[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2426-S2429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Dark Money
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in his confirmation hearing last January,
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said there was evidence that climate
change had actually leveled off over the past two decades.
In response to Mr. Pruitt's comments, an atmospheric scientist in
California named Benjamin Santer pulled together some colleagues to
study satellite data from around the world. They found that Mr. Pruitt
was in fact wrong, and they prepared to publish their findings in
Nature Scientific Reports.
Then something pretty weird happened. A few of the scientists came
forward and said that they didn't want their names listed on the
research. They were worried about their ability to get a green card in
the United States. Mr. Santer told the New Yorker that this was the
first time in his life that he had seen his colleagues fear putting
their names on research because they were worried about the negative
consequences for themselves and their families.
In this country, scientists should not work in fear. They should not
worry about their work being politicized. But this is where we are, and
it is a moment that has been carefully planned by a small group of
people who do not want the United States to act on climate. Because of
these groups, the United States is home to the only major political
party that opposes climate action. Because of these groups, Scott
Pruitt--a man who denies that climate change is real and that it is
caused by humans--is running the Federal Agency charged with dealing
with climate change.
For too long, these groups have gone unchallenged, their web of
deceit untouched. So I am joining with my colleagues to shine a light
on these groups and how they have warped our ability to make good
choices.
The Heartland Institute was started in 1984, ostensibly by a group of
Libertarians. Each of their positions boils down to the idea that the
government has no role--not to work on ending tobacco use or to define
what health insurance should look like. But they are especially focused
on keeping the government from doing anything about climate change.
The Heartland Institute denies that climate change is happening, and
I disagree with them. Ninety-seven percent of all climate scientists
disagree with them. But they are not playing by the average think tank
rules because they are not your normal think tank. Over the years, the
Heartland Institute has gained a reputation for, as one website put it,
being a mouthpiece for the corporations who fund it, and their funders
are very, very hard to track because Heartland keeps its donations
secret. But we know that donors like the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and
the Mercers are some of Heartland's biggest funders, and these donors
just so happen to benefit from American inaction on climate.
If the government does what Heartland wants and stops protecting the
environment, these people will profit. It is almost as if the Heartland
Institute exists to promote the interests of its donors.
Last year, they mailed a package to hundreds of thousands of science
teachers. It had pamphlets, a DVD, and a book called ``Why Scientists
Disagree about Global Warming.'' The mass mailing was an effort to
disseminate fossil fuel industry talking points as curriculum for
science teachers. They tried to send it to every middle school, high
school, and college teacher in the country.
The institute has also done everything it can to defend Mr. Pruitt,
who is being investigated for a historic number of ethical lapses.
Heartland wrote a letter to the White House just recently that called
on the President to continue supporting Mr. Pruitt. The letter said the
10 ethical investigations into Mr. Pruitt amount to ``an orchestrated
political campaign by [the President's] enemies.''
Heartland also supports a new proposed EPA rule, and--get this one--
it is a new EPA rule that will restrict the use of scientific studies
in EPA decision making. It will restrict the use of science in EPA
decision making.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American
Chemical Society, the American Lung Association, and the National
Council for Science and the Environment are some of the 50 science
organizations and higher education institutions that have opposed the
new rule. But the Heartland Institute is for this rule.
I want to be really clear about this. This isn't about someone having
a conservative ideology or different view from mine about what our
energy future ought to be. There is no leftwing equivalent of the
institute that acts like this. Brookings, the Center for American
Progress, and other left-leaning think tanks all have dissent within
their ranks, and even on the right, AEI and many others have legitimate
academic discussions within the context of their political philosophy.
That is not what this is. These other think tanks do not ignore
scientific facts because they are real think tanks. But Heartland is
not a think tank in any true sense of the word. Their work is focused
not on promoting analysis based on science but on trashing analysis
based on science. If you don't know that, then you can easily think
they are legitimate.
For example, the Heartland Institute sends a monthly newsletter about
climate issues to every legislator in the country--State and Federal.
It is actually a pretty good-looking product. This is a copy of it. It
is actually really well done and well laid out in color, so it is not
immediately obvious that this isn't even analysis. It looks like a
publication from a scientific institution.
The people they quote or rely on for data are almost always from
industry-supported think tanks funded by the same people. This month,
they highlighted one of their own policy analysts who said that
Oklahoma should not subsidize wind power because the industry can't
survive without subsidies. They claim that wind energy is far less
reliable and far more expensive than the power derived from fossil
fuel. Who benefits from that analysis?
The fact is that wind energy is now the largest source of reliable
electricity-generating capacity in the United States. In Oklahoma alone
at least 30 percent of all power consumption comes from wind farms, and
subsidies for fossil fuels are 40 times those for clean energy.
Also in their April newsletter, Heartland claims that natural gas has
little effect on global temperatures. But recent evidence shows that
methane emissions from oil and gas are vastly undercounted.
The temperature data on the back cover of this newsletter is from a
climate denier at the University of Alabama whose data is considered
unreliable and biased by the vast majority of the scientific community.
This is not normal intellectual dissent within the scientific
community. This is not normal political dissent about what our energy
future should be. These people are propagating propaganda. This is not
the work of a legitimate think tank. A legitimate think tank does not
ignore facts and evidence. It does not publish data from a climate
denier who is known in the science community for publishing work loaded
with errors.
They are pushing us away from science and from doing the hard work of
protecting and preserving our country's clean air and water so that a
few of their donors can continue to make as much money as possible.
I was pleased with President Macron's speech today. There was so much
he reminded us that we had in common, not just between America and
France but between Democrats and Republicans. As he reminded us of our
great history together, as he reminded us of our cultural exchange, as
he reminded us of our military cooperation, he also reminded us that
our great democracies believe in science. We have to believe in
science. We have to believe in expertise. It is absolutely appropriate.
The Presiding Officer and I do not share the same political
philosophy, but we have to share the same set of facts. That is what is
so damaging about a so-called think tank like Heartland. They are not
like AEI; they are not like CAP; they are not like Brookings. They are
not like any other
[[Page S2427]]
think tank in Washington, DC, that on the level, from the standpoint of
their own political philosophy and their own objectives, tries to get
the right answer. That is an absolutely appropriate function for an
institution to serve in this city, but what these guys do is not that.
I think it is very important that we draw a distinction between those
who are relying upon facts and science, and those who are not. That is
why I wanted to point out what Heartland is all about.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is hard to find the words that will
truly reflect what an abomination the campaign finance system in
America has become. The fact is, the only people who seem happy with
the current state of campaign finance are billionaires who have phones
full of contact information of the most powerful people in the land.
Otherwise, if you are a typical American--putting in a hard day's work,
supporting your family--you probably have the sense the campaign
finance laws are rigged for the big and the powerful.
There was an era when running for office was as simple as putting
your name out for the public, getting a few local civic groups in your
corner, and bringing in a few modest donations to get your campaign off
the ground. Certainly, it is not that way anymore. It has now been well
chronicled how a wave of money--particularly from a few secretive
powerful individuals like the Koch brothers--has flooded American
politics in the last few decades. That has grown exponentially in the
years since the Citizens United decision. The fact is, there has been a
tidal wave of dark money buying influence across America's political
system.
This isn't just about too many political ads on television and radio.
Voters know that unless they unplug entirely and settle for a life out
in the woods, they are going to see a lot of ads. Even beyond ads in
the election season, there is this deluge of money buying the support
of beltway think tanks, currying favor among lobbyists, funding so-
called social welfare organizations that, frankly, aren't doing a whole
lot of social welfare.
The bottom line is, for those like the Koch brothers, having deep
pockets means you can buy the right to grab hold of the levers of power
of the American Government. You can create a whole lot of noise that
virtually drowns out the constituents back home.
I am heading home tomorrow. I have about nine townhall meetings
scheduled in rural communities. They are always amazed that we are
having those kinds of discussions--my colleague Senator Merkley does
them as well--because it seems that in most of the country, everything
that resembles the government we know so well, direct contact, open to
all town meetings, is getting drowned out by a deluge of dollars that
creates all of this noise--fake noise, to use the language of the
times--that drives out real discussion about substantive issues.
I am going to talk about an example, one that has certainly generated
some real concern over the last few months. If you want to see what is
wrong with the election system, in my view, you don't have to look much
further than some of the letters I have exchanged recently with the
National Rifle Association. A few months ago, there were news reports
of a potential financial relationship between a Russian oligarch close
to Vladimir Putin and the NRA. The big question was whether the Russian
money had been funneled into the NRA to assist the Trump campaign and
influence the outcome of the election. In my view, I would say that is
a question that most right-minded Americans would like to have
answered.
I am the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, where we
have jurisdiction over the Federal Tax Code. That includes the rules
that pertain to political groups and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations
like the ones that are maintained by the NRA. I began in a series of
letters that were sent to the organization, sent to the NRA, to ask
questions about their foreign funding. The series of shifting answers I
got in return from the NRA was enough to give you whiplash. First, when
we inquired--because we had seen all of these news reports--they said:
``Nothing to see here.''
Then, as we followed up and found that a little hard to square with
these public news reports, they said: ``Well . . . we get foreign
funding, but just from that ONE Russian, and that's it.''
Then, we heard another version of what was going on at the NRA. They
said it was a couple of dozen Russians giving money to the NRA. We
continued to follow up, and they told the press and they told me: Hey,
we are done with the Congress. We are not interested in answering any
more questions. We are busy. We have other things to do.
That pretty much sums up the problem we have heard described on the
floor this week with the campaign finance system. The information
Americans have access to in campaign finance reports is just the tip of
the iceberg, just the beginning of unpacking this whole question of
where the money comes from in our political system. Everything under
the waterline is where it gets seedy, but powerful interests have
managed to figure out how to keep their handiwork hidden. The powerful
use shell companies to mask the identities of who is funding campaigns
and so-called independent expenditures. Even simple questions asked of
these powerful groups influencing campaigns--questions like, ``Do you
get money from overseas,'' the Congress and the American people cannot
get a straight answer.
There are Members who want to see real changes made to bring some
sunlight into this system. They see how important this is, giving the
onslaught of attacks on the campaign finance laws that are coming from
the Supreme Court. These attacks are one major reason why I have
cosponsored legislation to create a constitutional amendment allowing
Congress and the States to regulate and restore faith in our campaign
finance system.
With respect to this approach, I didn't arrive at this judgment
casually. Constitutional amendments, in my view, ought to be reserved
for those situations when the delicate balance set up by the Founding
Fathers has been upset or, in this case, jurisprudence that governs the
system has also changed. That is the situation and the challenge our
country faces today.
I know several Members of this body have put policy ideas forward.
Many of them, in my view, have real merit. Virtually all of them, in my
view, would be an improvement on this rotten abomination of a campaign
finance system that exists today. Virtually every day folks back home
get inundated with the smarmy political ads sponsored by groups that
have these names that are just nonsense--names like the ``American
Association for American Values in America.'' There is one after
another. I will hear about what citizens think about this during those
nine townhall meetings that I am going to be having over the next few
days at home. Citizens often say it is really good to have our elected
officials do this. Sometimes they would kid me that we have more cows
than we have voters.
Still, we are here to have this conversation because that is what I
think the American political system ought to be about--direct
communication, an ongoing discussion with voters, our actually being
there, having the people we have the honor to represent be able to look
us in the eye, to ask questions, and say: We want to hear your thoughts
because we believe that is how we can hold you accountable. The flip
side of that judgment is that they don't think they can do it with the
campaign finance system I have described today.
All of this is fed by these reports about lawmakers who march up to
Koch Industries in order to plead for support for one proposal or
another. When people read these articles, they say that it sure feels
like that is what the political system has become all about. It is why
I have done even more open-to-all town meetings. It is one way that I
can show, at least on our watch, that that is what we are doing to
counter the fact that a handful of
[[Page S2428]]
the most powerful, like the Koch family, can generate a
disproportionally loud voice in our system of government.
The fact is the campaign finance system is broken, and it is long
past the time to have fixed it. I have appreciated my colleagues'
coming to the floor this week to speak out on it.
I believe, as has been written, that this series of letters that I
have exchanged with the NRA, just over the last few months, is a
textbook case of how broken the campaign finance system is--what
happens when powerful organizations and individuals like the Koch
family can have a disproportionally large voice in the political
system.
I think the Senate ought to get about the business of fixing this
system and ending the current way in which political campaigns are
financed, which, as I said when I began my remarks, is such an
abomination that it doesn't pass the smell test.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment in world
history, filled with innumerable dangers and challenges. Russia is
causing enormous trouble attacking the foundation of democracies around
the world, interfering in our elections, developing new tools to move
public opinion in countries other than its own while hiding behind
robotic social commentaries. We have a nuclear-armed North Korea
seeking legitimacy and recognition and critical talks about to occur
over the effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Syria is not just
in the grip of a civil war, it is in the grip of a fractured chaotic
state as a result of the destruction of cities and towns throughout the
nation, leaving them as destroyed shells of buildings with
infrastructure completely decimated. We have a humanitarian crisis in
Burma and Bangladesh with massive ethnic cleansing. We have four
famines unfolding in Africa, with 20 million people at risk of
starvation. In every place you look, there are more of these challenges
related to corruption of foreign governments, to climate chaos, to
civil conflict.
We need a Secretary of State who can help navigate our country in
these difficult times. We need to be able to work with neighbors around
the world, with allies around the world, exercising diplomacy in
partnership with the strength of the United States.
I come to the floor to share that I have grave doubts that Mike
Pompeo does not bring the right skills to this job. I am concerned
about his choice of military action over diplomacy in a position that
is supposed to bring the art of diplomacy to its full execution. I am
concerned about his statements of disrespect and dishonor to the
fundamental nature of our Constitution under the first article that
calls for Congress to be able to open the door to the exercise of
military power, not the President. I am concerned about his deep-rooted
conflicts of interest that may prevent him from tackling one of the
gravest threats to humans on this planet; namely, climate change. So I
will be voting against his nomination and felt it only appropriate to
share more of my concerns.
Let's start with the issue of diplomacy. The United States led the
world in working to stop the Iranian nuclear program, working with the
P5+1 group of states and with Iran to say that such a program of
developing the basic elements necessary for nuclear weapons was
absolutely unacceptable and bringing to bear such international
pressure that Iran said: We will agree to that. We will agree to that.
We will dismantle our nuclear powerplant--our plutonium plant. We will
fill it with concrete. We will proceed to eliminate the stockpile of
uranium enriched up to 20 percent. They agreed to cut the stockpile of
low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, to profoundly reduce its gas
centrifuges, shutting down two-thirds of them. On top of that, Iran
agreed to the most aggressive and furthest reaching inspections that
the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever had in any agreement,
giving us profound insights into the operation of their nuclear program
or, to put it differently, profound insights into the operation of
their program and the dismantlement of their program.
Yet Director Pompeo has condemned this effort in diplomacy to stop
the uranium program. He has told me it was unneeded because Iran wasn't
pursuing a nuclear weapon. Well, quite interesting, but Iran was
pursuing, clearly developing, all the elements necessary to have a
nuclear weapon, and that represented a significant threat to the United
States of America, and this agreement stops that threat in its tracks.
So he condemned it, not just saying it wasn't necessary but that it
showed negotiations occurred ``where we should have shown strength,''
and he said the United States ``bowed when we should have stood tall.''
What did he mean by that? He meant we didn't need an agreement in
order to stop the Iranian nuclear program because we had something
else. We had the sword that we could stop their nuclear program with,
as he put it, ``2,000 sorties''--``2,000 sorties,'' he said, ``to
destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity . . . is not an insurmountable
task for [United States] coalition forces.''
Simply carrying the sword and saying we could stop other nations from
doing things by bombing them is not the expertise we need in a
Secretary of State.
Then there is Mr. Pompeo's attacks on the Muslim community--falsely
claiming that Islamic leaders in America were silent in the face of
terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing. It was not true,
but he chose to attack Muslim Americans--single them out for assault.
He said they were ``complicit'' and failed in the ``commitment to
peace,'' not even bothering to get the facts in advance.
Then there is his longstanding opposition to equal rights for LGBTQ
Americans. Much of what we try to do around the world is to lay out a
vision of opportunity for all, and we should quit slamming doors in the
faces of individuals around the globe who are pursuing personal
happiness, opportunity, and success just as we try to end the door-
slamming here at home--the discrimination, the prejudice, the hatred,
the bigotry, but Mr. Pompeo engaged in calling the end of
discrimination a ``shocking abuse of power'' when the Supreme Court
ruled in Obergefell. Not only that, but when he went to the CIA and the
mother of Matthew Shepard was scheduled to give a speech on hate
crimes, he canceled, at the last second, her speech. He did not want
the mother of a victim of hate crimes to talk about the crime against
an LGBT American strapped to a wire fence and left to die. Shouldn't
that be exactly the sort of speech that should be given about our
respect for all Americans and about how much we stand against hate
crimes?
So that is very disturbing, when you go into a world where respect
for people of every religion, from every part of the world, is part of
the negotiating power and strength of America. If you disrespect
people, they do not join us in partnership to solve problems. So those
are my concerns on the diplomacy side.
I am also concerned that he expressed a complete lack of interest in
the constitutional power invested in article I, which is the article
for Congress to declare war. He indicated that the President had
unlimited power in article II, which is the ability to conduct a war
after Congress has authorized it, but he seemed to completely overlook
that first step of congressional authorization.
We have tried to encapsulate that congressional authorization in the
War Powers Act, making it clear that the President cannot take us to
war without a declaration of war or, second, without explicit
authorization through something like an authorization for the use of
military force or without a direct emergency involving an imminent
attack on the United States, our assets, or our forces. It is the War
Powers Act that embodies the heart of the Constitution about the
conduct, the ability, and the limitations on the President to start a
war. It is given to Congress to decide whether or not we can go to war,
and Mr. Pompeo does not agree with that important, important
congressional factor. I don't
[[Page S2429]]
know, quite frankly, how one can take the oath of office and not
respect the Constitution as it delivers that power to this body, not to
the President.
My third concern goes to the conflict of interest that he brought
into consideration for this position. Specifically, it is the conflict
of interest that he carries into his career through his very, very
close association with the Koch brothers. He has been given the
nickname ``the Congressman from Koch.'' The headquarters of Koch
Industries is located in his district. The Koch brothers gave him the
money to start his business. The Koch brothers were the biggest donors
to his campaign. His entire career is carefully intertwined with the
Koch brothers and advocating for whatever they wanted him to advocate
for.
What we see is that the Koch brothers are advocating against our
working with other nations to take on the challenge of climate chaos.
Now, Mother Nature sent us a big, rude awakening this last year with
three powerful hurricanes tearing apart parts of our country and with
forest fires stretching from Montana across to the Pacific Ocean and
down the Pacific coast, deep into California, because of the carbon
pollution that is warming the seas and changing the weather patterns
and drying out our forests.
We suffer that, but we see so much more. We see the moose dying. We
see the lobsters migrating. We see the oysters unable to have babies. A
billion of them died back about the time I took office here in the
Senate because of the acidification of the ocean, coming from carbon
pollution.
The whole world is coming together to try to take on this problem,
but Mr. Pompeo is uninterested in this major threat facing humanity. He
supports our disengaging from the international community and taking
this on. He is fine letting China take the lead and producing the
economic results of taking the lead instead of the United States taking
the lead and being engaged in these partnerships. So, colleagues, those
are my concerns.
We need an individual dedicated to the power of diplomacy, not
someone who reaches first for the sword. We need an individual who
respects different religions and respects the opportunity in the United
States that we carry to the world as a beacon of freedom, not one who
disrespects it. Third, we need an individual whose career is not tied
to a single industry and whose outlook is to continue to protect that
industry, even in taking this job.
So for those reasons, this nomination should be turned down.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from North Carolina.
____________________