[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11220-11224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate resumes 
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3369.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                              SUCCESS Act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before we end the debate on the small 
business tax relief bills, I want to thank the 57 Members of this 
Senate who voted for the SUCCESS Act. The SUCCESS Act has been building 
support, strong support across the aisle now for about 3 to 4 weeks. It 
is an outgrowth of not one, not two, but three very successful, high-
profile roundtables the Small Business Committee in the Senate has 
conducted over the course of the spring, coming into the summer, in 
hopes that we could present a bill that could give a boost in the 
middle of this summer period to the small businesses that are really 
struggling to hire and to get stronger as this economy gains strength. 
Unfortunately, we fell only three votes short just a few minutes ago.
  This bill is primarily a tax cut--very targeted, very specific, and 
very effective--to the small businesses we are counting on to grow and 
to accelerate the potential high-growth businesses, not just any 
startups but those that really have the capacity to grow.
  We were hoping that despite the partisan posturing, we could have 
received the 60 votes to give this effort some more life. But we are 
not going to be discouraged.
  I want to particularly thank Senator Shaheen, the Presiding Officer, 
for her help. I want to specifically thank Senator Cardin and Senator 
Hagan for spending time on the floor for the provision of streamlining 
applications for small businesses. That is in this bill.
  I want to thank Senator Vitter, Senator Heller, and Senator Collins 
particularly for their support today. I want to briefly, for another 
minute, mention a few of the organizations that are supporting this 
effort, which is only a $4 billion cost. It has a $12 billion immediate 
impact but only a $4 billion score. It was very effectively written to 
create a score like that. I am proud of the staff work that went into 
this effort.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Lighting 
Association, the Rental Association, Association of Builders and 
Contractors, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Automotive 
Aftermarket Industry Association, Financial Executives, Metal Services 
Institute, Independent Community Bankers--and just to name a few more--
the National Beer Wholesalers, National Association of Home Builders, 
Printing Industry of America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship 
Council, the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce, many women's 
organizations, Women Construction Owners, Women's Business Enterprise, 
et cetera, et cetera.
  We are very proud to be building in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a 
very broad coalition that can see the value. Perhaps we cannot find 
common ground on a $40 billion tax cut bill or a $50 billion tax cut 
bill or even $20 billion. But I think we could find common ground on a 
bill that only scores and costs the Federal Government $4 billion has a 
$12 billion impact.
  It is $4 billion over 10 years, but the benefit is right now, the way 
that we have structured it, to extend these tax credits and tax 
extenders for about a year and 3 months which would give us time as we 
move forward to revise the Tax Code and to see how we can reduce and 
eliminate our deficit and make our Tax Code more fair. At least it 
would give a strong signal to many of these small businesses they can 
count on the tax cuts that are in this bill.

[[Page 11221]]

  So I am going to, on behalf of the 57 Members who voted for this bill 
today, file a stand-alone bill. It is going to be called the SUCCESS 
Act of 2012. I am going to ask all of those who voted today to join me 
as a cosponsor of the legislation. And let's see, we still have some 
time left in the summer before we leave. Perhaps, with the 
administration's support--and they do support the provisions of this--
and with the leadership shown by some of the Republican Senators today, 
who knows, we might be able to get something done.
  Finally, we are working closely with the House leadership on the 
Small Business Committee. I am working very closely with Chairman 
Graves. They have passed some of this already through the House. So 
perhaps if we stay focused and work a little bit harder, we might be 
able to squeeze out another piece of legislation that will help the 
small businesses of America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Tax Rates

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor at this point to 
counteract and add substance to something the majority leader said 
today in regard to taxes.
  Recently, the Congressional Budget Office released an update to its 
report on average effective tax rates. Several of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have pounced on this report claiming that tax 
rates are at historic lows.
  In a floor speech just this morning the majority leader said the 
lowest tax rates in 30 years was ``thanks to President Obama, who has 
consistently fought to lower taxes for the middle-class families over 
the last 3\1/2\ years.'' However, the majority leader and others of his 
political party are only telling half the story. The report also shows 
that incomes of households in all income groups have declined by an 
average of 12 percent since 2007. This means, then, that Americans are 
12 percent poorer than they were in 2007.
  Now, should we also thank President Obama for this reduction in 
income? Essentially, this is what the majority leader is doing when he 
thanks President Obama for lower tax rates because when individuals 
have less income, they pay less in taxes. Now, isn't that common sense?
  Millions of Americans are out of work and have very little or no 
income. You would have better luck getting blood out of a turnip than 
collecting income taxes from someone who has no income.
  Over the past weeks and months we have heard a lot about income 
inequality. Occupy Wall Street has been very vocal on this issue. Many 
Members of Congress have also expressed concern that income inequality 
is ever increasing. The Finance Committee, of which I am a member, just 
recently had a hearing on this very topic. This most recent CBO data 
shows that income inequality is at the lowest point in more than a 
decade. The share of income held by the top 1 percent has shrunk by 28 
percent. At the same time, the bottom 60 percent of households saw 
their share of income increase by an average 11 percent.
  So perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle do have reason 
to cheer: The rich are much less rich but, of course, the poor are 
poorer as well. It is just that those in the lower incomes did not see 
their income shrink by as much as higher income people.
  Of course, those in the bottom 60 percent of households are not 
better off today than they were when income inequality was greater. In 
fact, they are poorer and struggling more than ever. So I just hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep that in mind as we try 
to create a better future, and do it for everyone.
  Reduction in income inequality should not be a goal in and of itself. 
What really matters is individual well-being and opportunity for 
everybody to succeed. This is best achieved, then, through progrowth 
policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by targeting certain 
unpopular groups for tax hikes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
DISCLOSE Act of 2012. This is legislation that will shine a bit of 
needed light into the flood of secret money in our elections. I would 
like to start with particular thanks to Senators Chuck Schumer, Michael 
Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom Udall for 
their hard work on developing the legislation. I look forward to 
joining them as this debate goes forward.
  This morning the majority leader moved to proceed to this vital piece 
of legislation. I thank him. I and many of my colleagues are looking 
forward to the opportunity to make the case in this Chamber for this 
important piece of legislation. In a sense, that case has already been 
made. As anyone who watches television knows, our airwaves are filled 
with negative political attack ads. The organizations that pay for 
these negative political attack ads all have patriotic-sounding names 
dotted with words like ``prosperity,'' ``freedom,'' and ``future.'' The 
names sound harmless, but they are phony. All too often the ads are 
paid for by secret special interests, billionaires, and wealthy 
corporations seeking special secret influence in our democracy and 
drowning out the voices of middle-class American families.
  As USA Today put it just last week in an editorial supporting this 
DISCLOSE Act, ``Everybody's watching what's expected to be by far the 
most expensive presidential campaign in history, and not without a dose 
of horror. Freed by the Supreme Court from spending limits, all manner 
of special interests are opening the spigots to buy influence.'' That 
is exactly right, ``All manner of special interests are opening the 
spigots to buy influence,'' and because their money is secret, the 
American public doesn't even know who is behind the negative political 
attack ads other than the phony name.
  Here is how my home State paper, the Providence Journal, reacted to 
the original Citizens United decision that has unleashed this torrent 
of secret special interest money:

       The [Citizens United] ruling will mean that, more than 
     ever, big-spending economic interests will determine who gets 
     elected. More money will especially pour into relentless 
     attack campaigns. Free speech for most 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.

  The Providence Journal could not have been proven out more correctly 
by the events that have taken place since.
  Senator John McCain said earlier this year:

       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 transparent, 
     unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening.

  Senator McCain was right. Campaigns are no longer waged by candidates 
and parties fighting over ideas; they are now waged by shadowy 
political attack groups posing as social welfare organizations, run by 
political operatives, linked to specific candidates, and fueled by 
millions of undisclosed dollars from secret special interests. When 
these secretive special interests take over our elections, it puts in 
jeopardy the key supports of a strong middle class, supports such as 
Social Security, Medicare, Pell grants, a progressive tax system, and 
things that have paved the way for generations to achieve the American 
dream.
  Why do I say that? I say that because these special interests have 
motives to

[[Page 11222]]

spend this kind of money. If those motives were good for America, would 
they be so desperate to keep what they are doing secret? I don't think 
so.
  Americans who worry now that Washington listens too much to the 
special interests, strap in, look out, and hang on to your wallet 
because a secret special interest avalanche is underway. According to a 
study in April, 90 percent of the money being spent by super PACs, 
nonprofits, and other outside groups to elect the President of the 
United States is coming from secret sources, secretive corporations, 
and billionaires whose names and motives the voters may never know and 
who will have no accountability for how that money is spent.
  When there is no accountability for how money is spent because the 
phony front organization that purports to be spending it isn't real and 
the real party and interest has hidden behind a veil of secrecy, then 
there is no limit on what people will say. It is accountability that 
keeps public dialog in reasonable check. That is why you and I, Mr. 
President, are obliged at the end of our campaign advertisements to 
say: I am Senator Whitehouse, and I approve this message. I am Senator 
Coons, and I approve this message.
  Well, relieved from that accountability, about 70 percent of the ads 
in this election cycle have been negative. That is up from 9 percent in 
2008. I will say it again: 70 percent, up from 9 percent, as this flood 
of secret special interest money has hit.
  Even worse, if we look at the four top-spending political 
501(c)(4)s--the secret organizations, the ones that hide their donors--
and what they have done in the last 6 months, an estimated 85 percent 
of their election spending was spent on ads that contained deceptions, 
according to a recent analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. 
So we unhinge any real person from accountability for this spending. 
The special interests behind it remain secret, and the ads become 
virtually exclusively negative attack ads and they are riddled with 
deception.
  This is what the Supreme Court thought free speech looked like. This 
is all the result of that disastrous decision by the Supreme Court in 
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which opened the 
floodgates of secret, anonymous special interest money. I think it was 
a deliberate decision, but that is a discussion for another day. For 
today, our purpose is to point out that the campaign finance system, as 
a result, is broken and it lends itself to corruption in new and 
unprecedented ways.
  The Supreme Court, in the Citizens United decision, in its blissful 
ignorance, never even considered what happens behind the scenes. They 
talked only about the public debate and the public expenditure of this 
money. They assumed it would be independent of the candidates, and they 
were wrong. They assumed it would be transparent as to who was behind 
it, and they were wrong. They also assumed that what was put on the air 
was the end of the issue. They took no consideration of the behind-the-
scenes meeting where the special interest comes in to meet the 
Congressman and doesn't spend $5 million in secretly funded negative 
attack ads but threatens to. And if the threat works, they buy the 
vote, nobody ever sees an ad, and the institution of government is 
corrupted.
  It is one thing if it is a company and they say: Well, I am going to 
be against you, and my CEO is going to have a party and raise money in 
$5,000 increments against you, and our PAC is going to give a $10,000 
check to your opponent. We are going to tell our workers that you are 
not a good person for our industry.
  OK, that is not great, but it is nowhere near as dangerous as being 
able to say: We are going to put $5 million into a secret campaign of 
negative attack ads against you, and nobody is going to know it is us. 
If you play right and do what you are told, we will lay off, but 
otherwise, look out, we are coming after you. It will be hidden, it 
will be negative, and it will be nasty.
  That is no way to run a democracy. So today the majority leader has 
moved to a bill that will bring at least transparency and 
accountability to our elections. At least these big special interests 
will have to say who they are. Then we as Americans can evaluate what 
their motives are, what the deal might be, whether we are actually 
aligned with their interests, and we can evaluate what they are saying 
about candidates. We will have more information. We will have a better 
quality of free speech. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. 
In fact, disclosure has never before been a Republican or Democratic 
issue. This is about protecting our democratic process as Americans.
  I really look forward to debating this important measure with my 
colleagues in the upcoming days. I am joined by Americans of all 
political stripes who are disgusted by the influence of this unlimited 
secret money pouring into our elections. We are disgusted by campaigns 
that succeed or fail, that last or don't last, depending on how many 
billionaires the candidate has funding their campaign through these 
special organizations. More and more around this country, particularly 
in Rhode Island--the people I hear from at home--people feel this 
government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests. They feel 
the middle class can't catch a break, that nobody is listening, that 
everything is done for the big guys. They see their jobs disappear. 
They see their wages stagnate. They see bailouts and special deals for 
the big guys, and they lose faith that their elected officials are 
actually listening to them. If we thought that was a problem before, 
when at least it was public and at least we knew who the registered 
lobbyists were and who had made the campaign contributions and at least 
we knew there were some reasonable limits on all that--all those gates 
have been knocked down. It is the Wild West now, and it is secret.
  Six in ten Americans say the middle class will not catch a break in 
this economy until we reduce the influence of lobbyists, big banks, and 
big donors. Guess what. With these fountains of secret money behind 
them, their influence isn't being reduced; it is going to be 
dramatically increased--and increased in ways that lend themselves to 
corruption.
  One out of every four Americans actually says they are less likely to 
even vote because they believe big donors and super PACs have so much 
more influence over elected officials than they do that they feel 
pushed out of the process, so why bother. That is a terrible blow to 
American democracy.
  Nearly 7 in 10 Americans, including a majority of Democrats and 
Republicans, agree with this proposition: New rules that let 
corporations, unions, and people give unlimited money to super PACs 
will lead to corruption. One would think that is a blindingly obvious 
proposition. It escaped the five conservative members of the Supreme 
Court who decreed that was not going to be the case. Seven out of ten 
Americans disagree with them. I disagree with them. The closer we get 
to elections, the more we see that proposition is foolhardy.
  So we have the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that Republican and former 
Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter said is 
appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional, and 
desperately needed. I very much hope we can join in this debate; that 
we can get this bill passed in the Senate; that we can clean up our 
elections and begin to do something about this foul avalanche of 
negative attack ads--again, 85 percent of them containing deception--
that are now polluting our public discourse.
  Prior to the Citizens United decision and prior to the floodgates 
actually opening, there was a long and rich bipartisan tradition in 
this Senate of demanding disclosure of spending in elections. Many of 
our Republican colleagues in the Senate have loudly and clearly 
supported disclosure in the past, and I hope they will join us in 
passing this important piece of legislation. The fundamental principle 
of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a 
government that will listen to the people, not just to the big special 
interests that can afford massive secret money.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

[[Page 11223]]

  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Tribute to Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to LTG 
Ronald L. Burgess, Jr., the current Director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, and one of the Nation's premier leaders in the 
intelligence community and in the United States military.
  Lieutenant General Burgess retires this summer after a distinguished 
38-year career. During his career, Lieutenant General Burgess has been 
recognized with numerous awards and decorations, which include the 
Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal 
with two oak leaf clusters, the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service 
Medal with four oak leaf clusters, Joint Service Commendation Medal, 
United States Special Operations Command Medal, Army Commendation 
Medal, Army Achievement Medal, NATO Medal--Former Republic of 
Yugoslavia, Parachutist Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification 
Badge, and the Army Staff Identification Badge.
  As a driving force in the intelligence community, General Burgess 
will soon conclude a career marked by exceptional leadership and 
strategic vision, both of which have significantly advanced U.S. 
national security interests while also strengthening our national 
intelligence and military intelligence capabilities during a very 
challenging period in our Nation's history.
  Throughout his time in uniform, Lieutenant General Burgess has 
demonstrated an unyielding dedication to duty and an innate ability to 
inspire enthusiasm and commitment to serve those he leads. Lieutenant 
General Burgess's selfless service to country and his unparalleled 
personal drive have been instrumental in transforming defense 
intelligence into a more capable and cooperative enterprise, providing 
the critical intelligence required by military commanders and 
policymakers both at the defense and national levels.
  Commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Auburn University 
ROTC Program in 1974, Lieutenant General Burgess began his career with 
a series of assignments in armor and military intelligence units in 
Germany and Ft. Stewart, GA, where he was directly responsible for 
planning multiple highly successful National Training Center rotations, 
numerous command post exercises, and an Army training and evaluation 
program.
  Lieutenant General Burgess was recognized for his meticulous planning 
and forceful execution of operational procedures which contributed 
significantly to combat readiness. Later Lieutenant General Burgess 
held a variety of key staff and command positions, including Assistant 
Executive Officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 
Washington, DC in 1990, and as the battalion commander, 25th Infantry 
Division, from May 1993 to May 1994, at Schofield Barracks, HI.
  From July 1995 to May 1997, Lieutenant General Burgess commanded the 
470th Military Intelligence Brigade where he served with great 
distinction. As commander, he provided outstanding leadership which led 
to the unit's operational success in support of the Commanding General 
of the United State's Army South and the Commander U.S. Southern 
Command.
  During this period, Lieutenant General Burgess skillfully integrated 
a multi-disciplined intelligence force into an extremely innovative 
war-fighting asset while also expanding the brigade's regional focus 
through more than 150 operational deployments across Latin America, the 
Caribbean, Europe, and Korea. While commanding the 470th, Lieutenant 
General Burgess also served as acting vice director of intelligence, 
and subsequently the acting director of intelligence for U.S. Southern 
Command. During this period Lieutenant General Burgess guided a 
continuous flow of intelligence analysis in support of the year-long 
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement hostage crisis at the Japanese 
ambassador's residence in Lima. Lieutenant General Burgess's support 
was key to developing the detailed analysis required by U.S. military 
commanders, our ambassador to Peru and the President to make timely and 
informed decisions leading to the safe withdrawal of American hostages.
  Following his assignment at U.S. Southern Command, Lieutenant General 
Burgess served as the Director of Intelligence (J-2) for the Joint 
Special Operations Command, JSOC, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, from May 
1997 to May 1999. During this assignment, Ron's leadership was 
instrumental in supporting continuous global deployments as well as 
major exercises and highly complex joint-service training events.
  Mr. President, in June 1999, Ron returned to the Southern Command as 
the Director of Intelligence, J-2. Among his achievements while serving 
in that position, Lieutenant General Burgess led an interagency 
intelligence effort to create a fused Colombian intelligence capability 
that enhanced military and police cooperation against illegal global 
drug networks. Lieutenant General Burgess led Southern Command's 
intelligence response to many challenges including potential migrant 
operations, tracking of Cuban exiles, hurricane and earthquake disaster 
relief, and sustained counterdrug operations in both the area of 
responsibility and throughout transit zones.
  From June 2003 to July 2005, Lieutenant General Burgess served as the 
Director for Intelligence (J-2) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, JCS. As 
the J-2, Ron directed all-source intelligence analysis and reporting 
for the Chairman JCS, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and 
Unified Commands. Lieutenant General Burgess served as the focal point 
for crisis intelligence support to military operations, indications and 
warning intelligence in the Department of Defense, and Unified Command 
intelligence requirements. Assuming control of intelligence operations 
only months after the United States and coalition forces invaded Iraq, 
Lieutenant General Burgess was at the forefront of providing timely and 
insightful intelligence for operational requirements in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, transnational terrorism, and all developing global issues 
affecting U.S. interests abroad.
  In August 2005, Lieutenant General Burgess reported to the Office of 
the Director for National Intelligence, ODNI, where he served as the 
Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Customer Outcomes, 
Director of the Intelligence Staff, Acting Principal Deputy Director of 
National Intelligence, and acting Director of National Intelligence. 
During this period, Lieutenant General Burgess played a key role in 
developing and reforming the Intelligence Community during an 
unprecedented period of global change. During Ron's tenure at ODNI, his 
leadership was key during the revision of Executive Order 12333, which 
governs all intelligence activities, the development of the first-ever 
joint manning document for military personnel assigned to organizations 
outside of the Department of Defense, critical Intelligence Community 
managerial operations were overhauled, and innovative human capital 
practices were implemented under his watch.
  After completing his ODNI assignment, Lieutenant General Burgess was 
appointed the 17th director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, in 
March 2009. As the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence I have personally witnessed Ron's thoughtful and ambitious 
program to strengthen DIA's ability to address the ever-changing 
requirements

[[Page 11224]]

of military commanders and policymakers at the defense and national 
levels. Lieutenant General Burgess has focused DIA on our nation's 
greatest challenges including Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, 
transnational terrorism, and preventing strategic surprise elsewhere 
around the globe. In doing so, Ron has reinforced DIA's ability to 
surge in support of contingency operations and crises, successfully 
launching a 24/7 crisis analysis cell at the start of the Libyan crisis 
and establishing an Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force that refined the 
agency's ability to support ongoing combat operations
  As DIA was celebrating its 50th anniversary, Lieutenant General 
Burgess charted an innovative, five-year strategy to strengthen and 
unite the agency's core defense capabilities while also focusing the 
agency on warning, core mission areas, partnership, and performance. 
DIA's new strategy emphasizes best practices to support our warfighters 
and policy makers in an era of persistent conflict and enduring U.S. 
fiscal challenges and sets the path toward achieving the strategy's 
major theme of ``One Mission--One Team--One Agency.''
  As Director of DIA, Lieutenant General Burgess has worked to 
strengthen and improve the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications 
System, JWICS, the secure backbone for much of the U.S. Intelligence 
Community, the White House, U.S. combatant commanders, and allies. 
Additionally, he has led the effort to establish the Defense 
Clandestine Service, DCS, which provides enhanced collection 
capabilities in support of the highest priority intelligence 
requirements of the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and the Combatant 
Commanders.
  No matter the range or complexity of the issues, Ron always kept 
himself, his colleagues and subordinates focused on the fundamental 
obligations and responsibilities borne by those entrusted with some of 
the Nation's most important and sensitive missions.
  He frequently reminded DIA employees, ``While much of what we do is 
secret, our work is a public trust.''
  And consistent with that view, Ron emphasized at every opportunity 
the non-negotiable need for intelligence professionals to always 
demonstrate the highest degree of integrity, both personal and 
professional. He often counseled new employees, senior managers and 
military attaches headed to new postings that ``integrity is needed 
most when it is hardest to maintain.''
  Mr. President, while much of what is said behind closed doors at the 
Senate Intelligence Committee is classified, I can tell you, my 
colleagues and the American people, that DIA is held in high esteem by 
the Senate Intelligence Committee, due in no small part to Ron's 
leadership. DIA is an indispensable, principal member of the U.S. 
Intelligence Community and has strengthened its performance as the 
functional intersection between defense and national intelligence. 
Lieutenant General Burgess leaves behind a more flexible and adaptive 
agency, one that is much more capable of meeting our national security 
challenges. Under his leadership, DIA has earned even greater respect 
within the Intelligence Community and continues to warrant Congress' 
strong support and trust.
  Mr. President, while the Army and Intelligence Community will be 
losing a leader who has answered the call time and again at such 
critical points in our Nation's history, I know that Ron will be happy 
to reclaim his Saturday afternoons in the fall to root for his Auburn 
Tigers, and that the Burgess family will cherish more time with a 
husband and father. Mr. President, I wish Ron and his wife Marta the 
very best as he enters retirement. On behalf of a grateful Nation and 
my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, I thank Ron and his family for his 
many years of faithful service and a job well done.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, July 
16, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the 
following nomination: Calendar No. 662; that there be 30 minutes for 
debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote with no intervening 
action or debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is currently on the motion to 
proceed to S. 3369; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader is correct.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. That being the case, I have a cloture motion at the desk on 
the motion to proceed to that matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill 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, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar No. 446, S. 3369, a 
bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for 
additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor 
organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes.

         Harry Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Jon Tester, Mark L. Pryor, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Christopher A. Coons, Jeanne Shaheen, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Herb Kohl, Charles E. Schumer, Mark Begich, Tim 
           Johnson, Robert Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Mark 
           Udall, Sherrod Brown.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under our rule XXII be waived, and that on Monday, July 
16, following the vote on the McNulty nomination and the resumption of 
legislative session, there be up to 10 minutes of debate, equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a cloture 
vote on the motion to proceed to S. 3369.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________