I don't think anybody here believes the amount of 
money in the system today doesn't have the ability to drown out the 
voices of people who get into public service in order to get things 
done but who don't have that kind of money and don't have access to 
that kind of money.
  Frankly, the fundamental reason why there is such a disparity between 
the numbers of Democrats who want to have a fair playing field and the 
number of Republicans who vote against campaign finance reform is, 
obviously, they have a lot more money. Corporations have a lot more 
money, big billionaires who don't want to be taxed in a fair way in 
America have a lot more money to throw at the system. So we have one 
guy out in Las Vegas who can put millions of dollars behind a candidate 
for President and keep a candidacy alive when normally it would have 
died long ago. The only life it had was the money. That is what happens 
today.
  That is not what the Founding Fathers intended for this institution. 
Ours is a system where billions of dollars can be spent by any 
millionaire or billionaire or the largest corporations in the world to 
distort our democracy, diminish the voices of candidates, pollute our 
airwaves with spending whatever and wherever, and the average American 
doesn't even get to know where the money is coming from. They have the 
ability in the United States of America to do it secretly--secretly. It 
is secret money. The sources are unspecified and the American people 
don't know who is behind it.
  I think it is an insult to the freedom every Senator extols the 
virtues of all the time in this Senate. It is an insult to the notion 
regarding our liberty and our equality and our fairness. It violates 
the rules of honorable discourse and debate, and it is a threat to 
every single public servant running for office in this Nation because 
it means their ideas can be drowned by the dollars.
  I got an e-mail the other day from somebody in another country who e-
mailed me and said: You guys are beginning to look like the oligarchies 
of the world, where the amounts of money buy anything they want.
  The increased influence of special interest money, big money in our 
politics is robbing the average citizen of their ability to be able to 
set the agenda. The agenda is set by the money because the money is 
what runs the campaigns. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in 
Citizens United, all any CEO or billionaire has to do is turn over 
billions of dollars to somebody who goes out and runs a media campaign.
  Senator McCain, as we all know, feels passionately about this issue. 
He recently said: ``I think there will be scandals associated with the 
worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st 
century.''
  I agree with Senator McCain. There already are scandals, but not 
everybody sees them. But I will tell you this, a lot of Senators know 
exactly what they are.
  This imbalance we have will result in escalating media wars, where 
candidates are reduced to mere proxies in the process. Somewhere, at 
some time, those winning candidates are going to be asked to pay up on 
some special interest need or to tow the line on an agenda that is set 
by a kind of new terror that enters into our politics.
  All one has to do is think about the trajectory we are on today. Will 
Rogers once said that ``politics has gotten so expensive that it takes 
a lot of money to even get beat with.'' That has never been more true. 
Will Rogers would be stunned by the amount of money in politics today.
  In 2008, a record total of $5.2 billion was spent in Presidential, 
Senate, and House races. That broke the 2004 record the year I ran of 
$4.1 billion, and that broke the 2000 record of $3.1 billion. In other 
words, every single year more and more money. But now, in 2010, in the 
first campaign after Citizens United, there was a fourfold increase in 
the expenditures from super PACs and other outside groups compared to 
2006--fourfold increase--in a 2-year period of time. Anonymous 
spending--anonymous spending--rose from 1 percent of the outside 
spending to 44 percent in a 2-year period of time.
  That is what we get when the Supreme Court of the United States rules 
in a 5-to-4 decision--one vote--that corporations and big interests 
have the same rights to speech as individuals. I mean it is stupefying 
to think about it. I remember from law school that a corporation was a 
fictitious entity--a fictitious entity--created to provide a veil of 
protection for the people who form it in order to permit commerce in 
America. Nobody ever created a corporation with the notion it would 
have the same rights as a person. Corporations don't get married. They 
don't have kids. They don't cry. Sometimes, I suppose, when Wall Street 
falls apart, a few people may. But the notion that somehow corporations 
can have the same rights of people is an insult to the drafters of the 
Constitution of our country and the corollary that somehow they, 
therefore, get to spend the same amount of money in an election cycle 
as an individual.

[[Page S4998]]

  As a result, we are now seeing a spending blitz by shadowy groups 
that is projected to reach billions of dollars--money that is 
impossible to trace to its source, money that is kept in shadows, away 
from the average American's ability even to ask who is paying the bills 
for those ads, who is behind those ads, whose interests do those ads 
represent? The sums of money we are talking about will mean little to 
the corporations compared to what they may get in return, and that is 
what this is all about: blocking legislation, blocking a regulation, 
preventing a change in the tax law that takes away a preference that 
has no relationship to today's economy.
  There are hundreds of examples, and I have seen them through the 
years, where money drives the agenda of the Congress and of our 
politics, way in excess of what it ought to be when we measure it 
against the real concerns of the average family trying to make ends 
meet or find a job in America.
  Today, we will vote on a bill--a vote that ought to go unopposed by 
any Member of this institution who swore to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States--and this vote could go a long way toward making the 
fight between the public interest and corporate interest, if not fair, 
at least transparent. The American people are smart and, given that 
opportunity, will begin to make some judgments about exactly what is at 
stake.
  The DISCLOSE Act is not an act to amend the Constitution. It doesn't 
even overturn the decision of the Supreme Court that equated the right 
of corporations to people, nor does it constitute campaign finance 
reform. It is none of those things. Those would be structural 
solutions. I, frankly, am for them. I think we ought to do them. I 
think we need a constitutional amendment at this point in order to 
rectify what the Supreme Court has had difficulty discerning. But all 
the DISCLOSE Act would do is shed light on who is giving money--
transparency.
  This bill ought to receive unanimous support. It is an effort to 
shine the disinfectant of sunlight on corporations and faceless 
organizations trying to buy and bully their way into influence in 
Washington through campaigns that are run against the Members who 
disagree with them. All we need to do is look at the amount of money 
that has been spent against some of our colleagues who are running this 
year--millions of dollars dumped in anonymously in these States to try 
to affect those races.
  In short, the DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, organizations, and 
special interest groups to disclose their political advertising just 
like a candidate for office does. That is all it requires. What could 
be more normal in America, what could be more American than allowing 
the American people to know who is trying to speak to them? I don't 
think it is radical, and I don't think it is prohibitive. It simply 
removes the fallacy that Americans are voluntarily somehow organizing 
to pursue some public interest. That is a farce. That is not what is 
happening in these instances. The truth is that Americans aren't 
organizing or mobilizing to bring you the vast percentage of the 
advertisements that are seen on TV. The truth is that corporate special 
interest money is being compiled and targeted to pursue a special 
interest and send a loud televised message to those who disagree with 
them that they are going to be punished and tempered. And not only is 
it going to tip elections, it is going to cripple the legislative 
process.
  When the Citizens United decision was handed down, the voices that 
were seeking corporate largess said at that time that it is not going 
to have any impact. They said we need not worry about funneling new 
funds to candidates. But the truth is that Karl Rove has admitted that 
based on the Citizens United decision, he formed two new groups to 
influence the 2010 elections with $52 million worth of ads bankrolled 
anonymously by special interests. And now that the Supreme Court has 
opened that door to these anonymous ads, similar groups are already 
planning to spend approximately $300 million on the election this fall.
  So whether or not you agree with the message those ads and 
organizations are sending, at a minimum you ought to support the idea 
that these messages should be sent openly and that those who send them 
ought to be held accountable. As I have said before, this ought to be 
something every U.S. Senator supports.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have the privilege 
of trying to press our interests in many different parts of the world, 
and I meet with people in various parts of the world who look back at 
us and ask a lot of questions of us about our democracy. Increasingly, 
people are asking whether the United States of America can deliver. 
Increasingly, people are looking at us incredulously and questioning 
our political system because we go to the brink over a default on the 
debt ceiling or because we can't get a budget passed because we don't 
do the fundamental business. And one of the most profound reasons we 
don't do that--and I have seen it change here--is that the power of the 
money, the power to influence the election has a profound impact on 
what colleagues are prepared to take up, what they are prepared to vote 
on, and how they are prepared to vote.
  It is a dollarocracy that is beginning to call the shots, and the 
American people know it. That is why they are so disappointed in what 
is happening--or not happening--in Washington, DC. That is why the 
ratings for the U.S. Congress are so low--because it doesn't produce, 
it can't produce, it won't produce. And the money almost guarantees 
that.
  This is not a new fight in our country. Teddy Roosevelt, a 
Republican, fought this fight in the early 1900s, and he took on the 
great malefactors of wealth, he took on the concentration of power, and 
he was the great trust buster. It was an extraordinary period of time 
in America confronting power.
  Back in 1910, in Osawatomie, KS, Teddy Roosevelt said:

       The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we 
     must make that promise good. But it does not give the right 
     of suffrage to any corporation.

  He urged his listeners again and again to demand an especially 
national restraint upon unfair money-getting, as he called it, and the 
absence of that restraint, he noted, has tended to create a small class 
of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men whose chief object 
is to hold and increase their power.
  What Teddy Roosevelt said in 1910 is perhaps even more true today. 
The reason is that during the 1990s and subsequently, we have created 
greater wealth in America than during the period when we did not have 
an income tax. People today are wealthier, comparatively, than the 
Pierponts, the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Mellons, 
and all of those famous names of the 1900s who helped build this 
country. Today, the wealth far exceeds that wealth, and the disparity 
between the average American and the wealthy has grown wider and wider 
than at any other time in American history. While the average American 
family sees their income getting squeezed and going down, the upper 1 
percent has seen 10, 20, 30 times increases in their income. And that 
is what is playing out in the American political system today in this 
Citizens United decision.
  All we ask today--although we ought to be asking for more. We know we 
can't get it now, but at least we ought to be able to get the ability 
of the American people to know who is putting the money into the 
system, who is trying to affect these votes, who is trying to set the 
agenda, whose interests are really at stake. That is what is at stake 
in this vote today, and I hope all our colleagues will vote for the 
right to disclose those funds to the American people, who have an 
inalienable right to know exactly from where they are coming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Texas.


                               Tax Policy

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today our colleague from 
Washington State indicated that President Obama and the Democratic 
leadership in Congress are willing to accept the largest tax increase 
in American history and a series of crippling defense cuts unless 
Republicans will agree to raise taxes significantly falling on the very 
people we are counting on to get our economy going again and to create 
jobs. I wish to say just a few words in response.
  First of all, Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that a 
massive tax

[[Page S4999]]

increase could well push our economy back into a recession. Senators on 
both sides of the aisle understand that it would suffocate our 
investments that are so important to business creation and job growth. 
Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that middle-class 
families are already struggling with high unemployment and wage 
stagnation. And Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that we 
are living through the weakest economic recovery since the Great 
Depression. Yet President Obama and his party seem obsessed with 
raising taxes on the very people who are responsible for most of that 
new job creation.
  Led by the President, these same people are demonizing business 
owners and demanding that they be punished, while simultaneously 
demanding that these same people create jobs. It is no wonder that so 
many Americans are concerned about the future of the U.S. economy. In 
the meantime, Democratic leaders such as our colleague from Washington 
State are apparently ready to stand by and allow truly Draconian 
across-the-board defense cuts even though the President's own Secretary 
of Defense has said these cuts would hollow out our military and be 
catastrophic to our national security. It simply amazes and discourages 
me that some people are willing to play chicken with our economy and 
our national security in such a cavalier, calculated sort of way.
  Given that our country has endured 41 straight months of unemployment 
above 8 percent and given how devastating these defense cuts would be 
to our military, I would like to ask our President and my Democratic 
colleagues a few simple questions. Are you really willing to allow the 
largest tax increase in American history? Are you really willing to 
risk the U.S. economy heading backwards into a recession by the 
combination of these huge tax increases and the $1.2 trillion budget 
sequestration scheduled for January 2? Are you really willing to tell 
middle-class families that their needs are less important than the 
political needs of your party? When it comes to the defense cuts that 
are part of the sequestration scheduled to go into effect in January of 
2013, are you really willing to do what Secretary Panetta said would 
happen, which is hollowing out the U.S. military? Are you really 
willing to let Washington gamesmanship compromise our Nation's 
security? Are you really willing to tell the heroes of Iraq and 
Afghanistan and our veterans that their needs are less important than 
the political needs of your party? In short, are you really willing to 
put election-year politics ahead of the Nation's interests?
  I can only hope that this is a temporary aberration and that the 
answer is really no and that cooler heads will ultimately prevail when 
the price of inaction becomes even more apparent, but I can't say I am 
at all confident.
  When I hear President Obama tell the American people that the private 
sector is doing just fine or tell business owners that the government 
is responsible for their success, I realize the President simply 
doesn't understand the challenges facing America's entrepreneurs and 
job creators or the risks they take every day to create jobs. In short, 
I wonder whether the President really understands and appreciates the 
free enterprise system. It is clear he doesn't understand the damaging 
economic effects of misguided government policies, such as ObamaCare. A 
small businessman named Grady Payne recently told Congress that his 31-
year-old lumber company, Conner Industries, based in Fort Worth, TX, 
could be ``legislated out of existence'' if the President's health care 
law is allowed to stand.
  Whenever I head home to Texas and speak to business owners such as 
Mr. Payne, I hear the same complaints. People are worried that the 
primary engine of American job creation is being held back by 
regulatory overreach, a woefully inefficient and unfair Tax Code, and 
widespread uncertainty about the future of government policies. These 
are not Republican concerns or Democratic concerns, these are concerns 
that affect every man, woman, and child in this country but especially 
those who own a business, those who want to start a business, and those 
who are looking for a job. We all know these problems are going to have 
to be addressed sooner or later. My preference is that we address them 
sooner and not later if America is going to remain competitive in the 
global economy and reduce the painfully high unemployment rate. After 
all, these were the problems we were sent here to solve.
  I hear time and time again: Well, an election is coming up. This is 
an election year. We can't do it in an election year.
  But we have had an election every 2 years since 1788. It would be a 
gross dereliction of our duty if Congress and the President were to 
give up on making important decisions in the last 6 months before the 
next election. Just imagine what the American people must think. I take 
that back; I know what they think because they are constantly telling 
me how frustrated they are with Congress and Washington, how 
dysfunctional it is, how they do not believe their political leaders 
are listening to them or hearing them when they say they need help to 
allow this great engine of job creation off the mat and to allow it to 
get back to work and to allow them to get back to work as well. But it 
is not going to happen when the President and his party are willing to 
play chicken with a recession.
  My constituents, similar to all our constituents, all 320 million or 
so Americans, have to make important decisions about their families 
every day, every week, and every month of the year. Why would it be 
that Congress and the President could have an extended vacation from 
making those same kinds of hard choices? It does not make any sense. 
Beyond that, it is an abdication of our responsibility.
  Nobody has said leadership is easy. But right now, on issues of 
extraordinary importance to our economy and our national security, 
leadership is what the American people need and leadership is what they 
deserve, but so far that leadership is AWOL. But hope remains that 
cooler heads will prevail and that Congress and the President, working 
together, will do our job to help put America back to work, to remove 
the uncertainties in the political process.
  When my colleague from Washington makes rash statements, threatening 
our country with a recession unless this side of the aisle agrees to 
tax increases that would fall disproportionately on the job creators in 
this country, that is not the kind of cool deliberation or common sense 
coming together we need when it comes to solving our Nation's biggest 
economic problems.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. President Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the DISCLOSE Act. I 
rise in very strong support of this bill. I thank the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, for his leadership on this bill. He 
brings such great background, with his legal training, as attorney 
general and U.S. attorney, well versed on issues of the Constitution 
and also his very strong commitment that elections should be free and 
fair and not rigged by big special interests.
  Today, we have a vote to protect the voice of ordinary Americans who 
now more than ever need to be able to trust their political system. But 
you know what. We have a big problem and it is something called a super 
PAC. Nobody knows what that means, but I am going to spell it out in 
plain English.
  First of all, a super PAC means we can have unlimited secret money 
being pumped into our elections. That is not the American way. That is 
why we are calling our bill the DISCLOSE Act. It is balanced, it is 
common sense, and it protects the rights of the individual, looking out 
for the little guy or gal, and also protects the integrity of our 
political system.
  I am a reformer, and I absolutely believe in the Constitution of the 
United States and that wonderful first amendment. In our country, we 
can speak our mind and we can organize. I stand before you today 
because of the first amendment. I fought a highway that would have 
ripped through Baltimore. I challenged political machines and political 
bosses. I challenged powerful special interests that were going to make 
money. But because of the Constitution I had the right to speak my 
mind, the right to organize--and I did.
  In other countries, they take people like me and throw them in jail. 
With me, because of the first amendment, I

[[Page S5000]]

could run in an election, do a sweat-equity campaign door to door, and 
come to the city council, the Congress, and the Senate. I love that 
first amendment.
  Right now, under the guise of free speech, there are those who say we 
cannot in any way impede big-buck donors or big special interests from 
giving what they want and not even saying who they are. I think when 
Tom Jefferson and John Adams and Charles Carroll sat around 
Philadelphia writing the Constitution, they did not think the first 
amendment was about protecting the right of secret donors to rig 
elections. I do not believe that unfettered influence of super donors 
and big business with no limits or requirements for disclosure was what 
the Founders wanted when they wrote that Bill of Rights.
  When the Supreme Court decided a case called Citizens United, it 
opened the floodgates to unlimited secret money. We knew there would be 
risk and it took no time for it to take root. In the 2010 midterm 
elections, we saw a fourfold increase in this type of so-called super 
PAC spending. Three-quarters of that spending came from groups that 
were previously prohibited. The worst of it, it is all being kept from 
the American people--who are these organizations and what do they stand 
for.
  At a time when the American public needs a government on their side, 
they need to know who is working behind the scenes to get people 
elected. The DISCLOSE Act is simple. It requires a covered organization 
to file disclosure with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours 
after they spend $10,000 or more on a campaign. What is a covered 
organization? Corporations, labor unions, PACs, and super PACs. This is 
not a new concept in Congress. We have regulations. If you are a 
candidate like candidate Mikulski, you face limits on donors. During a 
campaign, I have to say who is giving me money, I have to disclose who 
is giving me money, and the donor has limits. Whether it comes from a 
political action committee such as the National Association of Social 
Workers, which has always supported me, whether it is the American 
Nurses Association, which has always supported me, they disclose it. So 
we know it is the nurses; we know it is the social workers.
  Also, there are donors whose names appear. Why can that not be true 
for all campaigns? What is wrong about saying who you are when you are 
giving more than $10,000 a year? The American public has a right to 
know. They have a right to be heard, and they need to be represented.
  I am a Shirley Chisholm Democrat. She said she wanted a government 
that was unbought and unbossed. Put me in that Shirley Chisholm 
Democratic column. Our Democratic process is currently clouded by a 
cloak of secrecy. The integrity of our political system is important to 
me. We are not sent to do the business of secrecy or high-dollar 
bidding on our seat. We are sent to do the work of the people and make 
their lives better. We owe it to the public to shed light on who gives 
us money--who they are, how much they give, and what is it that they 
do. Let's vote in favor of democracy. Let's support the DISCLOSE Act 
and let's have a Congress that is unbought and unbossed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, at this moment in time, corruption of 
America is taking place, but it is not in front of our eyes. The 
American people have a right to know who is responsible. It is being 
corrupted by secret money from secret donors. Every day they spend more 
and more money to buy our elections, but we do not even know exactly 
who they are. We are talking about a small number of people who are 
among the richest in America, and they are determined to manipulate the 
election in order to elect those to high office, including a President, 
who will pursue their special interests.
  When we turn on the TV, we see their handiwork right in front of our 
eyes. Attack ads that are filled with deceptions about what is 
happening are undermining our democracy one distortion at a time.
  Who is responsible for the fabrications in these ads? We can't know. 
Unlike the election rules of the past, the names of those funding these 
operations are hidden from the American people. We see organizations 
with innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads 
GPS fill the airwaves with wild claims. These front organizations 
provide the curtain that hides billionaires and corporations from 
sight. We need to pull back the curtain on the sources of secret money. 
Why shouldn't American citizens know who wants to override our people 
power with their purchasing power?
  Democrats have offered a way to shine the sunlight on who is trying 
to buy our country. The DISCLOSE Act would reveal the identities of 
those who pour millions of dollars into efforts to deceive the American 
people. These groups claim their mission is social welfare, but their 
sinister intention is to protect their own corporate welfare.
  It is clear the Republicans are doing everything in their power to 
prevent the American people from knowing who is behind this disgraceful 
mission of deception and dishonesty. So today on the Senate floor I am 
going to disclose the identities of a couple of people who are among 
the biggest sources of secret money. I am going to disclose where their 
money comes from. Here on this placard we see the Koch brothers, David 
and Charles Koch. They are the powerhouses in this movement to take 
away the ability of the American people to decide how they vote and who 
gets into office.
  These brothers are worth billions of dollars, and they are unabashed 
in their zeal to use their fortunes to further their political agenda. 
It has been reported that these two brothers are putting together a 
secret group of donors, and they are going to put $400 million in the 
pot to subvert the upcoming election--$400 million. The Koch brothers 
and their secret group will use those millions of dollars to flood the 
airwaves, but when we see the ads, we will not see the names of the 
Koch brothers or members of their secret group of millionaires. We will 
see a name, a nice name: Americans For Prosperity. Yes, the Koch 
brothers' prosperity.
  When we look at what it stands for, truly, it stands for siphoning 
off the votes of the American people, trading them in for cash and 
picking up their agenda. Registered as a social welfare organization--
it is an insult. That is why they are allowed to keep their donors 
secret. They have told the IRS they are not a political committee.
  Who, aside from the Koch brothers, are the donors to Americans for 
Prosperity? We cannot tell you. They are kept secret. They are allowed 
to hide behind the curtain.
  If these wealthy individuals want to pick our next President, they 
should have the muscle and the courage to stand and say so; tell 
everybody what it is they want to accomplish, what they want to do to 
our democracy. They don't have the courage. They would rather stand 
behind the curtain and control our election $1 million at a time.
  Where do these brothers get all this money? It is interesting. These 
brothers run a giant international conglomerate, one of the largest 
privately held companies in the world. This secretive corporation has a 
huge impact on our lives. Koch Industries controls oil, gas, and 
chemical companies that do business across the globe.
  Now, while we may not notice, their products are everywhere. In fact, 
their products are in many American homes today. For instance, all of 
these everyday products are sold by Koch Industries. These Dixie cups 
are cups that kids drink out of, and they are sold by the Koch 
brothers. Paper plates that often serve birthday cakes are sold by the 
Koch brothers. Brawny paper towels that we use to clean the floor when 
our kids spill things are also sold by the Koch brothers.
  You probably haven't heard of INVISTA--it is another company owned by 
the Koch brothers' global conglomerate--but they do make things you 
have heard of, such as STAINMASTER carpet and LYCRA fabric for clothes. 
We think these goods come in handy, we all buy them, but they are also 
a source of revenue for the Koch brothers, who fund attack ads that 
pollute our airwaves.
  The bottom line is that allows the billionaires who sit on top of 
global business empires to subvert our democracy. They want to change 
it. They want to change the character of our

[[Page S5001]]

country. They want a few to be able to name the governance of the 
millions.
  Although Brawny paper towels may be able to clean up some spills, 
they will not be able to clean up what is going on with our electoral 
process.
  The bottom line is this: When the wealthy decide they are going to 
control our elections, the American people have every right to know it. 
When these wealthy people decide they want to become kingmakers as 
well, the public should know what they are up to. Kings went out of 
America centuries ago, and they are trying to bring it back in some 
form.
  Common sense says our democracy and our country's core are at stake, 
and we don't want it to happen. I hope the American people see what is 
going on here and understand that they are not being told what is going 
on in our society. That is not what America is about.
  America's openness has been the bulwark for our society since its 
founding. Secret societies have largely disappeared from our country, 
but when they do inevitably appear, it has been to bring instability. 
Transparency has enabled our Nation to flourish with openness. Our 
country has become richer as a result of that openness and 
transparency.
  Now, at a critical moment in the history of America, it is shocking 
to see this abject use of secrecy and power. We should not let them 
take it. We should not let the few with all kinds of wealth--
billionaires, if you will, made on the backs of the American people--
take our democracy from the millions. If it weren't for people who 
manned the jobs, such as cops, doctors, teachers, and the other people 
in our society, I don't care how smart these people were, they could 
not have amassed these fortunes. And I don't begrudge them the ability 
to spend it where they want, but when it comes to the election, we have 
to tell the truth. We have to have it happen that way. The American 
people have to know who is going to put the President in the White 
House in the next administration. We don't want it to change because 
someone else is hiding behind the curtain and manipulating hundreds of 
millions of Americans who are going to have to abide by them when these 
elections are over.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Lautenberg.
  I was listening to Senator Mikulski and Senator Bingaman on their 
comments to try to bring some common sense to our election laws by 
basically disclosing who contributes to the political process. That is 
something Republicans and Democrats have been together on for a long 
time. I don't know what happened. This seems to be an issue that 
doesn't get bipartisan support.
  I particularly wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on 
this issue. He has been talking about this matter of DISCLOSE, along 
with Senator Schumer, since the Supreme Court decision in 2010 with the 
Citizens United decision.
  I must say that I think the Citizens United decision will go down as 
one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of the 
United States. I say that for many reasons. First and foremost, those 
who are students of our judicial system and our constitutional 
separation of powers will understand that the case that went up to the 
Supreme Court was a pretty narrow case based upon a 30-minute 
documentary. In that decision of Citizens United, the Court ruled in a 
very broad way that a corporation has all the rights of an individual 
in our political system. It is the first time that has happened. It 
reversed the legislation that had been passed by Congress.
  The Framers of our Constitution envisioned that it was the 
legislative branch of government that would make our laws and policies. 
The legislature, after a great deal of debate and after many different 
attempts, passed laws that restricted how much money corporations could 
put in our political system and how they had to do it in a very open 
and transparent manner. Then we had a reform bill known as the McCain-
Feingold bill that spelled out certain restrictions. All of these cases 
and laws have been upheld over a long period of time by court 
decisions.
  In Citizens United, the Court not only substituted itself for the 
legislature but reversed its own precedent in ruling that corporations 
could literally put an unlimited amount of money into our political 
system. As I said, I think it was one of the worst decisions in the 
history of the Supreme Court. It has now unleashed unlimited money in 
our political system. What corporations and undisclosed sources can now 
put into our elections will dwarf what individual contributors will 
make available in the political season.
  The Center for Responsive Politics has now said that super PACs and 
their related organizations have already spent over twice what similar 
groups spent 4 years ago. We not only have this unleashing of 
undisclosed corporate funds, we are now seeing the super PACs taking 
over as the major source of funding of campaigns.
  As Senator Mikulski just said on the Senate floor, if we run for 
office and solicit contributions, every one of those contributors is 
listed on our reports. We make quarterly reports so that the people of 
the Nation know who is financing our campaigns. They will not know who 
is financing these ads that are going to appear on television from 
these Citizens United-type political activities where we don't know 
where the money is coming from. It could come from a single source who 
wishes to influence our political system but does not want to be 
identified in the cause. I really think this compromises our democratic 
system. I think an individual could literally distort our political 
system through the use of money, and that is something I hope all of us 
would be concerned about.
  I am now a believer. I think the only thing we can do to overturn the 
Citizens United case is to support Senator Tom Udall's constitutional 
amendment. That amendment gives the Congress the power we thought we 
had to legislate.
  I think the people of Maryland, West Virginia, and our Nation would 
be surprised to learn that we cannot legislate the limits of what 
people can contribute in campaigns. They think that is our 
responsibility, not the Court's. Well, Senator Tom Udall's amendment 
would give us the power to do that and overturn the Citizens United 
case. I hope we could come together to let us have the power we should 
have. It seems to me that is something both Democrats and Republicans 
in this body should agree on, that those decisions should be made in 
the Congress of the United States and not in the Supreme Court or the 
courts of our land.
  The bill we have before us--and I urge my colleagues to let us move 
forward to the DISCLOSE Act--brings transparency into the campaign 
finance system. Many of us frequently talk about transparency. 
Transparency is the most important part of integrity in our system. We 
talk about a lot of other countries adding transparency to the way they 
do business. Well, we should have transparency in one of the most 
fundamental parts of our system, and that is how we conduct our 
elections. It is key to our democracy.
  It is Justice Brandeis who said that ``sunlight is said to be the 
best of disinfectants.'' I don't understand why we would resist the 
public knowing who is contributing money to influence our political 
system.
  The DISCLOSE Act has the bipartisan support of the League of Women 
Voters, Democracy 21, and People for the American Way.
  Let me quote from a letter recently sent to Congress by the 
nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. It says:

       Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to influence 
     the outcome of the elections over the next four months. 
     Neither the candidates being attacked with these millions of 
     dollars nor the public will have complete, accurate, 
     meaningful information about the sources of such money. Only 
     the contributors and the beneficiaries will be in the know. 
     Passage of S. 3369 will mean that in future election cycles 
     those funding these shadow campaigns will be disclosed to the 
     public so that voters can make informed decisions at the 
     polls.

  The letter goes on to say:

       As we get closer to the 2012 elections, the amount of 
     federal campaign-related spending using funds from 
     undisclosed sources continues to rise. Especially troubling 
     is the lack of transparency regarding the expenditures of so-
     called ``Section 501(c) groups'' this election cycle, such as 
     Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS.

  I have heard some of my colleagues say: Well, can we constitutionally 
do

[[Page S5002]]

this? Is this allowed for us? After all, Citizens United sort of says 
anything goes. Well, let me quote from the Citizens United decision--
and this is very interesting--where the Court wrote:

       [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide 
     shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold 
     corporations and elected officials accountable for their 
     positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether 
     their corporation's political speech advances the 
     corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can 
     see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called 
     moneyed interests.
       The First Amendment protects political speech; and 
     disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the 
     speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This 
     transparency enables the electorate to make informed 
     decisions and gives proper weight to the different speakers 
     and messages.

  That is the Supreme Court speaking in Citizens United.
  We clearly have the authority to move at least this modest step 
forward to allow the American people to see who is making these 
contributions so they can make an informed judgment on election day. We 
owe it to the citizens of this country to take up and pass the DISCLOSE 
Act.
  Once again, I wish to thank my colleague, who is now on the Senate 
floor, Senator Whitehouse, for his leadership on this issue. As I said 
earlier, from day one when the Supreme Court issued its decision, it 
was Senator Whitehouse who immediately observed that we have to do 
something to make sure that those who use this process to influence our 
system--that information is disclosed so the public has the information 
they need in order to properly judge our elections.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud 
cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act.
  The Citizens United case opened the floodgates to unprecedented 
spending from super PACs and outside interests. I am concerned this 
ruling has effectively given those with the deepest pockets the loudest 
voice. This is a situation that works to the detriment of our democracy 
because the flood of secret money is drowning out the voices of working 
families.
  In the elections following the Citizens United case, corporate and 
special-interest money has poured into our political system. In the 
2010 midterm election, there was a fourfold increase in spending from 
these entities in comparison to 2006. During that same timeframe, 
anonymous spending by organizations rose from 1 percent in 2006 to 44 
percent in 2010.
  In response to the surge in secret election spending by special 
interests, the DISCLOSE Act seeks to restore accountability and 
transparency in our country's elections. The bill represents an 
important first step in addressing the many problems created by the 
Citizens United ruling.
  Even the Supreme Court reckoned that greater transparency would 
likely be needed to mitigate the risk of corruption as a result of its 
ruling. Therefore, I am baffled by my colleagues who are dragging their 
heels on such a commonsense measure. Voters deserve to know who is 
making large donations to influence an election. The DISCLOSE Act would 
give Americans the information they need to take back control and hold 
elected officials and large corporations accountable. To those who 
remain opposed to this bill, I urge you to reconsider your position and 
support this critically important legislation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my strong 
support for the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.
  This bill is a first step toward restoring some transparency and 
accountability to our electoral system, an action sorely needed in the 
wake of the Supreme Court's misguided Citizens United decision.
  If the DISCLOSE Act is passed by Congress and signed into law it 
would put in place the following two new campaign disclosure measures: 
One, it requires third-party groups to disclose their top funding 
sources those over $10,000 to the Federal Election Commission; and, 
two, it requires these independent groups to certify that their 
activities are not coordinated with candidates or political parties.
  Why are these new disclosure requirements necessary?
  The DISCLOSE Act is necessary because Citizens United, a narrow 5-4 
decision by the Roberts Court, struck down critical parts of the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
  Let me be clear: Citizens United upended nearly a century of 
congressional law and overturned two Supreme Court rulings. It is the 
reason super PAC is now a household phrase, and the decision troubled 
me greatly.
  The Court held that the first amendment affords corporations and 
interest groups the right to spend freely millions, even billions of 
dollars on election ads to support or defeat a particular candidate.
  The practical effect of the decision didn't take long to appear. We 
have already seen how unlimited and opaque special interest money can 
decide a Presidential primary, and we continue to see the impact during 
the current general election.
  The Citizens United decision has opened the door to unlimited, 
undisclosed corporate and special interest spending in Federal 
elections.
  In other words, an individual or a corporation can give tens of 
millions of dollars to an independent campaign effort to slander, 
impugn, or oppose a candidate or an issue or to support the same 
anonymously.
  Under current law there is no requirement to disclose to the voters 
or any government agency the names of the individuals who contributed 
to these campaign efforts.
  This is total unlimited and anonymous spending.
  Let me repeat: unlimited spending.
  It is impossible to exaggerate how far reaching this decision is: it 
weakens the very essence of our democracy and the integrity of our 
system of elections.
  What does this mean in the real world?
  This means an oil company like ExxonMobil, which earned $41 billion 
in profits last year, can spend unlimited money to defeat candidates 
who oppose offshore drilling. It means Academi (the company formerly 
known as Blackwater) and other defense contractors can spend unlimited 
sums to elect candidates who view their defense positions favorably. 
And large banks will be free to use their corporate treasury to attack 
candidates in favor of financial regulation and consumer protection.
  During testimony in 2010, Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said it 
well:

       It would not take many examples of elections where 
     multimillion corporate expenditures defeat a member of 
     Congress before all members quickly learn the lesson, vote 
     against the corporate interest at stake in a piece of 
     legislation and you run the risk of being hit with a 
     multimillion-dollar corporate ad campaign to defeat you.

  Since Citizens United, we have seen explosive growth in outside 
corporate and special-interest expenditures:
  The fall 2010 midterm elections ushered in the independent third-
party groups, which spent a record $300 million during that election 
cycle. This amount is quadruple the $69 million spent by outside groups 
in 2006. Nearly three-quarters of political advertising in 2010 came 
from sources prohibited from spending money in 2006.
  By the summer of 2008, about $70 million had been spent by third-
party groups during the Presidential race. According to the Center for 
Responsive Politics, outside groups are currently on pace to at least 
triple that 2008 total. An astonishing $167 million has already been 
spent as of July 11, 2012.
  Almost $140 million of this comes from super PACs established in the 
wake of the Citizens United decision. As of July 11, there are 667 
registered super PACs that have already raised more than $244 million.
  More money is being spent than ever before, and it is clear that 
these unlimited sums could be a major factor in the 2012 elections.
  Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that many independent 
ads for the general election campaign originate from nonprofit interest 
groups that do not disclose their donors. The analysis found that 
politically active nonprofit groups with undisclosed donors have spent 
more than $24 million in the 2012 cycle on political ads.
  The public deserves to know who these donors are. The value of 
transparency was demonstrated vividly in 2010, when Texas-based oil 
companies funded a ballot measure to repeal California's landmark 
climate change law, the ``California Climate Change Solutions Act.''

[[Page S5003]]

  Although the campaign for this measure spent more than $10 million, 
they were unable to conceal that their funding came from out-of-State 
sources, led by multimillion-dollar contributions from Texas-based oil 
companies. This transparency allowed California voters to know the real 
source of advertisements during the campaign and make a more informed 
decision. That proposition failed, and, I believe it failed because 
voters knew who was paying for the ads.
  Transparency works. It makes a difference. With public confidence in 
government at a record low, now is the time for more transparency, not 
less. We must restore confidence in our government. The Supreme Court 
made its decision in Citizens United, so there isn't much that Congress 
can do. But the DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to make clear the effects of 
Citizens United and ensure that our election process remains 
transparent.
  The public deserves to know who is funding the super PACs and other 
groups that are airing political ads. When voters know who paid for an 
ad, they make more educated decisions. The DISCLOSE Act is a step 
toward making that reality.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 
3369, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in 
Elections, or DISCLOSE, Act.
  I joined Senator Whitehouse and some 25 of my colleagues in 
cosponsoring this bill because it is the right thing to do. I do not 
believe, as some claim, that the DISCLOSE Act will chill or limit the 
right to free speech in something as fundamental as advocating for a 
candidate for elected office. The bill will simply require more 
openness by those advocating, an important point in our world of radio, 
television, and the internet. The DISCLOSE Act will help restore 
transparency and accountability to our electoral process by requiring 
outside groups to disclose who funds their political activities. It may 
be worth noting that the bill is not focusing on the average American 
contributing small amounts of money to her candidate, but rather on 
those groups who are making donations of at least $10,000. I do not 
think it is so onerous to ask those contributing such large sums to 
identify themselves.
  But, I must be honest. I was disappointed to learn that the so-called 
``stand by your ad'' provision was not included in S. 3369. This 
provision, which required that the biggest donors of a campaign, or 
sponsors of a radio or TV spot, be identified during the ad, was what 
initially caught my attention. In an age where communications are 
largely anonymous whether it is on Twitter, Facebook, or to a lesser 
extent, radio and even television, I believe it is only fair that 
Americans learn who is speaking to them as they are listening. We have 
moved past those times when a candidate or his supporters would use a 
soapbox to explain their positions to a crowd, and who is doing the 
talking is no longer clear.
  However, I believe the overarching principle of the DISCLOSE Act 
sharing the identities of those advocating in an election campaign, 
whether it be for or against a candidate, or simply an opinion is a 
necessary part of democracy. I hope my colleagues will agree and vote 
to support passage of the DISCLOSE Act.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________