[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11390-11396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DISCLOSE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 446, 
S. 3369.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 3369, a bill to amend the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional 
     disclosure requirements of corporations, labor organizations, 
     super PACs, and other entities, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, the time until 12:30 
p.m. today will be divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes 
and the majority the second 30 minutes.
  We will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today to allow for our 
weekly caucus meetings.
  Additionally, the time from 2:15 p.m. until 3 p.m. will be equally 
divided and controlled. At 3 p.m. there will be a cloture vote on the 
motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act, which was debated last night and 
will be debated again this morning.


                            The DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. President, the corrosive effect of money on American politics 
isn't a product of the 21st century. More than 100 years ago, moneyed 
special interests had already tested the integrity of this country's 
political system.
  In 1899, copper billionaire William Clark was elected to the U.S. 
Senate by the Montana State legislature. The contest was considered so 
blatantly swayed by bribery the Senate refused to seat him. Here is how 
Clark famously responded:

       I never bought a man who wasn't for sale.

  We in Nevada have some connection with that name because Las Vegas is 
in Clark County. Clark County was formed in the early part of the 20th 
century. The largest county in America was Lincoln County and that was 
divided between Lincoln and Clark Counties, and this character, William 
Clark, is who that county was named after.
  But after Clark made this remark, and people realized he had 
blatantly swayed the State legislature by bribery, the U.S. Senate 
refused to seat him. He became a Senator anyway--not for long, but he 
became a Senator. As I have learned from people who know a lot about 
Montana history, Clark was very clever. The Governor of the State of 
Montana went to San Francisco, to the acting governor--the lieutenant 
governor--after he was denied his seat, and he reappointed him to the 
Senate. So he got to the U.S. Senate by virtue of the shenanigans that 
took place. Incensed Montana voters went on to pass the Corrupt 
Practices Act via a referendum. They voted for it. Less than a decade 
later, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt reined in unlimited 
corporate giving to political candidates at the Federal level as well--
not only in Montana but at the Federal level.
  This Nation has a long history of curtailing the corrupt influence of 
money in politics. But with the Citizens United decision, the Supreme 
Court of our country erased a century of effort to protect the fairness 
and integrity of American elections. That disastrous decision opened 
the door for corporations, anonymous billionaires, and foreign 
interests to spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing voters.
  For anyone who dismisses this change as politics as usual, they 
should think again. During this year's election, outside spending by 
GOP shell groups is expected to top $1 billion--that is billion with a 
``B.'' The names of these new front groups contain words that are warm 
and fuzzy, such as ``freedom'' and ``prosperity.'' But make no mistake, 
there is nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of 
billionaires for their own self-interest.
  Just one of those outside groups--just one of them--backed by wealthy 
oil interests, has promised to spend $400 million on negative ads 
filled with half truths and distortions of President Obama's record. By 
comparison, during the 2008 election--less than 4 years ago--Senator 
John McCain's Presidential campaign spent $370 million total. That was 
a huge amount of money in that day, but it is being dwarfed by these 
outside groups this year. So this year one group's special interest 
money will dwarf the entire budget of the Republican nominee John 
McCain in the last Presidential election.
  Democrats and the majority of Americans believe these unlimited 
corporate special interest contributions should be outlawed. But in the 
post-Citizens United world, the least we should do is require groups 
spending millions on political attack ads to disclose the donors. We 
owe it to the voters to let them judge for themselves the attacks and 
the motivation behind them. But they can only do that if they know who 
is doing it. The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations of 
all stripes, liberal and conservatives alike, to disclose donations in 
excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.

[[Page 11391]]

  Safeguarding fair and transparent elections used to be an arena where 
Democrats and Republicans could find common ground. As far back as 
1997, the Republican leader, our friend Senator McConnell, said, 
``Disclosure is the best disinfectant.'' In fact, 14 Republicans now 
serving in the Senate voted to support stronger disclosure laws in the 
year 2000. Yet last night, those same 14 Republicans did an about-face, 
and every one of my Republican colleagues voted to block the DISCLOSE 
Act.
  It is obvious the Republican priority is to protect a handful of 
anonymous billionaires--billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of 
millions of dollars to change the outcome of elections. But today, 
again, they will have an opportunity to consider that backwards 
priority. We are doing that with the motion to reconsider which I 
announced last night. They will have the opportunity to stand for the 
average voter instead of these billionaires.
  I hope they join Democrats as we work to ensure all Americans--not 
just the wealthy few--have an equal voice in the political process.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                             Tax Increases

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week, in response to another 
disappointing month of job growth, President Obama issued a truly 
bizarre ultimatum--a truly bizarre ultimatum: Let me raise taxes on a 
million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody. Let me raise 
taxes on a million businesses or I will raise taxes on everybody.
  Yesterday, Democratic leaders in Congress took this strange new 
economic theory--whereby politicians purport to help job creation by 
hurting job creators--to dizzying new heights. Yesterday, Senate 
Democratic leaders said they would actually prefer--prefer--to see 
America go off the so-called fiscal cliff this coming January--along 
with the trauma that would unleash on our economy--than let businesses 
maintain their existing tax rates. That was the position of Democratic 
leaders yesterday: They would rather see America go off the fiscal 
cliff in January than let a million businesses maintain their current 
tax rates.
  It is an astonishing admission--an astonishing admission. Democrats 
in Congress are now saying they would rather see taxes go up on every 
American at the end of the year than let about a million businesses 
keep what they earn now. They would rather let taxes go up on everybody 
in the country rather than allow a million businesses to keep the money 
they earn now.
  This isn't an economic agenda--it is not an economic agenda--it is an 
ideological crusade. This morning, Ernst & Young is releasing a study 
which shows that President Obama's plan to raise taxes on these 
businesses will result in 710,000 fewer jobs. What a great idea: Let's 
raise taxes on a million of our most successful small businesses and 
eliminate 700,000 jobs in the middle of the most tepid recovery in 
anybody's memory. What a terrific idea. For those who manage to keep 
their jobs, real aftertax wages would fall by an estimated 1.8 percent, 
meaning living standards would decline as government sucks more capital 
out of the economy.
  The President's proposal, in other words, is a recipe for economic 
stagnation and decline--a recipe for economic stagnation and decline. 
But the Murray proposal--the idea we should raise taxes on everybody--
is even worse. Not only would it trigger another recession, it would 
put the global economy at risk. Here is the Democratic theory: that a 
massive income tax increase on 140 million American taxpayers wouldn't 
be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away. It wouldn't 
be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away.
  This bizarre conclusion can only be reached by politicians and budget 
analysts who have never worked a day in the private sector, who don't 
understand what goes into cutting a paycheck for employees, and who 
don't have a concept of the planning--the planning--that is necessary 
to operate a business on thin margins in a tough economy.
  This shows how out of touch these people are, to rely on the analysis 
of Ivy Tower liberals instead of listening to the jobs groups that have 
been pleading with us to fix this problem sooner rather than later and 
end the uncertainty that is acting like a big wet blanket over our 
entire economy.
  Today another nonpartisan group, the Business Roundtable, urged 
Congress to adopt the Republican plan to extend current tax law for a 
year and make a bridge to tax reform. In a letter to Congress, the 
group's chairman, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, warned:

       Without effective action soon, this uncertainty will spawn 
     a dangerous crisis, threatening our economy, businesses and 
     workers.

  What Republicans have been saying is that we should eliminate this 
uncertainty right now. We should eliminate the uncertainty that Boeing 
employees--nearly 85,000 of whom work in Washington State--and so many 
others are facing right now. We should tackle these problems now rather 
than waiting until the end of the year.
  Let me just boil it down. Faced with the slowest economic recovery in 
modern times, chronic joblessness, and the lowest percentage of able-
bodied Americans actually participating in the workforce in literally 
decades, Democrats' one-point plan to revive the economy is this: You 
earn, we take. You earn, we take is apparently the only thing they 
have.
  Surely we can do better. I know we can, and so do the American 
people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                     Reservation of Leadership Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the 
leadership time is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 will be equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with 
the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority 
controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Alabama.


                              The Economy

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator McConnell 
for his remarks and the fundamental truth of those remarks that this 
administration and the majority in this Senate want to raise taxes. 
They think that raising taxes and spending more through the government 
will somehow lift the economy. We have been shown that is not so.
  Our Democratic colleagues stayed here last night talking about an 
issue that doesn't have the support to pass, and they should have been 
talking about the fundamental threat to our economy: not having a 
budget. Why aren't we moving forward with a budget? Why aren't we 
moving forward with the appropriations bills that are necessary to fund 
the government come October 1? The majority leader, Senator Reid, has 
announced he has no intention to pass a single one, not even to bring 
them up.
  So we will end up, in late September, passing a continuing resolution 
to fund the government--there is no telling what else will be tied up 
in that--which will create instability and uncertainty because this 
Democratic-led Senate has refused to pass a budget, refused to lay out 
a plan for the future, and refused to move the appropriations bills.
  I have been here 15 years. This is the first time I have ever seen us 
not move a single appropriations bill. When I first came here, we would 
move almost every 1 of the appropriations bills before September 30. It 
is hard work. We have to bring up the bill, decide how much we want for 
the Department of Defense, or the Department of Agriculture, or the 
Department of Education, and members offer amendments and debate and do 
their work. That is what we are supposed to be doing, but we are not.
  Today I want to talk about and call attention to another serious--
scandalous, really--development in the way the Democratic leadership in 
this Senate is systemically dismantling the statutorily required budget 
process. It is a tale of how we are going broke.
  Let me begin with a review of the situation. Last summer, Congress 
and the

[[Page 11392]]

President faced a serious crisis as a result of the fact that surging 
government spending had driven our debt to the highest level allowed--
the debt ceiling. We were hitting the debt ceiling. Do you remember 
that? A deal was struck then to raise the debt ceiling.
  That is what the President wanted. He didn't want to cut spending 40 
percent. We were borrowing--and we still borrow--almost 40 cents of 
every dollar we spend. All government programs would have had to have 
been cut 40 percent if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Amazing as 
that sounds, this is undisputable.
  Republicans prevailed in their insistence that spending should be 
reduced over 10 years by an amount equal to the increase in the debt 
ceiling last August. The legislation this deal produced, the Budget 
Control Act, set certain spending limits in the absence of a budget 
resolution that we should have passed in the Senate as required by law. 
So these spending limits came into effect when the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, filed the allocation numbers into the 
Congressional Record, telling every Senate committee how much it was 
allowed to spend. That is the power given to the Budget Committee 
chairman. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and 
Senator Conrad chairs the Budget Committee.
  So the Budget Control Act plainly dictates that beginning on October 
1 of this year, spending limits would be derived from the Congressional 
Budget Office's baseline. This is crucial because the CBO baseline 
contains the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years--really, 
reductions in spending growth, and not so much cuts--that the deal was 
supposed to implement in exchange for the immediate $2.1 trillion 
raising of the debt ceiling.
  Herein lies the scandal. Although it was buried in the spending 
allocation that Senator Conrad sent out, my staff on the Senate Budget 
Committee discovered that Senator Conrad did not file an outlay limit 
based on the CBO baseline. Instead, the outlay total he filed was $14 
billion higher--curiously matching exactly the spending levels that 
President Obama had requested in the budget he submitted to Congress in 
February.
  Although this discovery was not readily apparent, Chairman Conrad, to 
his credit--he is an honorable man--does not dispute it. He simply 
asserts that it is within his discretion to unilaterally set a higher 
total.
  Again, because the CBO baseline reflects the spending reductions 
passed by Congress and signed into law, an increase above the 
baseline--as the allocation that he submitted allows--is an abrogation 
of the bipartisan agreement we reached last August.
  We told the American people: OK, we raised the debt ceiling. A lot of 
people didn't want to do it. A lot of Americans were hot about it. We 
said: But we are going to cut spending by that amount over 10 years.
  As reported by the publication, CQ:

       Conrad did not counter Sessions' claim that the elevated 
     outlay limit would allow higher spending in fiscal year 2013.

  But let me emphasize, this is not just the fault of Senator Conrad. 
This large violation of the Budget Control Act is without doubt the 
decision of Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, his leadership team, 
and the members of the Democratic caucus who support him.
  Remember, outlays are the spending figures which directly register on 
the debt. Mr. President, $14 billion in higher outlays in 2013 means 
$14 billion added to the debt. It is just that simple. In fact, the 
higher debt that will accrue next year as a result of the higher 
spending level means the amount of interest we pay on the debt we 
accrue will be greater and will also exceed CBO baseline limits.
  As a result, the chairman had to also boost spending authority for 
the Finance Committee by $79 million to compensate for the higher 
interest payments on the $14 billion added to the debt. This shows that 
the debt deal legislation has been violated not only in spirit but in 
letter. Why? Because if we increase discretionary outlays, we increase 
the debt, and therefore increase the interest needed to service the 
debt.
  It is crystal clear that the legislation provides no flexibility 
whatsoever to inflate spending authority for this interest payment. It 
is a direct violation of the Budget Control Act, but he had to do that 
to justify and account for the $14 billion increase over the level that 
was agreed to last August.
  I sent two letters to Chairman Conrad urging him to correct and re-
file the proper numbers, but it is evident that the chairman does not 
intend to do so. So we will be looking for an alternative course. This 
is a matter that ought to be considered by the full Senate, so I plan 
to pursue a vote on the inflated spending levels. Each Senator will 
therefore have to examine their own conscience and consider their duty 
to their constituents, to the Nation, and to the financial future of 
our country.
  Plainly, this action violates the spirit and the terms of the 10-year 
Budget Control Act agreement that was made last August, just 11 months 
ago. At that time, Congress declared that we would exercise some 
spending restraint. And $2.1 trillion in reduced spending is really a 
reduction in the growth of spending and not an elimination of all 
growth in spending. We would go from something like $37 trillion being 
spent over 10 years to $35 trillion. It is not going to break America. 
But to hear the wails that come about, you would think it would.
  So the test will be, in this first year since the passage of the debt 
deal will we adhere to its modest restrictions or will we blink?
  We have Members of Congress--and I have raised this issue over the 
years--who seem to take it as a personal challenge to see how they can 
spend more money than they are allocated. It happens every year. This 
is how a country goes broke. The consequences of the annual 
manipulations and gimmicks have great impact over time. These are not 
small matters. Think about it.
  This is a chart I put together. This year we are adding $14 billion 
more to the baseline spending in our country than agreed to, and this 
gimmick adds $14 billion to the baseline next year. One may think: It 
is only $14 billion, Jeff. Calm down.
  Alabama's general fund budget, not including education, is less than 
$2 billion. To us $14 billion is a lot of money, and we are an average-
sized State. This is how we need to think about these manipulations 
because it is very significant as time goes by.
  If we violate the baseline next year, in 2013, by $14 billion, that 
goes into the spending level for the next year. Then if next year we 
violate it again, it is not just $14 billion, we are adding $14 billion 
on top of the $14 billion gimmick in the spending level this year. It 
is $28 billion next year. Added to the $14 billion we ripped off the 
taxpayers the previous year, it is $42 billion.
  Do you see how that goes up? Each year is adding to it, and we have 
been doing this kind of thing consistently.
  If we gimmick the budget $14 billion a year--and I remember doing a 
chart similar to this about 10 years ago, and we gimmicked the budget 
$18 billion that year and there are probably other gimmicks we are not 
including--this $14 billion gimmick puts us on a track to add $770 
billion to the debt of the United States over 10 years.
  We have to adhere to the agreements we make. If we do not stand with 
those agreements, then we make a mockery of law, we make a mockery of 
the Senate, we undermine the respect and trust the American people have 
in us. If we run up $770 billion more, we pay interest on that, 
estimated at $112 billion, that $14 billion gimmicked-up spending adds 
$900 billion to the debt.
  Remember, we are in debt today. Every $1 we spend more than what we 
agree to is borrowed. Any more spending is borrowed because we are in 
debt now--nearly 40 percent of the money we spend is borrowed. We spend 
about $3.7 trillion and we take in about $2.4 trillion and we borrow 
the rest. It is unsustainable.
  Meanwhile, the President continues his call for higher taxes, saying 
that taxing more will reduce the deficit. But his plan for the new 
taxes he has proposed is to fund more spending, more gimmicks and more 
fraud and waste in government. I know you think that is not so--surely, 
that is not so.

[[Page 11393]]

That is not what the President is proposing. But, unlike the Democratic 
Senate, the President did comply with the law and submitted a budget as 
every President has done since the Congressional Budget Act was passed. 
He submitted a budget. What did his budget call for? It called for new 
taxes all right. It called for $1.8 trillion in new taxes over 10 
years. But it also increased spending by $1.6 trillion. Do you see what 
is happening there? The President's proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in 
new spending, above the Budget Control Act level we agreed to in 
August. He proposes to wipe out the cuts. He proposes to spend $1.6 
trillion more than we agreed to in August, and he pays for it with $1.8 
trillion in new taxes.
  He didn't use his new taxes to pay down the debt. He used the new 
taxes to fund more government, more spending. That is not what we need 
to be doing at this point in history. We should have stayed here last 
night talking about the debt threat to America and not some 
controversial issue on campaign finance.
  For 3 consecutive years, this Senate Democratic majority has refused 
to bring forth a budget plan as required by common sense and law. They 
refuse even to write a budget and bring it to the floor for 
consideration. They have no financial plan for the future of America.
  Senator Reid, what is your plan? He blocked Senator Conrad, who was 
willing and prepared to lay out a budget plan for the Democrats. He 
called on him not to do so. For 3 years they have not had a budget. We 
did not even bring one up this year.
  They treat any effort to rein in waste and abuse as evidencing a 
hatred for those who are suffering and truly in need. We want to help 
people in need. But anybody who knows these programs, such as some of 
the stuff that is coming out now on food stamps, knows there is waste, 
fraud and abuse and we can clean them up and save money and not hurt 
people truly in need. From the IRS checks sent to illegal aliens that 
the inspector general of the U.S. Treasury Department said has to end, 
to lavish GSA parties in Las Vegas, reckless abuse in the food stamp 
program, and now this surreptitious 14 billion debt increase, there is 
no financial accountability in Washington.
  I will be working to erase this $14 billion spending increase. It is 
important. I urge my colleagues to join me so our actions will be 
consistent with our promises to the American people made last August; 
otherwise we are breaching this agreement the first year. It is always 
a gimmick and a danger to spend today and promise to pay for it in the 
future--spend more today than the agreement called for, but we are 
going to pay for it in the future. It is the first year in our 
agreement and it has already been breached.
  The best avenue may be to raise a point of order, and we will look at 
that to see how to bring this matter before the Senate. I will be 
looking for that opportunity. But I truly believe it is a defining 
moment for us if we cannot adhere 1 full year to the agreement we 
reached last August and that we told the American people we would abide 
by. I think the distrust and lack of confidence by the American people, 
already felt in Congress, will continue to further erode.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.


                            End Pakistan Aid

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the question remains should taxpayers be 
forced to send money overseas to countries that disrespect us or, more 
precisely, should we borrow money from China to send it to countries 
that disrespect us. Should we borrow money from China to send to 
Pakistan? Should we borrow money from China to send to the Muslim 
Brotherhood in Egypt? Should we send good money after bad?
  For a decade we searched for bin Laden. We spent hundreds of billions 
of dollars searching for him. Where did we find him? Not in the remote 
mountains; we found him living comfortably in a city in Pakistan. We 
found him living in the middle of the city not far from a military 
academy. We were helped in this search by a doctor, a brave doctor in 
Pakistan by the name of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who helped us find bin 
Laden, helped us with ultimately getting bin Laden. How was he rewarded 
for this heroism? Where is Dr. Shakil Afridi now? He has been 
imprisoned by the Pakistani Government for 33 years.
  For 10 years we searched for bin Laden high and low throughout 
Afghanistan, throughout the world, throughout the mountains. We found 
him living comfortably in a city only miles from a military academy, 
and then the doctor who helped us Pakistan has now imprisoned for 33 
years.
  How did the President respond to this? How did President Obama's 
administration respond to the imprisoning of this doctor, the doctor 
who helped us get bin Laden? President Obama sent them another $1 
billion last week. We already sent Pakistan $2 billion, and they 
disrespect us, so what did we do? We sent them another $1 billion. 
People around this town are bemoaning there is not enough money for our 
military. Yet we took $1 billion out of the Defense Department, an 
extra $1 billion, and sent it to Pakistan last week. Where is Dr. 
Afridi? In jail for 33 years.
  I have obtained the signatures necessary to have a vote on this. The 
leadership does not want to allow a vote on this, but I will, one way 
or another, get a vote on ending aid to Pakistan if they continue to 
imprison this doctor. He has an appeal that will be heard this 
Thursday. If he is not successful in his appeal, if he is still 
imprisoned for life, we will have a vote in the Senate on ending all 
aid to Pakistan--not a small portion of their aid, every penny of their 
aid, including the $1 billion they got last week. We will attempt to 
stop all aid to Pakistan.
  I ask any of the Senators to step forward if they think it is a good 
idea and tell the American people why they are sending their money to 
Pakistan. We have bridges crumbling, we have roads crumbling, we have 
schools crumbling, and we are sending money to Pakistan, which 
disrespected us. We spent billions, if not maybe trillions of dollars, 
on the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan trying to get bin Laden and 
then the doctor who helps us is now in jail for 33 years.
  Everywhere I go across our country--in my State in Kentucky we have 
two bridges that need to be replaced. We have one in the middle of one 
of our major cities that was closed down for 6 months last year for 
repairs. We don't have the money to repair our infrastructure. We are 
$1 trillion short of money, period. We are borrowing over $1 trillion a 
year. We now have a $16 trillion debt that equals our entire economy. 
Yet they are still sending taxpayer money to dictators overseas who 
disrespect us. Eighty percent of the public thinks this should come to 
an end. If we ask this question: Should we be sending this money 
overseas when we have difficulty and needs and wants at home, 80 
percent of the public would say it should end. Yet when we force this 
body to vote, 80 percent of your Representatives are for sending more 
aid overseas. They were all clamoring and clapping their hands last 
week when President Obama said he sent another $1 billion overseas--
they all stand and clap.
  I don't think the American taxpayer is clapping. I don't think the 
American taxpayer is happy we are $1 trillion in the hole and still 
sending this money overseas to countries that disrespect us.
  What I say to Pakistan is if they want to be our ally, act like it. 
If they want to be our ally, respect us. If they want to be our ally, 
work with us on the war on terrorism. But if they want to be our ally, 
don't hold Dr. Afridi, don't hold political prisoners, don't hold 
people who are actually working with us to get bin Laden.
  I will do everything in my power to get this vote. They don't want to 
have this vote. They like foreign aid over here. They all love sending 
taxpayer money overseas, but they don't want to vote on it so they have 
been blocking this vote and they will attempt to block my vote. I have 
the signatures necessary and you will see me on the floor next week.

[[Page 11394]]

  If Dr. Afridi is still in jail next week, I will make them vote on 
this. It is the least taxpayers deserve. The taxpayers deserve to know 
why their Senators are voting to send their money overseas when we are 
$1 trillion in the hole. Why are their Senators voting to send 
trillions of dollars to Pakistan when they imprison the guy who helped 
us get bin Laden. It is unconscionable. It has to stop. The debt is a 
threat to taxpayers, our country, a threat to the Republic, and I will 
do everything I can to force a vote on this and then the American 
people can decide. They can decide whether they want to keep sending 
these people back to Washington who are sending their money overseas to 
people who have no respect for us.
  I will do everything in my power to have this vote and we will record 
the Senate. Your representatives will be recorded on whether they want 
to continue sending your money to Pakistan while Pakistan imprisons 
this doctor who helped us get bin Laden.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.


                       Wind Production Tax Credit

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, for several weeks now I have 
spoken on the Senate floor, urging my colleagues of both parties to 
extend the wind production tax credit or, as it is known, the PTC. The 
Presiding Officer has had an opportunity to listen to me on a number of 
occasions. I thank him for his interest and support. I am here again 
this morning to continue my work because I do not want to lose one more 
American job because of our failure, Congress's failure, to act. I also 
want to assure, as I know the Presiding Officer does, that we, the 
United States, remain competitive in the global clean energy economy.
  Today, I wish to talk specifically about the PTC's impact on the 
State of Utah, one of America's fastest growing wind energy producers. 
Similar to other Western States, including my home State of Colorado, 
Utah's geography and climate make it an ideal location for wind 
production. It is estimated that if fully utilized, Utah's wind 
resources could provide up to 132 percent of the current electricity 
needs. Think about that, the entire State's electricity needs could be 
met by wind power alone. If we look at the map of Utah that is 
displayed here, we will see that the largest wind projects are located 
in Beaver and Millard Counties, which are in western Utah. In those two 
counties, the first wind corporation has constructed the Milford Wind 
Project. That project produces enough electricity to power over 64,000 
homes, avoids 300,000 tons of CO2 emissions and provides 
good-paying jobs to hundreds of hard-working Utahns.
  Beyond the obvious and enormously positive effect the Milford Wind 
Project has had on the Utah environment, it has also been an economic 
boon to the surrounding rural communities. Beaver County's tax base 
increased so much that it allowed for a new elementary school to be 
built without any tax increases to local residents. In effect, those 
tax receipts replaced a school that had fallen into disrepair.
  This project has brought more than $50 million in economic benefits 
to Utah as a whole. It has created over 300 onsite jobs during 
construction and engaged more than 60 local Utah businesses throughout 
construction and development. That is a win-win-win situation no matter 
how we calculate it.
  Only if we extend the wind PTC will we continue to see the 
investment, job creation, and economic growth Utah has seen in recent 
years. Now is the time for us to act to preserve and create thousands 
of jobs and to usher in a clean energy future for the American people. 
Without our support, the growth of the wind energy industry will slow, 
and, in fact, wind energy producers likely will shed jobs and halt 
projects.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article that was 
published in the Wall Street Journal this week be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2012]

                    Wind Power Faces Taxing Headwind

                   (By Mark Peters and Keith Johnson)

       West Branch, Iowa.--Acciona Windpower's generator-assembly 
     plant here in the heart of the corn belt is down to its last 
     domestic order as the U.S. wind energy industry faces a sharp 
     slowdown.
       Demand for the school bus-size pods it assembles to house 
     the guts of a wind turbine is drying up as a key federal tax 
     credit nears expiration. Acciona is now banking on foreign 
     orders to keep the plant going next year, while hoping the 
     credit will be extended.
       The debate over renewing the credit is dividing 
     Republicans, with conservative lawmakers from wind states 
     joining Democrats to push for an extension even as the 
     presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has made 
     attacks on government support for clean energy, including 
     wind, a centerpiece of his fight against President Barack 
     Obama.
       After several years of domestic growth, the U.S. wind 
     industry faces possible layoffs and shutdowns as a key 
     federal tax credit is set to expire. Mark Peters reports from 
     West Branch, Iowa.
       The tax policy, initiated two decades ago, currently gives 
     operators of wind farms a credit of about two cents per 
     kilowatt-hour of electricity they generate. Without the 
     credits, wind power generally can't compete on price with 
     electricity produced by coal- or natural gas-fired plants. 
     Analysts predict that if the tax credit expires on Dec. 31, 
     as it is scheduled to, installations of new equipment could 
     fall by as much as 90% next year, after what is expected to 
     be a record increase in capacity in 2012.
       Democrats generally support federal backing for wind power 
     and other clean energy, arguing that it needs help to compete 
     with entrenched fuel sources whose environmental and health 
     impacts often aren't included in their costs. Mr. Obama has 
     made several campaign trips to Iowa, where he argued for wind 
     energy's tax credits to be extended. Most Republicans are 
     less bullish on clean energy's prospects, and say the 
     government shouldn't support technologies that aren't 
     commercially viable on their own.
       Still wind power has vigorous support from some of the 
     reddest districts in the country, with Republican congressmen 
     in wind-power heavy states like Texas, Iowa, and Colorado 
     backing the industry tax credit.
       Mr. Romney has criticized the Obama administration's 
     support for clean-energy subsidies. ``Solar and wind is fine 
     except it's very expensive and you can't drive a car with a 
     windmill on it,'' Mr. Romney said at a campaign event in 
     March in Youngstown, Ohio. His economic plan says wind and 
     solar power are ``sharply uncompetitive'' forms of energy, 
     whose jobs amount to a ``minuscule fraction'' of the U.S. 
     labor force. A campaign spokeswoman said Mr. Romney supports 
     ``the development of affordable and reliable energy from all 
     sources, including wind.'' He hasn't publicly called for the 
     renewal of the tax credit for wind.
       ``That's a conversation I need to have with Gov. Romney,'' 
     said Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican and a member of the 
     House Tea Party Caucus who says 5,000 wind-industry jobs 
     statewide and locally-produced clean energy are proof of the 
     benefits of federal policies that support wind power. Iowa 
     has gained several wind-power manufacturing facilities in 
     recent years and ranks second among U.S. states in number of 
     wind farms, after Texas. Terry Branstad, the state's 
     Republican governor, also backs a renewal of the credit.
       The production tax credit has spurred huge growth since it 
     was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, 
     but it has kept the industry's future tied to the vagaries of 
     Congress. The credit now is caught in the congressional 
     gridlock of an election year, and a vote on renewal isn't 
     likely until after November. Even if renewed then, the 
     pipeline of projects next year is already crimped.
       ``In some way, it's too late to save 2013 build,'' said 
     Matthew Kaplan of consultancy IHS Emerging Energy Research.
       The credits for wind have expired three times before, most 
     recently in 2004, with new construction slowing sharply each 
     time before the credit was later renewed.
       Now the stakes are higher, because the wind industry has 
     established a manufacturing base in the U.S. to build many of 
     the 8,000 parts that go in a typical turbine. Industry data 
     show manufacturing facilities in the U.S. have more than 
     doubled since 2009 to around 470 in 2011. Meanwhile, wind's 
     share of U.S. electricity output has grown to 2.9% last year, 
     from about 1.3% in 2008, according to the Energy Information 
     Administration.
       ``There is a lot more skin in the game,'' said Joe Baker, 
     chief executive of the North American wind power subsidiary 
     of Acciona SA, a Spanish company. Its Iowa plant gets 80% of 
     its components from North America, mostly made in the U.S. 
     Almost no components came from the U.S. when the plant opened 
     in 2008.
       Many Republicans argue that any benefits from wind power 
     don't justify government investment. ``What do we get in 
     return for these billions of dollars of subsidies?'' Sen. 
     Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican

[[Page 11395]]

     who has long criticized the tax credit for the wind industry, 
     said in a speech earlier this year. ``We get a puny amount of 
     unreliable electricity.''
       Local communities are now fearing layoffs in the industry, 
     which employs an estimated 75,000 people nationwide. A 
     Siemens AG turbine-blade factory is the largest employer in 
     Fort Madison, Iowa, which has struggled with one of the 
     state's highest unemployment rates. Mayor Brad Randolph said 
     getting the plant ``really was a corner turner,'' but with 
     industry's current outlook ``you could see a large number of 
     employees getting laid off. That could be a game changer the 
     other way.''
       Vestas, a Danish company that is the biggest manufacturer 
     of wind turbines in the world, employs about 1,700 people at 
     four factories in Colorado, a relatively energy-rich state 
     that has also benefited from wind's growth. Uncertainty over 
     the tax credit ``requires us to have a flexible plan for the 
     future that allows us to add, adjust or eliminate positions 
     in 2012,'' a Vestas spokesman said.
       That uncertainty trickles down the supply chain. Walker 
     Components, a privately held company in Denver, expanded 
     operations more than two years ago to supply gear for Vestas 
     turbines. Now, like others that supply the wind industry, the 
     company is contemplating layoffs in its wind division if the 
     credit expires.
       Acciona's Mr. Baker said a few employees recently left for 
     other jobs, telling him they wanted to be in industries with 
     more stable outlooks. ``It became an employment issue for 
     them. They're not sure. They don't like the seesaw effect,'' 
     he said.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, that article says if Congress 
does not promote PTC, my State could lose hundreds, if not thousands, 
of jobs. Naturally the numbers are higher with suggestions and 
estimates that we could lose 30,000 jobs.
  The PTC is a perfect example of how Congress can play a positive, 
productive role in encouraging economic growth and supporting American 
manufacturing. The American people expect us to do everything we can to 
create jobs and economic growth. They expect us to work across the 
political aisle and produce results. They deserve results, and we 
should not disappoint them by succumbing to election-year gridlock. We 
have a solid base of bipartisan support for wind energy and for the 
passage of the wind PTC. That is why I have been urging my colleagues 
to work with me to pass it as soon as possible.
  From Colorado and Utah to Rhode Island and beyond, the PTC has helped 
American families and businesses prosper in a time when other 
industries have faltered. The wind industry has been one of the few 
industries of real growth in recent years, and it has so much more 
potential. Americans have said again and again that they want Congress 
to extend the wind PTC. Let's not let them down. Our economy and our 
future depend on it. Let's pass the PTC as soon as possible. It equals 
jobs.
  I will be back on the floor tomorrow to keep fighting for this 
commonsense policy. Coloradans expect no less. Let's pass the 
production tax credit as soon as possible and protect American jobs.
  Mr. President, if I might, I wish to turn to another topic that is on 
everybody's minds, and that is the efforts here in the U.S. Senate to 
reform the way in which our campaigns are financed and the way in which 
that information is shared with the public.
  Many of my colleagues took to the Senate floor last night to discuss 
the importance of the DISCLOSE Act and to draw attention to the 
enormous volume of undisclosed money that is now flowing into this 
campaign season and into those campaigns. Democracy is Strengthened by 
Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act or, as it is known in its 
shorter form, the DISCLOSE Act, is an important step forward.
  It was conceived as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 
Citizens United decision. Many of us have watched with deep concern as 
the consequences of that decision played out this election season. 
Unlimited and often secret contributions to organizations known as 
super PACs are pouring into our election system and literally drowning 
out the voices of ordinary Americans who don't happen to be 
millionaires or billionaires.
  Instead of a system where candidates exchange ideas and share their 
vision for a more prosperous country, the Citizens United decision has 
released a relentless display of attack ads, and the American people 
have no idea where they are coming from or who is footing the bill. 
This sort of unlimited and secret influx of cash is raising the specter 
of corruption in our elections. Frankly, I am worried we are entering 
an era of politics that we haven't seen since the Watergate scandal of 
some 40 years ago.
  However, there is hope. Despite what I thought was a misguided 
decision tied to Citizens United, the Supreme Court did uphold 
Congress's power to require transparency when it comes to those 
unlimited campaign dollars, and so the DISCLOSE Act was born.
  Let me share with the viewers what the DISCLOSE Act would do. It 
would require that super PACs, corporations, labor unions, and other 
independent groups file a public disclosure with the Federal Election 
Commission for any campaign-related disbursement of over $10,000 or 
more within 24 hours of the expenditure.
  This basic requirement is designed to bring the exchange of these 
secret campaign dollars out of the shadows so Coloradans and all the 
American people know who is trying to influence our elections. That is 
it. It is simple and it makes sense. We are only asking that political 
spending and funding be disclosed and held to the same standard as 
political action committees and candidate expenditures. This sensible 
requirement will not create burdensome regulations or be in conflict 
with any of the holdings of the Supreme Court. It is the kind of 
commonsense transparency that Coloradans are calling for.
  It might sound cliched, but sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. 
In fact, I heard the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, use that 
same concept: Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. We literally 
step on the basic principles of democracy when we allow tens of 
millions of dollars to be secretly spent on our elections.
  I want to emphasize that this should not be a partisan issue. Despite 
last night's vote, you would think we could all truly agree on 
transparency. For example, our colleague Senator McCain has lamented 
that without the reform of transparency, the Citizens United decision 
could lead to a major campaign finance scandal. And, of course, that is 
not healthy for our democracy.
  The Supreme Court affirmed Congress's authority to require 
disclosure, so let's do our job to protect democracy and bring sunlight 
to our elections. Let's bring the DISCLOSE Act forward and pass it 
right away.
  I also know many Americans would like to see us overturn the effects 
of Citizens United altogether, and there are efforts to do exactly 
that. For example, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has introduced a 
constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to regulate 
political spending. I support that effort. I also support an effort to 
change the way in which we fund the Presidential elections.
  I have introduced legislation in the Presidential Funding Act that 
will reform the currently outdated Presidential public finance system. 
It is a bill that is aimed at preserving the voices of average 
Americans.
  In 1974 the Presidential public campaign finance system was developed 
in an effort to restore public faith in elected officials after the 
Watergate scandal, and it has been used in nearly every Presidential 
election since. By establishing public financing, we allow candidates 
to compete based on their ideas instead of competing on who has the 
most support from special interests and deep-pocket donors.
  In fact, my father, Congressman Morris Udall, who served in the House 
representing the second district in Arizona for some 30 years, was 
actually one of the first to use the public financing system, which he 
had helped craft 2 years prior when he ran for the Democratic 
nomination in 1976. My father was a big believer in running for office 
on behalf of his constituents instead of on behalf of big money. I 
believe strongly that ethos ought to apply to today's elected officials 
more than ever.
  The public financing system funded candidates for 30 years and has 
enriched the political discourse for the

[[Page 11396]]

country by ensuring that the American people have more say than 
connected insiders, special interests, or wealthy donors. 
Unfortunately, the current system's ability to keep up with the 
enormous spending required in Presidential campaigns has rendered it 
less effective. Thanks to Citizens United, public financing is no 
longer a viable option to compete against unlimited special interest 
dollars.
  My legislation would strengthen the public financing system and 
incentivize candidates to obtain support from actual citizens, not 
special interest super PACs or secret financiers. It would ensure that 
our proven public financing system will be available for future 
elections, and that corporate and special-interest money doesn't drown 
out genuine ideas and debates in our Presidential elections.
  For those of us who are committed to fixing our campaign finance 
system in the wake of Citizens United, there is a lot of challenging 
work ahead. I know Coloradans agree with me that reform could be the 
single most important issue to fix the way our democracy functions. As 
I have suggested, and as we know, unfortunately Federal elections are 
increasingly about who can secretly appeal more to wealthy and special 
interests instead of working to improve the lives of average and hard-
working Americans. This sows corruption, dysfunction, and a government 
that is less responsive to the needs of the people.
  Today we have an opportunity to start with a sensible requirement 
that we should all be able to agree on. Disclosure is nothing to be 
afraid of. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their vote and to allow 
the Senate to at least debate the DISCLOSE Act. We cannot afford to let 
another filibuster stand in the way of fair and open campaigns. Let's 
pass the DISCLOSE Act and take a big step toward turning the power of 
our government back over to the American people.
  I note that the leader of this important effort, the DISCLOSE Act, 
Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, is on the floor. I thank the 
Senator for his leadership and his commitment to ensuring that it is 
the American people who determine our future, not special interests, 
super PACs, millionaires, billionaires, and financiers who leave no 
track and no trace of where their money is going and where it is coming 
from.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado for his impassioned and eloquent support. I think we recognize 
that through the course of our country's history, men and women have 
shed their blood, have laid down their lives in order to protect this 
experiment in liberty that is the ongoing gift of our country to the 
rest of the world. When we take that experiment of liberty and turn it 
over to the special interests, it is a grave occasion.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________