[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5051-S5057]
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to 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. For the information of all Senators, the time until 12:30
p.m. today will be divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes
and the majority the second 30 minutes.
We will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today to allow for our
weekly caucus meetings.
Additionally, the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3 p.m. will be equally
divided and controlled. At 3 p.m. there will be a cloture vote on the
motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act, which was debated last night and
will be debated again this morning.
The DISCLOSE Act
Mr. President, the corrosive effect of money on American politics
isn't a product of the 21st century. More than 100 years ago, moneyed
special interests had already tested the integrity of this country's
political system.
In 1899, copper billionaire William Clark was elected to the U.S.
Senate by the Montana State legislature. The contest was considered so
blatantly swayed by bribery the Senate refused to seat him. Here is how
Clark famously responded:
I never bought a man who wasn't for sale.
We in Nevada have some connection with that name because Las Vegas is
in Clark County. Clark County was formed in the early part of the 20th
century. The largest county in America was Lincoln County and that was
divided between Lincoln and Clark Counties, and this character, William
Clark, is who that county was named after.
But after Clark made this remark, and people realized he had
blatantly swayed the State legislature by bribery, the U.S. Senate
refused to seat him. He became a Senator anyway--not for long, but he
became a Senator. As I have learned from people who know a lot about
Montana history, Clark was very clever. The Governor of the State of
Montana went to San Francisco, to the acting governor--the lieutenant
governor--after he was denied his seat, and he reappointed him to the
Senate. So he got to the U.S. Senate by virtue of the shenanigans that
took place. Incensed Montana voters went on to pass the Corrupt
Practices Act via a referendum. They voted for it. Less than a decade
later, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt reined in unlimited
corporate giving to political candidates at the Federal level as well--
not only in Montana but at the Federal level.
This Nation has a long history of curtailing the corrupt influence of
money in politics. But with the Citizens
[[Page S5052]]
United decision, the Supreme Court of our country erased a century of
effort to protect the fairness and integrity of American elections.
That disastrous decision opened the door for corporations, anonymous
billionaires, and foreign interests to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars influencing voters.
For anyone who dismisses this change as politics as usual, they
should think again. During this year's election, outside spending by
GOP shell groups is expected to top $1 billion--that is billion with a
``B.'' The names of these new front groups contain words that are warm
and fuzzy, such as ``freedom'' and ``prosperity.'' But make no mistake,
there is nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of
billionaires for their own self-interest.
Just one of those outside groups--just one of them--backed by wealthy
oil interests, has promised to spend $400 million on negative ads
filled with half truths and distortions of President Obama's record. By
comparison, during the 2008 election--less than 4 years ago--Senator
John McCain's Presidential campaign spent $370 million total. That was
a huge amount of money in that day, but it is being dwarfed by these
outside groups this year. So this year one group's special interest
money will dwarf the entire budget of the Republican nominee John
McCain in the last Presidential election.
Democrats and the majority of Americans believe these unlimited
corporate special interest contributions should be outlawed. But in the
post-Citizens United world, the least we should do is require groups
spending millions on political attack ads to disclose the donors. We
owe it to the voters to let them judge for themselves the attacks and
the motivation behind them. But they can only do that if they know who
is doing it. The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations of
all stripes, liberal and conservatives alike, to disclose donations in
excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.
Safeguarding fair and transparent elections used to be an arena where
Democrats and Republicans could find common ground. As far back as
1997, the Republican leader, our friend Senator McConnell, said,
``Disclosure is the best disinfectant.'' In fact, 14 Republicans now
serving in the Senate voted to support stronger disclosure laws in the
year 2000. Yet last night, those same 14 Republicans did an about-face,
and every one of my Republican colleagues voted to block the DISCLOSE
Act.
It is obvious the Republican priority is to protect a handful of
anonymous billionaires--billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of
millions of dollars to change the outcome of elections. But today,
again, they will have an opportunity to consider that backwards
priority. We are doing that with the motion to reconsider which I
announced last night. They will have the opportunity to stand for the
average voter instead of these billionaires.
I hope they join Democrats as we work to ensure all Americans--not
just the wealthy few--have an equal voice in the political process.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Tax Increases
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week, in response to another
disappointing month of job growth, President Obama issued a truly
bizarre ultimatum--a truly bizarre ultimatum: Let me raise taxes on a
million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody. Let me raise
taxes on a million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody.
Yesterday, Democratic leaders in Congress took this strange new
economic theory--whereby politicians purport to help job creation by
hurting job creators--to dizzying new heights. Yesterday, Senate
Democratic leaders said they would actually prefer--prefer--to see
America go off the so-called fiscal cliff this coming January--along
with the trauma that would unleash on our economy--than let businesses
maintain their existing tax rates. That was the position of Democratic
leaders yesterday: They would rather see America go off the fiscal
cliff in January than let a million businesses maintain their current
tax rates.
It is an astonishing admission--an astonishing admission. Democrats
in Congress are now saying they would rather see taxes go up on every
American at the end of the year than let about a million businesses
keep what they earn now. They would rather let taxes go up on everybody
in the country rather than allow a million businesses to keep the money
they earn now.
This isn't an economic agenda--it is not an economic agenda--it is an
ideological crusade. This morning, Ernst & Young is releasing a study
which shows that President Obama's plan to raise taxes on these
businesses will result in 710,000 fewer jobs. What a great idea: Let's
raise taxes on a million of our most successful small businesses and
eliminate 700,000 jobs in the middle of the most tepid recovery in
anybody's memory. What a terrific idea. For those who manage to keep
their jobs, real aftertax wages would fall by an estimated 1.8 percent,
meaning living standards would decline as government sucks more capital
out of the economy.
The President's proposal, in other words, is a recipe for economic
stagnation and decline--a recipe for economic stagnation and decline.
But the Murray proposal--the idea we should raise taxes on everybody--
is even worse. Not only would it trigger another recession, it would
put the global economy at risk. Here is the Democratic theory: that a
massive income tax increase on 140 million American taxpayers wouldn't
be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away. It wouldn't
be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away.
This bizarre conclusion can only be reached by politicians and budget
analysts who have never worked a day in the private sector, who don't
understand what goes into cutting a paycheck for employees, and who
don't have a concept of the planning--the planning--that is necessary
to operate a business on thin margins in a tough economy.
This shows how out of touch these people are, to rely on the analysis
of Ivy Tower liberals instead of listening to the jobs groups that have
been pleading with us to fix this problem sooner rather than later and
end the uncertainty that is acting like a big wet blanket over our
entire economy.
Today another nonpartisan group, the Business Roundtable, urged
Congress to adopt the Republican plan to extend current tax law for a
year and make a bridge to tax reform. In a letter to Congress, the
group's chairman, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, warned:
Without effective action soon, this uncertainty will spawn
a dangerous crisis, threatening our economy, businesses and
workers.
What Republicans have been saying is that we should eliminate this
uncertainty right now. We should eliminate the uncertainty that Boeing
employees--nearly 85,000 of whom work in Washington State--and so many
others are facing right now. We should tackle these problems now rather
than waiting until the end of the year.
Let me just boil it down. Faced with the slowest economic recovery in
modern times, chronic joblessness, and the lowest percentage of able-
bodied Americans actually participating in the workforce in literally
decades, Democrats' one-point plan to revive the economy is this: You
earn, we take. You earn, we take is apparently the only thing they
have.
Surely we can do better. I know we can, and so do the American
people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Reservation of Leadership Time
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the
leadership time is reserved.
Order of Business
Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 will be equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with
the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority
controlling the second 30 minutes.
The Senator from Alabama.
The Economy
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator McConnell
for his remarks and the fundamental truth of those remarks that this
administration and the majority in this Senate want to raise taxes.
They think that raising taxes and spending more through the government
will somehow lift the economy. We have been shown that is not so.
[[Page S5053]]
Our Democratic colleagues stayed here last night talking about an
issue that doesn't have the support to pass, and they should have been
talking about the fundamental threat to our economy: not having a
budget. Why aren't we moving forward with a budget? Why aren't we
moving forward with the appropriations bills that are necessary to fund
the government come October 1? The majority leader, Senator Reid, has
announced he has no intention to pass a single one, not even to bring
them up.
So we will end up, in late September, passing a continuing resolution
to fund the government--there is no telling what else will be tied up
in that--which will create instability and uncertainty because this
Democratic-led Senate has refused to pass a budget, refused to lay out
a plan for the future, and refused to move the appropriations bills.
I have been here 15 years. This is the first time I have ever seen us
not move a single appropriations bill. When I first came here, we would
move almost every 1 of the appropriations bills before September 30. It
is hard work. We have to bring up the bill, decide how much we want for
the Department of Defense, or the Department of Agriculture, or the
Department of Education, and members offer amendments and debate and do
their work. That is what we are supposed to be doing, but we are not.
Today I want to talk about and call attention to another serious--
scandalous, really--development in the way the Democratic leadership in
this Senate is systemically dismantling the statutorily required budget
process. It is a tale of how we are going broke.
Let me begin with a review of the situation. Last summer, Congress
and the President faced a serious crisis as a result of the fact that
surging government spending had driven our debt to the highest level
allowed--the debt ceiling. We were hitting the debt ceiling. Do you
remember that? A deal was struck then to raise the debt ceiling.
That is what the President wanted. He didn't want to cut spending 40
percent. We were borrowing--and we still borrow--almost 40 cents of
every dollar we spend. All government programs would have had to have
been cut 40 percent if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Amazing as
that sounds, this is undisputable.
Republicans prevailed in their insistence that spending should be
reduced over 10 years by an amount equal to the increase in the debt
ceiling last August. The legislation this deal produced, the Budget
Control Act, set certain spending limits in the absence of a budget
resolution that we should have passed in the Senate as required by law.
So these spending limits came into effect when the chairman of the
Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, filed the allocation numbers into the
Congressional Record, telling every Senate committee how much it was
allowed to spend. That is the power given to the Budget Committee
chairman. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and
Senator Conrad chairs the Budget Committee.
So the Budget Control Act plainly dictates that beginning on October
1 of this year, spending limits would be derived from the Congressional
Budget Office's baseline. This is crucial because the CBO baseline
contains the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years--really,
reductions in spending growth, and not so much cuts--that the deal was
supposed to implement in exchange for the immediate $2.1 trillion
raising of the debt ceiling.
Herein lies the scandal. Although it was buried in the spending
allocation that Senator Conrad sent out, my staff on the Senate Budget
Committee discovered that Senator Conrad did not file an outlay limit
based on the CBO baseline. Instead, the outlay total he filed was $14
billion higher--curiously matching exactly the spending levels that
President Obama had requested in the budget he submitted to Congress in
February.
Although this discovery was not readily apparent, Chairman Conrad, to
his credit--he is an honorable man--does not dispute it. He simply
asserts that it is within his discretion to unilaterally set a higher
total.
Again, because the CBO baseline reflects the spending reductions
passed by Congress and signed into law, an increase above the
baseline--as the allocation that he submitted allows--is an abrogation
of the bipartisan agreement we reached last August.
We told the American people: OK, we raised the debt ceiling. A lot of
people didn't want to do it. A lot of Americans were hot about it. We
said: But we are going to cut spending by that amount over 10 years.
As reported by the publication, CQ:
Conrad did not counter Sessions' claim that the elevated
outlay limit would allow higher spending in fiscal year 2013.
But let me emphasize, this is not just the fault of Senator Conrad.
This large violation of the Budget Control Act is without doubt the
decision of Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, his leadership team,
and the members of the Democratic caucus who support him.
Remember, outlays are the spending figures which directly register on
the debt. Mr. President, $14 billion in higher outlays in 2013 means
$14 billion added to the debt. It is just that simple. In fact, the
higher debt that will accrue next year as a result of the higher
spending level means the amount of interest we pay on the debt we
accrue will be greater and will also exceed CBO baseline limits.
As a result, the chairman had to also boost spending authority for
the Finance Committee by $79 million to compensate for the higher
interest payments on the $14 billion added to the debt. This shows that
the debt deal legislation has been violated not only in spirit but in
letter. Why? Because if we increase discretionary outlays, we increase
the debt, and therefore increase the interest needed to service the
debt.
It is crystal clear that the legislation provides no flexibility
whatsoever to inflate spending authority for this interest payment. It
is a direct violation of the Budget Control Act, but he had to do that
to justify and account for the $14 billion increase over the level that
was agreed to last August.
I sent two letters to Chairman Conrad urging him to correct and re-
file the proper numbers, but it is evident that the chairman does not
intend to do so. So we will be looking for an alternative course. This
is a matter that ought to be considered by the full Senate, so I plan
to pursue a vote on the inflated spending levels. Each Senator will
therefore have to examine their own conscience and consider their duty
to their constituents, to the Nation, and to the financial future of
our country.
Plainly, this action violates the spirit and the terms of the 10-year
Budget Control Act agreement that was made last August, just 11 months
ago. At that time, Congress declared that we would exercise some
spending restraint. And $2.1 trillion in reduced spending is really a
reduction in the growth of spending and not an elimination of all
growth in spending. We would go from something like $37 trillion being
spent over 10 years to $35 trillion. It is not going to break America.
But to hear the wails that come about, you would think it would.
So the test will be, in this first year since the passage of the debt
deal will we adhere to its modest restrictions or will we blink?
We have Members of Congress--and I have raised this issue over the
years--who seem to take it as a personal challenge to see how they can
spend more money than they are allocated. It happens every year. This
is how a country goes broke. The consequences of the annual
manipulations and gimmicks have great impact over time. These are not
small matters. Think about it.
This is a chart I put together. This year we are adding $14 billion
more to the baseline spending in our country than agreed to, and this
gimmick adds $14 billion to the baseline next year. One may think: It
is only $14 billion, Jeff. Calm down.
Alabama's general fund budget, not including education, is less than
$2 billion. To us $14 billion is a lot of money, and we are an average-
sized State. This is how we need to think about these manipulations
because it is very significant as time goes by.
If we violate the baseline next year, in 2013, by $14 billion, that
goes into the spending level for the next year. Then if next year we
violate it again, it is not just $14 billion, we are adding $14 billion
on top of the $14 billion gimmick in the spending level this year. It
is $28 billion next year. Added to the $14 billion we ripped off the
taxpayers the previous year, it is $42 billion.
[[Page S5054]]
Do you see how that goes up? Each year is adding to it, and we have
been doing this kind of thing consistently.
If we gimmick the budget $14 billion a year--and I remember doing a
chart similar to this about 10 years ago, and we gimmicked the budget
$18 billion that year and there are probably other gimmicks we are not
including--this $14 billion gimmick puts us on a track to add $770
billion to the debt of the United States over 10 years.
We have to adhere to the agreements we make. If we do not stand with
those agreements, then we make a mockery of law, we make a mockery of
the Senate, we undermine the respect and trust the American people have
in us. If we run up $770 billion more, we pay interest on that,
estimated at $112 billion, that $14 billion gimmicked-up spending adds
$900 billion to the debt.
Remember, we are in debt today. Every $1 we spend more than what we
agree to is borrowed. Any more spending is borrowed because we are in
debt now--nearly 40 percent of the money we spend is borrowed. We spend
about $3.7 trillion and we take in about $2.4 trillion and we borrow
the rest. It is unsustainable.
Meanwhile, the President continues his call for higher taxes, saying
that taxing more will reduce the deficit. But his plan for the new
taxes he has proposed is to fund more spending, more gimmicks and more
fraud and waste in government. I know you think that is not so--surely,
that is not so. That is not what the President is proposing. But,
unlike the Democratic Senate, the President did comply with the law and
submitted a budget as every President has done since the Congressional
Budget Act was passed. He submitted a budget. What did his budget call
for? It called for new taxes all right. It called for $1.8 trillion in
new taxes over 10 years. But it also increased spending by $1.6
trillion. Do you see what is happening there? The President's proposal
calls for $1.6 trillion in new spending, above the Budget Control Act
level we agreed to in August. He proposes to wipe out the cuts. He
proposes to spend $1.6 trillion more than we agreed to in August, and
he pays for it with $1.8 trillion in new taxes.
He didn't use his new taxes to pay down the debt. He used the new
taxes to fund more government, more spending. That is not what we need
to be doing at this point in history. We should have stayed here last
night talking about the debt threat to America and not some
controversial issue on campaign finance.
For 3 consecutive years, this Senate Democratic majority has refused
to bring forth a budget plan as required by common sense and law. They
refuse even to write a budget and bring it to the floor for
consideration. They have no financial plan for the future of America.
Senator Reid, what is your plan? He blocked Senator Conrad, who was
willing and prepared to lay out a budget plan for the Democrats. He
called on him not to do so. For 3 years they have not had a budget. We
did not even bring one up this year.
They treat any effort to rein in waste and abuse as evidencing a
hatred for those who are suffering and truly in need. We want to help
people in need. But anybody who knows these programs, such as some of
the stuff that is coming out now on food stamps, knows there is waste,
fraud and abuse and we can clean them up and save money and not hurt
people truly in need. From the IRS checks sent to illegal aliens that
the inspector general of the U.S. Treasury Department said has to end,
to lavish GSA parties in Las Vegas, reckless abuse in the food stamp
program, and now this surreptitious 14 billion debt increase, there is
no financial accountability in Washington.
I will be working to erase this $14 billion spending increase. It is
important. I urge my colleagues to join me so our actions will be
consistent with our promises to the American people made last August;
otherwise we are breaching this agreement the first year. It is always
a gimmick and a danger to spend today and promise to pay for it in the
future--spend more today than the agreement called for, but we are
going to pay for it in the future. It is the first year in our
agreement and it has already been breached.
The best avenue may be to raise a point of order, and we will look at
that to see how to bring this matter before the Senate. I will be
looking for that opportunity. But I truly believe it is a defining
moment for us if we cannot adhere 1 full year to the agreement we
reached last August and that we told the American people we would abide
by. I think the distrust and lack of confidence by the American people,
already felt in Congress, will continue to further erode.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
End Pakistan Aid
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the question remains should taxpayers be
forced to send money overseas to countries that disrespect us or, more
precisely, should we borrow money from China to send it to countries
that disrespect us. Should we borrow money from China to send to
Pakistan? Should we borrow money from China to send to the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt? Should we send good money after bad?
For a decade we searched for bin Laden. We spent hundreds of billions
of dollars searching for him. Where did we find him? Not in the remote
mountains; we found him living comfortably in a city in Pakistan. We
found him living in the middle of the city not far from a military
academy. We were helped in this search by a doctor, a brave doctor in
Pakistan by the name of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped us find bin
Laden, helped us with ultimately getting bin Laden. How was he rewarded
for this heroism? Where is Dr. Shakil Afridi now? He has been
imprisoned by the Pakistani Government for 33 years.
For 10 years we searched for bin Laden high and low throughout
Afghanistan, throughout the world, throughout the mountains. We found
him living comfortably in a city only miles from a military academy,
and then the doctor who helped us Pakistan has now imprisoned for 33
years.
How did the President respond to this? How did President Obama's
administration respond to the imprisoning of this doctor, the doctor
who helped us get bin Laden? President Obama sent them another $1
billion last week. We already sent Pakistan $2 billion, and they
disrespect us, so what did we do? We sent them another $1 billion.
People around this town are bemoaning there is not enough money for our
military. Yet we took $1 billion out of the Defense Department, an
extra $1 billion, and sent it to Pakistan last week. Where is Dr.
Afridi? In jail for 33 years.
I have obtained the signatures necessary to have a vote on this. The
leadership does not want to allow a vote on this, but I will, one way
or another, get a vote on ending aid to Pakistan if they continue to
imprison this doctor. He has an appeal that will be heard this
Thursday. If he is not successful in his appeal, if he is still
imprisoned for life, we will have a vote in the Senate on ending all
aid to Pakistan--not a small portion of their aid, every penny of their
aid, including the $1 billion they got last week. We will attempt to
stop all aid to Pakistan.
I ask any of the Senators to step forward if they think it is a good
idea and tell the American people why they are sending their money to
Pakistan. We have bridges crumbling, we have roads crumbling, we have
schools crumbling, and we are sending money to Pakistan, which
disrespected us. We spent billions, if not maybe trillions of dollars,
on the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan trying to get bin Laden and
then the doctor who helps us is now in jail for 33 years.
Everywhere I go across our country--in my State in Kentucky we have
two bridges that need to be replaced. We have one in the middle of one
of our major cities that was closed down for 6 months last year for
repairs. We don't have the money to repair our infrastructure. We are
$1 trillion short of money, period. We are borrowing over $1 trillion a
year. We now have a $16 trillion debt that equals our entire economy.
Yet they are still sending taxpayer money to dictators overseas who
disrespect us. Eighty percent of the public thinks this should come to
an end. If we ask this question: Should we be sending this money
overseas when we have difficulty and needs and wants at home, 80
percent of the public would say it should end. Yet when we force this
body to vote, 80 percent of
[[Page S5055]]
your Representatives are for sending more aid overseas. They were all
clamoring and clapping their hands last week when President Obama said
he sent another $1 billion overseas--they all stand and clap.
I don't think the American taxpayer is clapping. I don't think the
American taxpayer is happy we are $1 trillion in the hole and still
sending this money overseas to countries that disrespect us.
What I say to Pakistan is if they want to be our ally, act like it.
If they want to be our ally, respect us. If they want to be our ally,
work with us on the war on terrorism. But if they want to be our ally,
don't hold Dr. Afridi, don't hold political prisoners, don't hold
people who are actually working with us to get bin Laden.
I will do everything in my power to get this vote. They don't want to
have this vote. They like foreign aid over here. They all love sending
taxpayer money overseas, but they don't want to vote on it so they have
been blocking this vote and they will attempt to block my vote. I have
the signatures necessary and you will see me on the floor next week.
If Dr. Afridi is still in jail next week, I will make them vote on
this. It is the least taxpayers deserve. The taxpayers deserve to know
why their Senators are voting to send their money overseas when we are
$1 trillion in the hole. Why are their Senators voting to send
trillions of dollars to Pakistan when they imprison the guy who helped
us get bin Laden. It is unconscionable. It has to stop. The debt is a
threat to taxpayers, our country, a threat to the Republic, and I will
do everything I can to force a vote on this and then the American
people can decide. They can decide whether they want to keep sending
these people back to Washington who are sending their money overseas to
people who have no respect for us.
I will do everything in my power to have this vote and we will record
the Senate. Your representatives will be recorded on whether they want
to continue sending your money to Pakistan while Pakistan imprisons
this doctor who helped us get bin Laden.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Wind Production Tax Credit
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, for several weeks now I have
spoken on the Senate floor, urging my colleagues of both parties to
extend the wind production tax credit or, as it is known, the PTC. The
Presiding Officer has had an opportunity to listen to me on a number of
occasions. I thank him for his interest and support. I am here again
this morning to continue my work because I do not want to lose one more
American job because of our failure, Congress's failure, to act. I also
want to assure, as I know the Presiding Officer does, that we, the
United States, remain competitive in the global clean energy economy.
Today, I wish to talk specifically about the PTC's impact on the
State of Utah, one of America's fastest growing wind energy producers.
Similar to other Western States, including my home State of Colorado,
Utah's geography and climate make it an ideal location for wind
production. It is estimated that if fully utilized, Utah's wind
resources could provide up to 132 percent of the current electricity
needs. Think about that, the entire State's electricity needs could be
met by wind power alone. If we look at the map of Utah that is
displayed here, we will see that the largest wind projects are located
in Beaver and Millard Counties, which are in western Utah. In those two
counties, the first wind corporation has constructed the Milford Wind
Project. That project produces enough electricity to power over 64,000
homes, avoids 300,000 tons of CO2 emissions and provides
good-paying jobs to hundreds of hard-working Utahns.
Beyond the obvious and enormously positive effect the Milford Wind
Project has had on the Utah environment, it has also been an economic
boon to the surrounding rural communities. Beaver County's tax base
increased so much that it allowed for a new elementary school to be
built without any tax increases to local residents. In effect, those
tax receipts replaced a school that had fallen into disrepair.
This project has brought more than $50 million in economic benefits
to Utah as a whole. It has created over 300 onsite jobs during
construction and engaged more than 60 local Utah businesses throughout
construction and development. That is a win-win-win situation no matter
how we calculate it.
Only if we extend the wind PTC will we continue to see the
investment, job creation, and economic growth Utah has seen in recent
years. Now is the time for us to act to preserve and create thousands
of jobs and to usher in a clean energy future for the American people.
Without our support, the growth of the wind energy industry will slow,
and, in fact, wind energy producers likely will shed jobs and halt
projects.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article that was
published in the Wall Street Journal this week be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2012]
Wind Power Faces Taxing Headwind
(By Mark Peters and Keith Johnson)
West Branch, Iowa.--Acciona Windpower's generator-assembly
plant here in the heart of the corn belt is down to its last
domestic order as the U.S. wind energy industry faces a sharp
slowdown.
Demand for the school bus-size pods it assembles to house
the guts of a wind turbine is drying up as a key federal tax
credit nears expiration. Acciona is now banking on foreign
orders to keep the plant going next year, while hoping the
credit will be extended.
The debate over renewing the credit is dividing
Republicans, with conservative lawmakers from wind states
joining Democrats to push for an extension even as the
presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has made
attacks on government support for clean energy, including
wind, a centerpiece of his fight against President Barack
Obama.
After several years of domestic growth, the U.S. wind
industry faces possible layoffs and shutdowns as a key
federal tax credit is set to expire. Mark Peters reports from
West Branch, Iowa.
The tax policy, initiated two decades ago, currently gives
operators of wind farms a credit of about two cents per
kilowatt-hour of electricity they generate. Without the
credits, wind power generally can't compete on price with
electricity produced by coal- or natural gas-fired plants.
Analysts predict that if the tax credit expires on Dec. 31,
as it is scheduled to, installations of new equipment could
fall by as much as 90% next year, after what is expected to
be a record increase in capacity in 2012.
Democrats generally support federal backing for wind power
and other clean energy, arguing that it needs help to compete
with entrenched fuel sources whose environmental and health
impacts often aren't included in their costs. Mr. Obama has
made several campaign trips to Iowa, where he argued for wind
energy's tax credits to be extended. Most Republicans are
less bullish on clean energy's prospects, and say the
government shouldn't support technologies that aren't
commercially viable on their own.
Still wind power has vigorous support from some of the
reddest districts in the country, with Republican congressmen
in wind-power heavy states like Texas, Iowa, and Colorado
backing the industry tax credit.
Mr. Romney has criticized the Obama administration's
support for clean-energy subsidies. ``Solar and wind is fine
except it's very expensive and you can't drive a car with a
windmill on it,'' Mr. Romney said at a campaign event in
March in Youngstown, Ohio. His economic plan says wind and
solar power are ``sharply uncompetitive'' forms of energy,
whose jobs amount to a ``minuscule fraction'' of the U.S.
labor force. A campaign spokeswoman said Mr. Romney supports
``the development of affordable and reliable energy from all
sources, including wind.'' He hasn't publicly called for the
renewal of the tax credit for wind.
``That's a conversation I need to have with Gov. Romney,''
said Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican and a member of the
House Tea Party Caucus who says 5,000 wind-industry jobs
statewide and locally-produced clean energy are proof of the
benefits of federal policies that support wind power. Iowa
has gained several wind-power manufacturing facilities in
recent years and ranks second among U.S. states in number of
wind farms, after Texas. Terry Branstad, the state's
Republican governor, also backs a renewal of the credit.
The production tax credit has spurred huge growth since it
was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992,
but it has kept the industry's future tied to the vagaries of
Congress. The credit now is caught in the congressional
gridlock of an election year, and a vote on renewal isn't
likely until after November. Even if renewed then, the
pipeline of projects next year is already crimped.
``In some way, it's too late to save 2013 build,'' said
Matthew Kaplan of consultancy IHS Emerging Energy Research.
The credits for wind have expired three times before, most
recently in 2004, with new construction slowing sharply each
time before the credit was later renewed.
[[Page S5056]]
Now the stakes are higher, because the wind industry has
established a manufacturing base in the U.S. to build many of
the 8,000 parts that go in a typical turbine. Industry data
show manufacturing facilities in the U.S. have more than
doubled since 2009 to around 470 in 2011. Meanwhile, wind's
share of U.S. electricity output has grown to 2.9% last year,
from about 1.3% in 2008, according to the Energy Information
Administration.
``There is a lot more skin in the game,'' said Joe Baker,
chief executive of the North American wind power subsidiary
of Acciona SA, a Spanish company. Its Iowa plant gets 80% of
its components from North America, mostly made in the U.S.
Almost no components came from the U.S. when the plant opened
in 2008.
Many Republicans argue that any benefits from wind power
don't justify government investment. ``What do we get in
return for these billions of dollars of subsidies?'' Sen.
Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican who has long
criticized the tax credit for the wind industry, said in a
speech earlier this year. ``We get a puny amount of
unreliable electricity.''
Local communities are now fearing layoffs in the industry,
which employs an estimated 75,000 people nationwide. A
Siemens AG turbine-blade factory is the largest employer in
Fort Madison, Iowa, which has struggled with one of the
state's highest unemployment rates. Mayor Brad Randolph said
getting the plant ``really was a corner turner,'' but with
industry's current outlook ``you could see a large number of
employees getting laid off. That could be a game changer the
other way.''
Vestas, a Danish company that is the biggest manufacturer
of wind turbines in the world, employs about 1,700 people at
four factories in Colorado, a relatively energy-rich state
that has also benefited from wind's growth. Uncertainty over
the tax credit ``requires us to have a flexible plan for the
future that allows us to add, adjust or eliminate positions
in 2012,'' a Vestas spokesman said.
That uncertainty trickles down the supply chain. Walker
Components, a privately held company in Denver, expanded
operations more than two years ago to supply gear for Vestas
turbines. Now, like others that supply the wind industry, the
company is contemplating layoffs in its wind division if the
credit expires.
Acciona's Mr. Baker said a few employees recently left for
other jobs, telling him they wanted to be in industries with
more stable outlooks. ``It became an employment issue for
them. They're not sure. They don't like the seesaw effect,''
he said.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, that article says if Congress
does not promote PTC, my State could lose hundreds, if not thousands,
of jobs. Naturally the numbers are higher with suggestions and
estimates that we could lose 30,000 jobs.
The PTC is a perfect example of how Congress can play a positive,
productive role in encouraging economic growth and supporting American
manufacturing. The American people expect us to do everything we can to
create jobs and economic growth. They expect us to work across the
political aisle and produce results. They deserve results, and we
should not disappoint them by succumbing to election-year gridlock. We
have a solid base of bipartisan support for wind energy and for the
passage of the wind PTC. That is why I have been urging my colleagues
to work with me to pass it as soon as possible.
From Colorado and Utah to Rhode Island and beyond, the PTC has helped
American families and businesses prosper in a time when other
industries have faltered. The wind industry has been one of the few
industries of real growth in recent years, and it has so much more
potential. Americans have said again and again that they want Congress
to extend the wind PTC. Let's not let them down. Our economy and our
future depend on it. Let's pass the PTC as soon as possible. It equals
jobs.
I will be back on the floor tomorrow to keep fighting for this
commonsense policy. Coloradans expect no less. Let's pass the
production tax credit as soon as possible and protect American jobs.
Mr. President, if I might, I wish to turn to another topic that is on
everybody's minds, and that is the efforts here in the U.S. Senate to
reform the way in which our campaigns are financed and the way in which
that information is shared with the public.
Many of my colleagues took to the Senate floor last night to discuss
the importance of the DISCLOSE Act and to draw attention to the
enormous volume of undisclosed money that is now flowing into this
campaign season and into those campaigns. Democracy is Strengthened by
Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act or, as it is known in its
shorter form, the DISCLOSE Act, is an important step forward.
It was conceived as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010
Citizens United decision. Many of us have watched with deep concern as
the consequences of that decision played out this election season.
Unlimited and often secret contributions to organizations known as
super PACs are pouring into our election system and literally drowning
out the voices of ordinary Americans who don't happen to be
millionaires or billionaires.
Instead of a system where candidates exchange ideas and share their
vision for a more prosperous country, the Citizens United decision has
released a relentless display of attack ads, and the American people
have no idea where they are coming from or who is footing the bill.
This sort of unlimited and secret influx of cash is raising the specter
of corruption in our elections. Frankly, I am worried we are entering
an era of politics that we haven't seen since the Watergate scandal of
some 40 years ago.
However, there is hope. Despite what I thought was a misguided
decision tied to Citizens United, the Supreme Court did uphold
Congress's power to require transparency when it comes to those
unlimited campaign dollars, and so the DISCLOSE Act was born.
Let me share with the viewers what the DISCLOSE Act would do. It
would require that super PACs, corporations, labor unions, and other
independent groups file a public disclosure with the Federal Election
Commission for any campaign-related disbursement of over $10,000 or
more within 24 hours of the expenditure.
This basic requirement is designed to bring the exchange of these
secret campaign dollars out of the shadows so Coloradans and all the
American people know who is trying to influence our elections. That is
it. It is simple and it makes sense. We are only asking that political
spending and funding be disclosed and held to the same standard as
political action committees and candidate expenditures. This sensible
requirement will not create burdensome regulations or be in conflict
with any of the holdings of the Supreme Court. It is the kind of
commonsense transparency that Coloradans are calling for.
It might sound cliched, but sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.
In fact, I heard the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, use that
same concept: Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. We literally
step on the basic principles of democracy when we allow tens of
millions of dollars to be secretly spent on our elections.
I want to emphasize that this should not be a partisan issue. Despite
last night's vote, you would think we could all truly agree on
transparency. For example, our colleague Senator McCain has lamented
that without the reform of transparency, the Citizens United decision
could lead to a major campaign finance scandal. And, of course, that is
not healthy for our democracy.
The Supreme Court affirmed Congress's authority to require
disclosure, so let's do our job to protect democracy and bring sunlight
to our elections. Let's bring the DISCLOSE Act forward and pass it
right away.
I also know many Americans would like to see us overturn the effects
of Citizens United altogether, and there are efforts to do exactly
that. For example, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has introduced a
constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to regulate
political spending. I support that effort. I also support an effort to
change the way in which we fund the Presidential elections.
I have introduced legislation in the Presidential Funding Act that
will reform the currently outdated Presidential public finance system.
It is a bill that is aimed at preserving the voices of average
Americans.
In 1974 the Presidential public campaign finance system was developed
in an effort to restore public faith in elected officials after the
Watergate scandal, and it has been used in nearly every Presidential
election since. By establishing public financing, we allow candidates
to compete based on their ideas instead of competing on who has the
most support from special interests and deep-pocket donors.
In fact, my father, Congressman Morris Udall, who served in the House
representing the second district in Arizona for some 30 years, was
actually
[[Page S5057]]
one of the first to use the public financing system, which he had
helped craft 2 years prior when he ran for the Democratic nomination in
1976. My father was a big believer in running for office on behalf of
his constituents instead of on behalf of big money. I believe strongly
that ethos ought to apply to today's elected officials more than ever.
The public financing system funded candidates for 30 years and has
enriched the political discourse for the country by ensuring that the
American people have more say than connected insiders, special
interests, or wealthy donors. Unfortunately, the current system's
ability to keep up with the enormous spending required in Presidential
campaigns has rendered it less effective. Thanks to Citizens United,
public financing is no longer a viable option to compete against
unlimited special interest dollars.
My legislation would strengthen the public financing system and
incentivize candidates to obtain support from actual citizens, not
special interest super PACs or secret financiers. It would ensure that
our proven public financing system will be available for future
elections, and that corporate and special-interest money doesn't drown
out genuine ideas and debates in our Presidential elections.
For those of us who are committed to fixing our campaign finance
system in the wake of Citizens United, there is a lot of challenging
work ahead. I know Coloradans agree with me that reform could be the
single most important issue to fix the way our democracy functions. As
I have suggested, and as we know, unfortunately Federal elections are
increasingly about who can secretly appeal more to wealthy and special
interests instead of working to improve the lives of average and hard-
working Americans. This sows corruption, dysfunction, and a government
that is less responsive to the needs of the people.
Today we have an opportunity to start with a sensible requirement
that we should all be able to agree on. Disclosure is nothing to be
afraid of. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their vote and to allow
the Senate to at least debate the DISCLOSE Act. We cannot afford to let
another filibuster stand in the way of fair and open campaigns. Let's
pass the DISCLOSE Act and take a big step toward turning the power of
our government back over to the American people.
I note that the leader of this important effort, the DISCLOSE Act,
Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, is on the floor. I thank the
Senator for his leadership and his commitment to ensuring that it is
the American people who determine our future, not special interests,
super PACs, millionaires, billionaires, and financiers who leave no
track and no trace of where their money is going and where it is coming
from.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Colorado for his impassioned and eloquent support. I think we recognize
that through the course of our country's history, men and women have
shed their blood, have laid down their lives in order to protect this
experiment in liberty that is the ongoing gift of our country to the
rest of the world. When we take that experiment of liberty and turn it
over to the special interests, it is a grave occasion.
I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________