[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4941-S4950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS ACT 
                            OF 2022--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 4822, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 4822, a bill to amend the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional 
     disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
     organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other 
     purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. When five conservative Justices handed down their 
opinion in Citizens United 12 years ago, the dissenters warned:

       The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of 
     elected institutions across the Nation.

  Sadly, they turned out to be right. By giving massive corporations 
the same rights as individual citizens--multibillionaires being able to 
have their voices shouted out, drowning out the views of citizens--and 
by casting aside decades of campaign finance law and by paving the way 
for powerful elites to anonymously pump endless cash into elections, 
Citizens United has disfigured our democracy almost beyond recognition.
  Today, the Senate will vote to begin curing our Nation of this cancer 
when we take the first procedural vote on the DISCLOSE Act. Democrats 
are ready to move forward. Republicans today must face the music: 
either vote to bring transparency and fairness back to our elections--
as the vast majority of Americans want--or block this measure and cast 
their lot with the forces of dark money.

  So today is a very important day that would not be possible without 
the work of my friend and colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Senator Whitehouse. More than anyone in this Chamber, Senator 
Whitehouse has labored relentlessly to shine a light on the link 
between dark money and so many of the ills that plague our politics, 
from the radicalization of our courts to the rise of climate deniers 
and more.
  I thank him for his work. Our entire caucus does. We stand with him, 
strongly, fervently, in supporting this bill. The need for the DISCLOSE 
Act is great. The past decade has been the most expensive in the 
history of American elections. Billions have been raised and spent in 
super PAC and dark money. Because of Citizens United, a person's 
ability to affect the democratic process has largely become a function 
of their net worth in gross violation--gross violation--of what the 
Framers intended when they believed in one person, one vote.
  The DISCLOSE Act will remedy these ills with a very simple notion

[[Page S4942]]

that sunlight is the greatest of disinfectants. It will require super 
PACs and other dark money groups to support anyone contributing $10,000 
or more during an election cycle.
  The same goes for any group spending money in support or in 
opposition to judicial nominees. In other words, it would apply 
familiar forms of transparency that traditional campaigns and 
candidates already face when accepting political contributions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes--all of us should vote yes; every 
single one of us should vote yes--because so many of the ills in our 
democracy are rooted in the primacy of dark money. We must rid 
ourselves of this foulness before it is too late, and our democracy 
could well become beyond saving.
  Over the past few days, the Republican leader has come to the floor 
and repeated the same timeworn, misleading arguments he has used for 
years when trying to discredit campaign finance reform. I mean, part of 
his arguments just get to the point of absurdity. Without a shred of 
irony, the Republican leader, for instance, has claimed that the 
DISCLOSE Act is equivalent to threatening the privacy of individuals 
who want to make political contributions.
  I would ask the Republican leader: What about the privacy of tens of 
millions of women across the country? Those rights are now gone because 
radical Justices were put on the Court because of dark money in the 
first place.
  Does the Republican leader really think the supposed privacy of the 
billionaire donor class trumps the rights of women who have suffered 
the consequences of dark money spending?
  He would also have us think that transparency requirements would add 
a burden to average Americans who want nothing more than to simply 
exercise their political opinions.
  That is bunkum. Those with the power to cut $10,000 or million-dollar 
checks can tilt the tide of an entire election with a single donation. 
These are individuals with outsized influence that average Americans 
simply don't have.
  And when the Supreme Court extended the First Amendment to absurd 
lengths in Citizens United, they went way beyond what the Founding 
Fathers would have intended and what most Americans--the vast 
overwhelming majority of Americans--believe.
  At a bare minimum, the public has a right to know--simply to know--
who is behind these massive donations because at the end of the day, it 
is their rights that are on the line.
  And all of these arguments are really just done to obscure the issue. 
I mean, it is hard to believe. It is hard to believe that people will 
be--multibillionaires will be intimidated if they have to disclose 
their attempts to influence elections. It is just incredible that 
someone could argue that.
  But all these arguments are made for one purpose by the Republican 
leader and others, in my judgment, and that is to obscure what is 
really at issue: The Republican Party for years has been built on a 
foundation of dark money.
  It is how they have hijacked our courts. It is how they have promoted 
groups that push for voter suppression. It is how they have killed 
climate policies for years before Democrats finally pushed through our 
climate investments earlier this year.
  In a healthy democracy, American voters alone should have the power 
to determine the Nation's leaders without fear that their voices will 
be drowned out by powerful elites or special interests. Whether you are 
rich or poor, young or old, well connected or otherwise, it shouldn't 
matter. We should all be equal in our exercise of the franchise. That 
doesn't happen now. We all know that. The American people know it. Over 
80 percent despise dark money.
  The DISCLOSE Act will help us restore that norm back into our 
politics by instilling transparency that we desperately need. Americans 
are tired of the corrosive power of dark money in our politics. They 
know something has been deeply amiss for a long time and that we need 
reforms to bring democracy back into balance.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I urge my Republican 
colleagues to work with us to break the stranglehold that dark money 
has in our elections. This bill would be a very important and much 
needed start.
  Democracy can't prosper without transparency. I strongly support 
passing this legislation so we can safeguard our electoral process and 
keep the dream of our Founders alive in this century.


                               GOP Agenda

  Madam President, now on another issue, tomorrow, a cohort of House 
Republicans will travel to western Pennsylvania to roll out what they 
claim is their GOP agenda.
  I want to skip right to the punch line. The GOP has made its agenda 
perfectly clear for months: a nationwide ban on abortion, Medicare and 
Social Security on the chopping block, raising taxes on working 
families.
  While Democrats continue to fight to defend a woman's right to 
choose, a central feature of the Republican agenda is eliminating 
abortions once and for all. Many of them will deny it, but, not 2 weeks 
ago, the Senator from South Carolina introduced a nationwide abortion 
ban here in the Senate. And the American people should not forget that 
nearly every Senate Republican is on record as sponsoring and voting 
for nationwide abortion bans.
  So if Americans want to know what the GOP agenda is, look no further.
  Also, while Democrats passed legislation to lower prescription drug 
costs and extend affordable healthcare, every single Republican voted 
against legislation that would lower insulin costs for seniors on 
Medicare and have openly called for putting Medicare and Social 
Security on the chopping block.
  They seem to think tax cuts for the rich is good policy, but argue 
that Medicare and Social Security should no longer be guaranteed.
  And let's not forget, when they had the House, the Senate, and the 
Presidency, their major, major accomplishment was cutting taxes on the 
rich--cutting taxes on the rich. Is that what the American people want? 
Well, if you do, elect these Republicans.
  Finally, while Democrats want to keep taxes down for the middle class 
and working families and we want to help Americans save on their 
electric bills and healthcare, the Senator from Florida, who chairs the 
Republican Senate campaign arm, has already released a GOP agenda that 
calls for raising taxes on working people.
  It is amazing that the election is around the corner, and Republicans 
are still struggling to show a united front that appeals to the 
American people. Their fundamental problem is that the GOP is now the 
party of MAGA extremism, and there aren't enough press conferences in 
the world to change that fact.


                       Treaty Document No. 117-1

  Madam President, finally, on Kigali, yesterday was truly a high point 
for the U.S. Senate. After years of bipartisan work, the Chamber 
ratified one of the most significant pro-climate, pro-job measures that 
has ever come to the floor, the Kigali Amendment.
  I thank the Senators from Delaware and New Jersey and Senators from 
so many other States who worked so hard to make this happen.
  Ratifying the Kigali Amendment, along with passing the Inflation 
Reduction Act, is the strongest one-two punch against climate change 
any Congress has ever taken. Thanks to our commitment to phase out 
HFCs, we will put ourselves in a position to lower global temperatures 
by half a degree Celsius by the end of the decade. So many people have 
overlooked this, but it is truly a significant milestone. Half a degree 
will have an enormous--an enormous--impact on the global scale.
  And the Kigali Amendment will also help American businesses secure an 
edge against China in the emerging industry of next-generation 
refrigerants. This market will see most of its growth outside the 
United States, and Kigali will make sure that U.S. businesses will be 
able to take advantage of new opportunities that will yield billions in 
investments and, best of all, will create tens of thousands of good-
paying jobs along the way.
  So, once again, ratifying Kigali is a win-win-win--a win for U.S. 
jobs, a win for U.S. investment, and a win for U.S. leadership to 
protect the planet.
  I thank my colleagues for their excellent work in pushing Kigali 
finally over the finish line.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4943]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Republican leader is recognized.


         Remembering U.S. Capitol Police Officer William Thomas

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, first this morning, I was deeply 
saddened to learn we lost a dedicated and long-serving member of the 
Senate family this week.
  Officer William Thomas of the United States Capitol Police passed 
away after a battle with cancer. He was only 38 years young.
  Officer Thomas joined the force nearly 14 years ago. He quickly 
became a familiar face to many of the Senators and staff serving on 
this side of the Capitol. By all accounts, his dedication, his 
professionalism, and his service in the Senate Division and most 
recently in the Communications Division were a credit to the entire 
Department and to our institution.
  The loss of Officer Thomas leaves a hole in the close-knit community 
of brave men and women who keep us safe here at the Capitol.
  The entire Senate joins Officer Thomas's brother Vincent, as well as 
his brothers and sisters here in uniform, in mourning this tragic loss.


                               Inflation

  Madam President, now on an entirely different matter, the painful 
story of Washington Democrats' runaway inflation is playing out in 
hard-working communities all across our country. We learned last week 
that food inflation is now at its highest level since 1979.
  For folks in the Phoenix metro area, where inflation already outpaces 
the national average, that has meant a       3-percent inflation tax on 
food in just the last 2 months. According to one Arizona shopper:

       It's all almost $300. I used to get the same groceries like 
     around $150 before.

  Across the border in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported 
recently how local coffee shops are caught between eating higher costs 
for supplies and chasing their customers away with higher prices. The 
owner of one shop says that as everything from coffee beans to cups 
gets more expensive, they have had to raise prices by about 10 percent:

       We've done our best not to pass this on to our customers, 
     because we do understand that we are all in the same boat 
     together.

  The Colorado Sun spoke with one new resident of Westminster who said 
he had moved to town to ``lower the impact of an 18-percent rent 
increase.'' He has cut back on cable, driving, and buying meat at the 
grocery store.
  In Washington State, the Seattle Times is reporting that 4 in 10 area 
renters are now spending more than 30 percent of their paychecks on 
rent. When one resident learned her rent would be increasing by nearly 
10 percent, she said:

       I just wanted to cry. I'm barely making it. I'm just a 
     senior citizen.

  In Georgia, the Augusta Press reports that local small businesses are 
still facing a rocky road. According to the owner of one power-washing 
business in Evans: ``Materials are getting more expensive,'' and 
potential clients are ``more hesitant to get any work done right now.''
  And further north, with winter cold fast approaching, one resident of 
Manchester, NH, told the local news that heating oil subsidies were 
appreciated, but ``I feel like it's a Band-Aid after they've stabbed 
you.''
  So these are the real-world consequences--real-world consequences--of 
Washington Democrats' inflation. Every corner of every State is writing 
its own painful story. But the ones I just mentioned have something 
unfortunate in common. Every resident of Arizona, Washington, Nevada, 
New Hampshire, Colorado, and Georgia is represented by two Senators 
each who cast the deciding vote to set this inflation in motion. If 
just one single Senator--just one--from Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, New 
Hampshire, or Washington had refused to give their vote to President 
Biden's reckless spending, the working families and small business 
owners of these States would not be dealing with this much inflation, 
period. But every one of those States' Senators cast tie-breaking votes 
to bring on the worst inflation in four decades, and now every American 
is paying the price.


                              DISCLOSE Act

  Madam President, now on one final matter, Democrats' reckless 
policies have stuck the American people with an inflation crisis, a 
border crisis, a violent crime crisis, and an energy crisis.
  Today, this Democrat Senate majority is spending time on legislation 
that tackles none of these things. They aren't addressing any of the 
problems that keep moms and dads up at night. They aren't tackling any 
of the issues that are leaving small business owners unable to pay 
their bills or unsafe in inner-city locations, or both. They aren't 
spending 10 seconds of the Senate's time exploring the disconnect 
between Vice President Harris who says ``we have a secure border'' and 
the illegal immigrant who told a reporter last week:

       Everybody believes the border is open . . . we see it on 
     the news that everybody comes in illegally, so we do the 
     same.

  So, the Democrats don't want to spend time on the people's business 
today. They would rather spend time on their business--something we 
have seen time and time again over the last 2 years.
  Today's liberal pet priority is a piece of legislation designed to 
give unelected Federal bureaucrats vastly more power over private 
citizens' First Amendment rights and political activism and to strip 
privacy away from Americans who speak out about politics in their 
private lives.
  More power for Washington, DC, censors; less privacy for private 
citizens; and throw some ice on the First Amendment. That is what our 
colleagues across the aisle have made their top priority for the day.
  So I have to state, it is a novel response to flagging poll numbers 
and public outcry. Instead of trying to clean up the border mess, the 
crime mess, or the inflation mess, my Democratic colleagues decided it 
would be easier just to erode the American people's right to complain 
about it in the first place.
  The legislation I am speaking about itself is an insult to the First 
Amendment, and the notion that it gets Senate floor time today above 
everything else is truly an insult to the working people of this 
country.
  So I would urge my colleagues on both sides to stand with the 
Constitution, stand with our citizens who deserve better, and vote no.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                              DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Does the name ``Barre Seid'' ring a bell? Barre Seid, of 
Chicago, a businessman--a successful businessman. He was born in 1932, 
and he owned a company called Tripp Lite that made electronic products.
  He was very successful in the course of his life, but he decided to 
donate the value of this company to something known as the Marble 
Freedom Trust. Does that ring a bell? Barre Seid, Marble Freedom Trust?
  The reason I bring this up on the floor of the United States Senate 
is, Mr. Seid, with this gift of $1.6 billion to Marble Freedom Trust is 
setting out to change America.
  Wait a minute. A 90-year-old individual, who has been charitable in 
many ways, gives money away and it changes America? Yes. I stand by my 
comment, because the Marble Freedom Trust is now becoming the largest 
dark money--secret money--contributor to American political campaigns 
in the history of the United States. And if you think I am 
overreacting, the go-to leader of the Marble Freedom Trust is a man 
named Leonard Leo.
  I am sure none of these names register with most Americans--Barre 
Seid of Chicago, Marble Freedom Trust, Leonard Leo. What does this have 
to do with what my family is worried about? Well, let me get to the 
bottom line because the leader from the Republican side just alluded to 
it.
  This $1.6 billion is going to be invested in political campaigns on 
the right for conservative Republican candidates, period.
  Leonard Leo has a pedigree and well-known background of involvement 
in politics in Washington, and he has been very successful.

[[Page S4944]]

  I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, currently chairman; 
but over the years I have watched, over the Trump years, every judicial 
nominee approved by the Republicans had to pass one litmus test: They 
had to be cleared by the Federalist Society. Now, that is another name 
which the average American family won't recognize, but let me tell you 
what the Federalist Society is. The Federalist Society is a 
clearinghouse for lawyers who want to be judges. You have got to join 
it. You have got to pay your dues. You have got to show up. Most 
importantly, you have to pass the checklist of required positions on 
issues before you can become a judge on the Republican side.

  That happened over and over and over again in the hearings we had for 
nominees for lifetime appointments to the Federal court during the 
Trump administration.
  I would ask these lawyers sitting before us, when you could question 
them: Tell me about the Federalist Society.
  Oh, we just got together for lunch once in a while. It is not that 
big a deal.
  But what a coincidence that every nominee had to be approved by the 
Federalist Society, and it didn't end there. When former President 
Trump put out his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, which 
included the three whom he ended up choosing, all of them were provided 
by the Federalist Society--the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo.
  Sadly, they got the job done. Senator McConnell was complicit in 
that. When there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court with the untimely 
death of Antonin Scalia, it was Senator McConnell and Senate 
Republicans who blocked President Obama in his last year in office from 
filling that vacancy. In fact, they refused--they said to their 
Members: Don't even meet with the man.
  Here is Merrick Garland, a respected jurist on the DC Circuit, 
nominated to the highest Court in the land, can't even get an 
appointment with a Republican Senator to plead his case that he would 
be a good nominee. And the reason? Senator McConnell was bound and 
determined to make sure that a Federalist Society nominee eventually 
made it to the Court, and he got his way.
  So now we have Leonard Leo in a new role. God only knows how much 
they are paying him. But this man is now set up on a new political 
agenda. It is the largest dark money, secret money effort in the 
history of the United States. How did we learn about Barre Seid giving 
$1.6 billion to this Marble Freedom Trust? Someone leaked it to the 
newspapers. Otherwise, it would have gone unnoticed because this is, in 
fact, the world of dark and secret money.
  Senator McConnell made a passing reference to the fact that we are 
about to vote on something called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act--
and I want to salute Senator Whitehouse, who is not on the floor at the 
moment. The DISCLOSE Act is really pretty basic. We are going to vote 
today on this provision which would be added to our campaign law--
protecting American democracy from foreign interference and requiring 
super PACs and special interest groups to disclose anyone contributing 
$10,000 or more to their cause. That is it. We don't prohibit the 
actual contribution; we just require disclosure. Where is it coming 
from?
  The reason we ask for this is that you go State by State with the 
heated campaigns of the day, and you will find all sorts of ads online 
and on television, and you have to race to the TV set to get close 
enough to read the small print at the end of the ad that explains who 
pays for it. If you knew who really paid for it, it would explain a lot 
of things to you.
  I have been, for example, at war with the major credit card 
companies, Visa and MasterCard. They have a duopoly. And I believe they 
overcharge consumers across America, and they are a contributor to 
inflation. In fact, they admit that much. So, as a result, I passed an 
amendment 8 or 10 years ago which they have branded the ``Durbin 
amendment'' which limits debit card swipe fees, interchange fees--I get 
into the world of finance here--and they hate it.
  Visa and MasterCard hated my amendment like the Devil hates holy 
water. Why? Because it costs them $8 billion a year. It reduces the 
add-on charges that retailers--restaurants and shops--have to charge 
when people use a Visa and MasterCard. So, every once in a while, they 
work up the courage to come at me again and try to undo this amendment, 
and they buy television ads. Do the television ads say that they are 
paid for by Visa and MasterCard? No. They say they are paid for by the 
Committee for a Better America or something.

  What we are trying to do with the DISCLOSE Act is give to the voters 
of this country more information and, in so doing, protect the whole 
process from corruption by foreign money being spent or by individuals 
like Mr. Seid, who puts $1.6 billion into the treasury of the 
Republican side.
  Now, if they came to the floor to debate this--and I don't think they 
will--they are likely to say: Well, you do the same thing. You use dark 
money and such.
  It is true that the campaign system is set up for organizations not 
to disclose, but we are authoring the solution to the problem for both 
political parties. We are standing by a reform and a change--Senator 
Whitehouse has led the way--that would literally say to America: You 
have the right to know. Who is paying for this candidate's ads? Who is 
putting all those ads on TV? What special interest group is behind this 
cause?
  Now, Senator McConnell says we should be dealing with serious issues. 
There is no more serious issue than the integrity of our campaign 
process. And I know, as a person who has been a candidate over many 
years, that it has changed dramatically. I can remember not that long 
ago when the first super PAC effort on the Democratic Senate side 
raised something in the range of $4 million to $10 million. Well, I can 
tell you that has been increasing by multiples every year, and on the 
other side, it is the same story.
  Do we need to sit down both political parties and put an end to this 
madness? Do we need to tell Mr. Seid and his family: Take your $1.6 
billion and spend it for something that is really wholesome and of 
value to your community and your Nation, rather than to get into the 
hunt to be the biggest spender.
  Mr. Seid became the biggest spender of campaign funds in the history 
of the United States with his $1.6 billion contribution to Leonard Leo, 
the Marble Trust, and the Republican cause. That is a fact. I think we 
ought to change it. This system we have in America is one we need to 
protect and not exploit.
  When the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United decided that money was 
speech and that corporations had a right to speak, it really corrupted 
the system in ways unimaginable. We are living with the results today. 
Citizens United was a terrible decision. Search the Constitution all 
day and night for the word ``corporations,'' and you won't even find 
it. This is no constitutional protection. And the idea that if you are 
rich, you can speak more loudly and more often in America is a 
corruption of the basic rights we all should protect and enjoy.
  So I am going to vote in favor of the DISCLOSE Act. I don't think it 
is as insignificant as the Senator from Kentucky does. I think it gets 
to the heart of the issue about the future of our democracy.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this Senate is facing an important 
deadline. Eight days from today, September 30, is the end of the fiscal 
year. That leaves us just a handful of legislative days to pass a 
continuing resolution that will keep the government operating while 
Congress negotiates a Federal budget for the next fiscal year.
  It is critical that we come to agreement as quickly as possible on a 
responsible Federal budget for next year. While we continue our 
negotiations, it is also critical that we not lose momentum on two 
life-and-death battles in which we are now seeing hard-won progress.
  I am speaking about our efforts to finally end the COVID pandemic--as 
well as our Nation's efforts to help Ukraine repel Russia's immoral and 
illegal war on that small democracy.
  Finally, we can help our fellow Americans who are suffering in the 
wake of a catastrophic Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico, recent 
devastating floods in Kentucky, and other natural disasters.

[[Page S4945]]

  Because, when disasters overwhelm the ability of communities and even 
States to respond, we don't abandon our fellow citizens to suffer 
alone. We reach out our hand to help.
  I want to take a few minutes to speak about each of these priorities 
that must be included in the continuing resolution. In recent weeks, 
the world has seen a stunning contrast in courage, leadership, and 
decency play out on the world stage. In Ukraine, we have witnessed the 
Ukrainian military retake thousands of square miles of territory in the 
Kharkiv region in a lightning counteroffensive against the Soviet 
occupiers. We have seen weeping men and women able to return to their 
communities. Others have come out of their homes and basements for the 
first times in months, overwhelmed with emotion at what they hope is 
the end of their nightmare. Still other Ukrainians are beginning the 
heartbreaking work of exhuming bodies from discovered mass graves and 
documenting Russian war crimes and atrocities.
  This is Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week in the 
newly liberated city of Izyum. President Zelenskyy is singing the 
Ukrainian national anthem during a Ukrainian flag-raising ceremony with 
members of the country's armed forces who drove out the Russian 
occupiers. He resolutely proclaimed, that while Russia may still occupy 
parts of Ukraine, for now ``[i]t is definitely impossible to occupy our 
people, the Ukrainian people.''
  And what was happening in Moscow as Ukrainian communities were being 
liberated--and neglected and demoralized Russian troops were fleeing in 
haste? Vladimir Putin, who has never visited the Russian soldiers he so 
cynically uses for his disastrous war in Ukraine, was opening a giant 
Ferris wheel at an amusement park, trying to give a facade of normalcy. 
Putin is terrified that the Russian people will learn the truth about 
his failed and grotesque war--a war fueled by lies, war crimes, and 
Putin's warped nostalgia for a Soviet dystopia. Why else would he 
censor the news and jail anyone who criticizes the war? Why else would 
he imprison brave Russian patriots such as Alexei Navalny and Vladimir 
Kara-Murza who respect the Russian people by speaking the truth and 
offering real debate? Just 1 day after Putin opened the Ferris wheel in 
Moscow, the ride broke down, leaving some people dangling high off the 
ground. It was a pathetic and apt metaphor for Putin's disastrous war 
against Ukraine. Putin vowed that Russia would take Ukraine in days, 
maybe in hours. That was nearly 7 months ago. Today, Russia is losing 
its war against Ukraine.
  From the earliest days of this war, when Ukrainian forces repelled 
Russian forces trying to seize Kiev and set up a puppet government, 
U.S. and allied support has been critical to Ukraine's military 
success. The successful counteroffensive we are seeing today is due, 
first and foremost, to the heroism of President Zelenskyy and the 
Ukrainian people. But it's also a reflection of President Biden's 
foresight and leadership in rallying our allies and providing timely 
and formidable assistance to Ukraine.
  Yet we cannot assume that Ukraine's victory is inevitable. A wounded 
beast is dangerous. Russia still occupies large swathes of Ukraine and 
is threatening to unleash even more powerful weapons in a desperate 
attempt to avoid complete defeat. In fact, over the last 24 hours 
alone, Putin has made a number of desperate and increasingly unhinged 
announcements: calling for a partial mobilization of more Russian 
reservists despite mounting losses; making further veiled threats of 
using nuclear weapons; and pursuing sham referendums across eastern 
Ukraine, beginning as early as this Friday, echoing his past 
illegitimate actions in Crimea. Let me be clear that the U.S. never 
recognized the annexation of Crimea.
  Today, Senator Rubio and I will introduce legislation making clear 
the U.S. will never recognize Russia's annexation of any other part of 
Ukraine. All this is a reminder of why we must pass additional aid to 
Ukraine as part of the continuing resolution without delay.
  This war is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is a 
battle between democracy and autocracy. It is cheaper for us, and it is 
unquestionably in our national security interest, to win this war while 
it is still contained within Ukraine.
  Madam President, ending the COVID pandemic once and for all is 
another battle that we are winning and can't afford to give up on now. 
When President Biden took office, he set an ambitious goal: to 
vaccinate 70 percent of American adults. We have done that--and more. 
Today, almost 80 percent of all Americans--more than 260 million 
people--are well on their way to being fully vaccinated. Experts tell 
us those vaccinations have helped prevent more than 60 million 
infections in the United States, 17 million hospitalizations, and more 
than 2 million deaths. That is a modern medical miracle. But we are not 
out of danger completely. The virus is still circulating, still 
mutating, and still sickening and killing people. America is still 
seeing 57,000 new COVID infections daily, with more than 30,000 people 
hospitalized and more than 400 people dying each day.
  In March, President Biden asked for additional funding and resources 
to continue the fight against COVID. For months, our Republican 
colleagues have blocked that request. Their obstruction has had serious 
costs. With another COVID surge likely on its way this fall, the 
administration is running out of funds to purchase and distribute COVID 
vaccines. And it has been forced to pause part of its free testing 
program. President Biden is right; we have made huge progress against 
COVID. But history shows us what happens when we declare a pandemic to 
be over prematurely. The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed at least 50 
million people worldwide, had at least 4 waves over about 2 years. In 
some cities, the fourth wave killed even more people than the second 
wave. Why was the fourth wave so much deadlier? Because, by then, 
people had grown tired of precautions and given up on them. We can't 
repeat that deadly mistake.
  We need to pass the administration's request for additional funds for 
public and global health so that we can end the COVID pandemic once and 
for all, and we must also dedicate more funds to helping stop the 
spread of monkeypox. I also strongly support the administration's 
request for additional funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria, as well as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to 
control the spread of the pandemic amid potential new variants.
  Finally, as I said, Madam President, we must include in the 
continuing resolution disaster relief funds to help our fellow 
Americans who are suffering in the wake of natural disasters in Puerto 
Rico, Kentucky, California, and many other States. The entire island of 
Puerto Rico--more than 1 million people--lost power this weekend as it 
was battered by Hurricane Fiona, almost exactly 5 years after the 
devastation of Hurricane Maria. Roughly 70 percent of residents and 
businesses lost access to clean water, with massive flooding still 
ongoing. I stand ready to do all I can to provide Federal support to 
the island and other communities recovering from disasters this year. 
They need our help now. I hope my Republican colleagues will join 
Democrats in providing it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I understand that Senator Thune is 
next in order on the floor, but not seeing him on the floor, I thought 
I would take the time before he arrives to echo the terrific remarks of 
my Judiciary chairman, Dick Durbin.
  As I think people know, a lot of money has been spent in this effort 
to control the Court by special interests. Indeed, the last count is 
that it cost $580 million in dark money to achieve that purpose. I 
don't know anybody who spends nearly $600 million--more than half a 
billion dollars--without having a purpose in mind. And when you see the 
undoing of women's right to determine their own reproductive choice, 
when you see new weaponry rolled out against pollution regulations, 
when you see 100-year-old gun laws being taken down, when you see the 
agenda of the big-money rightwing being implemented by the Court, it 
begins to look like, in fact, they got their money's worth, and they 
didn't mind spending big.

[[Page S4946]]

  One of the ways they did this was to make sure that all of the Trump 
selections of nominees went through the Federalist Society. Never in 
our history has that happened, with a private organization stepping in 
and deciding who would be on the Supreme Court.
  I see that Senator Thune has arrived. The floor is his. I will 
interrupt my remarks because I was just filling time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
yielding. I appreciate his kindness. I know he has got a lot to say on 
the subject, and hopefully he will be able to get back to it.


                                 Energy

  Madam President, I want to speak just a minute about the issue of 
high energy prices and high grocery prices that have become a 
distinguishing feature of the Biden economy.
  Electricity prices increased 15.8 percent in August, the largest 
year-over-year increase since 1981--1981. I wasn't even married the 
last time we saw electricity increases like this, and now I have 
grandkids.
  Utility gas service was up 33 percent from a year ago in August--33 
percent increase year over year from August.
  The price of home heating oil, which many households in places like 
New Hampshire rely on to keep their homes warm in the winter, has 
soared. All told, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association 
estimates that home heating costs for the winter heating season will 
average $1,202--a 17.2-percent increase from last season.
  I haven't even mentioned gas prices. Gas prices may have decreased 
from their $5 high this summer--partly as a result of President Biden's 
problematic decision to draw down our Nation's emergency petroleum 
reserves to their lowest point since 1985, with no plan to refill 
them--but customers are still paying $1.30 more per gallon than they 
were when President Biden took office. The average price for a gallon 
of gas has increased this week, ending a streak of diminishing, 
although still high, gas prices.
  Madam President, if there is one thing we should be doing about high 
energy prices, it is increasing our domestic energy supply, including 
our supply of conventional energy--namely, oil and natural gas. I am a 
longtime supporter of alternative energy, and I come from a State that 
derives a substantial portion of its electricity generation from wind. 
In fact, in 2021, over 50 percent of our State's power generation came 
from wind and 30 percent came from hydroelectric on the Missouri River. 
But if it weren't for traditional fossil fuels backing up that 
generation, especially on days when the wind is still, we would be left 
in the dark.

  The fact of the matter is, no matter how much Democrats might wish it 
were otherwise, alternative energy technology has simply not advanced 
to the point where our country can rely exclusively on alternative 
energy. Attempting to pretend we have advanced further than we have or 
have solved all the requisite supply chain hurdles will lead to nothing 
but economic pain for American families.
  Just look at California, whose overreliance on alternative energy 
technology has resulted in an electricity grid that cannot sustain the 
demands being placed on it. Californians were recently asked to ration 
their energy usage and refrain from charging electric cars during 
certain hours to reduce strain on the grid. Yet the State has issued a 
final regulation that will require all new cars sold in the State to be 
electric or otherwise zero emission by 2035. I don't see this ending 
well for Californians. This is the kind of unrealistic thinking that 
has permeated pretty much the entire Democratic Party.
  I am all for advancing clean energy technologies. I have done a lot 
of work here in Congress to advance clean energy, from renewable fuels 
to wind energy. But until clean energy technology has advanced to the 
point where it can truly, reliably, and affordably supply America's 
energy needs, we need to continue to invest in responsible conventional 
energy production as part of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy 
that we need for this country. Otherwise, the high energy prices 
Americans are struggling with right now could get even worse and 
persist long into the future.
  President Biden, of course, has been discouraging conventional energy 
production since day one, which is one reason why high energy prices 
have become a defining feature of the Biden administration. From 
canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline, to discouraging investment in 
conventional energy with a targeted ESG agenda, to making it more 
difficult for oil and gas companies to develop leases, President Biden 
has shown a distinct hostility to conventional energy.
  Last month, the President signed into law the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act, the partisan tax-and-spending spree the Democrats jammed 
through Congress in August. Now, I have mentioned the high energy 
prices Americans have been experiencing. Well, apparently, Democrats 
think that the best solution is to pass a bunch of new fees and tax 
hikes that will drive up energy prices further.
  Their so-called Inflation Reduction Act includes a slate of taxes on 
conventional energy production at the worst possible time. The methane 
fee in their bill alone has the potential to drive Americans' natural 
gas bills by 17 percent--17 percent--just what Americans need while 
they are paying 15.8 percent more for electricity and 33 percent more 
for utility gas service and $1.30 more for every gallon of gasoline.
  But at least Americans can feel good about the fact that their tax 
dollars will be going to fund Democrats' Green New Deal fantasies, like 
tax credits for wealthy Americans to purchase electric vehicles. That 
is right. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act--which, by the way, 
even the Democrat chairman of the Senate Budget Committee admits will 
do nothing to fix inflation--pours hundreds of billions of dollars--
taxpayer dollars--into Green New Deal priorities.
  In addition to tax credits for wealthy Americans, the Inflation 
Reduction Act also includes funding for things like expensive electric 
vehicles for the U.S. Postal Service, mitigating urban heat island 
hotspots and monitoring gaps in tree canopy coverage, and climate-
related political activity. That is right--climate-related political 
activity.
  Democrats succeeded in pushing through the Inflation Reduction Act--
and its tax hikes on conventional energy--by promising one of their 
Members a vote on permitting reform legislation.
  Real permitting reform is something I heartily endorse. Too many 
energy permits spend years mired in bureaucracy, leading to completely 
needless delays in energy development. Cleaning up the permitting 
process would help advance both conventional and renewable energy 
production.
  Unfortunately, it is not clear that the permitting reform deal that 
was released last night will do anything to meaningfully address 
permitting delays and, in some cases, could make things worse.
  For one, it would expand FERC's authority to override State 
jurisdiction for projects the President designates as ``national 
interest facilities,'' which is why the South Dakota Public Utilities 
Commission is opposed to it. And it would give States wide latitude to 
kill the very infrastructure projects the bill purports to expedite by 
expanding the State Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
  In other sections where this proposal seeks to shorten deadlines for 
various stages of permitting, which is a goal I support, the 
consequences for not meeting a deadline are merely notifying the Office 
of Management and Budget and the lead Department Secretary. It is hard 
to see this actually moving the chains.
  On top of that, it is starting to seem extremely doubtful that 
Democrats actually have the votes in their conference to pass 
permitting reform legislation.
  Republicans, thanks to the efforts of Senator Capito, have a 
meaningful, substantive permitting reform bill ready to go. It is 
supported by every Member of our conference. It would need the support 
of just 10 Democrat Senators to pass. It would be nice to think that 
there are 10 moderate Democrat Senators--if the words ``Democrat'' and 
``moderate'' can still go together in this time of the Democratic 
Party's rapid push to the extreme

[[Page S4947]]

left--who would be willing to join Republicans to pass our legislation 
and finally take a real step to ease the burden of high energy prices 
on American families.
  But given the President's and the Democratic Party's hostility to any 
measure that would genuinely start addressing high energy prices, I am 
not holding my breath.
  High prices--for energy and just about everything else--have become 
the distinguishing feature of the Biden economy, and if Democrats 
continue to take steps to discourage conventional energy production, 
high energy prices will be a Democrat legacy that lasts long into the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                                S. 4822

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the place where I left off, when 
Senator Thune came to the floor, was discussing the extent to which 
huge floods of dark money had taken control of our Supreme Court. I 
will just dig into that a little bit further while we have a moment, 
because one of the vehicles for this effort was the Federalist Society.
  It is extremely unusual in any modern democracy that the selection of 
who got onto the Supreme Court would be parceled out to a private 
organization. It is even more peculiar when that private organization 
has a very distinct political and ideological bent, and it is worse 
still when that private organization, while acting as the gatekeeper to 
Supreme Court appointments, was receiving massive dark money infusions.
  Before it got that role, the Federalist Society did not get loads of 
dark money. Back in 2002, their anonymous donations summed to a grand 
total of $5,000. But once it became clear that they were the gatekeeper 
to the Supreme Court for the Republican Party, by 2019, they were up to 
$7 million pouring in in dark money.
  We don't know how those names were picked for Donald Trump's 
Federalist Society list. There was no public process. There was no 
disclosure. There was some back room someplace where those lists were 
assembled. And who got a voice controlling who got on that list, I 
suspect, has a lot to do with that $7 million.
  Again, when you are spending $7 million, you are not kidding around. 
You want results, and they have got them.
  The other piece of the pie here is one of Leonard Leo's little nodes 
of phony front groups funded by dark money. He has got an 85 Fund and a 
Concord Fund, a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). That is the state of the art 
in dark money political manipulation: You do a 501(c)3. You do a 
501(c)(4). You put them in the same office with the same staff, with 
the same oversight and the same funders, but you pretend that they are 
different. Then, to make it even more complicated, you file under 
Virginia corporate law fictitious names--that is what it is actually 
called under Virginia corporate law--fictitious names for other front 
groups. So in this dark money Court capture machine, even the front 
groups have front groups.

  One of them is right here. It is called the Judicial Crisis Network. 
The Judicial Crisis Network was the one that took in the dark money 
from anonymous big donors to push out the television ads to capture the 
Court: ads for Gorsuch, ads for Kavanaugh, and ads for Barrett. They 
put out some pretty good money to do that. For Gorsuch, they spent $21 
million. For Kavanaugh, they spent $17 million. For Barrett, as far as 
we know so far, they spent $14 million. These came in not from 
grassroots donations. The checks were as big as $15 million. The checks 
were as big as $17 million. And if the same person was writing those 
$15 million and $17 million checks, our count is that it is $60 million 
or more. And if one person has paid $60 million or more to influence 
who gets on the Supreme Court and we don't know what business they have 
before the Court, that is an open avenue and prescription for 
corruption.
  Right now, after all that money got spent by the Judicial Crisis 
Network to push all those rightwing FedSoc Justices onto the Court, the 
Honest Elections Project, another fictitious-name leg of this dark 
money critter, is in the Supreme Court right now pushing the argument 
developed by John Eastman--the Big Lie argument that in Georgia and 
other States the State legislature should be able to throw out the 
outcome of a Federal election and replace the winner of it with the 
person they want.
  The theory is so extreme that it even posits that the State court 
system can't control the State legislature. The principle of judicial 
review of legislative acts is undone by this. It is wildly extreme.
  But there is the Honest Elections Project--so-called--showing up in 
Court as an amicus, pushing the Big Lie theory to the very judges who 
the Judicial Crisis Network paid to get on the Court.
  And guess what. Do you think they disclosed to anybody that that was 
the connection? No, I have got to come to the floor of the Senate to 
point that out because the Supreme Court, which is behind so much of 
this--the unlimited money, the failure to enforce the transparency 
requirement, the gobs of dark money that are going through--also won't 
enforce the rule that requires amicus curiae, the people who file the 
briefs, to tell the Court and the other parties who is really behind 
them. So they are getting away with it from the judges who got put on 
the Court.
  This whole dark money problem goes well beyond just dirty dark money 
flooding into our elections. It goes beyond the cause of the slime of 
the dirty, noxious TV ads that come pouring out of our television 
screens, pouring through our devices with a phony-baloney name behind 
the advertisement.
  The good Senator is from New Jersey. Perhaps it could be ``New 
Jerseyans for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity.''
  Anybody watching the ad knows that that is not a real organization. 
And what does it tell you, as a citizen, when slimily, lying, dirty 
smear ads are being pushed through to you, through your TV screen, 
through your device by a group that you know is a phony? How do you 
have confidence in that?
  I will close because Senator Hirono is here, and I want to have her 
speak. But I will say that I am not alone in thinking that requiring 
people to stand up and identify who they are when they are trying to 
influence our politics is a distinctly American quality.
  In fact, I quote:

       Requiring people to stand up in public for their political 
     acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is 
     doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society 
     which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously . . 
     . and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and 
     referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the 
     accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home 
     of the Brave.

  The author of that: Justice Antonin Scalia.
  I will continue later, but I want to defer to the busy schedule of my 
friend Senator Hirono.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode 
Island, Senator Whitehouse, for his long and strong advocacy for 
cleaning up the scourge of dark money in our country.
  Our country was built on the founding principles of democracy, where 
every person has a say--a democracy where the American people can make 
their voices heard in free and fair elections and we the people can 
decide the direction of our country. But in 2010, the Roberts Court, in 
an obvious act of judicial activism, struck down corporate campaign 
contribution restrictions found in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. 
Suddenly, the Supreme Court said that corporations are people who have 
First Amendment constitutional rights to make campaign contributions.
  This decision opened the floodgates to billions of dollars of dark 
money to influence our elections, our Courts, and our thinking on 
issues from gun safety to abortion.
  When the Supreme Court held that political speech by a corporation is 
protected by the First Amendment, it left for Congress just the narrow 
authority to take action to require disclosure of donor names.
  After knocked-down, dragged-out negotiations in the U.S. House in 
2010--I was there--the House passed a disclosure bill, only to see it 
fail in the Senate very narrowly without the support of a single 
Republican.

[[Page S4948]]

  Back then, we had the chance to require political spending 
disclosures so that the American people could see who was contributing 
millions to influence election outcomes.
  So here we are, more than a decade later, and now it is not millions 
but billions of dollars flowing undisclosed into races across the 
country. Our country is awash in undisclosed money that is subverting 
the will of the American people.
  When 85 percent of the American people support reproductive freedom, 
65 percent of the American people support gun safety, and 63 percent of 
the American people support protecting the right to vote and Senate 
Republicans are preventing us from even having a legislative debate on 
the floor on these issues, what does that tell you? It tells you that 
too many elected officials are no longer answering to the people but, 
instead, to the secret donors and corporations who are funding their 
campaigns.
  But it is not just elected officials that have been influenced. Mega-
corporations and the ultrawealthy have spent millions to stack our 
courts. One dark money group already spent more than $30 million in 
total on the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy 
Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they sit, in my view, 
busily overturning precedents such as Roe v. Wade.
  For the sake of our democracy, we need to get rid of the anonymous 
spending influencing our elections and our courts. That is a goal that 
everyone should be able to get behind regardless of whether you are a 
Democrat or a Republican. In fact, many of my Republican colleagues 
agree. The senior Senator from Iowa said dark money is ``attacking the 
independence of the judiciary.'' Another said dark money is ``sowing 
public distrust in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.''
  There is bipartisan agreement to limit dark money, but, sadly, we 
know Republicans too often say one thing and then do another because 
not a single one of them so far has voiced support for even considering 
the DISCLOSE Act, which we will be voting to advance today, a bill that 
would increase transparency and accountability in political spending, a 
bill that would do the very thing that some leading Republicans have 
called for.
  When given the chance, I hope my Republican colleagues will step up 
for the American people and not their special interest donors. We shall 
see.
  We cannot accept a country where billionaires and corporations can 
secretly buy our elections, choose our leaders, and determine the fate 
of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii, who 
has been such an ardent and effective ally in this fight, for coming to 
the floor today and for all of our work in the Judiciary Committee and 
also through briefs that we file in the Supreme Court trying to wake up 
the Court to what is happening around them.
  I would add an additional point to my description of this little node 
of the dark money apparatus that has controlled the makeup of the 
Supreme Court and works very hard to control the decisions of the 
Supreme Court--and too often does--because you have heard Senator 
Durbin and others speak on the floor today about the biggest dark money 
contribution ever made, $1.6 billion, given to an organization run by 
this same individual.
  And you see it going in but only because some whistleblower told the 
press what had happened. But even knowing that $1.6 billion went in, 
you don't know where it goes next because this complicated apparatus 
and others like it enable the money to be sluiced through underground, 
subterranean, clandestine channels and pop out in political races 
through unknown, phony front groups with preposterously sweet names.
  And nobody who is a citizen is allowed to understand what is 
happening. You can bet the word gets to the candidate about who is 
behind ``New Jerseyans for Peace and Puppies and Prosperity,'' and you 
can bet the big donors know. And if it is a House race, you can bet the 
House leaders know; and if it is a Senate race, you can bet the Senate 
leaders know. And you can bet that gives immense clout at stopping 
things in this building.
  And, sure enough, that $1.6 billion went into Marble Freedom Trust. 
And one of the first things it did was give money to the Concord Fund, 
one of the other Leonard Leo groups. You will recognize that as this 
chart behind me, and you add to it the Marble Freedom Trust that was 
the vehicle into which the $1.6 billion got dumped, and then--zip--here 
came money straight to the Concord Fund, among other uses of it. So 
this thing is sort of a creature of multiple fronts.
  And I was struck today when I read a news article about the 
resignation in Iraq of the finance minister, who is largely regarded as 
being the voice of integrity and decency and honesty in that 
government. And he quit, and he said one of the reasons was that he 
felt that there was around him a ``vast octopus of corruption and 
deceit.''
  This is just one piece of a vast octopus of corruption and deceit 
whose target is the American people and whose desire is to control 
government from behind the scenes without even showing up and showing 
who they are. If you want to see some of this mischief in action and in 
relation to what I have said about how this captured Court, with its 
FedSoc Justices, has delivered for the big-donor interests, the biggest 
thing that they have done so far in terms of affecting the trajectory 
of honesty and decency and public accountability in this country has 
been in a case called Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.

  What did the judges who dark money put onto the Court that dark money 
built do? They built a brandnew constitutional right to dark money--
unprecedented. And when they did it, when the case came up to them--
interestingly, as part of this octopus of deceit are innumerable front 
groups that file amicus briefs.
  I talked about how they don't disclose, and the Court lets them get 
away with it. Let me give you an idea of the number at the certiorari 
stage, which, for those not familiar with Supreme Court practice, is 
the point where the Supreme Court decides whether or not they will take 
up the case. And then there is the merits decision later on, on how 
they decide the case. But on the question of whether they take up the 
case, we counted about 50--5-0, 50--of these phony, dark money-funded 
front groups coming in and saying: You have got to take up this case. 
You have got to take up this case. You have got to take up this case.
  It was signaling; it was flares; it was semaphore telling FedSoc 
Justices: We put you there. This is what we want you to do.
  So let's take a quick look at a little bit about the Americans for 
Prosperity Foundation because it is related--remember what I said about 
501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s twinning together and having basic identity? 
Well, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the 501(c)(3) twin to 
a 501(c)(4) called Americans for Prosperity.
  And guess what Americans for Prosperity is? It is the biggest 
battleship in the Koch brothers' political influence operation. It is 
the mother ship. It is as political as you get. It goes directly into 
elections and spends dark money.
  And here are the big differences between Americans for Prosperity and 
the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Well, the CEO and director of 
Americans for Prosperity is, amazingly enough, the CEO and director of 
the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. And the secretary of the 
Americans for Prosperity group happens also to be the corporate 
secretary of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. How about that? 
Oh, here is a big difference. The senior vice president of grassroots 
operations for Americans for Prosperity is the senior vice president of 
state operations for Americans for Prosperity Foundation. There is a 
difference. The treasurer and vice president of Americans for 
Prosperity is the same as the treasurer and vice president of finance 
for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and the director of 
Americans for Prosperity is the chair of the Americans for Prosperity 
Foundation.
  There is a thing in law called piercing the corporate veil. This is a 
corporate veil you could pierce with a banana. This is the kind of 
phony fun and games that dark money allows to intrude into our 
democracy. And in this

[[Page S4949]]

terrible death loop, dark money puts Justices on the Supreme Court who 
get told by dark money amici what they want, in flotillas of 50, and 
then deliver for dark money to a nominal plaintiff who is the 
indistinguishable twin of the Koch brothers' political battleship, 
letting that money loose into our politics with now constitutional 
imprimatur.
  And they show up in droves. Here is just one case: Seila Law. This 
was the one about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You know 
the dark money people hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In 
fact, they hate regulation. That is why they are trying to undo 
American government as best they can.
  So here are some of the amici that showed up in Seila Law. I actually 
put this in my brief to the Supreme Court in that case as an appendix 
so they could see what was going on around them. A lot of good it did. 
So here are some of the front groups, all of whom take dark money, and 
here are some of the dark money sources we were able to trace them 
having taken: Donors Trust, widely described as the ATM of the far 
right. It has no purpose. Donors Trust doesn't make a product. You 
can't buy a Donors Trust car or bicycle or tire or pedal. It doesn't 
provide services. You can't go to Donors Trust and get your taxes done. 
You can't go to Donors Trust and get your shoes polished.
  It does one thing and one thing only: It takes money in; it scrubs 
off the identity of the person who gave it the money; and then it sends 
the money where that person wants, as Donors Trust. That is it. It is 
an identity laundering machine for the dark money operation that we 
have running for this vast octopus of deceit.
  And here are other foundations: Bradley, Scaife, Searle. Look at how 
much of this is in common. That was not described to the Court.
  My time is running out. I will say two things as I go. One is, until 
the Supreme Court opened the floodgates of unlimited money, Republicans 
wanted disclosure. Republicans wanted disclosure. Mitch McConnell, the 
leader:

       We need to have real disclosure. Why would a little 
     disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?

  He was in favor of a lot of disclosure on ``Meet the Press.''
  ``I think disclosure is the best disinfectant,'' he wrote.

       We could do disclosure more frequently. I think disclosure 
     is the best disinfectant.

  Mitch McConnell.
  But then along came the Supreme Court in 2010; they opened the 
floodgates of unlimited money. And particularly the fossil fuel 
industry, which wanted to stop climate legislation, knew that if it 
showed up as Exxon, as Marathon, as Chevron, as Shell, the public would 
get the joke; their unlimited money would be useless because everybody 
would see the self-interest and the corruption behind all of that. So 
they immediately went to work through phony front groups, 501(c)(4)s, 
Donors Trust, shell corporations.
  And the Supreme Court let them do it despite the fact that, 8 to 1, 
the Supreme Court in Citizens United has said:

       Without transparency, this unlimited money is corrupting. 
     Without transparency, this unlimited money is corrupting.

  Despite having said that, for 12 years, they have done nothing but 
let the dark money flow--over a billion dollars now into any single 
election.
  It is intensely frustrating to see our country head down this filthy 
road, where huge special interests, defined by just a few 
characteristics--one, they have unlimited money to spend; two, they can 
win in politics by spending it; and, three, they want to hide--is that 
group of people the ones we want controlling our country? I don't think 
so. How about regular voters? How about regular people? How about 
farmers and doctors and business owners, nurses? No.
  I know the leader wants to come to the floor, and I will yield as 
soon as he comes to the floor. Before he does, I want to thank him for 
bringing this measure here, for the strength of his statements, for the 
strength of his commitment, for his help to organize all of this. This 
began originally as his bill years ago, after Citizens United. So I 
want to yield to him when he gets here.
  But I want to go back to this departure of Minister Allawi, who talks 
about the Iraqi state having become degraded and become a play thing of 
special interests. That is the choice we face in this vote: Is this 
going to be America the beautiful or is this going to be America the 
degraded placing of special interests? This vote will determine it.
  I yield to the leader for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak prior to 
the vote.
  Mr. BOOKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me just give as many kudo--because he 
taught me the word was ``kudo,'' not ``kudos''--as I can, to our 
wonderful Senator from Rhode Island.
  There is no one--I don't think in America, let alone just in the 
Senate--who has done more to highlight the evil scourge of dark money 
that just plagues our Republic. It degrades our democracy. One of the 
reasons that people are so upset with what is going on in this country 
is because of the dark money. And no one has shined that spotlight on 
it like Senator Whitehouse. Hats off to him.
  Now, the choice before the Senate is simple: Will Members vote today 
to cure our democracy of the cancer of dark money or will they stand in 
the way and let this disease metastasize beyond control?
  Members must pick a side. Which side are you on--the side of American 
voters and one person, one vote or the side of super PACs and the 
billionaire donor class rigging the game in their favor?
  Sometimes the contrast is really that simple. Today is about standing 
either with the American people or the dark money donor class.
  And the DISCLOSE Act itself is simple to its core. It says that a 
healthy democracy is a transparent democracy--a healthy democracy is a 
transparent democracy--one where all of us can exercise our right to 
the franchise on an equal playing field, without regard to our wealth 
or our connections or lot in life. It is a quintessentially American 
ideal.
  In the 12 years since the conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled in 
Citizens United, our elections have become rank with the stench of dark 
money. You can smell it in every corner of this country--and 
particularly in Washington. We must fix that. In free and fair 
elections--one person, one vote--American voters should have the power 
to determine our Nation's leaders without fear that their voices will 
be drowned out by powerful elites or special interests. That is simply 
what the DISCLOSE Act would do.
  For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of transparency in 
elections, for the sake of breaking the wretched stranglehold that dark 
money has on our country, I urge my colleagues, plead with my 
colleagues, to rise to this occasion to protect our democracy and vote 
yes.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 484, S. 4822, a bill to amend the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for 
     additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
     organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other 
     purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie K. Hirono, 
           Martin Heinrich, Christopher A. Coons, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Margaret Wood Hassan, Patty Murray, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Jacky Rosen, Alex Padilla, Brian Schatz, 
           Christopher Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, Edward J. Markey, 
           Angus S. King, Jr., Tim Kaine.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 4822, a bill to amend the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements 
for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities, 
and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?

[[Page S4950]]

  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 346 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Baldwin
     Crapo
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). On this vote, the yeas are 49, 
the nays are 49.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________