quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, kevin mcnulty of new jersey to be united states district judge.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. leahy: mr. president, i know also today we'll be debating on the disclose act. when you read the horror stories of secret money going into campaigns if we can't restrict the amount of money, at least let's know where it comes from. it's bad enough the supreme court says corporations people as though electing general eisenhower as president, we could now elect general electric as president or electing yahoos like millard filmore as vice president, we could elect yahoo as vice president. but the secret money, there should be only one secret thing. there should be only one secret thing in an election. that should be your secret ballot. that should be as you know

secretly who you vote for. it should be disclosed only if you want. but as far as who is paying the bills to elect, we ought to know, the american people ought to know who is paying the bills, how much and why. otherwise, you do not have honest elections. it's as simple as that. now, today we're also going to vote on only one of the 18 judicial nominations voted on by the judiciary committee. it's 18 we voted out and being stalled for no good reason. i'm sure the people of new jersey, the new jersey senators appreciate senate republicans finally allowing a vote on this nomination after it's been held up for three months of needless delay. i suspect they would be more appreciative if the minority republicans were also allowing a vote on the nomination of michael shipp for another

vacancy in the same federal court in new jersey who was also voted out of the judiciary committee unanimously three months ago. i'm sure they would be even more appreciative if senate republicans would allow a vote on the nomination of judge patty shwartz to fill the vacancy of the third circuit court of appeals who was voted out of the judiciary committee more than four months ago and has the support of the senators from new jersey as well as republican governor chris christy. it's ironic because the efforts to stall votes on judicial nominees was significant -- with significant bipartisan support is all to the detriment of the american people. it's been a -- there have been tactics, there have been delays for the last three and a half years despite repeated appeals, bipartisan appeals urging them to work with us to help solve

the judicial vacancy crisis. i have been here in the time of president ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w. bush. none of these presidents were treated like this, none of them were by either republicans or democrats. somehow this president is considered different. we have seen everyone from chief justice john roberts who was appointed by a republican president to the nonpartisan american bar association urging the senate to vote on qualified judicial nominees. they are able to administer justice for the american public. sadly, republicans insist on being the party of no. but the american people and the overburdened federal courts need qualified justices to administer justice in our federal courts, not the perpetuation of extended numerous vacancies. we extend the number of

vacancies even as the population of this country increases. today, vacancies on the federal courts are more than two and a half times as many as they were on this day during the first term of president bush. today there are still 78 vacancies. there have been -- because of the delays caused by republicans, there has actually been an increase in judicial vacancies during president obama's first term, a development that's a sad first. had republicans not stalled 19 nominations way last year and dragged those confirmations out until may of this year, we, the american people and the federal courts would be much better off. instead, we have 18 qualified judicial nominations that we could be voting on without further delay. the nominations date back to october of last year. most were nominated before march. in fact, the circuit court

nominees who republicans were refusing to consider date back to october, november of last year and january of this year. william k.ott was voted in mid april. richard taranta and judge shwartz were stalled by the senate since last march. republicans have shut down confirmation of circuit judges not just in june or july but in fact for the entire year. the senate has yet to vote on a single circuit court nominee nominated by president obama. the american people don't want to see this kind of picayune political infighting. no wonder they hate the congress. no wonder they hate the congress when they see this kind of stalling tactics. they want justice. they want action on measures the president suggests to help the economy and create jobs. not everybody standing around

saying what's going to help one party or the other party's candidates in november. in fact, what they are doing now is a first. the past five presidential election years, senate democrats have never denied an up-or-down vote to a circuit court nominee of a republican president who received bipartisan support of the judiciary committee. in fact, by this time in president george w. bush's first term, 197, 197 of his judges had been confirmed. 35 circuit, 162 district. president obama, they have allowed only 154. they have 18 sitting there to be confirmed. they are not allowing them to be confirmed. way behind. president bush, in fact even after july we confirmed another

eight judges of president bush's. this is a sorry situation. but anyway, mr. president, i will yield the floor. i'd ask consent my full statement be made part of the record, and i would -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i would suggest the absence of a quorum with the time equally divided. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his absence of a quorum? mr. leahy: of course, i'm sorry. i didn't see my friend from iowa on the floor. of course i will withhold my suggestion of the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i support the nomination of kevin mcnulty to be district judge, new jersey. although it is the practice and tradition of the senate to not confirm circuit nominees in the closing months of a presidential election year, we continue to

confirm consensus district judge nominees. today's nominee is such a consensus nominee and he will be the 153rd nominee of this president confirmed to the district and circuit courts. i continue to hear some of my colleagues repeatedly ask the question what is the difference about this president that he has to be treated differently than all these other presidents? that's a question we often hear. i won't speculate as to any inference that might be intended by that question, but i can tell you that this president is not being treated differently than previous presidents. any objective measure this president has been treated fairly and consistently with past senate practices. example, with regard to the number of qirmingz, let me put

that in perspective for my colleagues with an apples to apples comparison. as i mentioned, we have confirmed 152 district and circuit court nominees of this president. we have also confirmed two supreme court nominations during president obama's first term. now, everyone understands that supreme court nominations take a great deal of committee time. when the supreme court nominations are pending in the committee, all other nomination work is put on hold. the last time the senate confirmed two supreme court nominees was during president bush's second term, and during that term, the senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees. with mr. mcnulty's confirmation today, we will have confirmed 34

district and circuit court nominees for president obama than we did for president bush in similar circumstances. during the last presidential election in 2008, the senate confirmed a total of 28 judges, 24 district and four circuit. today we will exceed the number of district court judges confirmed. we have already confirmed five circuit nominees, and this will be the 26th district judge confirmed this year. those who say that this president is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want to ignore the facts. another statistic that is often misused to allege a campaign of republican obstructionism is the

days to confirmation. my colleagues on the other side want to focus on one particular phase of the confirmation process. the time from being reported out of committee to actual confirmation on the senate floor. they ignore the timeline for the rest of that process. the fact is that for both presidents, the average time for nomination to confirmation is roughly equivalent. 211 days for president bush's judicial nominees and 224 days for president obama's judicial nominees. there is another issue i want to turn to which is repeatedly raised, that of the vacancy rate , as if republicans are to blame for that fact as well. let me review the record and set the facts out for all to hear.

when president obama took office, there were 59 judicial vacancies. i know that at the beginning of 2008, there were 43 vacancies. so the practice for democrats who controlled the senate during that last year of president bush's term was to allow vacancies to increase by more than 37%. by mid march, 2009, when the first obama judicial nomination was sent up to the senate, there were 70 judicial vacancies. over the next three months, despite the rise in vacancies, only five more circuit nominations were sent to this body. by the end of june, when the senate received its first district nominations, there were 80 vacancies. the failure or delay in

submitting nominations for vacancies has been the practice of this administration and somehow people want to blame the united states senate and particularly republicans in the senate for not moving swiftly enough. by the end of 2009, there were 100 vacancies, with only 20 nominees. in december, 2010, more than half of the 108 vacancies had no nomination. at the beginning of this year, only 36 nominees were pending for the 82 vacancies. at present, still more than half of the 78 vacancies have no nominee. so i remind my colleagues once again that all of this process starts not here in the united states senate but in the white house at the other end of pennsylvania avenue, so when one wants to complain about judicial vacancies, start first by looking there and then to the

democrats who controlled the senate during this period. because of those delays in nominations and decisions made by the senate democratic leadership, only 13 judges were confirmed during president obama's first year. that was the choice of democrats who controlled the white house and the senate, not because of anything the republican minority could do. yet, democrats argue that somehow president obama is somehow behind in confirmations and based upon that flawed logic, there is some perceived notion that he is entitled to catch up on nominations. the fact is we have confirmed over 78% of president obama's district nominees at this point in his presidency, 75% of president bush's nominees had been confirmed. president obama is running ahead of president bush on district confirmations as a percentage. it is not the fault of the

republicans that this president has fewer nominations. how many times do i have to say the senate can only act on what comes up here from the white house. finally, let me respond by some criticisms that i've heard or read lately about the thurman rule. last week in the "los angeles times", for example, a headline "reject the thurmond rule" was based on factual errors and omissions. this editorial echoed many of the democratic talking points we hear on the floor. the suggestion we are operating any differently than democrats did in 2004 and 2008 is simply without merit. democrats stalled and blocked numerous highly qualified circuit nominees during those presidential election years, including even nominations that

had bipartisan support. for instance, the fourth circuit provides a prime example of the tactics employed by the majority party. democrats refused to process judge robert conrad, even though he had already been confirmed unanimously as u.s. attorney and district court judge. democrats refused to process glen conrad, even though he had home state support. steve matthews also had strong home state support but democrats in committee refused to even give him a vote. the democrats even tried to justify blocking the nomination of u.s. attorney rod rosenstein to the fourth circuit by claiming he was doing too good of a job. that's their words, as u.s. attorney, to be promoted. by refusing to give these nominees a vote in committee, the democrats engaged in what we would refer to as a pocket

filibuster of all four of these candidates to the first circuit. this was at a time when the first -- fourth circuit vacancy rate was over 25%. the bottom line is that the democrat leadership has invoked the thurmond rule repeatedly to justify stalling nominees even though -- even those with bipartisan support. and now he doesn't want us to enforce the rule that he helped establish. but as i have pointed out, this president is not being treated differently. in many respects, he is being treated better. we have even been more fair, and we cannot have two different sets of rules around here. i suppose we could have, but we shouldn't have. i will place the balance of my statement in the record, which relates to the biographical information of our nominee,

mr. mcnulty. again, i want to make it very clear, i support this nomination, and obviously congratulate him on confirmation, which i anticipate will happen with broad support in just a few minutes. i place the rest of my statement in the record and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, the parties who come -- this is a privilege and an opportunity for me to confirm my view of judge mcnulty, kevin mcnulty, for the district court of new jersey. the parties who come before a district court deserve to know that they appear before only the most qualified and impartial

judges. that's why the constitution gives the senate a solemn duty to prevent -- i'm sorry, to provide the president with advice and consent on judicial nominations. i take this duty very seriously, and today it's my pleasure to come to the floor to confirm my support for mr. kevin mcnulty for a judgeship on the united states district court for the district of new jersey. kevin mcnulty has had an exceptional career and has dedicated himself to the rule of law and public service. that's why i was so proud to have recommended him to president obama. i first learned about mr. mcnulty's sterling credentials in 2009 when one of

new jersey's most respected jurists, former chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit, john gibbons, recommended him for a position on the district court bench. in the years since then, i've had an opportunity to meet mr. mcnulty multiple times and have gained a great appreciation for his outstanding reputation in the legal community in new jersey. mr. mcnulty leads the appellate practice group at an outstanding law firm based in newark, the law firm is called the gibbons law firm. he's argued criminal, commercial, intellectual property, and pharmaceutical matters, displaying prowess as a litigator. he's a respected leader with

solid judgment, and he worked as a prosecutor and was known for being hard working and fair. for more than a decade, he prosecuted criminal cases as an assistant u.s. attorney in new jersey. and he served as the deputy chief of the criminal division and earned the well-served promotion to chief of the appeals division. and during his tenure with the u.s. attorney's office, he served with a number of u.s. attorneys, including a current supreme court justice, samuel eliteo. -- alito. his academic credentials are as impressive as his record, and after a career at yale university, he excelled at new york university's school of law where he was a member of the law review.

just a few years ago, in 2008, the new jersey law journal honored him as their lawyer of the year. and i'm confident if confirmed, his work as a judge will earn him similar praise. so this fine nominee is, thank goodness, finally getting the vote that he deserves. he's going to be great on the bench. he's eminently qualified and will make an exceptional judge. mr. president, in newark a federal courthouse carries my name. when it was dedicated, i requested an inscription that i authored and believe in so deeply be placed on the wall and it reads the true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of

justice. i firmly believe that there is where we see the equalizer, and citizenship in this country. as the quote demonstrates our country's core belief in equal and just representation before the law. our system thrives because of fair and even-handed judges. they are the stewards of our democracy, and i know that mr. mcnulty will approach this position with thoroughness and honor. so i look forward to hearing my colleagues vote to confirm kevin mcnulty to the united states district court for the district of new jersey, and with the knowledge that we will be sending an outstanding judge to the federal bench as we so often have in this chamber. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: torm the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i rise to speak in support of kevin mcnulty, a distinguished new jerseyan, an outstanding candidate for the district court of new jersey, and i certainly urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively in this confirmation in just a few minutes. a district judge must possess exemplary analytical skills, a strong work ethic, an extraordinary knowledge of the law, and i'm proud to say that mr. mcnulty has demonstrated these qualities on countless occasions. he has been the chair of the appeals group in the prestigious law firm of gibbons. at gibbons he's been directly involved in approximately a hundred appeals related to a wide variety of issues including pharmaceutical, intellectual property, commercial, and criminal matters. he has tirelessly fought for his clients' interests. his hard work as you heard senator lautenberg describe and

dedication earned the new jersey lawyer of the year award for 2008 and before his distinguished time at gibbons he served as the chief of the appeals division of the united states attorney's office where he was also the lead attorney for the drug enforcement task force as well as the ethics officer and grand jury coordinator. he was honored with the federal law enforcement officers association award. he began his career as a law clerk for the honorable frederick lacy, the u.s. district judge for the district of new jersey at that time. he graduated cum laude, third in his class at new york university school of law. his academic achievement earned him membership in the new york university law review, where he served as articles editor and membership in the honor society, and while at new york university school of law he was awarded the american judicial society prize, the pomeroy prize and the moot court advocacy award.

shows the breadth and scope of his intellectual ability. he has demonstrated an admiral commitment to public service. a member of the board of trustees of the essex counties, coauthor of the pennsylvania guide of circuit practice, he's written and spoken on a host of legal topics. he's also an active member of the new jersey and federal bar associations. so throughout his career, kevin mcnulty has demonstrated a strong analytical abilities are, rapid research skills, outstanding work ethic and i believe he is well equipped to serve with distinction as district judge for the district of new jersey. in sum, the breadth and scope of mr. mcnulty's qualifications make women hell qualified for the position of u.s. district judge. finally, i want to take the opportunity to say i am hopeful our colleagues will agree to move forward on two other new jersey nominations, michael

shipp, to the third district and patty shwartz to the third circuit. michael shipp is a magistrate judge in new jersey whose equipment to the rule of law and knowledge and long commitment to public service. patty shwartz is a well respected magistrate judge, has handled over 4,000 civil and criminal cases. both of these judges deserve immediate consideration. their qualifications will make them an exceptional addition to the federal bench in new jersey and i offer my strong support to both of them as we move forward in this process. i hope after tonight's vote where we expect this extraordinary candidate to be confirmed that we will get the opportunity to do so also for judge shipp and judge schwartz. with that i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. or withhold that observation. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: just for an announcement.

after the conclusion of these votes i'll be making what i think is a very significant announcement in terms of 34 -- 35, actually, members of this body who have stated they will oppose the law treaty, which means it would not -- able to be passed this session. so i'll be doing that immediately following the votes that take place momentarily and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum callquorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. the question is the nomination. mr. alexander: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote?

hearing none, the ayes are 91. the nays are 3. and one voting "present." the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. under the previous order, there will be ten minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senate will come to order. mr. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida -- mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chamber will be in order. mr. nelson: we're going to divide it up among five senators, so i'm going to take a few senators and say the corporations are having a field day because they can put all of this money in to influence the political system while at the

same time being anonymous. so they don't have to disclose what every other donor in political contributions has to disclose. are they interested in my state, in the quality of the representation of my state? i think they are interested in their own agenda and buying elections. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the senator from the senator from ohio. mr. brown: plaintiffs, it's not a shareholder -- mr. president, it's not a shareholder democracy where the $10 million, the ten million buys drowns out the corporations real people earn. the disclose act would make people do what political candidates do when you pay for political advertising. you face the camera. you tell the voters you sponsor

to commercial, whether you're democrat or republican, surely you don't want to see our political system, our democratic system become the puppet of a few large corporations with whatever interests they have. oil or big insurance or drug companies or companies that outsource jobs as their specialty. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: the most astounding fact that has emerged since the citizens united decision is that just 17 people have given over half the money to the republican super pac. there is very little disclosure and there is huge amounts of money cascading in from a small few. my colleagues, whether you're a democrat or republican, you have to admit that this is corrosive to our democracy. this gets farther away from the idea that each of us has equal say than anything that has been done in the last 100 years. and i hope my colleagues would

join us in this modest measure which doesn't even limit how much people can give, but simply says they have to disclose. they have to tell they're giving. when ads are disclosed, they are less vicious and there is some semblance of truth that has to float around them. i urge my colleagues, for the good of this country, for the sake of our future, to support this modest, truly modest piece of legislation. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: perhaps the most important three words of our constitution are we the people. we the people, the whole notion is threatened by oceans of dark secret cash, oceans used as a threat on the front end and as election hammer on the back end. it simply is destructive to our democracy. and tonight is the night for some profiles in courage to stand up for the american system, for democracy and for the people. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, 1822, the founding father james madison wrote a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. a vote for disclose is a vote to arm the people with the power that knowledge gives. to arm them with the popular information about elections, information necessary to prevent this great popular government of ours from becoming a special interest farce. information necessary to protect this democracy from the tragedy, as john mccain predicted, the scandal that will result. give the american people the information they need to be their own governors. vote for disclose. i yield back the remainder of our time. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: 40 straight months of unemployment above 8%, a debt the size of our economy, and our friends in the majority want to get us to pass a bill that everybody from the aclu to the n.r.a. is opposed to. a bill designed to give the government the information to intimidate people who have the courage to stand up to the government and argue against what it's doing. not only should we not be doing this in good times, but to waste the senate's time on a proposal totally without merit at a time when our economy is in the tank is the ultimate waste of the senate's time. i strongly urge a "no" vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion -- mr. reid: madam president? madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: i'm going to use leader time. madam president, we know the republicans don't like disclosure. you can find that from the persons they are going to nominate for president of the united states. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 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. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 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, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote?

seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 44. three fifths of the senators dual chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that senator inhofe be recognized for 15 minutes for his remarks regarding the law of the sea, that senator shaheen and senator klobuchar then be recognized and that for the duration of today's session, senators then be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i'm about to make a major announcement that i think is very significant and hopefully

would give us more time to attend to some of the problem areas that we're trying to attend to, such as the defense authorization bill, sequestration, the expiring tax cuts, and all of the spending bills. and the announcement that i would make is that we now have a letter containing 34 signatures of those who say that if you bring up the ratification of the law of the sea treaty this year, that we would vote -- we would oppose it. so we actually have 35 such signatures. i want to make a couple of comments. i was going to talk for a little longer but i know that there are a lot of people wanting to get -- get the floor and so i'll try to do this in a shorter period of time. first of all, i've been involved in this treaty for a long time, way back during the -- the reagan administration. this treaty that was actually first negotiated back in the 1970's was -- was defeated for a variety of reasons. and a lot of people are saying

that the -- that the reasons that reagan opposed it at that time have been answered and that's just flat not true. ambassador james maloney, who renegotiated the lost treaty during the reagan administration stated -- and i'm quoting now -- "all the provisions from the past that make such a new world order outcome possible, indeed likely, still stand. it is not true, as argued by some and frequently mentioned, that the u.s. rejected the convention in 1982 solely because of technical difficulties with part 11." that's the seabed mining portion of it. "the collectivist and the redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core." and they're still there today. i think it's important to recall what happened in 2004. in 2004, when the republicans were in the majority, i chaired the committee called the environment and public works committee. i was also one of the senior members of the senate armed

services committee. at that time, the law of the sea treaty passed the -- the senate foreign relations committee without a -- i believe it was out a dissenting vote. i believe it was 16-0. and so we started having hearings before the two committees that were my committees, the environment and public works committee, talking about how this would subject us to other countries imposing their will on us, as well as the ramifications of the -- that would affect the senate armed services committee. as a result of that, of course, westerly it was defeated. well -- we recall it was defeated. well, we have this happening again. i do appreciate the -- senator kerry and his efforts to get this through. we have had several hearings. they've been pretty lopsided. i believe the count today is there have been 16 witnesses supporting it and some four witnesses opposing it. that's not really important, because i think it's worth mentioning a couple things about it but then actually going into the detail as to why, if it is

brought up, it could not be ratified during this year or during a lame-duck session. first of all, when i talk to someone about the -- about the -- the problems with this and i tell them that this would give cede authority to the united nations over 70% of the surface of the -- of the -- of the earth along with air above it. i remember one time a witness came -- and this is back during the bush administration, which was supporting the treaty -- when i asked the question, i said, now, if you have 70% of the surface area, does that mean you also have 70% of the air above it? and they couldn't answer that question. but now i think it's pretty well understood that that would be the case. but when i tell people three things. first of all, we'd be submitting our -- our sovereignty, surrendering it, to the naturedd nations, over 0%, that really is enough -- over 70%, that really is enough.

but when you talk about the fact that for the first time in the history of this country, authorize the united nations to have taxing authority over the united states of america, people go ballistic. they just -- you know, that's something that we -- it's not conceivable we'd even be considering it. and then when we was talking about the lawsuits, how we have the lawsuits we could be facing, let me just be a little bit more specific on this. the area that is in controversy in terms of their ability to tax or otherwise get royalties from the united states that would otherwise go to the united states and put those into the united nations is an area called the extend the continental shelf. madam president, that would be in excess of 200 nautical miles offshore. now, nothing within this treaty is going to affect anything that are within the 200 miles. but outside, it would be. and so, as it is right now, it's important to understand how the

royalties are paid participate. royalties -- are paid at the present time. royalties are usually when the united states collects from the extended continental shelf, an amount from between $12 12.5% ad 18.75%. the reason there is a disparity is because the royalties go along with how much money can be made out there if things go well, how deep it is, how far out it is, how expensive it is to drill, and all of that. so the range is always -- the united states currently collects between 12.5% and 18.75% from the extended continental shelf. under the article, if we should pass the law of the sea treaty, under article 82, that would at the end of the 12th year give 7% royalties, take them away from the united states -- that's

roughly half the royalties that we would have -- and give them to the international seabed authority to redistribute those insurancinaccordance with what t to do. they would make this redistribution of wealth. i've often said that's one of the things that the united nations has always desired. that is to have the ability to redistribute the wealth. so if the amounts that would fall into the royalties outside -- within the extended continental shelf, it's hard to say exactly what they would be, but there was a group that was appointed to try to approximate these things, and that -- and they have said that it would be in the hundreds of billions. in other words -- or maybe even in the trillions. now, for each trillion that would be in production, that would equal about $70 billion taken out of the united states treasury and put into the united

nations, sent to the seabed authority in kingsston, jamaica, to be redistricted around the world in accordance with whatever criteria they would have. now, that's a huge, huge amount. and it's very, very significant, and it is specific that we would lose up to 7% -- the figure would be 7% after the 12th year, a very significant amount. when you stop and think about what we're talking about right now trying to do something to come up with $1 trillion in the next ten years and all the discussion that's taken place, all of a sudden you have an amount that could come close to equaling that just from losing our royalties that would otherwise come to the united states of america. then, of course, the lawsuits. i think this is a significant thing because under the laws of the sea treaty, any country could sue the united states in

international tribunal -- not in the united states courts but the international tribunal on the law of the sea. in other words, we could be subjected to lawsuits from other countries. now, already a number of pacific island nations intend to sue the united states for environmental damage to their seas and air, if the united states joins the law of the sea treaty. in other words, we would be voluntarily giving up an opportunity, allowing people to sue the united states on what they would call -- allege to be environmental damages. the members of the convention -- the law and regulation to prevent pollution in maritime is very specific. in article 212, it requires that the -- the states to -- i'm quoting now from the treaty, "to adopt laws and regulations to

reduce, prevent, and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere applicable to the airspace under the sovereignty" -- their sovereignty, the united nations -- "and in vessels flying their flag or vessels -- or aircraft of their registry, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards, and recommended practices." now, if the e.p.a., as we found out in their endangerment finding, is able to declare an endangerment, just imagine what they could do under this -- in this case. in fact, article 235 states that countries are -- quote -- "responsible for the fulfillment of their international obligations concerning the protection and preservation of the marine environment. they shall be liable in accordance with international law." so here we are subjecting us -- and that's why you have so many of the far left environmental groups, such as greenpeace,

natural resources -- natural resources defense council, environmental defense found $fund and all of them just fervently supporting this treaty because they want to use it admittedly to bring the united states and all countries into conformity with their environmental agenda. now, that's kind of an interesting thing, because we actually have had many -- and i'm going to submit this for the record. for example, andrew strauss -- a law professor very well-known -- states that u.s.jection of the kyoto protocol makes the united states the most logical first country target of a global warming lawsuit in the international forum. so i would ask along with my statement i be able to insert into the record the various legal entities that are rejoicing about the fact this they might be able to sue this country. now, lastly -- the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. inhofe: lastly, i would say, madam president, that we -- i'm submitting a letter that is signed by 31 members of the united states senate stating that they will object to and vote against any ratification effort that would take place this year -- and this doesn't really restrict this to this year -- that would be 31 of them. and i have as a separate letter, a letter that is signed by senators portman and kelly ayotte stating essentially the same thing, and a statement in the web site of senator isakson and i was given permission to speak a position on behalf of lamar alexander that while he hasn't taken a position on the law of the sea treaty, he does object to having it brought up for this year. so we have 35 members of the united states senate that have stated that they want to -- that they would object, if it is brought up before this senate

this year. so, with all of those included as a part of the record, i would like to say that this is something -- isn't going to happen this year, and it could be they want to bring it up. certainly it is up to the leader, and if he desires to do it, of course, he can do it. but if it does come up, it is going to take an awful lot of time from other business that this -- that this body is supposed to be addressing. so, with that, i would only say that there are some 35 members -- and many more, i might suggest -- that would vote against it, should it come up. with that, i've used in the meantime and i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm glad to be here to join my colleagues speaking with regard to the close act. we need to bring some transparency to the secret money being spent in campaigns across this country. i would ask unanimous consent for the following speakers to

speak in the order that i'm listing them. senator klobuchar followed by senator menendez, senator sherrod brown, senator levin and then myself. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. the presiding officer: senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: thank you. i want to thank the senator from new hampshire for her great leadership in this issue. i am a cosponsor of the disclose act, and i really hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will strongly reconsider their vote today so that we could actually go to a vote on this bill so that we can actually debate this bill, because by using a filibuster to basically stop debate on something that is so important that we are getting calls on from all over minnesota, people asking me in two parades yesterday what is going on, what are these ads that we're seeing on tv, and they have a right to know who's paying for them, what

these groups are called, no matter what their names are, and who's paying for those groups and who's paying for those ads. that just isn't happening today. i am a he whoer to focus today -- i'm here to focus today on the public's distrust of our political process and our need to ensure that the american people have a government that's responsive to their concerns. free and fair elections in which every american has a right to make their voice heard at the voting booth are really the cornerstone of our democracy. yet in the wake of a citizens united decision, a flood of special-interest spending has undermined the faith of the american people and our elections. by loosening the rules on campaign spending, citizens united has led to a torrent of negative ads funded not by concerned citizens participating in democracy but by unlimited special-interest money. i don't think we thought we'd see the day with all the reforms that had been made where just

one billionaire can write a $10 billion check or a $20 billion check and while candidates under the system this we have have to report every contribution of $200 and over and you have to painstakingly do your reports so the world can see them and your constituents can see them online and so reporters can see them. you have literally hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent where you cannot tell where that money came from. that is just not right. this type of campaign spending moves the focus of our elections away from the real issues facing american families. but, worse, this unprecedented involvement of special interests in our political process has convinced the american people that there is something wrong with how we conduct elections, and there is. americans can see the increased role that special interests and even individual billionaires are playing in politics, heightening their suspicions that washington works only for the powerful.

i hear constantly from people of my state who believe, justifiably, that the more money outside groups spend -- secret money that they're spending on these campaigns -- the less that their voices are heard. we cannot continue to allow faith in our democratic process to be eroded by the secretive influence of outside money. that is why i'm a cosponsor of the disclose act. the disclose act heeds the wisdom of justice louis brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant and will bring accountability and transparency to the special-interest money that's inundating our elections and inundating the airwaves. the act requires that certain corporations, unions, section 527 political groups, and so-called super pacs clean air -- declare their campaign spending above a certain a the act will ensure that americans can find out the sources of funding for advertising that they seek.

most importantly, it will prevent special interests from hiding behind the curtain as they attempt to influence our elections. and by setting the reporting threshold at $10,000, this carefully crafted act that we just voted to go ahead with and unfortunately were blocked by a filibuster, this carefully crafted act ensures small businesses and other organizations will not be unduly burdened and that only significant political players will have to report their spending. i know some people oppose the disclose act on what they call first amendment grounds. but this bill doesn't limit free speech in any way. i don't agree with the notion that contribution limits and other restrictions on campaign spending are a threat to free speech. but even if you were to accept that argument, this bill does nothing to restrict free speech. it does not contain from time to times on contributions or spending or make any limits to

our campaign finance system, as much as i think we need to do that. i think the best way to do that is a constitutional amendment. but that's not what we're taking about today. we're talking about a simple bill called the disclose act which will ensure more transparency so you know what billionaire is spending how much money in our state on the ads that you're seeing on tv. in reality, it is a modest bill in comparison to the size of the problem, but it is a first step toward bringing some sensibleness back to the elections. this bill simply ensures that the public has access to information about the funding behind television ads and other election materials. in fact, even the majority opinion in citizens united discussed the constitutionality and important benefits of disclosure. the opinion itself in citizens united said this. it said, "the first amendment protects political speech, and closure permits citizens and

shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." so the supreme court actually anticipated that congress in this decision that i don't agree with but they even amendmented that congress might put some disclosure rules into place. but today we were blocked from doing that. our campaign finance laws already require he that many individual contributions, as i noted, be made public. i see no harm in holding outside groups and outside individuals to the same level of accountability. finally, this should not be a partisan issue. senators in both parties have been leaders on campaign finance reform, as everyone knows, senator mccain and feingold championed the most significant reforms in many years, and this bill is much less dramatic than

those reforms. i ask my colleagues to reconsider their vote. our democracy literally depends on this. we have to know who's spending the money so we can figure out why they're spending the money so people will understand the true intent behind these ads. they can't do it if they don't have the information, if someone is putting a curtain over their head so they can't see anything but the noise on the screen. they need to know what's behind it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i'm pleased to join my colleagues in speaking about the disclose act and why this is so critically important for our democracy. and i appreciate the leadership of several of our colleagues in this respect. for the last two years our

democracy has been hijacked by powerful special interests, and tonight we have the opportunity to begin repairing the fabric of our nation's democracy before permanent damage is done. unfortunately, republicans decided not to put our democracy back on the right track. out there in this presidential election season, murky special interests are spending unlimited amounts of corporate money. it's possible even that foreign governments could determine it's in their interest to funnel vast amounts of money to influence american political elections. think about, madam president, a country that does currency manipulations, that violates trade agreements, that steals intellectual property rights. those of us who oppose those actions of countries who take

those type of actions against the national economic interests of the united states could easily see that money flow through u.s. subsidiaries that ultimately would end up in campaigns to say we do not want this member of congress who is standing up for the interests of the american middle class and american businesses against our interest to be able to continue to manipulate our currency, to be able to continue to steal intellectual property rights, to be able to continue with impunity to violate trade agreements. that's possible as the law exists now. madam president, i think we have a patriotic obligation to protect our electoral system from that kind of influence. these anonymous secretive interests, mostly corporate, aren't spending money because they want to feel like a part of the process.

they're spending money for a purpose. they have a reason, and no doubt a self-interest. you don't spend tens of millions of dollars without having an interest, without having a self-interest. is this what our founding fathers had in mind? we should know who they are and what their agenda is. since the supreme court made its ruling in citizens united, allowing corporate interests to spend money unlimitedly -- the money has been more than trickling in. the money has been a torrent, a tsunami of unlimited cash. according to "the new york times," independent groups have spent at least $118 million since the start of the presidential campaign. one super pac alone has spent over $57 million. and if you don't believe me,

listen to michael toner, he's the former chairman of the federal election commission who said -- quote -- "i can tell you from personal experience, the money's flowing. the money's flowing." and this begs the question: where is this money flowing from? and where is it going? who's behind the cash? and what's to prevent foreign government interest to be influencing our elections? what's to stop foreign influence in american elections other than complete disclosure? if corporations are spending money to influence elections, it's for the sole purpose of improving their own bottom lines. and this undermines the very essence of our democracy where individual citizens are the ones who should determine the outcome of elections, not murky, shadowy, multibillion-dollar corporate interests, or worse, a foreign government. disclosure, full disclosure,

that's what we need and it's what we should demand before the people lose control of our electoral process. that's why i introduced another bill, the shareholder protection act, a commonsense proposal that gives real people a say in the process. if the supreme court's position, which obviously is the law of the land, is that a corporation's money belongs -- a corporation is a person, and therefore, can go ahead and spend in federal elections, since the corporation's money belongs to the shareholders, it's only right that they have a voice on how their money is going to influence elections. my bill would require shareholder approval of corporate political spending. this basic step will ensure that corporations' political activities actually reflect the will of their shareholders. if as the supreme court ruled, corporations have free speech rights, then their shareholders should have control of that

speech. the shareholder protection act does that by giving shareholders the opportunity to exercise their free speech rights. but until we can reach consensus in my proposal, at least we can give the american people the right to know who is trying to influence them. these are basic principles, i think, of a democracy. there are basic principles in our democracy that both parties should be able to agree on. imagine the influence of the big five oil companies on american elections. in march, 47 u.s. senators voted against repealing $24 billion in oil subsidies over the next ten years. we know from their publicly disclosed donations that these 47 senators received over $23 million in donations from oil companies over the course of their careers. so after the oil companies fought tooth and nail to protect the taxpayer subsidies, those $24 billion they get, which

costs us as taxpayers $76 every second, do you think they wouldn't spend millions more in support of what they want? and now they can give unlimited amounts of money to super pacs without ever disclosing the contributions. another example, alliance resource group, a coal company, gave over $2.4 million to karl rove's super pac, american crossroads, which then turned around and funded advertisements targeting important environmental protection regulations. they are using unlimited corporate funds to influence our elections and our nation's energy policy to protect their bottom line, regardless of the air that we breathe, regardless of the consequences of the air that we breathe, regardless of states like mine that suffer from too high an incidents of

respiratory illnesses and cancers, basically spending whatever it takes to buy their right to continue to pollute the air we collectively breathe. i could go on and on with the examples of why special interests would very well spend in federal elections to dictate policies that ultimately would hurt everyone but the special interests. that's what we're fighting against. this legislation is the first step, and i'm doing that. the american people deserve to know who's giving more than $10,000. i don't believe that's too much to ask. as a matter of fact, all of us who run in this body for the united states senate, all who run in the house of representatives, all of our contributors are subject to disclosure. so if the average citizen back at home, when they give a donation, that's subject to disclosure, why can we not at least have that corporation be

disclosing when they give over $10,000 to one of these shadowy super pacs? so the average citizen has to disclose, but the corporations don't. isn't something wrong with that equation? i see why we can't get a vote on the other side of the aisle, because overwhelmingly they are receiving the benefits of this undisclosed, shadowy money. but is that truly the american way? is that why we came to this institution? i thought we came for the very essence of what our democracy is about, which is clear, open transparency at the end of the day. is that what the average voter wants to see in terms of this democracy? i don't think so, mr. president. so i leave you with this simple message. our democracy was founded on the principle of an open and honest debate, but without disclosure we can get neither. all we get is commercials on

television that we don't know who's paying for them, we don't know what their interests are. we only know the negativity that flows from it, but we get none of the people behind it, none of the corporations behind it. and again, they will not spend tens of millions of dollars just simply to participate in the process. if they want to participate in the process just like every other citizen, they can disclose. there is no reason they shouldn't disclose. no reason why any company spending money and wants to make the case that we think this is good public policy, fine, let them disclose. but to vote against disclosure as a simple element of preserving our democracy is beyond my comprehension. and i hope that as the electorate sees these advertisements without disclosure, that they will say to themselves who are the people

behind these advertisements? where is all these millions of dollars coming from? and what is it that they want for their money? when we ask those questions in the absence of the disclosure we simply want, i think we'll come to understand who are these shadowy figures and what they really want. that's why we should pass the disclose act. and i hope we'll get another chance to get our colleagues to reconsider. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i think senator menendez asked the right question that in the absence of this chamber doing the right thing -- and that is staying consistent with what the republican leader, senator mcconnell, said some years ago, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, that we should disclose everything. he wanted mostly i believe, if i recall, unlimited contributions

but full disclosure. he has changed his position on that, i assume, to protect the oil industry and perhaps the chinese money that's coming in in these elections or the big wall street banks that have opposed my election and i assume the presiding officer because of his work on banking issues will come against him in oregon. i think this whole idea, what senator menendez suggested that voters are going to start -- if the senate won't move, voters are going to start asking the question: who is giving this money and why are they putting this kind of money in? i rise and i thank senator shaheen for her leadership on this because big corporations and wealthy investors are flooding our elections with campaign money. they're looking for gain. if we don't really know who the money is from, we can guess. in my state we think it's oil companies. we think it's wall street banks. we think it could be money from

chinese interests, whether it's money laundered from china through american corporations or directly from american corporations who specialize in outsourcing jobs to china and make more money. look what happened with the olympics just recently. if that doesn't sort of beg the question. we know that these dollars in ohio were drowning out the voices of working middle-class people in my state and across the country. consider this, mr. president. the tv, the television market in cleveland -- cleveland, ohio, is the 18th largest media market in the country. lots of cities come to mind that are larger. philadelphia and houston and detroit and new york and chicago and l.a. and san francisco and washington, d.c. and boston. many cities, many media markets larger than cleveland's, 18th largest television market in the country, about a million and a half viewers, cleveland now is number two ranked in the country in political spending, again,

larger than new york and chicago and philadelphia and houston and san diego. but only los angeles has had more money spent in its tv market than has cleveland. columbus, a market still significant but smaller than cleveland's, is not far behind in political spending. why is that? the presidential race in ohio, the senate race in ohio, a congressional race in ohio with two incumbents, one democrat, one republican facing off, with most of the money spent by special interest groups, undisclosed, secret money on cleveland television, on columbus television, mostly against candidates, mostly against incumbents, mostly against people who have a history of standing up for the middle class against oil company interests, who have history of standing up for jobs against bad trade agreements against companies which outsource to

china which they benefit from, standing up to wall street banks which have done significant damage to our country and to our economy. we don't know for sure where this money comes from. they won't disclose it. the people paying for these ads are simply unwilling to step out of the shadows. it's not hard to guess but you simply can't prove it. at the same time, mr. president, all these ads that have come into cleveland, that have come into columbus and all over my state, nonpartisan fact check organizations have discovered that many of these ads are false. they have a rating. they have a true, mostly true, mostly false, false, and the worst rating is pants on fire. pants on fire suggests that people running these ads or a politician or groups making these statements willfully disregard the truth, or to put it more succinctly simply lie, and we're seeing in many of these ads that are run by these special interest groups, they're simply lying to get a false or

to get a pants on fire rating from politifact. it has no partisan leanings, no ideological leanings. it's no surprise, mr. president, people paying for these ads don't want to be associated with them. if they're an oil company, they don't really want the public to know how they're lying. if they are an american corporation that outsources to china, they don't really want the american public to know they are the ones paying for these ads and lying. that's why this legislation is so important. these wealthy, unnamed, out-of- state donors can get away with this. we know this by now because the united states supreme court citizens united decision sweeps aside jurisprudence and allows corporations and very wealthy individuals to spend as much as they like to defeat politicians who don't do their bidding. big businesses and large -- and billionaires shouldn't be able to buy elections.

citizens should know who is behind the ads. one of his fireside chats in a very different era, in a very different political environment with very different media available to them, president franklin roosevelt said the use of power by any group, however situated, to force its interests or to use its strategic position in order to receive more from the common fund than its contribution to the common fund justifies is an attack against and not an aide to our national life. in a nutshell, president roosevelt said -- he could have been speaking to this issue today, that he called them the malefactors of great wealth, he called them the economic royals, he called them a lot of things. very, very wealthy people that had disproportionate influence on their national government, even with a president that was fighting for the middle class, that was fighting for the common man against these interest groups. that's why, mr. president, the democracy is strengthened by casting light on the spending in

elections act, the disclose act matters. we need to pass this bill. the disclose act would ensure greater accountability and transparency, in corporate spending. over the course of the past two years, we have seen politics increasingly influenced by millionaires and billionaires who secretly give unlimited amounts of money to manipulate american politics. these multimillionaires are trying to secretly buy elections. the disclosure act would prevent these corporations and wealthy individuals from using shell front groups to hide their donations from disclosure. by giving millions of dollars in secret money, these megadonors are looking to cash in on policies that will benefit big business interest. mr. president, i don't want to make this about my state. i mentioned huge money in cleveland, huge money in columbus. we're seeing it in cincinnati market, dayton market, youngstown market.

even those tv markets on the periphery of the state that serve other states -- wheeling, west virginia, parkersburg, west virginia, charleston-huntington, west virginia, fort wayne, indiana, states where you might buy the television that ohioans will see. i don't want to make this about my campaign. in my campaign, we have seen already in ohio $10.5 million in special interest money laundered -- and i use that term advisedly -- laundered through groups like the united states chamber of commerce, laundered through groups like crossroads. that's the group associated with the political -- the -- george bush's political director, whatever his title was. money coming through 60-plus, money laundered through concerned women of america who decidedly aren't, i might add, money laundered through all kinds of organization, undisclosed, secret money that comes in and does attack ads against elected officials. i can stand up on my own.

i'm not all that concerned about what it means to me. i am concerned that those groups undisclosed want to buy elections. you know why they want to buy elections? they want to buy elections so they can continue the subsidies they get in the tax break for the oil companies. they want to buy elections so they can continue to outsource jobs to china and write trade rules that make it easier and more profitable to do that. they want to buy elections because they want to stop our efforts to force the six largest banks in the country, the wall street banks to divest some of their earnings so they're not just too big to fail. they are also too big to manage and too big to regulate. they want to buy elections. these outside groups because they want to continue the preferential treatment they get in this congress when they are drug companies and stop generic drugs and stop the negotiation directly with the drug companies to save money for seniors for their pharmaceutical drugs. that's what they have at stake.

always, frankly, against the public interest, always an attack on the middle class, always an assault on people that simply want an opportunity to get ahead in this country, just an opportunity fl not a gift, not a handout but an opportunity to go to college, an opportunitying to to lorain count community college, an opportunity to go to school and be able to pay back their loans, an opportunity to get a decent job in -- and stay in the town they grew up in so they can raise children around their grandparents, all the kinds of things that most americans agree with. the disclose act would prevent these corporations from continuing to deceive the public and simply not informing the public what's happening. their priorities erode protections and safeguard for middle-class workers and their families. they are seeking to extend tax shelters for the top 1%. this is not just an attack on the integrity of our democracy. that's fundamentally what it is, but that's not why they do it.

they do it because it's a direct assault to middle-class families in working america. the 1%, the 1% will do increasingly better because of citizens united. the 1% is mostly behind these efforts and mostly behind the efforts to defeat the disclose act. democracy demands openness, in the public square and our public conversations and that most sacred democratic tool, our elections. under citizens united, what we have is a sale, not a democracy, it's an auction going to the highest bidder. it's not an election. our nation's highest court took an issue that was not even presented to the court and decided to overturn a century of legal precedent. our largest companies straddle the globe, they wield enormous influence already. the top fortune 500 companies reap billions in profits. the average ohio household struggles to break even, as the average household from senator whitehouse's rhode island, senator shaheen's new hampshire. the largest corporations

leverage their enormous economic power into seemingly unchecked political clout. 2011, corporations spent $3.3 billion lobbying congress to influence legislation, $3.3 billion to lobby congress, exerting far more influence on our political process than they should. we know they spent this $3.3 billion because they were required by law to disclose what they spent. my guess is if that law didn't exist that they had to disclose what they were spending on lobbying, that some of my colleagues would vote on disclosure for them, what they are spending to influence. they spent $3.3 million to lobby, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in elections, they worked to pull back voter -- to repeal and roll back voter rights -- the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. brown: i will wrap up. thank you. if i could ask unanimous consent for one minute, mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. we have no idea what these groups are spending as they try to undermine our election

system. what we know is corporations and roving front groups are already pouring hundreds of millions into campaigns. the disclose act can help cheer these murky waters. the question ultimately, if we can't pass this, then our citizens need to ask us why are they spending all this money and who are these people spending this money? who's spending it, why are they spending tens of millions in my state and other states around the country? what is it they want? when voters start asking that question, i think the answer will be pretty self-evident. i thank senator whitehouse and senator shaheen for their work on this. i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: first, let me commend senator whitehouse, senator shaheen and all those that have worked so hard with them to bring this cause to the public fore. the genius of our founding fathers, mr. president, was to establish a system of government in which the governed determined who represents them. easy for us more than two

centuries removed from their achievement to lose sight of just how remarkable that achievement was. they overturned untold centuries of human history during which those with wealth and power made the decisions and everyone else had little or no chance to influence how they were governed. the remarkable system the founders created has endured through war, crisis, depression and doubt, but we should not mistake that endurance for automatic pardon mance. -- permanence. democracy requires that we maintain the vital connection between the people and their elected representatives. it must be the voters and not the influential few who choose our nation's leaders. if the people begin to doubt their central role in our government, it will be corrosive to democracy. in recent months, there has been reason for just such doubt. a supreme court ruling has opened our system to a flood of

unlimited and secret special interest money. inexplicably, a one-justice majority of the court decided in the citizens united case that such unlimited, anonymous donations -- quote -- "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." now, many of us believed from the moment that decision was handed down that the court's majority was badly mistaken, but events since that day have left little doubt. we have in recent months seen the dangerous consequences of the court's ruling, a deluge of unregulated funds that has threatened to upend the election campaign for our nation's highest office, a flood whose organizers vow will upend congressional campaigns across the nation this summer and fall. through super pac's and through supposedly regulated but in fact actually unregulated nonprofit organizations, the conduits through which this flood of

secret money flows, millionaires and billionaires already have made massive donations to fund a barrage of attack ads, drenching, smothering the voices of those who are to make the decisions in our democracy, the people. according to the center for responsive politics, an independent watchdog group, as of mid july, these super pac's have raised more than $244 million to influence elections. individuals and corporations can make unlimited donations to these super pac's whose donations are supposed to be disclosed, but the court's decision opened the door, not just individuals and corporations seeking to influence elections with unlimited contributions. this ruling, combined with the i.r.s.'s failure to strictly enforce our laws on the operation of nonprofit groups organized as social welfare

organizations under section 501-c-4 of the internal revenue code allows them to seek this influence with spending that is only not unlimited but is also secret. because there is no requirement that donations to those 501-c-4 organizations be disclosed to the public. donors can seek to influence an election with huge sums of money and can do so now without even having to disclose their involvement. they do so covered by a fig leaf , that the nonprofit groups to which they donate are dedicated to -- quote -- "social welfare rather than partisan politics." that fiction resolves the moment that one sees these -- let me start that again, mr. president. that fiction dissolves the moment that one looks at these social welfare attack ads that

the i.r.s. is so far blind to. according to animals of tv ad spending data by the campaign media analysis group, two-thirds of all ad spending by outside groups so far during this election cycle has come from nonprofits subject to no federal public disclosure rules. much more is on the way as election day approaches this fall. the organizations now spending millions of dollars to influence elections were set up for that explicit purpose, to pain for candidates they favor and against candidates they oppose, and yet they preserve their nonprofit status and their secrecy by relying on a contradictory regulation and guidance from the i.r.s. now, this is how it works. in order to keep their tax-exempt status and keep donor

names and donation amounts secret, organizations are set up as -- quote -- "social welfare organizations under 501-c of the internal revenue code. for example, 501-c-4, which is a very popular section of the code for these organizations to claim, requires that an organization be operated -- quote -- "exclusively" -- i repeat -- quote -- "exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." yet in the regulation implementing this statute, the i.r.s. says -- quote -- "an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare." under this regulation, according to the i.r.s., to call phi as -- quote -- to qualify as -- quote --

"exclusively dedicated to social welfare." you need only be -- quote -- "primarily interested in social welfare." that doesn't fit any reasonable definition of "exclusively" that i know of. now, i've expressed my concern to the i.r.s. about this. i pointed out to the i.r.s. that the i.r.s. took a stand on this issue once before. in 1997, it denied nonprofit status to an organization called the national policy forum. the i.r.s. position then was that -- quote -- "partisan political activity does not promote social welfare." yet the i.r.s.'s determination of a group's tax-exempt status can take a year. therefore, even if the i.r.s. determines that these organizations are not legitimately -- quote -- "social welfare organizations," it will likely be too late. the secret money will have already been donated and spent and the elections will be over. the contradiction in the i.r.s.

regulation is reflected in i.r.s. literature designed to guide the operation of nonprofits. i.r.s. officials pointed me to information on the agency's internet that states -- quote -- "the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate." but in the very next sentence on that same web site, the guidance says -- quote -- "a social welfare organization may engage in some political activities so long as that is not its primary activity." so that contradicts the plain assertion in the previous sentence that -- quote -- "social welfare advocacy does not include campaigning."

it also then leaves open the question of the definition of "primary activity." an i.r.s. publication on nonprofit organizations contains the same contradiction. it says, promoting social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervery long in -- intervention in political campaigns in behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. however, it goes on to say, "if you submit proof that your organization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, it can obtain an exemption from taxes even if it participates legally in some political activity on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office." now, that makes no sense. if partisan activity does not meet the i.r.s. definition of -- quote -- "promoting social welfare," how can an organization that participates in partisan activity possibly be -- quote -- "organized exclusively to promote social

welfare"? so rather than providing clarity, the i.r.s. is perpetuating ambiguity and it should promptly end this ambiguity. but, mr. president, we also have a responsibility to act, the senate and the congress should act to prevent these organizations from continuing to benefit from their tax-exempt status and hide their donor information. they should be required to disclose the donor and contribution information and stop hiding behind their nonprofit status. the facade of these tv ads not being partisan politics needs to be swept away. it's that simple. we've seen repeatedly the corrosive effects of secret money on the political process. we need to look to history, including modern history, the watergate scandal, the single incident in modern u.s. history that most damaged public

confidence in honest government involved burglaries and -- the presiding officer: senator's ten minutes are expired. mr. levin: i would ask just for an additional two minutes, unanimous consent for an additional two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: thank you. the watergate scandal, which is the single incident in modern u.s. history that most damaged public confidence in honest government, involved burglaries and dirty tricks that were paid for using secret campaign donations. even by the weak standards of the time, much of this secret money was illegal. more than 20 corporations and organizations were fined and some executives went to jail because their secret payments to the nixon campaign violated the law. now a donor can make such secret donations dedicated to who knows what nefarious purpose and spent unlimited amounts in secret with what has to this point been the acquiescence of the i.r.s.

post-watergate history warns us as well, we're all familiar with the revelations about former senator john edwards. his personal failings got most of the media attention but let's not forget the financial heart of thinks problem. while running for president, he sought and received secret amounts of cash from a major campaign donor in order to conceal embarrassing facts that might damage the campaign. yet, huge secret payments to campaigns at this moment in our history are rife. we need to look no further than this capital city in which we work to see the dangers of secret money. residents of washington, d.c. have learned in recent weeks that the current mayor benefited from what federal prosecutors have called a -- quote -- "shadow campaign of huge secret donations from a major city contractor." the chief federal prosecutor has said -- quote -- "the 2010

mayoral election was corrupted by a massive infusion of cash that was illegally concealed from the voters of the district." and if true, these charges mean that a campaign donor with a major financial interest in city government decisions sought to influence the election of the city's mayor using huge, secret payments that concealed his involvement. mr. president, do any of us doubt that individuals and corporations with a vested interest in federal government outcomes are spending huge sums of money to influence those outcomes without ever having to disclose their involvement to the public? people may go to jail for such spending in the washington, d.c., election and yet secret spending is common practice in campaigns for the highest offices in our country. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the

balance of my statement be inserted in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and again, i want to thank senator whitehouse and his colleagues who have taken the lead in bringing this issue to the attention of the public in such a compelling way that they have. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. since the supreme court's decision two years ago in citizens united, we've seen a new system of campaign finance emerge. without limits on donations or limits on spending by outside groups like super pacs, we have been inundated with mostly negative political advertisements while candidates from both sides of the aisle struggle to raise more and more money just to keep up. nearly $170 million has been spent so far in this election

cycle by outside groups and that doesn't include how much the candidates themselves have spe spent. just think what good we could do with that $170 million. the rising influence of donors and corporations is a problem, but the larger issue and the one that we're here to talk about today -- and i want to recognize the leadership of senator whitehouse from rhode island, who has done such a great job of raising the importance of this issue -- the larger issue is the prevalence of secret money that is increasingly making its way into our campaigns. millions of dollars of untraceable money has already been spent during this election. this spending is just unacceptable because there is too much at stake in this election for americans who are struggling. and by that, i'm not talking about the secret donors who can afford to spend millions of dollars on secret political ads.

i'm talking about middle-class families who are struggling with their mortgages, trying to pay for college, fighting to get their credit card payments mailed in on time. these are the americans who need our attention and they deserve to know who paid for the most recent negative ads that they see on their televisions. the truth is that middle-class families will not be able to catch a break unless we start by reducing the influence of special interests, of big donors and of corporate lobbyists, and that's what the disclose act is about and that's why it deserves our support. we've heard senator levin speak very eloquently to the 501-c-4 organizations, those organizations that are allowed to keep their donors secret and in many cases they're actually allowed to deduct those

contributions, those secret donors can deduct those contributions from their taxes. it's hard to understand why they should be allowed to do that. it isn't right, it isn't fair, and we need to change the system. now, some have objected to requiring disclosure of donors because they say it undermines free speech. let me address that. because our democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas and political speech should enjoy the highest level of protection. we should recognize that citizens always have the right to speak and be heard, especially on matters as important as who should represent them in washington. that's not what the disclose act is about. it is precisely because we need to make sure citizens stay involved in the political process that we need this reform, because freedom of speech does not mean freedom of secrecy. anonymous political speech by

these organizations has no place in our democracy. accountability, transparency, and credibility must be preserved in our political system. when i talk to voters in new hampshire these days, they're not optimistic about being heard in washington. according to the granite state poll that's done by university of new hampshire, three-quarters of our new hampshire adults think that members of congress are more interested in serving special interest groups. one-quarter of new hampshire adults think they have no influence at all on what the federal government does. people throughout new hampshire and throughout this country don't believe that their interests are being represented. what they do support is the kind of legislation that we're talking about in the disclose act. three-quarters of new hampshire adults strongly support a law that would require corporations,

unions, and nonprofit groups to disclose their sources of spending when they participate in elections. and this support isn't limited to new hampshire. according to a greenberg-quinlin poll recently, 77% of voters nationwide, regardless of party, say reforming our campaign finance system is very important. now, you know, i get a lot of cards and letters from people and most of the people who write to me and write to all of us sign their names. and because they sign their names, we know who they are and we can respond, we can correct misunderstandings, we can engage in a discussion with them about policies before the congress. the same should be true for political speech. justice antonin scalia once wrote -- and we put this on

poster board because i thought it was so apropos to what we're talking about with the disclose act -- he said, this is justice scalia, that "requiring people stand up in public for their political beliefs fosters" -- i'm sorry, "for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed." it's important for donors to own their participation. that's what this disclose act is about. and that's why we should all vote to support it now, i can't finish my remarks without talking about a new hampshire woman who really represents what we're talking about when we talk about participation in the political process. her name was doris haddock, granny did not as we knew her in new hampshire. some people may remember that

when she was 89 years old she started walking across america to call attention to the importance of campaign finance reform. in the 14 months that she took to walk across this country -- and she turned 90 on the way -- she traveled 3,200 miles, she went through four pairs of sneakers and everywhere she stopped, she talked about the importance of addressing campaign finance reform so that ordinary americans could be heard. well, granny d died two years ago at the age of 100. she left behind two children, eight grandchildren, and 16 great-grandchildren. she also left behind an incredible legacy that embodies the importance of what the first amendment was designed to protect and what it need not protect. we need to make sure that people like granny d can continue to be

heard, regardless of how much money they have. that's why we need need the dise act. the first amendment doesn't protect the rights of shell organizations to flood our airwaves with ads. let's take a lesson from granny d. let's take a stand. let's pull back the curtains to see who is behind all the secret money much the disclose act will allow us to do all that. that's why we should support its passage and i hope our colleagues from the other side of the aisle will decide they should join us. it's critical to our democratic process. thank you very much, mr. president. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i rise this evening in support of the disclose act. this is legislation to shine some sunlight onto our elections, to restore

transparency and accountability into this nation's political campaigns. the disclose act is a responsible step toward making sure that the people decide the course of our future. the people decide the course of our future. that people make their own choices based on good information, that people always have the ability to hold this government accountable through transparency. now, right now this is not the case. on january 21 of 2010, the supreme court made a decision that gave power to corporations to spend unlimited money on political campaigns with no transparency whatsoever. that includes foreign corporations, by the way. so, for example, it would be pretty easy for a chinese company to start spending a lot of money to influence america's elections. again, with no transparency whatsoever. the citizens united decision has already dealt a blow to our democracy. it is allowing a handful of

billionaires, corporations, and secretive groups that represent special interests to try and buy votes. that already happened in montana once, and the people of montana put a stop to it -- 100 years ago this year. at the turn of last century, one of the world's wealthiest men literally bought himself a seat to this u.s. senate. his name: william clark. he was one of the mining barons of the gilded age. he left his mark across this nation. clark county, nevada, is named for him. back then montana's legislature got to choose who served in the u.s. senate, so william clark paid as many legislators as he could to send him to washington. in fact, he spent a staggering $431,000 buying his senate seat in 1889. that's equivalent to about $11 million today.

this bold bribery was a national scandal back then, and it shaped montana forever. montana passed a law in 1912 limiting the influence of wealthy corporations over our elections, and just as important, the scandal showed us that, as montanans, transparency prevents corruption. transparency allows for accountability. mr. president, transparency in government is a fundamental value in montana. a few weeks ago the u.s. supreme court struck down upon montana's important 1912 law that guarantees transparency and accountability in our elections, citing its own citizens united decision and the idea that corporations somehow have the same rights as individual people. the u.s. supreme court tossed out montana's century-old law. now, the secretive special interests taking full advantage of this uneven playing field. they're buying up millions of dollars of time on the airwaves, blanketing montana with lies and

distortions in order to influence the voters. now, montanans are getting sick of it. like 100 years ago, a few millionaires and billionaires are bankrolling secretive campaign spending, and they're steamrolling our democracy, because they're doing it in secret with no accountability and no transparency. i support undoing the citizens united decision by amending the u.s. constitution, but that's a heavy lift. it's one that i, along with many of my colleagues, support. and, in the meantime, let's make our elections more transparent. i think i join most montanans when i think is money spent influencing voters out to be transparent no matter where it comes from. that's exactly what the disclose act does. i don't think anyone here has heard complaints about too much transparency when it comes to tv's political ads. the disclose act requires any organization or individual who spends $10,000 or more on a

political campaign to report that expense within 24 hours. no organization or type of organization exempted -- this applies to super pacs, unions, and so-called issue advocacy organizations. that's not stifling free speech. that's responsibility. it is accountability. the disclose act strengthens our freedom to make decisions about our democracy and for folks in montana, it is a chance for us to put our priorities back ahead of special interests'. for montanans to make their own choices free from influence. and it's what the people of this nation deserve. and i urge all of my colleagues to vote for that transparency. a vote against the disclose act is a vote to allow secret, special interests to buy something that never should be ever for sale: our democracy and the power to make our own decisions with good information, full transparency, and full

accountability. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, before the senator from montana leaves, i want to ask him a question. did you hear earlier this evening a senator come out here and say that he thought that the disclose act would intimidate people from participating in the political process? the fact of disclosing where the money is coming from is supposed to be an intimidation? mr. tester: well, anytime the transparency and accountability, there's intimidation. that means there's a different agenda behind that money, to be honest with the senator from florida. i would say that the disclose act, i think, is a well-crafted, smart bill that allows transparency and accountability

to our election process. the time when accountability and transparency becomes a bad thing we are in big, big trouble in this country. thank you for the question. mr. nelson: yes, indeed. and i thank the senator for his comments. and my comments will be very similar, because the disclose act is a very simple piece of legislation. it is about letting people know who is spending money and how much in order to influential elections -- influence elections, and, therefore, not to allow the democratic process of electing officials to be taken over by a few superdonors who pay for these slash-and-burn negative ads that are also, by

the way, patently false. mr. president, i've had $8 million of negative attack ads run against me. every independent fact-checking organization has said they are either false or pants-on-fire false, and yet the public doesn't know where the money is coming from in order to run these kind of ads. i really have never seen this kind of situation that we are facing this year because this 5-4 supreme court decision has left the door open for these megadonors to secretly finance and propel the flow of false information.

and it's not just happening in my state. we're hearing that it's happening in a bunch of states. and it's not just in senate elections. it's happening in elections at all levels, including the presidential election. and so what's happening is these people and these organizations are donating so they can satisfy their own agendas, and they do so in their own self-interest to see that it's going to be protected in washington. now, the ones that are running ads in my state of florida clearly don't care about florida. they care about their own political agenda. and, in essence, they're trying to buy elections.

and so, with this new crop of secretive donors, seemingly popping up new ones every day, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. and that's why we need a law like the disclose act. voters need to know who's influencing the elections. we, as federal candidates, you have to know basically every dime of political contributions. and, oh, by the way, we are limited in the amount of contributions per contributor that we can take. and we can only take from people, not from a corporation. we are obviously seeing how distorted the implementation of this 5-4 supreme court decision is in this law, and that's why we've got to pass a bill to at

least bring it out into the sunshine. in this citizens united 5-4 supreme court decision, which allows these unlimited donatio donations, the supreme court even said in a part of the opinion that there is a need for transparency. well, that's what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. the supreme court in its opinion said that voters should be well-informed about the group or the person that is speaking in what they consider free speech. well, that's exactly what this legislation intends to do. it informs the electorate. it makes sure that they have the information they need to judge the message for themselves. and this onslaught of unlimited,

anonymous contributions puts everyday folks at risk of having their voices drowned out by the billionaires and the corporations. and if the campaign law says that the average person has to disclose their contribution to a candidate, well, why shouldn't the billionaires and the millionaires have to do so as well? it's a question of fairness. there shouldn't be two sets of standards for political contributions, and that's why we are here on the senate floor, well into the night, supporting the disclose act. and we're ought to pass this bill. and yet you see partisan politics at its worst when the votes are being recorded