Harry Reid

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading but object to my own request.

Mr. REID

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. 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

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 3369.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk in reference to this legislation.

Mr. REID. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 442, S. 3364.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, once again I am disappointed, as I think most people in this country are, on an issue as timely as this, outsourcing jobs, that we once again are being stymied on moving to that legislation. We are going to have a vote. The rules are we cannot have a vote on this until 2 days go by, so that is a vote on Thursday. If cloture is invoked on that, then we are only on the bill, and then to get off of it would take another series of days. I think to get final action on this is going to take a week. It is so unfortunate that we have to go through this. We have gone through this so many times. There is, I repeat, not an issue more timely than this--outsourcing jobs. Whether it is the Olympic uniforms or the many other jobs that have been lost around the country, the American people are tired of it, but I think it is unfortunate the Republicans are stopping us from being able to start legislating on this bill.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 205, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my pending motion to proceed.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I wish to use leader time to say we know the Republicans don't like disclosure. We can tell that from the person they are going to nominate for the President of the United States.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 446, S. 3369, the DISCLOSE Act.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, at 5 p.m., the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Kevin McNulty to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey. At 5:30 p.m., there will be two rollcall votes. The first vote will be on confirmation of the McNulty nomination. There will then be 10 minutes of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act. Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 6079

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am told H.R. 6079 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. REID. I now object to any further proceedings on this matter.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest Presidents, once said, The end of democracy . . . will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed corporations. Campaign finance reform protections we have in place--and have had for many years--have solved the problem Jefferson talked about by limiting political spending by corporations. Then out of nowhere came the Supreme Court to issue its Citizens United opinion, rolling back a century of work to make elections transparent and credible. The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special- interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable motives. Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who put a stop to unlimited corporate donations, has America seen this kind of out-of-control spending to influence elections. Democrats and the majority of Americans believe the Supreme Court got it very wrong with Citizens United. Anonymous spending by so-called nonprofits, often backed by huge corporate donors or a few wealthy individuals, used to make up 1 percent of election spending. This year it will make up well over half of the spending. There is no question Citizens United opened the door for big corporations and foreign entities to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections and undermine the fairness and integrity of the process. Let us look at Nevada. Through the first part of this year, more money has been spent per capita on TV ads in Nevada than in any other State in the country. Most of the ads have been funded by anonymous groups flush with cash from these huge oil interests, Wall Street, moneyed interests, foreign gambling interests, and other interests seeking greater influence in Washington. Voters in Nevada and across the country deserve to know who paid for these ads. We have proven it is possible to remove the veil of secrecy from outside money and make the process more transparent. We have done that before and we need to do it again. We can require large political donors to disclose their identities so voters can at least judge their motivations for themselves. Requiring large donors to disclose their entities is not a new concept. In fact, my counterpart, Senator McConnell, and many of his Republican colleagues, have supported this in the past. The legislation today before the Senate--the DISCLOSE Act--would require disclosure of donations in excess of $10,000 if they are used for campaign purposes. The bill treats all political entities equally--whether unions, corporations, business associations, or super PACs. And contrary to Republican claims, this legislation would not require organizations to turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors. Rather, it would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front groups to shield their donations from disclosure. Yet my Republican colleagues, with rare exception, have lined up against this commonsense legislation. Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they are trying to protect. Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close Presidential election. If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 17 angry old White men will wake up and realize they have just bought the country. That is a sad commentary. About 60 percent or more of these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people. These donors have something in common with their nominee. Like Mitt Romney, they believe they play by their own set of rules. Mitt Romney has refused to release his tax returns. I think everybody in America now knows that. From the one and only return we have seen, we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than most middle-class families. We know he has a Swiss bank account. We know he takes advantage of tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and tax shelters in Bermuda. But we can only guess what new secrets would be revealed if we could examine a dozen years of his tax returns. His father, George Romney, set the standard for Presidential elections. He released 12 years of tax returns so Americans could evaluate his record for themselves. His son should also let his records out so we can evaluate his record for ourselves. Even nominees for Cabinet posts are required to release 3 years of tax returns and declare financial holdings worth more than $1,000. Romney's refusal to be open and honest would disqualify him from even being a Cabinet secretary. And his penchant for secrecy makes Americans wonder: What is he hiding? Thomas Jefferson famously argued: Democracy depends on an informed electorate. If that is true--and I believe it is--it stands to reason disclosure can only strengthen our democracy. But don't take my word for it. As my friend Senator McConnell has said, ``Disclosure is the best disinfectant.'' Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REID

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.