[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3815-3823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Coons):
  S. 2215. A bill to create jobs in the United States by increasing 
United States exports to Africa by at least 200 percent in real dollar 
value within 10 years, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2215

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Increasing American Jobs 
     Through Greater Exports to Africa Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Export growth helps United States business grow and 
     create American jobs. In 2010, 60 percent of American exports 
     came from small- and medium-sized businesses.
       (2) On January 31, 2011, the President mandated an 
     executive review across agencies to determine where the 
     United States Government could become more competitive and 
     helpful to business, including help with promoting exports.
       (3) Several United States Government agencies are involved 
     in export promotion. Coordination of the efforts of these 
     agencies through the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee 
     lacks sufficient strategic implementation and accountability.
       (4) Many other countries have trade promotion programs that 
     aggressively compete against United States exports in Africa 
     and around the world. For example, in 2010, medium- and long-
     term official export credit general volumes from the Group of 
     7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the 
     United Kingdom, and the United States) totaled 
     $65,400,000,000. Germany provided the largest level of 
     support at $22,500,000,000, followed by France at 
     $17,400,000,000 and the United States at $13,000,000,000. 
     Official export credit support

[[Page 3816]]

     by emerging market economies such as Brazil, China, and India 
     are significant as well.
       (5) Between 2008 and 2010, China alone provided more than 
     $110,000,000,000 in loans to the developing world, and, in 
     2009, China surpassed the United States as the leading trade 
     partner of African countries. The Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States substantially increased lending to United 
     States businesses focused on Africa from $400,000,000 in 2009 
     to an anticipated $1,000,000,000 in 2011, but the Export-
     Import Bank of China dwarfed this effort with an estimated 
     $12,000,000,000 worth of financing.
       (6) Other countries such as India, Turkey, Russia, and 
     Brazil are also aggressively seeking markets in Africa using 
     their national export banks to provide concessional 
     assistance.
       (7) The Chinese practice of concessional financing runs 
     contrary to the principles of the Organization of Economic 
     Co-operation and Development related to open market rates, 
     undermines naturally competitive rates, and can allow 
     governments in Africa to overlook the troubling record on 
     labor practices, human rights, and environmental impact.
       (8) The African continent is undergoing a period of rapid 
     growth and middle class development, as seen from major 
     indicators such as Internet use and clean water access. In 
     2000, only 6.7 percent of the population of Africa had access 
     to the Internet. In 2009, 27.1 percent of the population had 
     Internet access. Seventy-eight percent of Africa's rural 
     population now has access to clean water.
       (9) Economists have designated Africa as the ``next 
     frontier market'', with profitability and growth rates among 
     many African firms exceeding global averages in recent years. 
     Countries in Africa have a collective spending power of 
     almost $9,000,000,000 and a gross domestic product of 
     $1,600,000,000,000, which are projected to double in the next 
     10 years.
       (10) Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to have the fastest 
     growing economies in the world over the next 5 years, with 7 
     of the 10 fastest growing economies located in sub-Saharan 
     Africa.
       (11) When countries such as China assist with large-scale 
     government projects, they also gain an upper hand in 
     relations with African leaders and access to valuable 
     commodities such as oil and copper, typically without regard 
     to environmental, human rights, labor, or governance 
     standards.
       (12) Unless the United States can offer competitive 
     financing for its firms in Africa, it will be deprived of 
     opportunities to participate in African efforts to close the 
     continent's significant infrastructure gap that amounts to an 
     estimated $100,000,000,000.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create jobs in 
     the United States by expanding programs that will result in 
     increasing United States exports to Africa by 200 percent in 
     real dollar value within 10 years.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Africa.--The term ``Africa'' refers to the entire 
     continent of Africa and its 54 countries, including the 
     Republic of South Sudan.
       (2) African diaspora.--The term ``African diaspora'' means 
     the people of African origin living in the United States, 
     irrespective of their citizenship and nationality, who are 
     willing to contribute to the development of Africa.
       (3) AGOA.--The term ``AGOA'' means the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
       (4) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives.
       (5) Development agencies.--The term ``development 
     agencies'' includes the Department of State, including the 
     United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 
     the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the United States 
     Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).
       (6) Trade policy staff committee.--The term ``Trade Policy 
     Staff Committee'' means the Trade Policy Staff Committee 
     established pursuant to section 2002.2 of title 15, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and is composed of representatives of 
     Federal agencies in charge of developing and coordinating 
     United States positions on international trade and trade-
     related investment issues.
       (7) Multilateral development banks.--The term 
     ``multilateral development banks'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 1701(c)(4) of the International Financial 
     Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(4)) and includes the 
     African Development Foundation.
       (8) Sub-saharan region.--The term ``sub-Saharan region'' 
     refers to the 49 countries listed in section 107 of the 
     African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3706) and 
     includes the Republic of South Sudan.
       (9) Trade promotion coordinating committee.--The term 
     ``Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee'' means the Trade 
     Promotion Coordinating Committee established by Executive 
     Order 12870 (58 Fed. Reg. 51753).
       (10) United states and foreign commercial service.--The 
     term ``United States and Foreign Commercial Service'' means 
     the United States and Foreign Commercial Service established 
     by section 2301 of the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 (15 
     U.S.C. 4721).

     SEC. 4. STRATEGY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a 
     comprehensive United States strategy for public and private 
     investment, trade, and development in Africa.
       (b) Focus of Strategy.--The strategy required by subsection 
     (a) shall focus on--
       (1) increasing exports of United States goods and services 
     to Africa by 200 percent in real dollar value within 10 years 
     from the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (2) coordinating United States commercial interests with 
     development priorities in Africa;
       (3) developing relationships between the governments of 
     countries in Africa and United States businesses that have an 
     expertise in such issues as infrastructure development, 
     technology, telecommunications, energy, and agriculture;
       (4) improving the competitiveness of United States 
     businesses in Africa, including the role the African diaspora 
     can play in enhancing such competitiveness;
       (5) exploring ways that African diaspora remittances can 
     help governments in Africa tackle economic, development, and 
     infrastructure financing needs;
       (6) promoting economic integration in Africa through 
     working with the subregional economic communities, supporting 
     efforts for deeper integration through the development of 
     customs unions within western and central Africa and within 
     eastern and southern Africa, eliminating time-consuming 
     border formalities into and within these areas, and 
     supporting regionally based infrastructure projects;
       (7) encouraging a greater understanding among United States 
     business and financial communities of the opportunities 
     Africa holds for United States exports; and
       (8) monitoring--
       (A) market loan rates and the availability of capital for 
     United States business investment in Africa;
       (B) loan rates offered by the governments of other 
     countries for investment in Africa; and
       (C) the policies of other countries with respect to export 
     financing for investment in Africa that are predatory or 
     distort markets.
       (c) Consultations.--In developing the strategy required by 
     subsection (a), the President shall consult with--
       (1) Congress;
       (2) each agency that is a member of the Trade Promotion 
     Coordinating Committee;
       (3) the multilateral development banks;
       (4) each agency that participates in the Trade Policy Staff 
     Committee;
       (5) the President's National Export Council;
       (6) each of the development agencies;
       (7) any other Federal agencies with responsibility for 
     export promotion or financing and development; and
       (8) the private sector, including businesses, 
     nongovernmental organizations, and African diaspora groups.
       (d) Submission to Congress.--
       (1) Strategy.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     Congress the strategy required by subsection (a).
       (2) Progress report.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the implementation of the strategy 
     required by subsection (a).
       (3) Content of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (2) shall include an assessment of the extent to which the 
     strategy required by subsection (a)--
       (A) has been successful in developing critical analyses of 
     policies to increase exports to Africa;
       (B) has been successful in increasing the competitiveness 
     of United States businesses in Africa;
       (C) has been successful in creating jobs in the United 
     States, including the nature and sustainability of such jobs;
       (D) has provided sufficient United States Government 
     support to meet third country competition in the region;
       (E) has been successful in helping the African diaspora in 
     the United States participate in economic growth in Africa;
       (F) has been successful in promoting economic integration 
     in Africa; and
       (G) has made a meaningful contribution to the 
     transformation of Africa and its full integration into the 
     twenty-first century world economy, not only as a supplier of 
     primary products but also as full participant in 
     international supply and distribution chains.

     SEC. 5. SPECIAL AFRICA STRATEGY COORDINATOR.

       The President shall designate an individual to serve as 
     Special Africa Export Strategy Coordinator--
       (1) to oversee the development and implementation of the 
     strategy required by section 4; and

[[Page 3817]]

       (2) to coordinate with the Trade Promotion Coordinating 
     Committee, (the interagency AGOA committees), and development 
     agencies with respect to developing and implementing the 
     strategy.

     SEC. 6. TRADE MISSION TO AFRICA.

       It is the sense of Congress that, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Commerce and other high-level officials of the United States 
     Government with responsibility for export promotion, 
     financing, and development should conduct a joint trade 
     mission to Africa.

     SEC. 7. PERSONNEL.

       (a) United States and Foreign Commercial Service.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     ensure that not less than 14 total United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service officers are assigned to Africa.
       (2) Assignment.--The Secretary shall, in consultation with 
     the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and the Special 
     Africa Export Strategy Coordinator, assign the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service officers described in 
     paragraph (1) to United States embassies in Africa.
       (3) Multilateral development banks.--
       (A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     assign not less than 1 full-time United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service officer to the office of the United States 
     Executive Director at each multilateral development bank.
       (B) Responsibilities.--Each United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service officer assigned under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be responsible for--
       (i) increasing the access of United States businesses to 
     procurement contracts with the multilateral development bank 
     to which the officer is assigned; and
       (ii) facilitating the access of United States businesses to 
     risk insurance, equity investments, consulting services, and 
     lending provided by that bank.
       (b) Export-Import Bank of the United States.--Of the 
     amounts collected by the Export-Import Bank that remain after 
     paying the expenses the Bank is authorized to pay from such 
     amounts for administrative expenses, the Bank shall use 
     sufficient funds to do the following:
       (1) Assign, in consultation with the Trade Promotion 
     Coordinating Committee and the Special Africa Export Strategy 
     Coordinator, not less than 3 full-time employees of the Bank 
     to geographically appropriate field offices in Africa.
       (2) Increase the number of employees of the Bank assigned 
     to United States field offices of the Bank to not less than 
     30, to be distributed as geographically appropriate through 
     the United States. Such offices shall coordinate with the 
     related export efforts undertaken by the Small Business 
     Administration regional field offices.
       (3) Upgrade the Bank's equipment and software to more 
     expeditiously, effectively, and efficiently process and track 
     applications for financing received by the Bank.
       (c) Overseas Private Investment Corporation.--
       (1) Staffing.--Of the net offsetting collections collected 
     by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation used for 
     administrative expenses, the Corporation shall use sufficient 
     funds to increase by not more than 5 the staff needed to 
     promote stable and sustainable economic growth and 
     development in Africa, to strengthen and expand the private 
     sector in Africa, and to facilitate the general economic 
     development of Africa, with a particular focus on helping 
     United States businesses expand into African markets.
       (2) Report.--The Corporation shall report to the 
     appropriate congressional committees on whether recent 
     technology upgrades have resulted in more effective and 
     efficient processing and tracking of applications for 
     financing received by the Corporation.

     SEC. 8. TRAINING.

       The President shall develop a plan--
       (1) to standardize the training received by United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service officers, economic officers of 
     the Department of State, and economic officers of the United 
     States Agency for International Development with respect to 
     the programs and procedures of the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 
     the Small Business Administration, and the United States 
     Trade and Development Agency; and
       (2) to ensure that, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act--
       (A) all United States and Foreign Commercial Service 
     officers that are stationed overseas receive the training 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       (B) in the case of a country to which no United States and 
     Foreign Commercial Service officer is assigned, any economic 
     officer of the Department of State stationed in that country 
     shall receive that training.

     SEC. 9. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK CAPITALIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 6(a)(2) of the Export-Import Bank 
     Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635e(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``2011,'' and 
     inserting ``2011, $95,000,000,000;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) during fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter through fiscal year 2016, $150,000,000,000; and
       ``(G) subject to paragraph (4), during fiscal year 2017 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, $175,000,000,000.''.
       (b) Special Rule for Increase in Applicable Amount.--
     Section 6(a) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Special rule for increase in applicable amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2017, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the applicable amount under paragraph 
     (1) shall be $175,000,000,000, if the Comptroller General of 
     the United States determines pursuant to subparagraph (B) 
     that the increase in the applicable amount under paragraph 
     (1)(F) has been effective in increasing viable loans to 
     further United States exports, including to Africa.
       ``(B) Report by gao.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the operations of the Bank 
     and the effectiveness of increasing the applicable amount 
     under this subsection. Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report to Congress regarding the Comptroller 
     General's determination on the effective use by the Bank of 
     the increase in the applicable amount under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Percent To Be Used for Projects in Africa.--Section 
     6(a) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635e(a)), as amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) Percent of increase to be used for projects in 
     africa.--Not less than 25 percent of the amount by which the 
     applicable amount under paragraph (1) is increased under 
     paragraph (2) (F) or (G) over the applicable amount for 
     fiscal year 2011 shall be used for loans, guarantees, and 
     insurance for projects in Africa.''.
       (d) Availability of Portion of Capitalization to Compete 
     Against Foreign Concessional Loans.--Not less than 
     $250,000,000 of the total bank capitalization of the Export-
     Import Bank shall be available annually for loans that 
     counter below-market rate, preferential, tied aid, or other 
     related non-market loans offered by other nations for which 
     United States companies are also competing or interested in 
     competing.

     SEC. 10. TIED AID CREDIT FUND.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Export-Import Bank should use its Tied Aid Credit Fund to 
     aggressively help United States companies compete for 
     projects in which a foreign government is using any type of 
     below market, preferential, or tied aid loan. The Bank shall 
     make use of any loan products available, including pursuant 
     to section 9(d), to counter these foreign offerings.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Export-
     Import Bank shall report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees if the Bank has not used at least $220,000,000 in 
     tied aid credit during the preceding fiscal year. The report 
     shall include--
       (1) a description of all requests for grants from the Tied-
     Aid Credit Fund or other similar funds (established under 
     section 10 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635i-3)) received by the Bank during that fiscal year;
       (2) a description of similar concessional (below market 
     rate) loans made by other countries during that fiscal year; 
     and
       (3) a description of any such grant requests that were 
     denied and the reason for such denial.

     SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 22(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee,'' after 
     ``Director of the United States Trade and Development 
     Agency,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``regional offices of 
     the Export-Import Bank,'' after ``Retired Executives,''.

     SEC. 12. BILATERAL, SUBREGIONAL AND REGIONAL, AND 
                   MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS.

       Where applicable, the United States Trade Representative 
     and officials of the Export-Import Bank shall explore 
     opportunities to negotiate bilateral, subregional, and 
     regional agreements that encourage trade and eliminate 
     nontariff barriers to trade between countries, such as 
     negotiating investor friendly double-taxation treaties and 
     investment promotion agreements. United States negotiators in 
     multilateral forum should take into account the objectives of 
     this Act. To the extent any such agreements exist between the 
     United States and an African country, the Trade 
     Representative shall ensure that the agreement is being 
     implemented in a manner that maximizes the positive effects 
     for United States trade, export, and labor interests as well 
     as the economic development of the countries in Africa.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota,

[[Page 3818]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Nelson of 
        Nebraska, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2217. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore 
integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity 
payments and benefits; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural America 
Preservation Act of 2012. I appreciate Senators Johnson of South 
Dakota, Enzi, Brown of Ohio, Gillibrand, Harkin, and Nelson of Nebraska 
for joining on this bill, and in this effort.
  As the Senate Agriculture Committee continues working on the next 
Farm Bill, one thing seems to be clear. The title one safety-net is 
going to look quite different than current programs. It appears the 
direct payment program may be done away with entirely. Some of my 
colleagues and agriculture groups have proposed a variety of new ideas 
as possible replacements to the current commodity title.
  No matter what commodity program we create, my bill sets the marker 
on payment limitations. I introduced a similar payment limits bill last 
year, but this bill should better address whatever type of safety-net 
program we adopt going forward. The premise remains the same. We need 
firm payment limit. We need to close loopholes.
  I support having a safety-net for farmers. This nation enjoys a safe 
and abundant food supply. Certainly a lot of that can be attributed to 
the ingenuity and hard work of the American farmer. But the farm 
safety-net helps small and medium-size farmers get through tough times 
that are out of their control.
  We need an effective safety-net to assist farmers. But equally 
important is for Congress to develop a defensible safety-net. I will 
continue to work with my Agriculture committee colleagues to figure out 
what type of program will be most effective.
  But we already know the steps that need to be taken to make it more 
defensible. Defensible means setting firm caps on the farm payments any 
one farmer can receive. The current approach does not have any overall 
cap. There is nothing wrong with farmers growing their operations. But 
big farmers shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to get even bigger. 
When the largest 10 percent of farmers receive 70 percent of farm 
payments, something is wrong. There comes a point where some farms 
reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on 
their own. Smaller farms do not have the same luxury, but they play a 
pivotal role in producing this nation's food.
  If you want to witness how farm payments to big farmers creates a 
barrier for small and beginning farmers, look at land prices. The 
current system puts upward pressure on land prices making it more 
difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy ground. This is not 
unique to Iowa. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in 
many other states.
  This bill proposes an overall cap of $250,000 for a married couple. 
In my State, many people would say this is still too high. But I 
recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and 
so this is a compromise. Strong payment limits will ensure farm 
payments are helping those who payments were originally created for, 
the small and medium-size farmers.
  Having an overall cap is more defensible from a Federal budget 
standpoint as well. This Nation needs to make tough decisions regarding 
all government programs. We need to find savings across the board. 
Setting strict caps on all commodity programs should be a no-brainer as 
we look to find savings and increase accountability in farm programs. 
Having a defensible safety-net also means closing loopholes in the 
current law.
  For all the rhetoric that comes out of Washington, D.C. about 
eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, making sure non-farmers don't game 
the system is a common sense step to take. It's simple, if you are not 
a farmer, you shouldn't get a farm payment. The bill I introduced last 
year, and this bill, has language that closes the loopholes.
  After I introduced the bill last year, we received some questions 
regarding the language from two camps of people. The first camp of 
people I would say were critical because they don't want the loopholes 
closed. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact people game the 
system. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact we have 
nonfarmers who claim to help ``manage'' the farm by participating in 
one or two conference calls a year. To those people, I cannot satisfy 
your concerns. I will not turn a blind eye to abuses. These are 
loopholes that need to be closed.
  To the other camp of people, who have provided constructive feedback, 
I would say, we have listened. The revisions we made addressed the 
issues raised. We have improved the language closing the loopholes. 
This bill provides a tangible, workable, and fair approach. Closing 
these loopholes is the right thing to do for the American taxpayer. It 
is the right thing to do for the American farmer.
  Hard caps on farm payments and closing loopholes should be supported 
by anyone who wants an effective and defensible farm safety-net. As the 
Senate Agriculture Committee heads toward a mark-up of the Farm Bill, I 
invite my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2217

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural America Preservation 
     Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Legal entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `legal entity' means--
       ``(i) an organization that (subject to the requirements of 
     this section and section 1001A) is eligible to receive a 
     payment under a provision of law referred to in subsection 
     (b), (c), or (d);
       ``(ii) a corporation, joint stock company, association, 
     limited partnership, limited liability company, limited 
     liability partnership, charitable organization, estate, 
     irrevocable trust, grantor of a revocable trust, or other 
     similar entity (as determined by the Secretary); and
       ``(iii) an organization that is participating in a farming 
     operation as a partner in a general partnership or as a 
     participant in a joint venture.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `legal entity' does not include 
     a general partnership or joint venture.'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b) through (d) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Limitation on Payments for Covered Commodities.--The 
     total amount of payments received, directly or indirectly, by 
     a person or legal entity for any crop year for 1 or more 
     covered commodities (except for peanuts) under title I of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 et 
     seq.) (or a successor provision) may not exceed $125,000, of 
     which--
       ``(1) not more than $75,000 may consist of marketing loan 
     gains and loan deficiency payments under subtitle B or C of 
     title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 8731 et seq.) (or a successor provision); and
       ``(2) not more than $50,000 may consist of any other 
     payments made for covered commodities under title I of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et 
     seq.) (or a successor provision).
       ``(c) Limitation on Payments for Peanuts.--The total amount 
     of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or 
     legal entity for any crop year for peanuts under title I of 
     the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8701 
     et seq.) (or a successor provision) may not exceed $125,000, 
     of which--
       ``(1) not more than $75,000 may consist of marketing loan 
     gains and loan deficiency payments under subtitle B or C of 
     title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 8731 et seq.) (or a successor provision); and
       ``(2) not more than $50,000 may consist of any other 
     payments made for peanuts under title I of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702 et seq.) 
     (or a successor provision).
       ``(d) Spousal Equity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c), 
     except as provided in paragraph (2), if a person and the 
     spouse of the person are covered by paragraph (2) and

[[Page 3819]]

     receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or gain covered 
     by this section, the total amount of payments or gains (as 
     applicable) covered by this section that the person and 
     spouse may jointly receive during any crop year may not 
     exceed an amount equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts 
     specified in subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Separate farming operations.--In the case of a 
     married couple in which each spouse, before the marriage, was 
     separately engaged in an unrelated farming operation, each 
     spouse shall be treated as a separate person with respect to 
     a farming operation brought into the marriage by a spouse, 
     subject to the condition that the farming operation shall 
     remain a separate farming operation, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Election to receive separate payments.--A married 
     couple may elect to receive payments separately in the name 
     of each spouse if the total amount of payments and benefits 
     described in subsections (b) and (c) that the married couple 
     receives, directly or indirectly, does not exceed an amount 
     equal to twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in 
     those subsections.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(B) of subsection (f), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(iii) Irrevocable trusts.--In promulgating regulations to 
     define the term `legal entity' as the term applies to 
     irrevocable trusts, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     irrevocable trusts are legitimate entities that have not been 
     created for the purpose of avoiding a payment limitation.''; 
     and
       (4) in subsection (h), in the second sentence, by striking 
     ``or other entity'' and inserting ``or legal entity''.

     SEC. 3. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE 
                   FARMERS.

       The Food Security Act of 1985 is amended by striking 
     section 1001A (7 U.S.C. 1308-1) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 1001A. SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE; PAYMENTS LIMITED TO ACTIVE 
                   FARMERS.

       ``(a) Substantive Change.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of the application of 
     limitations under this section, the Secretary shall not 
     approve any change in a farming operation that otherwise 
     would increase the number of persons or legal entities to 
     which the limitations under this section apply, unless the 
     Secretary determines that the change is bona fide and 
     substantive.
       ``(2) Separate equipment and labor.--For the purpose of 
     paragraph (1), any division of a farming operation into 2 or 
     more units under which the equipment and labor are not 
     substantially separate shall not be considered bona fide and 
     substantive.
       ``(3) Family members.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), 
     the addition of a family member to a farming operation under 
     the criteria established under subsection (b)(3)(B) shall be 
     considered to be a bona fide and substantive change in the 
     farming operation.
       ``(4) Primary control.--To prevent a farming operation from 
     reorganizing in a manner that is inconsistent with the 
     purposes of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     simultaneously attribute payments for a farming operation to 
     more than 1 person or legal entity, including the person or 
     legal entity that exercises primary control over the farming 
     operation, including to respond to--
       ``(A)(i) any instance in which ownership of a farming 
     operation is transferred to a person or legal entity under an 
     arrangement that provides for the sale or exchange of any 
     asset or ownership interest in 1 or more legal entities at 
     less than fair market value; and
       ``(ii) the transferor is provided preferential rights to 
     repurchase the asset or interest at less than fair market 
     value; or
       ``(B) a sale or exchange of any asset or ownership interest 
     in 1 or more legal entities under an arrangement under which 
     rights to exercise control over the asset or interest are 
     retained, directly or indirectly, by the transferor.
       ``(b) Payments Limited to Active Farmers.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive, directly or 
     indirectly, payments or benefits described as being subject 
     to limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with 
     respect to a particular farming operation, a person or legal 
     entity shall be actively engaged in farming with respect to 
     the farming operation, in accordance with paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4).
       ``(2) General classes actively engaged in farming.--
       ``(A) Definition of active personal management.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `active personal management' means, with 
     respect to a person, management duties carried out by the 
     person for a farming operation that are personally provided 
     by the person on a regular, continuous, and substantial 
     basis, including the supervision and direction of--
       ``(i) activities and labor involved in the farming 
     operation; and
       ``(ii) onsite services directly related and necessary to 
     the farming operation.
       ``(B) Active engagement.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), for purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall 
     apply:
       ``(i) A person shall be considered to be actively engaged 
     in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

       ``(I) the person makes a significant contribution, as 
     determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value 
     of the farming operation), to the farming operation of--

       ``(aa) capital, equipment, or land; and
       ``(bb) personal labor or active personal management;

       ``(II) the share of the profits or losses of the person 
     from the farming operation is commensurate with the 
     contributions of the person to the operation; and
       ``(III) a contribution of the person is at risk.

       ``(ii) A legal entity shall be considered to be actively 
     engaged in farming with respect to a farming operation if--

       ``(I) the legal entity makes a significant contribution, as 
     determined under subparagraph (E) (based on the total value 
     of the farming operation), to the farming operation of 
     capital, equipment, or land;
       ``(II)(aa) the stockholders or members that collectively 
     own at least 51 percent of the combined beneficial interest 
     in the legal entity each make a significant contribution of 
     personal labor or active personal management to the 
     operation; or
       ``(bb) in the case of a legal entity in which all of the 
     beneficial interests are held by family members, any 
     stockholder or member (or household comprised of a 
     stockholder or member and the spouse of the stockholder or 
     member) who owns at least 10 percent of the beneficial 
     interest in the legal entity makes a significant contribution 
     of personal labor or active personal management; and
       ``(III) the legal entity meets the requirements of 
     subclauses (II) and (III) of clause (i).

       ``(C) Certain entities making significant contributions.--
     If a general partnership, joint venture, or similar entity 
     (as determined by the Secretary) separately makes a 
     significant contribution (based on the total value of the 
     farming operation involved) of capital, equipment, or land, 
     the partners or members making a significant contribution of 
     personal labor or active personal management and meeting the 
     standards provided in subclauses (II) and (III) of 
     subparagraph (B)(i) shall be considered to be actively 
     engaged in farming with respect to the farming operation 
     involved.
       ``(D) Equipment and personal labor.--In making 
     determinations under this subsection regarding equipment and 
     personal labor, the Secretary shall take into consideration 
     the equipment and personal labor normally and customarily 
     provided by farm operators in the area involved to produce 
     program crops.
       ``(E) Significant contribution of personal labor or active 
     personal management.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), a person shall be considered to be 
     providing, on behalf of the person or a legal entity, a 
     significant contribution of personal labor or active personal 
     management, if the total contribution of personal labor and 
     active personal management is at least equal to the lesser 
     of--

       ``(I) 1,000 hours; or
       ``(II) a period of time equal to--

       ``(aa) 50 percent of the commensurate share of the total 
     number of hours of personal labor or active personal 
     management required to conduct the farming operation; or
       ``(bb) in the case of a stockholder or member (or household 
     comprised of a stockholder or member and the spouse of the 
     stockholder or member) that owns at least 10 percent of the 
     beneficial interest in a legal entity in which all of the 
     beneficial interests are held by family members who do not 
     collectively receive payments directly or indirectly, 
     including payments received by spouses, of more than twice 
     the applicable limit, 50 percent of the commensurate share of 
     hours of the personal labor or active personal management of 
     all family members required to conduct the farming operation.
       ``(ii) Minimum labor hours.--For the purpose of clause (i), 
     the minimum number of labor hours required to produce a 
     commodity shall be equal to the number of hours that would be 
     necessary to conduct a farming operation for the production 
     of each commodity that is comparable in size to the 
     commensurate share of a person or legal entity in the farming 
     operation for the production of the commodity, based on the 
     minimum number of hours per acre required to produce the 
     commodity in the State in which the farming operation is 
     located, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Special classes actively engaged in farming.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the following persons shall be 
     considered to be actively engaged in farming with respect to 
     a farm operation:
       ``(A) Landowners.--A person or legal entity that is a 
     landowner contributing owned land, and that meets the 
     requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i), if, as determined by the Secretary--
       ``(i) the landowner share-rents the land at a rate that is 
     usual and customary; and
       ``(ii) the share received by the landowner is commensurate 
     with the share of the crop or income received as rent.
       ``(B) Family members.--With respect to a farming operation 
     conducted by persons who are family members, or a legal 
     entity the majority of the stockholders or members of which 
     are family members, an adult family member who makes a 
     significant contribution (based on the total value of the 
     farming

[[Page 3820]]

     operation) of active personal management or personal labor 
     and, with respect to such contribution, who meets the 
     requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i).
       ``(C) Sharecroppers.--A sharecropper who makes a 
     significant contribution of personal labor to the farming 
     operation and, with respect to such contribution, who meets 
     the requirements of subclauses (II) and (III) of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i), and who was receiving payments from the landowner 
     as a sharecropper prior to the effective date of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 
     Stat. 1651).
       ``(D) Farm managers.--A person who otherwise meets the 
     requirements of this subsection other than paragraph (2)(E) 
     if--
       ``(i) the individual--

       ``(I)(aa) provides more than 50 percent of the commensurate 
     share of the total number of hours of active personal 
     management required to conduct the farming operation; and
       ``(bb) is, with respect to the commensurate share of the 
     individual, the only party who is providing active personal 
     management and who is at risk, other than a landlord, if any, 
     described in subparagraph (A); or
       ``(II)(aa) is the only individual qualifying the farming 
     operation (including a sole proprietorship, legal entity, 
     general partnership, or joint venture) as actively engaged in 
     farming; and
       ``(bb) qualifies only a single sole proprietorship, legal 
     entity, general partnership, or joint venture as actively 
     engaged in farming;

       ``(ii) the individual does not provide active personal 
     management to meet the requirements of this subsection for 
     persons or legal entities that collectively receive, directly 
     or indirectly, an amount equal to more than the applicable 
     limits under subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1001; 
     and
       ``(iii) the individual manages a farm operation that is not 
     jointly managed with persons or legal entities that 
     collectively receive, directly or indirectly, an amount equal 
     to more than the applicable limits under subsections (b), 
     (c), and (d) of section 1001.
       ``(4) Persons and legal entities not actively engaged in 
     farming.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), the following persons and legal 
     entities shall not be considered to be actively engaged in 
     farming with respect to a farm operation:
       ``(A) Landlords.--A landlord contributing land to the 
     farming operation if the landlord receives cash rent, or a 
     crop share guaranteed as to the amount of the commodity to be 
     paid in rent, for such use of the land.
       ``(B) Other persons and legal entities.--Any other person 
     or legal entity, or class of persons or legal entities, that 
     fails to meet the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3), as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(5) Personal labor or active personal management.--No 
     stockholder or other member of a legal entity or person may 
     provide personal labor or active personal management to meet 
     the requirements of this subsection for persons or legal 
     entities that collectively receive, directly or indirectly, 
     an amount equal to--
       ``(A) more than the applicable limits under subsections (b) 
     and (c) of section 1001; or
       ``(B) in the case of a stockholder or member in conjunction 
     with the spouse of the stockholder or member, more than the 
     applicable limits described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Custom farming services.--A person or legal entity 
     receiving custom farming services will be considered 
     separately eligible for payment limitation purposes if the 
     person or legal entity is actively engaged in farming based 
     on paragraphs (1) through (3).
       ``(7) Growers of hybrid seed.--To determine whether a 
     person or legal entity growing hybrid seed under contract 
     shall be considered to be actively engaged in farming, the 
     Secretary shall not take into consideration the existence of 
     a hybrid seed contract.
       ``(c) Notification by Legal Entities.--To facilitate the 
     administration of this section, each legal entity that 
     receives payments or benefits described as being subject to 
     limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of section 1001 with 
     respect to a particular farming operation shall--
       ``(1) notify each person or other legal entity that 
     acquires or holds a beneficial interest in the farming 
     operation of the requirements and limitations under this 
     section; and
       ``(2) provide to the Secretary, at such times and in such 
     manner as the Secretary may require, the name and social 
     security number of each person, or the name and taxpayer 
     identification number of each legal entity, that holds or 
     acquires such a beneficial interest.''.

     SEC. 4. FOREIGN PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES MADE INELIGIBLE 
                   FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.

       Section 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-3) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``PERSONS'' and 
     inserting ``PERSONS AND LEGAL ENTITIES'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Corporation or 
     Other'' and inserting ``Legal'';
       (B) in the first sentence, by striking ``a corporation or 
     other entity shall be considered a person that'' and 
     inserting ``a legal entity''; and
       (C) in the second sentence, by striking ``an entity'' and 
     inserting ``a legal entity''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``person'' and inserting 
     ``legal entity or person''.

     SEC. 5. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        McCain, and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
  S. 2218. A bill to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire 
Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing 
legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate 
Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this 
bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International 
Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am 
proud to have their support.
  Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first 
responders around the country will get the essential training, 
education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths 
and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and 
natural.
  Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire 
Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives 
among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is 
also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against 
natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
  America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our 
nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support 
them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire 
Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a 
wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely 
on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer--
always answer the call.
  In a report released in September, the United States Fire 
Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number 
of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent. 
During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in 
civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be 
proud of this progress.
  According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death 
rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the 
industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time 
period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300 
injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to 
improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American 
families.
  We must also continue to educate and train current and future 
generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the 
professional development of fire services personnel through the 
National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention 
Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as 
well as many other critical courses.
  My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the 
importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine 
Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year 
through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is 
17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from 
only nine in 2010--both are too many.
  With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the 
valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can 
make further

[[Page 3821]]

progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in our nation.
  I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. 
        Wyden, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
        Cardin, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Webb, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Casey, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2219. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012, and we are informally closing DISCLOSE 2.0 in 
recognition of the original bill that Senator Schumer worked so hard to 
get passed a few years ago.
  The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal 
Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and 
special interest money in elections, bringing about an era where 
corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of 
voters in our political system.
  Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous so the public does 
not even know who is spending millions to influence our elections. Here 
is how my home State newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained the 
Citizens United decision:

       The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending 
     economic interests will determine who gets elected. More 
     money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns. 
     Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their 
     voices will count for even less than they do now. They will 
     simply be drowned out by the big money.

  I think events have proven the Providence Journal correct. Senator 
John McCain recently described these events. He said:

       I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with 
     their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck 
     down [the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law], that there 
     would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparency, 
     unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening.

  If we look at the 2006 and 2010 congressional elections where there 
was not a Presidential race going on after Citizens United in 2010, 
there was a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other 
outside groups compared to what occurred in 2006, with nearly three-
quarters of that political advertising coming from sources that were 
prohibited from spending money in 2006--three-quarters of it.
  Also, in 2010, those 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations spent more 
than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. Anonymous 
spending rose from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 47 percent 
of outside spending in 2010. Nearly half of the money spent through 
these outside organizations is anonymous and secret.
  If we look at the 2012 race that we are in right now, a Presidential 
race, and compare it to the last Presidential race, we are already 
seeing similar ominous signs about the influence of money. The Federal 
Election Commission predicts that over $11 billion will be spent on the 
2012 elections, about double what was spent in 2008.
  Super PACs, mostly linked to individual candidates, spent about $100 
million through the Super Tuesday contest in the Republican 
Presidential primary, again, about twice what was spent over the same 
period in 2008. In the two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside 
PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three 
times as much as the candidates themselves.
  Our campaign finance system is broken. Immediate action is required 
to fix it. Americans of all political stripes, whatever their 
persuasion, are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous 
corporate cash in our elections and by campaigns that succeed or fail 
depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their 
pockets.
  Editorial boards across the country decry this new pollution of our 
politics. Republicans, such as former Governors Mike Huckabee and Tom 
Ridge, have concluded that super PACs are, in Mr. Huckabee's words, 
``one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.''
  Seven in ten Americans, including a majority of both Republicans and 
Democrats, believe super PACS should be illegal. Countless Rhode 
Islanders are fed up with the influence of corporate money in 
elections. I hear them at my community dinners; I read their mail. 
Charles in Little Compton wrote to me,

       [I]t is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further, in 
     this instance solely because they have more money, should 
     drown out another person . . . [C]orporations have no problem 
     getting their views aired.

  Hope-Whitney in Bristol wrote,

       [J]ust the idea that a corporation is considered an 
     individual in regards to politics goes against everything 
     American to me. . . . [T]hey have become the Emperors as they 
     have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. . . . I'd 
     be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do 
     not agree with their political representation.

  Elizabeth in Wakefield wrote:

       Big business should not control our elections. It is bad 
     enough that they deeply influence our politicians through 
     lobbyists.

  But because of a 5-to-4 decision by the conservative Justices in 
Citizens United, Congress cannot prohibit super PACs from drowning out 
the voices of ordinary Americans in our elections. That leaves us with 
one weapon left in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of 
money from special interests. That weapon is disclosure, daylight, 
information.
  Today, along with 34 other Senators, I am introducing legislation 
that will shine a bright light on these powerful shadowy interests. 
With this legislation, every citizen will know who is spending these 
great sums of money to get their candidate elected. I am delivering 
this speech at a time that Senator Bennet, the distinguished junior 
Senator from Colorado is presiding. I am very conscious and aware as I 
deliver it of the immense amount of work that he has put in in the 
process of preparing this legislation, working on a strategy for going 
forward, working with our leadership to commence that strategy.
  I am grateful to him and the other Senators I will mention later. For 
now I will give the Presiding Officer the lead. In 2010, under Senator 
Schumer's leadership and guidance, we came within one vote of passing 
his original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous and 
unaccountable corporate money has become dramatically worse, and 
Americans are losing faith in our political system as a result.
  More and more people believe their government responds only to 
wealthy and powerful corporate interests. As they see their jobs 
disappear and their wages stagnate, and bailouts and special deals for 
the big guys, they lose faith that their elected officials are 
listening to them. For our democracy to remain strong, this trend 
cannot continue. We must redouble our efforts and pass the DISCLOSE Act 
of 2012.
  The bill we are introducing today has been trimmed down so it just 
does two simple things: One, if you are an organization such as a 
corporation, a super PAC or a 401(c)(4) group spending money in an 
election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you 
have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are 
spending it on in a timely manner. That should not be a controversial 
idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking special 
influence.
  If you are a top executive or a major donor of an organization 
spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, you have to take 
responsibility for those ads by having your name on the ad, and in the 
case of an executive appearing in the ad yourself. That is it. Two 
simple

[[Page 3822]]

provisions. Disclosure and a disclaimer. These are reasonable 
provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans 
alike.
  The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, the DISCLOSE 2.0 Act, trims down the 
original DISCLOSE Act in another way. We have raised the threshold for 
donations that require disclosure from $600 to $10,000. It may sound as 
though $10,000 is a ridiculously high threshold, as though that is an 
awful lot of money, but when we look at what is happening in these 
super PACs, $10,000 in this particular world is no big deal.
  Ninety-three percent of money raised by super PACs in 2010 and 2011 
that can be traced to specific donors came in contributions of $10,000 
or more. So we will catch probably 93 percent of the money in this 
reporting provision, while leaving smaller donations and dues payments 
to membership organizations private.
  The act also does not require the disclosure of nonpolitical 
donations, affiliate transfers, business investments, and other 
transfers of money that have nothing to do with electioneering.
  At the same time, however, the bill also contains strong provisions 
to prevent the use of dummy organizations or shell corporations to hide 
their donations from public view. The way this bill is drafted, if 
somebody sets up a phony organization to take a contribution and, in 
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization and, in 
turn, make that contribution to another phony organization, before it 
finally lands in a super PAC that is benefiting a candidate, we will be 
able to trace that series of transactions.
  So it is a good law, a simpler law, an effective law. It only goes 
after high-dollar givers. Passing it would prove to the American people 
that Congress is committed to fairness, that we are committed to 
equality, and that we are committed to the fundamental principle of a 
government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''
  In closing, I thank Senator Schumer for his exemplary leadership and 
determination on this vitally important issue, as well as Senators 
Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom 
Udall, all of whom have worked very closely on this legislation. I also 
thank the act's other cosponsors--all 35--who, similar to myself, 
understand that the legitimacy of our democratic process and the 
integrity of our democratic elections are at stake.
  I look forward to working with any of my colleagues in the Senate who 
believe the voices of American citizens should be defended, and I hope 
all will join me in supporting this critical piece of legislation to 
restore integrity to our elections.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse, 
Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts 
to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by 
Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help 
to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the 
narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in 
Citizens United.
  Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices 
overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from 
corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to 
strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and 
ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from direct spending 
in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and remain troubled 
today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to corporations the 
same First Amendment rights in the political process that are 
guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.
  Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations 
do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. 
Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal 
constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. 
Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow 
majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.
  When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's 
decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to 
mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that 
Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain-
Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that 
corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.
  Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act, 
preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having 
an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the 
DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy 
corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out 
the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in 
our elections.
  By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the 
flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and 
unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would 
continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks 
that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding 
precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American 
people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican 
primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead 
of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative 
advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to 
the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the 
time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of 
government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the 
decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the 
people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones 
would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is 
clear those concerns were justified.
  By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the 
effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and 
accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans 
know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward 
restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard 
and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate 
influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that 
Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable 
corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this 
important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the 
McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''
  Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate 
money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to 
corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and 
transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It 
would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend 
all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning 
board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those 
corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's 
hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all 
Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election 
Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic 
process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont 
refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of 
Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to 
each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate 
spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support 
the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure 
the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and 
fair elections.

[[Page 3823]]



                          ____________________