never get it and it's an empty promise. do they understand that the so-called independents of independent expenditures has become a joke, that the very underpinnings of their decision in citizens united does not square at all with reality, that every one of the 100 of us here, the 435 members of the house on the other side and presidential candidates are living with? do they have any understanding of that? so here we are. what else can we do? we're here late at night trying, desperately trying to either persuade our colleagues, whose self-interest mitigates against them joining us, to persuade the people, although the issue of campaign finance is often an

abstract one at a time when people are so busy working hard, paying the bills, raising the families and experiencing the vicissitudes of life that god gives and visits on each and every one of us. maybe it will affect one of the justices on the supreme court who are sort of living in a fantasy world as their decisions undo the very democracy that they are supposed to preserve. we're trying. that's all we can do. and the one thing i want to amy colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the american people and everybody else who is involved in this issue, we are not going to stop trying till we succeed. dr. king, one of the great men of america, said "the ark ofc of

history is long but it bends in the direction of justice." the arc of shift long but it bends in the direction of justice." he was talking about justice for people of color. but there also has to be a justice to average folks who can't reach into their checkbooks and spend a million dollars on an ad undisclosed that excoriates, often unfairly, someone they disagree with. they need justice too, those average folks, and they're not going to get it till this simple measure and others that are stronger than it start succeeding. so we're going to keep at it. we are not going to stop till we succeed. under the leadership of many who are here tonight sitting in this chamber, we will keep working and working and working until

our government is truly one of the people, by the people, and for the people. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, this is a very interesting night on the senate floor, as many of us keep coming down and talking about what it means and the money involved in politics and the corruptive system that is now plaguing us with these super pacs and these 501-c-4's, which i would bet you if you ask the average person, "what's a 501-c-4" they would have no idea. you would say turn on one of your tv and see those swings states, one of those thousand

ads in a week, that's a 501-c-4 running those ads. but i'm glad i'm done here. i know it's late. it's not too late from alaska' perspective. i know it's late here, 11:00 washington, d.c. time. but in alaska, it's 7:00 the sun hasn't set, and here we are in the body talking about what's important, not only to my folks in alaska but also to folks of the country. you know, it's only july and we're all up to our elbows in negative and dirty and distorted attack ads. imagine what it will be like by november. these kind of negative ads are cheap shot ads, many of them funded by anonymous donors who make outrageous negative claims based on half-truths, at best, and outright lies at worst. all paid for by secret fat cats and unlimited deep pockets, money that no one knows where it comes from.

alaskans tell me when i'm back there -- i try to get back there at least twice a month and more -- and i hear from alaskans all the time. they're fed up with it. i know we're fed up with it. i think the american people are fed up with it. so i'm happy to join my colleagues tonight standing up, fighting back and demanding transparency, something so simple. that's all we're asking for tonight, transparency. openness and honesty. i mean, i don't know what they're afraid of. you contribute money, you should be proud, you should be excited about who you're supporting. but for some reason, they hide, they don't want people to see who they support. i want to take a few minutes, i know many people have heard tonight who've been watching and listening and maybe it's been through c-span or through news clips or whatever else might be going on or through our own web sites, take a few minutes to describe how we got here, why we're in this dilemma. citizens united case that

extended free speech rights to corporations as if they are people. whoever thought corporate personhood would become part of our vocabulary? in fact, alaskans are concerned about this. just last week, the city and borrow of sitka passed a resolution about the opposition to corporate personhood. and i ask unanimous consent to enter this resolution into the record from a small community in alaska but concerned about the issue. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: i also want to talk about one part of the solution, the reason we are here tonight, a simple solution to a growing problem and that's the disclose act. i noticed as i presided where you are, mr. president, not long ago, and now i'm down here on the floor, i noticed no one -- no one -- from the minority is here in this chamber countering or debating what we're talking about tonight. they're home, they're at home away from the tv of cameras

because earlier this evening they voted in a block to move against moving the disclose act forward chvment is kind of interesting, because i don't know how many times i hear from the other side, please, just let us have a right to have a debate on a subject matter. don't filibuster it, don't require 60 votes, let us amend these kinds of issues. so all we're saying is let's get to the vote an. they get a chance to amend it if they want if they don't like pieces of it, whatever. but they won't let us do that. they voted in favor of unlimited negative political ads. they voted against transparency, openness and hones honesty. they voted against the american people. they should be ashamed and they should be at home hiding. so what exactly is citizens united? the citizens united ruling by the supreme court -- again, many of us have talked about it already -- two years ago opened up the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest money in elections.

as a result, corporations and other wealthy interests exert vast influence in our political system through secret, anonymous, untraceable money. individuals, ordinary americans are having their voices drowned out. super pacs -- you hear that phrase off and on -- they disclose their donors, but these 501-c-4's -- that's what they call them, 501 of-c-4 groups -- that's a code underneath the i.r.s. code, the so-called -- and they're actually called -- this is what's amazing -- social welfare organizations. social welfare organizations. 501-c-4's. they don't have to disclose anything. they can run their own negative ads or they can give unlimited money to super pacs without an any -- any -- disclosure. either way, they don't have to disclose their donors. the era of secret money is here and it's a lot of money. you've heard the numbers.

this year we estimate almost a billion dollars, a billion dollars spent in negative ads that no one has to know where -- who's paying for it. if they love these ads, they think they're so great and they're so factual, all we're asking is tell us who you are, tell us what you're doing. when i was mayor of anchorage, i had a group like this and one of -- in one of my reelection campaigns. they ran it. no one knew who they were but i had a pretty good idea and i started talking about it. and i'll tell you what happened? anchorage. people rejected those ads. i won my reelection. i won the largest margin in the city's history. but they started running these secret ads and didn't want to disclose themselves. they didn't like a decision i made. and then they never came forward. but we knew who they were. again, we think it will be up to a billion dollars. they've already spent a quarter billion dollars. you know, the last time we had an issue like this in this

country around electioneering in the sense of elections being bought by very special-interest groups, it was around 1972. some people may not remember the history there. but all you have to say is a couple words, "scandal," "watergate." that's what happened. it was election money, more money than people could ever imagine. the rules were unlimited in 19 1972. as a matter of fact, it got so bad that it almost -- it was truly a constitutional crisis. the president had to resign. think about it. that was the last time we did election reform in the sense of campaign financing. and campaign financing reform came in fast and furious after that because it was the corruption of the money of very few people. almost -- it brought down our president at that time and

almost brought down this country. things have changed quite a bit since then. i just wanted to give you a couple stats because i think it's important to know where we have been and where we are in the sense of this. 40 years ago was the last time we had meaningful, aggressive election in the sense of campaign financing. back then you could buy a gallon of gas for 55 cents. imagine that. hbo was launched as the first pay-for capable network channel or tv station. today, cable is everywhere and the amount of money flowing into everybody's negative ads isy norm outs. tij tall watches were introduc introduced. -- digital watches were introduced. everything's digital now. back then it was just the beginning. but it was a different era. but it did with the crisis that occurred, with the corruption of money that tried to buy our government, buy every elected official that they could get their hands on, and in that case

the presidency. that was 40 years ago. here we are. when you think about the money that will be spent this time -- a billion dollars -- almost 70% of the money so far has been used for negative ads. poll after poll, i don't care if it's a scientific poll or sitting at the coffee shop or when i'm traveling around alaska, people hate negative ads. but they continue to buy them and they never want to tell anyone who's paying for them. again, if they're so proud and they're factual, step to the plate. the election's four months away from now and we're going to see an enormous amount of ads. when i think about how this affects my state, alaska. not so long ago, alaska had some of the most strictest campaign finance laws in the country. alaskans said we don't want what he said money or a few rich locals buying elections. let me give you an example.

$500 is the maximum you can cbility to a candidate in a calendar year. individuals, nonresidents, the max amount to a governor's race, $20,000 total. corporations, business organizations, unions in alaska, prohibited. groups from outside, not based in alaska, prohibited. nongroup entities based outside of alaska, prohibited. we have some of the toughest. but now this effort is stepping on what disins through an initial -- what citizens did through an initiative. what citizens did through an initiative. they put at risk our state laws. now corporations can make independent expenditures on behalf of state candidates in alaska, which they could not do before. in our own campaign finance agency in alaska, just issued an opinion that will allow for unlimited spending. this will allow outside groups

and outside money to influence alaskans and alaska elections, exactly what we didn't want through our own citizens initiative. and there's one thing we don't like in alaska, outsiders telling us how to do our business. they did that for decades, took everything they could out of alaska. every dime, every inch of land they could take in the sense of ownership and mineral resources, they took it all. for their benefit. for a few. alaskans said, no more. not donnelly we change our laws to govern, we also changed our election laws. citizens did this. what can we do in congress? it is so simple. disclose and transparency. members of both parties have said for decades that sun linet, as we said we heard tonight, is the best disinfectant. i'm a huge advocacy of transparency. i post my own schedule. i post my financial statements. i expose my wife's income, which

is not required. i called for crop insurance transparency, i cosponsored stock act. people just want to know what we're up to. and these corruptsive systems of a few or a dozen or so, they're trying to buy this election for their own personal gain. we u.s. want to know who they are. they can spend the money they wanted but we just want to know who they are. transparency, disclosure -- used to be a bipartisan idea. senator mcquonl said this earlier -- said it himself a thousand times -- and i want to repeat it. because sometimes what happens around this place, i've noticed after four years, memories get very vague on what they say before and suddenly they change their ideas based on the policies and not the politics. here's his direct quoas from 15 years ago. "i think disclosure is the best disinfectant. i think it gives our constituents an opportunity to decide whether or not we're in the clutches of some particular interest group or something that's a voting issue for them. i'm certainly in favor of enhanced disclosure. that's from the minority lear.

you know, every senator in this body on both sides of the aisle have said they wanted more transparency polls show americans know exactly who spends money to influence elections. they want to know it. they want know because they want more faith. maybe this explains why they're angry at us. why congress has such a low rating. the bill is very simple. i know people have said it over and over again, but sometimes i think we have to repeat taxpayer the bil--repeat it. the bill requires any donor to spends $10,000 or more to file a simple disclosure report with the federal election commission. not complicated. every group is treated the same. i have received a few e-mails. i have to say, the e-mails on this issue all for it, only one against so far. i know once i say this, tomorrow i'll see more against it. because the special-interest

groups will be churning out letters. this includes 501(c)(4)'s, 527 organizations, they only have to disclose money spent on elections, and only from individuals giving more than $10,000. under this bill, money given to these groups for other purposes does not need to be disclosed. despite what you read in the papers and the blogs and the misinformation that's put out there or by the undisclosed groups who won't tell you who they are but they wan want to ge you more misinformation, this is a new and improved act that failed two years ago by just one vote. under that bill, the cutoff was $600. now the threshold is $10,000. if you give $10,000 or more for that you are political attack ads that distort the truth, the american people deserves to know who you are. the bill won't force groups to

release their members' lists. despite -- people have e-mailed me i want to make it chievement if you belong to the, i belong to the n.r.a. -- i'm proud to be a member. i'm proud to be a member. put my name up there. but this does not require us, if you are a due-paying member to a group like the n.r.a., your name will be listed. so that misinformation that some groups are out there, shame on them. this bill is not an unconstitutional reaction to free speech. the disclosure act puts no restrictions on speech and is fully consistent with the supreme court. the bill also incorporates the court's effective disclosure rules. let me sum it up. this bill -- and i know someone -- i think it was the senator from arkansas today. i saw him and i thought it was great. we always hear these bills are so big, they're pages. this is it.

and if you look at it, it's double-spaced, takes only hast page, each one. not complicated, pretty simple. the bill is narrowly tailored and very, very simple. it doesn't prevent any special interest groups or any corporation from donating any amount they want. all we're asking is, just tell us who you are. when i say "us," not us here; the american people who just want to notify the bill will give americans feith faith that their elected representatives aren't being bought and sold by hundreds of millions of dollars of secret, untraceable money. so i hope we vote on the disclose act as soon as tomorrow. and i hope my colleagues from the other side come back to this -- maybe they'll have something to say. it's been a long night, haven't heard a word from them. but it would be nice to have debate on this, but also let's do what i know alaskans are asking me every day: clean up the system.

the best way you can do that is tell people where the money -- show me the money, follow the money. and when you follow the money, as in 1972 they did, you know exactly who's trying to buy the government of the and in this case, we just want to know. if you're so proud of these ads that you run -- and i'm sure -- we all sat around a little bit talking about this. as soon as we come to the floor and talk about this, people will be them a running those $5s against the begich guy. you want to run them, run them. people want to know who you are. these people who hide behind this secret money, don't disclose themselves, basically what they're pitching, what they're selling is hogwash. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'm proud to

join so many of my colleagues in speaking out tonight at this late hour to try to call attention to a very serious issue before the body, and that is whether political contributions of over $10,000 should be disclose or n i think people, would as senator begich just eloquently stated, really concerned and very troubled by the fact that we're even having this debate. it so defies common sense. i think people at home are saying to themselves, why is this even an issue? why are we debating this? why didn't one republican step up to join a group of democrats to say, obviously, if you're contributing to the political process $10,000 or more, you should make yourself known? i think senator begich listed --

the senator from alaska -- many important points. i would just like to underscore the point he made about transparency. our government is far from perfect. it's the oldest democracy, but it's the best that we know of. and one of the reasons that our democracy is the best and it works most of the time pretty well, mr. president, is because it's most of the time transparent. the press can come here anytime and write about what we speak about. every word is written in the public record. all of the records, vital records of the united states are public. you know, we publicize our real estate transactions in almost every jurisdiction that i know of. there's so much public information available. it's one of the reasons that our democracy works pretty well. so this is a real step backward. this is a real step become ward,

and -- this is a real step backward and it is a dangerous step backward to have a democracy that prides itself on transparency, and here we have half of this chamber running out the door after they basically vote to keep contributions secret. what is it that they're ashamed of? i mean, what is it that they're trying to hide? if they're proud of who they're supporting, if they believe that -- in the case case in the causy are investing, why not let people know? as you say, you are a member of the n.r.a., all of us are members of different organizations. i certainly don't mind the organizations -- i'm charity adoption caucus. -- i'm chair of the adoption kaw k i love to see publicity about the members and i'm proud of what our organization does. it is nonpartisan, of course. but i believe in -- and we advocate for those principles. so i am really alarmed at the

stubbornness and the position that our friends on the other side of the aisle have taken to not want to let their constituents know who's contributing and for what reason. so i believe that transparency clearly is? jeopardy tonight over -- so i believe that transparency clearly is in jeopardy tonight over this disclose act. and i hope we can have another vote and persuade more people to join you to open up, let the sunshine in, let people see what is actually going on. the other point, mr. president, i'd like to make is that the middle class in this country is under assault. there was a very startling article in the "new york times" just last week that talked about in the last two years the income net worth of the average american has fallen by 40%

because of secret deals on wall street, because of secret collusion of some of the largest financial institutions in the world, because of a lack of transparency in our financial system and a number of other reasons. but that was primarily -- and the lack of enforcement of having good regulations and the enforcement of good regulations. you would think that people would be moving forward to open up the proficiency to make it more transparent -- to open up the process, to make it more transparent. this is going in the opposite direction. the middle class is under assault, congress is at an all-time low. so what do we do? we say it's okay to give tons of money to elections a and to cover it up and to be secret about it and to not tell anyone who's giving and for what purpose. our numbers for congress were

down to 13% or something. it is going to go negative. and i wouldn't blame people. we'll be a negative number in the polls because people are losing confidence in the system. and this is an example of why they should lose confidence in the system. and i am really disappointed that it's just those of us on our side of the aisle that seem to be concerned about this, and the other members -- i'm not sure what their points are in the debate because not one single person has come to the floor at least in the last several hours. i know that the minority leader made some weak attempts at explaining their position earlier in the night. if they felt so strongly about this being a pillar of our democracy, thin they certainly should be on the -- then they certainly should be on the floor talk about why. but they're not.

they just ran out of the chamber. they're not here. and so with the middle class under assault, with people understanding and thinking and seeing special interests have their day in washington, letting some sunshine in most certainly wouldn't help -- wouldn't hurt. the disclose act is a necessary piece of legislation to respond to a u.s. supreme court decision in citizens united. this legislation, as we said, does not limit the amount of mo enthat outside interest groups can spent on campaign expenditures. it simply requires disclosure. we are doing a better job, i think, mr. president, of disclosing our income, our stock transactions, public officials, i think our records should be public. our tax returns -- i've submitted many of my own in elections. i hope that mitt romney steps forward to submit more than one year of his tax returns.

i think it really helps to build confidence when those of us that hold public office have full and complete disclosure. but these campaigns, the money that's being spent in these campaigns is exorbitant. it's billions and billions of dollars. i think this campaign cycle is setting records. and to have this all done in secret, so you're being attacked on television or positions have being taken and no one watching the $5 ads has any idea who is producing them? and that's what senator whitehouse -- i want to thank him for his leadership. senator merkley has also been very active. other senators -- senator schumer has taken a leadership role as well. i really appreciate the committee that's come together and i'm happy to be of assistance to them in this effort. but, again, this does not limit

the amount of money that anyone can give to a campaign. it just says, if you give over $10,000, you should disclose it. it does not limit free speech. it does not limit the amount of money that can be spent by an outside organization. it simply says that during this election cycle, you would have to report expenditures of over $10,000. of the $140 million of this presidential cycle, the first since citizens united, more than $140 million has already been spent. why would these groups be spending this much money, mr. president, if they weren't going to ask for something? what is their motive? what are they expecting? these are wealthy individuals. these are not organizations of thousands and thousands and thousands of people. many of these are individuals that are contributing and want

to hide behind the recent ruling of the supreme court. so i am proud to lend my voice to the disclose act. i'm proud to be a cosponsor, and i want to join my colleagues in really asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't we need more transparency in government? don't you think the middle class is under enough assault? you -- don't you think this would build some confidence that our government would be more transparent, people could see what was actually happening and understand why some of these contributions were being made. so we have some time. we have opportunities to cast another vote. i hope that our colleagues will -- and the public will demand that we have additional votes until we get the required votes necessary to pass such a commonsense solution to a real

problem, mr. president. i thank you and i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from louisiana for her remarks. would you be able to engage in just a question or two while you're down here? i think back to the period when our forefathers and foremothers came here and said we're going to set up a new set of colonies, a new set of rules, and one of the things at the very heart of that was the notion that we, the people, we, the settlers, we, the colonists, we're going to decide how things run rather than having kings and queens. or other very strong folks kind of handing down the laws from on

high. that was a powerful, powerful concept that got integrated into the first three words of our constitution, we, the people. and do you have any sense whether really this flood of secret, this massive flood of secret money coming from powerful individuals, billionaires and companies does damage to this concept of we, the people? ms. landrieu: absolutely, and the senator is -- the senator is correct, the senator is correct. as i said, the recent polling that i've seen has congress, the opinion of congress and the way the washington government is operating at an all-time low. people don't believe that they're getting the whole story, the full picture, and this is going to contribute in a very negative way to that opinion,

which is detrimental to the foundation, the essence of this democracy, and i think that our founding fathers would be horrified to actually think that a small group of individuals can through campaigns buy the outcome of the election or buy the attention of the candidate or the cause and not even have to disclose their identity or why they might be interested. everyone is entitled to free speech. i just don't think people are entitled to secret speech or secret attacks. you know, if you're going to get into a fight, you like to know who you're fighting with, identify yourself. but this system is not only fraught with -- it just obscures the truth, which i think people have a right to know, and i think it does cut at the heart,

senator, you're correct, of some of the strongest principles of our democracy. mr. merkley: you know, i was thinking back to a book that a friend gave me to read. it was called "treason of the senate." when i first heard him speak about it over the phone, i thought he was saying he had a book about the reason of the senate. in fact, it was -- it turned out to be not the reason but the treason. it was a series of articles, i believe about 20, that were written during the muckraker period. it was each month taking a different senator and how they had basically been put into office through a particular company in a different state, different powerful interest, and this set of articles apparently was one of the things that led to a constitutional amendment because it helped the public mobilize against the indirect election of senators and push for the direct election. so here was the public saying, you know, we, the people, have

this system and it's been violated and so we have to try to change the system so we can reclaim it. i think that's maybe some evidence of the role of excessive power and money and its corrupting influence or its corrosive influence on the electoral process. ms. landrieu: the senator is perfect to point that out and is an excellent student of history. he has demonstrated his understanding before senators were directly elected, they were elected by the legislators of their states and oftentimes literally sent to washington by a special interest, for instance, the railroads. you know, instead of the laws being written to help people that average citizens or homesteaders or people trying to to -- to get -- to get a hand up and a helping hand, some of these senators basically came, bought, sold, delivered and sent to washington to argue on behalf

of one special interest. you know, it's tough to keep things in balance here right now without us going back to those times. that is what is so frightening. i see senator whitehouse on the floor. he has been studying this and has many documents that he can refer to, but that's what's alarming. i don't think people realize this is really moving backward in time, when washington operated in secrecy and there was no way to get the information and why we would want to do this at a time when the middle class is under assault. they have lost 40% of their net worth. at a time when our popularity and trust with the people is an all-time low, this just does not make any sense to me, and i don't understand any benefit that will come from it. mr. whitehouse: may i follow up on the point that senator merkley made? the comparison that he made to

the constitutional change that took the senate from election by state legislatures to direct election by the people is really very much a model for what is happening here. there was a desire to get the vote away from the special interests and put it in the hands of the actual people here. it's a desire to get the spending, the money behind the vote out of the hands of the special interests and back to the people. what citizens united did was to go hugely backwards, open up the floodgates of special interest money, allow it to be secret and try to put ordinary voters up against that kind of a force. it's not fair to the ordinary voters, it's not right, and it really in some respects put the right that they are talking about inside out, and that's the

right of free speech. i think we all have season the four freedoms, the posters by norman rockwell, and perhaps the most famous of those posters is the one of the fellow in the tan windbreaker jacket, a thin guy and he's standing up and he's tall, he is surrounded by people, he is clearly at a town hall meeting, and he's standing up and what is he doing? he's speaking. he is having his say. the way citizens united has worked out, they are basically saying you don't have a constitutional right to speak. you have a constitutional right to listen. you have a constitutional right to listen when the big money speaks. it's essentially a shut up and listen to the big money version of the first amendment.

when money is speech, which is the principle of citizens united, guess what? those with the most money get the most speech. those that don't have a lot of money don't get a lot of speech, and those that have no money get no speech. that's not what the founders intended. so there is a really strong similarity between the move to take a vote and put it in popular hands and what we're trying to do here with disclosure and put the money in popular hands is we can't do that under citizens united. what disclose does is at least you know what's going on. you can look at the game as it's being played. it's cards up on the table. that, if you're being denied the ability to speak on even terms with a c.e.o. or a billionaire or a major corporation or some big lobby group, at least you have the right to know what they're doing, what they're

saying, what's going on. you can keep score and enough of you can get together, you can get mad and can you do something about it. behind the veil of secrecy, you can't even keep score. you don't even know what's going on. mr. merkley: our colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu, was noting that we have important work to do to shore up the american family. families have lost -- i think the number is on average $100,000 of equity in their house. per family, that's a phenomenal sum. if we look at the equity held by our hispanic families, african-american families, they have been virtually wiped out by a system of deregulation and predatory mortgages leading to a housing bubble. we have desperate need for jobs. i think what i hear you saying is that in the face of these needs, allowing unlimited spending by the most powerful

interests in the country to pursue the interests that are most powerful is not going to help us create those living wage jobs americans so desperately need. it's not going to help us fund those health care clinics that are the front door for folks who don't have the big salaries and the big benefit packages. it's not going to help put food on the table for those who are out of work and hungry, and that in that sense, this process of us working by and for the people is being corrupted by these vast pools of secret spending. ms. landrieu: absolutely. that's why i said the senator is correct, why i am astounded that people that talk about on the other side of the aisle good government, government for the people, that's what the tea party movement is supposed to be about. it's supposed to be about taking government back. this isn't taking government back to the people. this is giving it away to people that have the most power and the

most money, and you don't even know who you gave it to because they don't have to disclose. it's going in the opposite direction of i think what the american people want us to do right now. and if the middle-class isn't angry enough, they really should be angry about this because the consequences of secret, undisclosed, unlimited amounts of money put the average person at risk. it disenfranchises them. i mean, we have worked for over 230-something years to go through a process of perfecting our democracy to where every man, every woman, every person 18 and older had the right to vote and participate. now what do we do? just wake up after 230 years and say, you know, that's not working, let's just give the government back to the rich, the few, and they don't even have to say who they are, they don't even have to disclose anything about themselves, and this is

absolutely going in the wrong decks at the wrong time. and i hope that people can listen to this debate and not say well, there they go again but really understand the consequences of this kind of secret money in the system. it is corrupting and it's not right. mr. whitehouse: senator landrieu, i was a prosecutor for many years. i was the united states attorney for our state. i was the attorney general for our state. and when you're prosecuting crimes, there is one very important thing that you always look for. motive. motive. you look for a motive. and one of the things that is, i think, obvious to all americans is that the folks who engage in unlimited election spending do so because they have a motive.

somebody may give $1,000 here or there because they are passionate about an issue. they may give $20 because they know the councilman who is running, but these folks that are giving $4 million at a lick, they're doing it because they have a motive, and it's important for the public to know what that motive is. so now you take the next step. if it's unlimited, it's to open the doors of the people who have a motive. if it's secret, if it's secret, what does it tell you about that motive? if it's secret, what it tells you about that motive is that it's a bad motive for the american people, and this goes back to the point that you and senator merkley were making. whether it's trying

to help get your kid through college, not not having to pay the increased interest rate, be able to get a pell grant. whether it's paying to put food on the table, whether it's trying to get a decent job. rhode island still has 11% unemployment. you can name your issue and if this special interest unlimited secret money was aligned with what the american people want, they would not be fighting about this. they wouldn't care whether it was secret or not. they need it to be secret. they filibustered this bill because they know that those special interest motives are against the public interest, are against the interests of the american people. there's no other logic. there's no other logic. there's no other reason people

would give that much money in a race if they didn't have a motive. there's no reason that they'd want their behavior to be secret unless that motive was bad. there's no explanation. mr. merkley: so, senator, let me ask you this. when the company gets involved in that manner or the billionaire gets involved in that manner and their motive is largely to advance the interests -- their financial interests, do they -- do they use that to fund ads that are an accurate representation of the facts? mr. whitehouse: well, that's a fascinating development. i'm not going to remember the numbers off the top of my head but i'm going to try. my recollection is that before the super pacs kicked off with all of this, 9% of the ads were negative in the last election cycle, at a time when 78%, i want to say, were negative -- 70%, 70%. it went from 9% being negative the cycle before, the

presidential cycle before, i guess, to 70% being negative now. what's that? nearly eight times as much negativity, more than half, nearly three-quarters negative, where it was less than one in ten before? explosion of negativity. so we know that that's happeni happening. the other thing we know that's happening is that it's misleading. it's not accurate. it's deceptive. the annanberg institute has done a study of the top four outside spenders, the outside political spenders, that aren't campaigns, that aren't persons, that aren't parties, these special interest manipulating machines. the top four of them, they looked at their ads, and if i remember the figures correctly, 76% of them contained information that was deceptive. mr. merkley: while you're on that topic, i've got the

annanberg chart here, i believe. mr. whitehouse: there it is, i was wrong. it's 85%. i was wrong. mr. merkley: 85% deceptive, 15% ack expravment to this other point -- accurate. and to this other point about the level of negativity. check this out. this is just taking one of the contests between gingrich and romney and seeing where this special, secret money went. and you can see this red bar basically being the negative ads benefiting romney, so they're attacks on gingrich -- they're negative ads. positive ads for romney, zero. and over here, geng rich didn'tt have very much super pac money in this race and so it just kind of was wiped out completely but -- so what we really see is not just a flood of money on behalf of a powerful special interest but it's being spent to attack people, the negative si side, and they're lying. can this possibly in any possible way be a healthy thing

for democracy? ms. landrieu: could i respond? the senator has hit the nail on the head and i would just like to add that some people -- and i am one of them -- that is believing that there's literally a effort to discourage people generally from believing that government can work at all by being so negative, either to an individual or to the concept of government, that it discourages people from voting and participating and the end result of that is a small group can then manipulate the system. i mean, if people don't engage, if they think that the system is rig ggged, which is seems like s getting more and more because of laws and rules like this, that we can't seem to get straight, what happens is people get despondent, they get turned off and then the special interests can really run the show if people don't vote and contribu contribute. and so it really is a part of a

whole strategy to kind of take the government away from the people and hand it over to a group of special interests with unlimited money, secret attacks to basically fashion and write the laws that benefit futur thes opposed to the mass -- masses. and it's completely against the concept of our democracy. and, again, you know, i know that there are people that have a lot more money than others and they should be free to make decisions about what they do with it. i don't have a problem with th that, although i have supported campaign limits. but it's the disclosure, it's the lack of disclosure, i should say, that is really frightening here, and the secret nature of this. to go on television night after night to tell people how this person is either wrong or this system is broken or the government's not working, people stay home and then less and less people vote and then the few people that have the power, that

have the access, that have the privilege, write the rules even more in their own favor. so this is really taking our democracy in -- in a dangerous way, i think in the wrong direction. mr. whitehouse: if i could add one additional pointed that senator mccain and i -- point that senator mccain and i made in our brief to the supreme court in our brief opposing the decision asking for reconsideration, it is terrible with these negative ads filled with -- what these negative ads filled with deception do to the american public. and it is discouraging to people about the participation that we expect of americans in government. and ultimately, as you point out, it leads to corruption. but at least in the example that you gave, senator landrieu, you see the spending. there is at least a dirty, deceptive and negative attack campaign occupy th up on the ai.

so it's not compleelly invisible, you just don't know who's behind it. but what that leaves open -- again, this is the prosecutor in me talking -- what that leaves open is the threat of that same campaign, the threat of that same campaign. the visit from the lobbyist who comes into the congressman and sits him down in a quiet room and says, "have a look at this" and plays a 30-second commerci commercial, negative, deceptive, slashing, brutal, vitriolic, vial, all against him, and says, you know what? under citizens united, we've got the right to spend $5 million playing that ad against you all through the next election and we're thinking about doing it. and you know what? under citizens united, we've got the right to put up phony shell

corporations so they'll never see our fingerprints. the only thing the public will see is americans for peace pipelinesies and prosperity. that's -- americans for piece pipelinesis and prosperity. and if you vote right, this will be the last time you'll hear from me. if you don't vote right, you'll get $5 million from me through my shell companies. how are you going to vote? if the congressman gives way to that kind of pressure, pressure that was never possible before citizens united, pressure that is not as possible if it's not secret, then you've got no clues and you have actual corruption and the system is even worse than what we see out there. in some respects, as awful as what we see is, that might be like the iceberg that you see above the water and the 90% that's under the water that you don't see could be worse still.

mr. merkley: so to my colleague from rhode island, i ask this -- how is it possible for five members of the supreme court to look at this issue of unlimited secret spending, to know that that can be used to intimidate and corrupt the electoral process and to corrupt the debate here by the threat of future activities, future secret activity, future secret negative, lying activity and not see the corrupting or corrosive effect on the american democracy? mr. whitehouse: that's an interesting question and i -- you'd have to look into the hearts of those five justices to really see the answer to it. but why they'd be willing to make such a dramatic activist move without working with four other colleagues to try to bring them along, why it's always those five making these activist steps towards the republican

agenda is a question that i really can't answer. what's the motive? they know that in their hearts. i don't. one can observe that over and over and over again the five justices who are performing the republican role on that supreme court are delivering the goods and doing things that advance the republican agenda. that's not me talking about it. that's people who've been following this court for decad decades, the most prominent writers about the supreme court have noted that fact. ms. landrieums. landrieu: can ie senator from rhode island to expand on the citizens united. you and senator mccain wrote a brief to the court suggesting the detrimental impact of the decision that these five justices have made. did they in that decision -- i'm asking the senator -- how do they treat corporations? do they treat corporations as people? is that what they did on an

equal footing with citizens united? or was it more of just there shouldn't be limits on contributions? or did they say that corporations are like people and should be allowed to contribute unlimited amount? mr. whitehouse: in effect, that is what they did. the famous expression, corporations are people, my friend, is the expression actually of governor romney. but it has sort of attached itself to the citizens united decision, which doesn't actually use those words but it does treat corporations as having the same rights in the political process as human beings do. they don't have consciences. because they're not human. ms. landrieums. landrieu: they e hearts, they don't have minds. mr. whitehouse: they'rmr. whitee

children, they don't have aspirations, they don't have goals, they don't have all of the things that make us different and make us human. but evidently they have the same rights. and because they don't really exist, it is a legal fact that they are a legal fiction, what that really is doing is empowering the people behind the corporation, the people who control the corporation. ms. landrieu: and it's actually giving more power to the people that control the corporation, not doonl they control their vote, which they -- not only do they control their own vote, which they certainly are entitled to and their own personal opinion, but it gives them extra.because they have access to wealth -- extra power because they have access to wealth and the influence in the structure. but t also occurs to me if the tiny state of delaware just takes this one step further, they might be able to expand their congressional delegation here in washington, because i think they have quite a few corporations that are evidently alive and well and walking around in delaware.

since they have many corporations that are incorporated there, they should press this issue a little further and they might only be stuck with two senators but who knows how many house members? they could get equal to california. i mean, this issue, the decision the court made, it's mind numbing. it does not make sense. it flies in the face of what's good for our democracy. it flies in the face of -- of decisions that courts have made. and that aside, which is troubling enough, but then to take the next step, as the senator from oregon knows, and say that not only are corporations people and have access to -- so you have your own vote, and then if you happen to run a corporation, you get a vote for that corporation as well and all the people that run it. but then you can do it all in secret and you don't have to tell anybody about it. i mean, it really is very, very troubling. mr. merkley: well, and even the

corporation itself doesn't know what it's doing. that is, a corporation might have 10,000 shareholders. they are the corporation. and a corporation is a -- a legal fiction, as our colleague from rhode island says, that allows a board of directors to make decisions on behalf of those thousands of people who own stock. ms. landrieu: and they don't have a name. mr. merkley: and so they're not spending, the board officers resident spending their own money. they're spending mean belongs to the stockholders. but those stockholders have no idea how that money is being spent under citizens united. so it's not just corporations spending money that's secret from the rest of us, it's the officer spending it secret from the actual corporation itself. that is the stockholders. ms. landrieu: senator, it makes no sense, it makes no sense, we could stay here all night. i'm not sure that we could get anyone to understand it. we just just have to reverse this law and -- we just have to reverse this law and get transparency back in our electoral process. mr. merkley: you know, to your

point about the distinction between a corporate forum and an individual justice, john paul stevens addressed this in his dissent and he said -- and i'm quoting -- "in the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. they cannot vote or run for office because they may be managed or controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. the financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially

deleterious effects of elections in national and local races." so here is the esteemed justice saying, not only -- not only is there compelling constitutional basis but probably a democratic duty. and what is he talking about? he is talking about this, "we the people," the first three words of our constitution, the vision that we have a democracy, that we have a representative form of government, we have a republic, that it is centered around, as president lincoln so aptly described, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. we have a duty to protect that. montana had a duty to protect that 100 years ago. earlier this evening, senator tester was here on the floor and he was speaking about the

100-year present that the supreme court delivered. that is, montana said ^1 00 years ago, companies through a variety of means have taken over our state. it is no longer a government by the people. and so we're going to take it back. we're going to exclude corporations from the electoral process. and they've done that for 100 years, with the purpose, the direct purpose of people, not companies, controlling their state. that is the democratic duty that justice john paul stevens is speaking to. so the people of montana were very upset about citizens united. there were some folks that said, well, citizens united is the case. surely montana can't continue to keep companies or corporations out of their electoral process. so we'll challenge that. and that challenge went all the way to the supreme court, and the supreme court basically issued a summary judgment, a judgment in which they said,

we're not going to look at the facts from montana. we're not going to look at the 100-year history of why the people of montana chose to fight for "we the peopl people." we're not going to consider any information at all. we're just going to summarily decide that this case will not stand and we're going to throw out the montana law. well, that is some gift to the people of montana who were fighting for "we the people." you know, this is why i'm -- i thought might summarize citizens united in the followin followin. citizens united, five justices of the supreme court who have taken the first three words of the constitution. they have "x $" out "people" and have written in "powerful." we the powerful. that's what citizens united is all about.

now, i'm deeply disturbed that our supreme court made a finding effect in citizens united that unlimited, secret money, not just dark pools of unregulated cash but oceans, vast oceans of unregulated, undisclosed, secret money being utilized in the electoral process, without the people having any right to know, that's -- that's what the supreme court said is just fine, and that's what attacks "we the people" in favor of "we the powerful." now, not a single member of the supreme court has run for office, to my knowledge. not a single member of the supreme court has served in elected office to my knowledge. i'm happy to stand corrected, if any of my colleagues no otherwise. so perhaps they didn't have the personal experience to understand the types of things that my colleague from rhode island was speaking about; that

folks who can wield huge sums in elections not only have influence in elections, but they can use it as a lever to corrupt the very process we're in tonight, the debate and voting on bills. so you would think that at a minimum the nine justices, knowing they may not have the personal experience, but knowing they need to make a finding in order to proceed, would want to hear all the evidence. but, instead, what the five justices did in summarily dismissing the case from montana was to cover their ears, cover their eyes, and say, facts don't matter. corruption doesn't matter. the corrosive influence of vast oceans of secret money doesn't matter. and that is simply wrong. i must say, when i think about what we are doing here on this floor to fight, to have a senate

and a house that are all about what president lincoln described as "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and across the street we have a supreme court determined to tear down the fundamental heart of our constitution, that is completely wrong, and they won't even listen to the facts in order to understand the issue they are addressing. it's so important for americans across this nation on the right and on the left to understand that this is an attack on their power as a citizen to chart the course of their community, their state, and our nation. i think that i'll just conclude my remarks -- i have a lot of facts and history here that i thought about presenting tonight, but i think the

discussion we've been having is really at the heart of this, that as we wrestle with the fundamental challenges facing our nation, a shrinking middle class because we're losing manufacturing) and we need -- manufacturing jobs, and we need understand why that's happening and how we can create middle-class jobs in this nation. nation where health care is becoming more and more expensive, an emust challenge for families, a -- an enormous challenge for families. a nation where we're becoming a group whose children are getting less education than we got. for the first time in the united states of america, we as parents are seeing our children get less education. those problems, as we tackle them, are not served by vast oceans of secret money weighing

in on elections, because that money does not come from the point of view of fighting for the health and welfare of the citizens of our nation. our forefathers and foremothers talked about in order to create a more perfect union, to enable citizens the pursuit of happiness, provide for the general defense -- these fundamental things -- none of those are the point or goal of these vast pools of money. that in itself shows how corrosive and corrupting that money is. so i say to my colleagues across the aisle, each of us came here, and we swore an oath to this constitution. and at the heart of this constitution is not "we the powerful." at the heart of our constitution is "we the people." so before we vote a second time

on whether to proceed to this bill, i ask them to examine in their hearts their responsibility to their citizens, their responsibility to the constitution, their responsibility to "we the people," and at least find, whether they might vote "yes" or "no" phon a final bill, at least find that we have a responsibility to debate this bill on this chamber and for that reason to vote "yes" when we again vote on whether to proceed. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i will be the last speaker tonight. let me close with a number of thank yous. first let me thank the presiding officer, senator landrieu of louisiana, for staying past the midnight hour to help keep the senate open. let me thank senator merkley, who hawho has been to the extene

can be enthusiastic about staying to this hour -- there he is smiling -- yes, "enthusiastic" is the right word. he was part of a group that senator schumer organized himself, senator michael bennet, senator tom udall, senator al franken, senator jeanne shaheen, senator jeff merkley and myself, who worked together to redraft this legislation, trim it down, and to organize today's vote and events and tomorrow's vote, and i want to thank all of them for their enormously hard work. i want to thank the pages who've had to stay very late and the floor staff who've had to stay very late, and i appreciate the fact that we have put a burden on them and on their families and we would not be doing that if we did not consider this to be a very, very important issue, and i want to thank the entire

democratic caucus for their support of this. our colleague bill nelson has had a unique experience. he has actually ridden a rocket up into space. he has been up with the nasa program as an astronaut. in some respects, i feel that i and others who were leading this were only riding a rocket of the enthusiasm of our caucus to get it done for the sake of our country. i want to thank the american people, who went out of the their way to hear -- have their voices heard in this debate. we know that the public is strongly behind this. six in ten americans say that the middle class isn't going to catch a break while the big lobbyists and big donors control things in washington. americans get that you don't spend this kind of money without a motive. and they get that if you'll only do it in secret, it's probably not a good motive. they can figure this out.

so they understand -- seven out of ten believe that super pacs should be outright illegal, not secret, illegal. seven in ten agree with the statement new rules that let corporations, unions, and people give unlimited money to super pacs will lead to corruption. 70% of americans agree that. 77% want to reform the campaign finance laws. they consider that to be very important. and as a number of my colleagues have said, one in four americans are so upset by what this has done to degrade american democracy that they think it makes them actually less likely to go out and vote because they figure, why bother? this thing is just a racquet at this point. so, these numbers really should be a call to arms for people who believe that america is in fact a city on a hill. the american exceptionallists of which i consider myself to be one -- you know, the lamp held up to other nations, the allah

pastor cities gleaming. that's all for real. but the citizens united decision and the failure to support us on disclose does nothing for that. but it wasn't just a -- but it wasn't just the polling that brought that oust people. people came online in a very big way to participate in this debate. 617,000 -- 617,000 americans have signed up as supporters of the disclose act now on a variety of different web sites, including discloseact.com, which got so much activity before the vote, the public interest in it actually crashed the web site. so the american public is really paying attention. i thank those folks who paid attention. i thank those who set up the opportunities for those americans to have their voices heard. i appreciate it very much. i want to thank some of the

leading newspapers in this country for their editorial support in the past few days. i have a already spoken -- i have a already spoken before about "the new york times" editorial, so i won't go back and repeat amendment it as length. the phrase they use, "corporations love secrecy because it protects them from scrutiny by nosey shareholders and consumers." "the washington post" had a very strong editorial called "expose the fat cats." it said the following things. "not a single republican in the chamber has expressed support for the disclose act. it should be interesting to hear how the republican senators justify this monumental concealment of campaign cash." they allude to the watergate break--in this the bad-old days of unregulated cash contributions and describe what has happened recently after

citizens united as "we seem to have created the political equivalent of secret swiss bank accounts." they ask the question, who is writing checks for $10 million or $1 million at a single throw and what do they want? we don't know." "and this shadowy bazaar undermines our political system." they thought that until recently republicans supported full disclosure. now that the tide of money is running in their favor, they don't. they describe this disclose bill as a reasonable bill that would, among other things, require identification of donors of $10,000 or more to certain organizations that spend money on political campaigns. and they close with this question and this observation -- "there is a very good chance that when some government decision or vote comes along next year, responsible politicians will find themselves haunted by the secret money of

the 2012 campaign." is it really worth it, "the washington post" asks? do these donors deserve to remain hidden? why can't they handle a little sunshine? "usa today", i want to thank them for a july 6 editorial supporting this. freed by the supreme court from spending limits, they observed, all manner of special interests are opening the spigots to buy influence. especially worrisome, "usa today" points out, are secret donations which are proliferating. a corrupting influence in any campaign. secret money is even more dangerous in less expensive races where it can buy a seat in congress or a state legislature without voters knowing who the buyers are or what their agenda is.

the "usa today" folks said that citizens united left the public only one way to protect itself from the rising threat of secret money. disclosure. at the federal level, they say this would be achieved by the disclose act. today's version scheduled for senate debate requires that all groups, social welfare, union and business, report all expenditures and all donations more than $10,000. they fear that the inevitable result is that come november, voters in many closely contested races will make their decisions based on a late flood of ads of dubious credibility paid for by people whose names and motives are unknown. how long it will take voters to realize that they are getting conned and demand disclosure is anyone's guess. so i thank those newspapers. i will briefly point out that

the claim that the disclose act favors unions is a complete nonstarter as a criticism. here's the bill. it's very short. it has very big print. you can read it very quickly. there's nothing in the bill that gives unions any advantage over any other form of organizations. it's just not there. i have challenged republican colleagues to point to a single provision or make a single counterproposal, and they have done neither. the disclose act applies equally to all corporations, period and end of story. the $10,000 threshold eliminates

another problem, which is this business that membership organizations are going to have to disclose their donor list. as recently as today, the republican leader said that this will force organizations to disclose their donor lists. it won't, not in a $10,000 threshold. you can get a lifetime membership in the national rifle association for $1,000. if you are a cat and you have nine lives, you can get nine lifetime memberships in the n.r.a. and still not break the $10,000 threshold. it will catch 93% of the money that goes into these super pac's because it goes in in such big chunks, so it's a good number to use. it protects the small membership organizations but hits virtually all the big donors.

and clearly, it is not an attack on the first amendment. this charge has its roots only in the opponents' imagination, not in the u.s. constitution. it contains no restrictions or limitations on speech of any kind, none. pure disclosure legislation plain and simple, as my republican colleagues have heretofore usually supported. the court in citizens united fully supported disclosure, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. an important point going back to the words that began this vote from our founding father james madison, a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it has been a prologue to a farce or a

tragedy or perhaps both. the supreme court recognized this and clearly, clearly it is constitutional. the last is the argument that this bill in some way will intimidate the big spenders. first of all, the idea of the billionaire koch brothers or gigantic coal barons or exxonmobil, the largest corporation in the world being intimidated by the unmind words of some blogger is preposterous on its face. second, justice scalia has said requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage without which democracy is doomed. and may i point out that it's a

rather small courage? on the way here this afternoon, i passed through the trolley lobby, and down in the trolley lobby was a young marine from pennsylvania who had lost both his legs to an i.e.d. explosion in afghanistan. we can ask our young men and women to travel the roads of kandahar and to risk blowing off their legs and coming home like that young man, we can ask them to do that, but we can't ask billionaire big spenders to even show who they are, even though clearly the link to motive and influence and control and corruption is apparent? it is a ridiculous proposition, and i hope my colleagues will not persist in following it. they have even compared themselves to the naacp during the civil rights movement. black families burned out of their homes, and they compare

the koch brothers being criticized by biologicallers to that -- by bloggers to that. it simply isn't so, it simply isn't right, and i will conclude by saying that we're not done. this is too important. it's too important for what america stands for. it's too important for the middle class that are going to be losers in the debates that are influenced and corrupted by special interest money. it's too important for the world which depends on the example that america provides. so we didn't have any luck today. we're going to vote again tomorrow. i urge my colleagues to vote with us, but even if we don't win tomorrow, we'll be back again and again and again. when joshua took the israelites around the city of jericho, they went around and around blowing

their rams' horns so that those walls would come tumbling down. it didn't happen on the first circuit. didn't happen on the second. according to the bible, joshua had to go around the city of jericho seven times before the walls came atumbling down. i don't care if we have to do this seven times or 77 times, we are going to do this because it's right. i thank the presiding officer, and i will go into the closing sequence. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that at 3:00 p.m. tuesday, july 17, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to s. 3369 be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be agreed to and the senate proceed to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to

s. 3369, the disclose act, upon reconsideration. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, july 17, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized and the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes, and that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally, that the time from 2:15 until 3:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to s. 3369, the disclose

act, which we have discussed at such length tonight upon reconsideration. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> if i'm president the job will be creating jobs. let me say that again. my agenda is not to put in place a series of policies that get me a lot of attention and applause. my policy will become the number one, create jobs for the american people. i do not have a hidden agenda. [applause] and i submit to you this if you want a president who will make things better in the african-american community you're looking at him. you take a look. >> just close your eyes and imagine. imagine what the justice department will look like one. imagine when his senior adviser on the constitutional issues is

robert bork. imagine the recommendations for you is likely to be taken as attorney general in the civil rights division or those other incredibly important positions of justice >> some congressional hearings coming up this week on the c-span networks.

this week on the communicators a visit to the technology show on capitol hill hosted by the consumer electronics association. the show is in las vegas during the winter but every spring the cea and companies that come to capitol hill display its latest technology to policy makers. we spoke with some of those attending the show. >> now you're on the communicators on capitol hill we are joined by gary shapiro, president and ceo of the consumer electronics association which is putting on the show on capitol hill. what is the importance of getting these companies displayed for policy-making? >> well, the members of congress may affect the future of innovation. we can't get them to the international. we'd love to. the important message we're

trying to get out is great things happening. we are not -- let us do our thing. those areas of technology where on to new orders are allowed to go forward with it is the cell phone or cash machines are the ones that support countries around the world. >> do policymakers' come down to this? do they enjoy seeing this? >> they are very busy and they like coming down. it's tough to get them to capitol hill or less vigorous. it's important to see what the world is like to make informed decisions when they are actually making votes and giving evidence. they see how you can build products, what you can do, who you trade with, things like that apple and google and others, we have them here in the united states and we of great international companies here but it's working. the u.s. is the world leader. we want to keep it that way but

it's important we have the right policies. .. >> you can have wireless devices, take products anywhere in the country, and they'll work. generally, we think congress has done a pretty good job with the technology industry, and that is

positive. we have a long ways to go. we still got to chip away at some of the rules discouraging starting businesses and competitive disadvantages, but we're doing okay. we're pretty happy. >> we talked with qualcom, and they talked about how they developed new efficiency in spectrum use. is it for the technology companies to be more efficient with their spectrum? >> any technology company, including verizon and at&t, paid per spectrum, has every financial benefit to use it well, and it's the market place that depends it. if you don't use the spectrum, literally paid billions of dollars for, you're in trouble. every day, things are developing. there's limits to some things you can do, but it's not just about spectrum. we have products here, software, google's here, intel is here.

chips are getting better. you can make anything in your home, a prototype, for just a few thousand dollars, it's called 3-d printing. it will be the wave of the future. >> finally, a recent article in the "politico" newspaper quoted you saying nice things about mitt romney. it's an election year. do you see a tech agenda by the obama campaign or the romney campaign at this point? >> i think there's an agenda that's very, very similar. they are both pro-technology, both using technology. they are, in their own ways, like technology. it's a clean industry. it's a growth industry. things are good there. i think, i personally support romney because i think he's better for business. he's better for job creation. he doesn't rely on a big federal bureaucracy and he'll rip away at it rather than increasing. what's important to me, creating jobs in the country, is a sense of business owners that should

be investing in the united states. right now, under president obama, they invest abroad. not just because of the slow growth economy, but you don't know what union rules you'll be hit with, tax rate is the highest in the world now in the u.s.. you can't repatriate your money. they are encouraged to invest abroad. that's not economy for the economy. if the economy is not doing well, the tech industry doesn't do well. it's the most important thing to our success is the health of the u.s. economy. that's why i'm in favor of romney. >> as president and ceo, consumer electronics association. website? ce.org. ceo of pandora. what is that? >> it's a personalized interpret radio. it enables you to create your own radio station based on your artist, songs, or genera, and by

giving thumbs up and thumbs down over time, they refine it to meet your taste. >> when was it developed, and that's the business model? >> it's been in business over 12 years. we launched the service six and a half years ago. there's a tremendous amount of intellectual property developed. music genome is the foundation of the intellectual property. we put it together into pandora, personalized internet radio, six and a half years ago. it's like radio. it is ad supported, free to the consumer. we do have a subscription option. the great thing about delivery over the internet, is you give the consumer the choice to enjoy pandora with advertising or pay $36 a year and enjoy it without any advertising. >> are you profitable yet? >> we are not profitable. we were roughly break even last year. revenues have been growing significantly, but we do face

very significant royalty costs which is really one of the main policy issues that we're here in dc to tuck about. >> what have you been telling the members of congress? >> well, the big theme here is that radio is converging so consumers now in the home, in their car, on the go, they can listen to am/fm radio, cable radio, radio over the internet, and increasingly, they enjoy all of the choices, but the way legislation treats those different types of radio is wildly different. based on the different time periods when those technologies were invented, and as a consequence, internet radio pays far higher royalties than any other form of royalty. broadcast fm/am pays no royalty to artists. satellite and cable pay 8%-15% of revenue, and we pay 50% of

revenue in royalties. the theme here really is as radio con verges, we need a level playing field that's technology agnostic recognizing radio is radio. >> is there pending legislation? anyone introduce anything? >> there was legislation in the last congress, the performance rights to act. it passed both judiciary committee, but did not come to a floor vote in either chamber. there continues to be interest in the topic, and i think a realization that a level playing field is the right thing here, that rationalization is appropriate, getting a technology neutral approach to radio. i think the time will come. >> one of the other issues, mr. kennedy, that capitol hill is dealing with in the tech world is privacy, and what about the information that you collect from people who use pandora? what do you do with that information? >> we take a very, very conservative posture in terms of

privacy. we only have your e-mail address, age, gender, and zip code. nothing beyond that in terms of your information, and we don't sell it or share it with other entities. we do use the information about your age and your zip code and your sender to target advertising to make it more relevant to you, but we don't, you know, we don't use geolocation, for example, although we're used extensively on smart phones, we don't enable the gps tracking capability. we'll use the zip code the user provided with us at the time of registration to provide raw geotargetting. we know you're in the washington, d.c. area, but we're not tracking you in terms of where you are this minute versus the next minute. i think there's a lot that has to be sorted out from a privacy standpoint, and we're beginning to take a very conservative position on that until all of the policy things are sorted out. >> where are you based?

>> in san san fransisco, actualy oakland. interesting story. we developed in an enterprise zone in oakland, and now we have over 500 employees in, you know, in a part of oakland that quite honestly doesn't have a lot of things in terms of businesses that size and scale. we're excited to be part of a city that i think really appreciates the employment growth we've brought to it and has been very supportive of our continued development. >> venture capital? >> we are venture funded. went through many rounds of venture funding. we went public a year ago, last year in june we went public. we are symbol p on the new york stock exchange. the overall progress is quite good from a business standpoint. we have 125 million registered users in this country, and over 250 million of which are active every month. we've become a significant part of the radio land scape.

in fact, we represent under 6% of all radio listening in this country on pandora. pandora, in most cities, pandora is bigger than the largest am or fm station in that market. >> what's your background? >> my background, i spent the first part of my career at sat saturn, the car company, trying to turn the model upside down doing thicks for the consumer, and i came to the internet world 12 years ago and used that as a mechanism to do innovative things that kind of create new possibilities for consumers. >> well, as you mentioned, mr. kennedy, a common use of pandora is smart phones, but you got other products slated here. how else can one get pandora? >> i think the products here a meant to show the whole range of ability to use pandora. this, for example, is an alpine aftermarket radio. it's connected to an iphone.

it's got thumbs up and thumbs down that alpine built into it. the consumer, when using this in the car, it is no different from using am or fm radio. at another extreme, we have a mock up of a samsung refridge rater. there's really a samsung refrigerator that incooperates pandora. the percentage of people who buy the refrigerator who connect to pandora, integrate with it an account is high. people are enjoying pandora, you know, in their kitchen, curtesy of the samsung refrigerator. these are basic smart phones, huge on the ipad. this is a barnes & noble nook, the amazon kindle fire. again, all of these connected devices entering our lives, pandora integrated into. of all the companies here on the hill, i think half of the companies market products that integrate pandora into them.

samsung tvs, direct tv, as a, you know, satellite service provider, samsung, you know, intel, anothervox, all have -- audiovox, have this pandora, any time, anywhere access that consumers want. >> joe kennedy, ceo of pandora, talking with the communicators. >> thank you, peter. >> and panasonic is one with a display here at capitol hill, and peter is a vice president of panasonic. first of all, what do you do for panasonic? >> i work on technology policy issues. this is the development of new technologies, figuring out what the global company can do here in the u.s. and how our research and development here in the u.s. can help the global company.

>> where are you based in the u.s.? >> in the u.s., it's based in seacaucus, new jersey, across the river from new york, but we have 5500 people spread around the u.s., maybe 10500 in north america, all involved in a combination of manufacturing. for example, the communication systems on board airplanes to batteries and battery pack manufacturing down in georgia. avionics is in california. research and development is in california, boston, and michigan, for electric vehicles, some of which we're showing here, for example, in texas, and a few other places. >> what is it you wanted lawmakers, policy make -- policymaker, and their staff to see here? what's the display? >> people know panasonic for the consumer electronics, televisions, blueray players, and things like that. in fact, under the hood,

panasonic has a very wide array of products including a range of energy oriented products. that's what we are showing today. all of us know we have to be able to generate new forms of energy using new systems such as solar panels, and once you generate it, of course, we got to be able to store it intelligently, and then we have to manage it. along with the traditional forms of power generation in the grid, more and more people are actually creating their own energy at home. typically using wind power or more importantly solar. in panasonic's case, for example, here in salem, oregon, we make these giant heavy silicon parts that then gets sliced into thin layers, and they are turned into the module that make up solar panels.

panasonic is proud to be the company with the sing -- single most efficient to produce these, and of course, over time, we hope to grow that so more of the sup's energy is actually collected, sent into the home in your system for storage. the other thing we talk about, it's not provided in the u.s. yet, but in japan and other places, are home energy storage batteries. the energy you create can be stored and used later. some in the day, stored at night. those batteries a essentially these. this kind of cell is a lithium ion cell. this same cell is 6800 of these packaged together in modules, a roadster, 250 miles on one charge. these packaged differently make up modules like this that go

into storage systems. small for the home, medium sized for businesses, and large units like, for example, the university of california in san diego. panasonic installed a very large storage array that takes solar power off of the roofs on one corner of the campus, stores it, districts it to the rest of the campus part of the energy demonstration project. we're all learning from those, and, of course, we hope to make them effective and efficient. >> is your solar business profitable? >> ours, like many others, is new this this country, but growing rapidly. because we have the world's most efficient, and because we have a global supply chape, we're pretty well situated to be a good competitor, but our focus is not typically the homes as much as the business environment, a business-to-business sale. panasonic solar panels were installed at the mariner stadium

in seattle. they power almost 50% of the need of the raceway in california. you'll see them everywhere in the business market. more announcements coming soon on that front. stadiums, public buildings, special venues. >> again, for lawmakers, policymakers, what's the importance of them seeing solar? >> the importance for us is to understand that the industry needs care and attention, shouldn't be undercut or wrongly disadvantaged relative to other opportunities in the market so we're very active in discussing how new energy proposals, new energy legislation moves through congress and what we can do as an industry to help government understand how this can play an important part in the growing energy need and as a way to save fossil fuels for the time when we really need them because

ultimately, of course, those are forces that will run out. >> peter fannon, there's an eye-catching poster here. can you explain what this is? >> i'd be delight the. you know, if you still have a crt television, the tube tv types of years past, a tv tube took over 300 watts for which you got conventional standard definition television and maybe okay audio. today's large screen, flat panel tvs, you can get a 50-inch plasma or lcd tv that uses one-third of the power, gives you hdtv six times the picture quality, multiple channels of sounds, images from sd cards right in the television, connections to cable directly, a variety of new features, web connections that bring the web into any tv regardless of your provider, and all of that, all of that runs on less than

one-third of the power that your old tv used. an interesting part of that is this product. as people get rid of the old crt tvs, responsibly recycle them. electronics have things that shouldn't go in the landfill, and most places don't permed -- permit it anymore which is a good thing. what do you do with the glass? in panasonic's case, we take this face plate glass, clean and pure glass, spin it into glass wool, put it in a wafer of oil, vacuum out the air, and this, nearly one quarter inch thick installation is 14 times more effective than the typical fiberglass in your home so we already are using this kind of product made out of old tv screens in small appliances, hot

water kettles, microwave ovens and the like to retain heat, but over time, we hope this is a useful output for recyclinged materials for things like old and no longer usable televisions. >> we have been talking with the vice president of panasonic about some of their environmental and solar products. thank you for your time here on "the communicators. >> thank you very much, great to see you, peter. >> and now joining us on the communicator is enrique, desk top fab is the name of his company. what is desk top fab? >> we distribute and design 3-d printer technologies. all of the items that have been made on this table have been printed by this machine. >> these are full scale items. >> yeah. so you can think of it as a computer controlled hot glue

gun. plastic goes through the heater, and layer by layer, it builds a whole 3-d item. >> this is the printer right here? >> yeah. >> okay. is this something you made or invented? >> no, we distribute this machine. >> you distribute this machine. okay. who invented this? >> a company called bits from bites out of england. >> what is your role as president? >> [inaudible] >> what's your background? >> electrical germing. i started my first business at 17 with flash lights, and through manufacturing items, prototype stuff, i used 3-d printers to do that. back at that time, the machines were too expensive to own one. it went through service bureaus. when they came down in price, it was more interesting work to me. >> so where is this machine built? >> england.

>> in england. >> yeah. >> and desk top fab is headquartered? >> texas. >> how is it that this mechanical hand was printed, as you say, on this printer? how does that happen? >> so all of these individual parts were printed on the machine. you still have metal bolts and the electronics and motors inside, but all of the plastic was made here. >> on this machine? >> yes. >> and are these commercially available at this point? >> they are. they cost -- this particular model is $3930. >> how many have you sold? >> several hundred including with the manufacturer. >> who would buy or need a 3-d printer? >> mostly hobbyists, engineers, small businesses. any time you need tube detailed -- to do detailed design. this hand, if you wanted to have the cmc machine, that's $10,000.

in parts, materials for the machine is less than 100. you can go and very easy prototype stuff, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. print another one, and it's still cheap. >> your roll, are you inventers? distributers? >> primarily distributers. >> you consider yourself an inventer? >> yeah. we do some research and development work. >> what pa tempts do you have? >> none right now. >> okay. >> you're as good as your defense attorneys and your budget. >> why are you here on capitol hill? >> mostly to discuss issues surrounding 3-d printing. like, right now, it's not -- there's not enough of these in houses for it to be a big deal, but as the cost goes down and technology allows more, all of these are digital models like songs were so if i hand you a cd and give that to temperature of your friends., you didn't own

any of the music. likewise here, you have a digital file and give it to tens and thousands of people, it doesn't matter if they don't have anything making the file with, but this they do. that's the issue. how do you have a solution for content protection and management that takes into account people's ability to create so you don't hinder the technology, but still take the content owners considerations as well. >> how long did it take to print, as you say, the plastic bunny? >> 21 hours. >> okay, is this making something now? printing something now? >> as you can see here, it's printing a three chambered whistle. >> and we have been talking with the president of desktopfab about 3-d # printing.

>> congressman darrell issa is here at the consumer electronics show on the hill. what are you doing here? >> i'm seeing products nots yet available at the consumer electronics show in las vegas. you and i were there. it's an exciting large show. this gives members of congress most whom will never go to the show, give them idea what consumer electronics is doing, where it's going. a robot here used in the hospital to give people video access to their doctor remotely, and in realtime in a hospital where otherwise the doctor may not get there or in a home. obviously dish network, pandora, the 3-d screens used at the republican and democratic convention, hundreds of them in each convention, are here today. all of those kinds of items, i think, are exciting to members of congress who are not necessarily tech savvy. >> what are the policy implications of some of this technology?

>> well, one of the big technology implications is available spectrum whether it's the wifi used in your home or the cell phone you rely on driving done the road, and white space where there's new and exciting products if we can allocate bandwidth. qualcom has a new standard that you can transfer video over the cell phone with same resolution, half the size of data meaning twice as much for the price. >> and less spectrum or same amount. >> exactly. a given definition with half the spectrum. big advantage. now we look at growth over two or three years that could double the amount of video. this new standard could allow us to dowel -- double the video with existing spectrum. exciting things to see that members of congress need to understand. >> will it happen shortly? >> i do. i'm app advocate for speck rum

expansion. we get involved in the auction and focused on the money received rather than the real benefits to the consumer remembering spectrum blngs to the american people and needs to be at the highest and best use for sometimes not the profit. >> timely, a lot of the tech issues are about election, and fcc, whether or not the post, the cost of commercials, ect., as chairman of the government affairs committee, do you see any hearings going forward that might involve election issues? >> we do see some that involve it. every election year, they want to leverage existing office for the next office, but we also do things, greater transparency and all of government spending and spending on campaigns is essential. just this week, the data act will be on the house floor, and it's going to make the recipients of all federal money completely transparent to all of

us. >> congressman issa, chair of the government affairs committee here at the consumer electronics show on capitol hill. >> thanks, thanks for covering it.

>>ed woodrow wilson center today hosted a panel on security along

the u.s.-mexican border. among the speakers, two border enforcement speakers. this is almost two hours. >> joining us today for what we hope is a very interesting discussion on the 21st century border on the notion of moving towards a smart border, how do we deal with multiple issues involving trade, the movement of people, immigration, and security, tradeoffs, and we'll talk about also can involve common solutions at the u.s.-mexico border. arore very pleaseto public dialogue advanced search. weere v have w us secretaryerson wh i'll introsubstance abuse -- introduce in a moment, and we are here with the legislative conference, which has a close relationship with the state government's west, and pleased to have the senator from

california from santa ana and others from csg west, partners in many, many effects that we've done together. great to have you guys here. i want to turn it over to offer a few words of welcome as well. >> well, thank you very much. welcome, everybody. from -- on behalf of the border legislative conference, we'd like to welcome all of you to this important conference, how to build a 21st century border. i'm here with my colleague and counter part, lou, from california, and we're sure this will be a very, very interesting conference. thank you very much. >> thank you.

we will be launching today the beginning of a series of papers in what will eventually be the state of the border report. we're doing this with the north american center for transporter studies at arizona state university. eric lee is with us from there as well as our colleague chris wilson and eric olson have been leading the effort. chris and eric lee are the coordinators of the effort. you'll hear about that in a minute. i'll call your attention to something launched last year with the sunny lands policy recommendations, u.s.-mexico relations, a stronger future. interesting ideas on u.s.-mexico relations from a very senior group of policymakers, former policymakers, notable from both mexico and the united states, business leaders, civil society leaders, who came togetr a few months ago, and they dealt with the border as well. i call your attention to that. it's my pleasure to introduce assistant sex tear for international affairs and chief

diplomatic officer for the department of homeland security, former commissioner of u.s. borders and customs commission, border customs in california, and boards czar, and also superintendent of schools in the san diego unified school district, and really for the past 20 #-25 years, as long as i've followed, mexico, has been someone intimately involved in two sets of interrelated issues. one is quality of life in border and other related issues, and airport commission as well in san diego, really quality of life issue, and how we manage the u.s.-mexico border in a more orderly, more intelligent, and more effective way. i'd like to turn it over to the secretary to give us more thoughts on how to do this going forward and what the current policy is. >> thank you. >> why don't you go up there. >> i'll stand from here because i'm referring

uncharacteristically to slides, but i want to thank andrew and the wilson center, the counsel of state governments for this opportunity, and also to technology colleagues from dhs who were here, military council to the secretary, the deputy assistant secretary, brian albert, and ben is here from cbp and dhs and john and don, glad you could make it. so the pam will focus on this economic relationship that developed and the social relationship that's developed between mexico and the united states. it's long rooted in history, but if you pull out any report, you start to see some astoppedding figures -- astounding figures with regard to the economy.

eric lee and chris wilson published a working paper that points out for the first time that in 2011 the imports and exports between mexico and the united states and merchandise and services actually hit the half a trillion dollar mark, a half trillion dollars a year in terms of imports and exports. since nafta in 1992, trade qin dop led. this is an extraordinary series of economic data that show how tied we are to mexico. what i would like to do, in fact, i would project that this kind of economic growth, which the panel will focus on means that for the first time in

american history, there's enormous implications, not just for the american border, but i submit for american history. when you think about american history, most of our history from the 18th century on involved an ea-west access. it was settlement of the west. it was movement out west from the atlantic sea board that determined much of what happened in the united states. what i suspect for the our younger colleagues in the audience as well as from my children and grandchildren that what will be more important over the next 50-1100 years of american history actually is a north-south up fliewps. it's what we do with respect to mexico and canada that will actually determine the quality of life. there are those who would say, indeed, notwithstanding the prejudices of the foreign policy

elites that, in fact, there is a disproportion between commitmented made elsewhere in the world, and what we do with respect to mexico and arguably also with with respect to canada, but when you look at the fact that the north american free trade association among canada and the united states and mexico has created the largest free trade area in the history of the world and in the world currently today, thatting thes for one-third -- that accounts for one-third of the world's gross domestic product, you begin to sense the potential and the power of north america, and north america, i submit both for economic competitive reasons as well as the security reasons will be the main point of reference for the next generation or two of americans. certainly the culture and

demographic nature of our life here in the united states hinges remarkably as robert caplin points out with our relationships with mexico. what i'd like to do is leave that for the panel discussion and rather talk about security at the u.s.-mexican border, and i do so for the following reason. in order to harness economic power of north america, in order to make that north american experience work with canada and mexico, we are going to have to exert efforts that are massively bipartisan in nature, that require not only the cooperation of canadian leaders and mexican leaders, canadian and mexican peoples, but also will require that the american people and that american leadership comes together to recognize the importance of north america.

in order to build an infrastructure as was pointed out in an earlier discussion, we have long wait tiles at the border that we have a huge bottleneck at the border, and these are the problems that we must overcome in order to meet the challenges of economic competitiveness if we are to compete with east asia and with the indian subcontinent, and, indeed, with brazil over time. one says, well, how can we possibly accomplish that if you project the political gridlock that appears to exist in washington? i would only say, and this becomes more apparent to me as i get older, is that we must always avoid projecting into the indefinite future. the existing state of affairs, and it is -- not merely an

optimistic view, but a, i think, a one grounded in experience as well as in logic that we will find the political bipartisan capacity to build that border out in terms of the economy, and the evidence that i have for that is that we have just completed a 20-year effort in doing that with regard to the southwest border. in 1993, began an effort to restore the rule of law to the u.s.-mexican border, to take a border that had been neglected on both sides of the border, that was the scene of millions of people crossing in a disorderly, unregulated way, back and forth across the border regularly, and if you fast

forward to 2011, you recognize that through the clinton administration, the bush administration, and now particularly with the emphasis given by the obama administration, we have a border that has been transformed dramatically. we've gone from a border budget that was several hundred million dollars to one that is close to $10 billion a year in terms of border infrastructure. the number of border patrol agents have gone from 3,000 in the 1990s to 22,000 today. the number of cbp officers at the land ports of entry will be the next focus of growth, although, there's been some growth there. i want to point out and emphasize this was a bipartisan

effort demonstrating that we can, in fact, engage in noble, bipartisan, constructive national efforts when there is a sufficient consensus to achieve a particular end. up deed looking at the condition of the border today and in 1993, it would rank as one of the greatest assertions and exertions of national power comparable to other large efforts in our national history. restoring the rule of law and bringing the border under control is a chapter of american history that should be better understood and will be as the years go forward as we attempt to apply the same effort to the expediting of trade and lawful trade and travel between our countries. what i'd like to do in very

semiform is to take you through three faces in which this happened. in 1993, reyes, a congressman now from el paso, then the border chief in el paso, basically did something that had not before occurredded. he put border patrol agents up on the border, right up on the border, to detour what was a daily crossing of tens of thousands of people back and forth from juarez into electronics pass koa and people -- el paso and others continuing on into the interroar of texas. that's been the effort that's continued, but the first phase of this was from 1993 to 2000. let me ask you to put up these.

what this does is show apprehensions between 1992 and 2011. they are actually very interesting to analyze, but for present purposes, let me put aside those who say, well, apprehensions dent tell you anything about actual numbers of people trying to cross. in fact, if you look at any law enforcement situation, first thing happens when you put a lot of police officers in a community is the apprehensions go up because you have more police officers able to make more arrests and observe more crime. over time, you will see the number of app -- apprehensions go down because criminals move elsewhere and will not stay in areas where there's high police activity or presence. what you see in el paso in fiscal year 1993 when reyes

started, there were 285,000 people arrested in el paso that year, and the only number comparable was in san fransisco, arrested that year, and it stood to reason that's where people crossed. it was easy to cross into san diego and get on the 5 freeway and go up to los angeles. it was easy to get just across the river at low tide, which is always the case in el paso juarez, just walk across the river and move into texas. there was no stopping until you held the line, and border patrol agents got on the line, and they detoured people from crossing, and in 1994, operation gate keeper under the same principles

took place in san diego, and then in texas in 1997. what these numbers show, though, is the impact that that kind of force had. if you watch over the 20 years from 565,000 last year, there was an arrest rate of 42,000. the difference is that in 1992, many more people were not arrested. those people who the border patrol did not arrest were simply avoiding the border patrol in going up the freeway towards los angeles. same thing in el paso, but by the time you see the resourcing of the border, by fiscal year '11, that represents a higher percentage of people who were

trying to cross, and, in fact, you can -- i believe that the record is pretty clear. the same thing -- look at what happens in the el paso over 20 years, 250,000 people arrested, fiscal year 2011, 345,000 representing the large amount of people trying to cross in that particular corridor. what happened over the years is that the traffic was moved to different places on the border, and that's what these will reflect as we go ahead. the main movement, if you go to the second slide -- let's go to the third one. you can see that this is the blue is the el paso apprehension rate. the purple is the rio grande valley.

further east is loredo further east of el paso, and the brown or reddish is del rio. in each case as the numbers came down in the two years in el paso, the traffic tended to move to the east. what you had in 1993 to 2000 was you had two basic phenomena. traffic was being moved from el paso east across to the sectors in east texas and then south texas. that's what the rio grande valley. that's brownsville, renosa and mcallen. you see the movement, the numbers go up, and the same thing during the same period in

san diego. as the san diego numbers start to come down, the numbers in the imperial valley sector in east of california, they start to go up, and tucson goes up, and yuma, arizona goes up. if you go back to the second slide, you begin to see the number of apprehensions are total -- our total in 1992, 1.9 million, spread among the sectors this way, 49 #% of the app prehe thinkses in san -- apprehensions in san diego. fiscal year 20111 when the number of apprehensions dropped by 75% to 327,000, you see the

13% of the air forces are being made in san diego and 3% in el paso, and 38% in the largest number in tucson. that's why when president obama took over in 2008, all of this activity, you pushed all of the traffic to the east in california, and all of the traffic east towards the roi grande valley, and what you saw was the consolidation of traffic in sue son -- tucson, and that was really the second phase of the border control effort was that you could control the traffic in the

larger urban areas by building fences, increasing agents, increasing technology, but, in fact, what you did was you pushed it into the most inhospitable, some of the most beautiful territory in the united states in arizona up from senora desert into the arizona desert, some of the most betiful, inhospitable territorin the united states, and you saw this consolidation of traffic steadily, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, all the way through was that more and more of the traffic, even as numbers went down, went through the tucson sector. if you go back to the first side, you can see that very graphically in the apprehensions. tucson, 1992, 71,000.

increases, 1995, 227,000. 305,000, 387,000, and 3weu the year -- by the year 2000, 616,000 arrests being made in tucson which is then still far more than any of the other sectors. tucson soon becomes the only sector that actually has a triple digit -- triple digit number of apprehensions. in the tucson sector, where it gets consolidated, is shown by that graph. it stays that way, and from 2000 to 2007, this becomes the issue. one might reasonably deduce that senate bill 1070 happened in

arizona, and it was no accident that politically this was a response to the traffic that was taking place in that sector. what is also happening, though, between 2000 and 2007, is that the build up of resources with the smart backwarder initiatives continues to build up the assets being devoted to the southwest border enforcement activity. when we get to the end of the bush administration and into the obama administration, the stage is set to really focus on arizona. now, arizona, remember the theory in san diego and el paso was to get the traffic out of the urban areas. that's why you have high pedestrian fence in the urban

areas to keep people from crossing and being able to get into the urban population and take transportation north ward. when you get out into the country, into the desert, you have vehicle barriers as fencing, not a high pedestrian fence, but what you -- what we saw was in order to bring down the numbers in arizona, we needed to provide resources with a consorted campaign. secretary napolitano gave instructions for that to happen, and by the time there's 2008 and get to 2011, there's a huge increase not just in the border control agents in the arizona sector, but in the technology, in the aviation assets that are available to patrol a very up

hospitable terrain. that has the reaction that we expected, which is that the traffic came down. go back to the numbers of the first slide please, brian. if you look at tucson, it hits the high point in 2000, and then there's a decline, but not a -- look at the difference -- tucson's got 50% in a year where there was 258,000 arrests, tucsoning tucson accounted for 378,000 of the arrests. look add what happened 2008, 2009, and 20 # 11, 317,000, 241,000, 211,000, and last year,

123,000 arrests bringing it much more into line with other sectors. the first thing that you should be asking is, well, we did have the economic fiscal crisis of 2008, and doesn't the economy explain that decline? i believe it has a major role to play, but to suggest it's just a function of the economy i think belies the fact that what has been happening since fiscal year 2000. go back to that -- this measures from 1993 to fiscal year 2011, the red line is apprehension. the blue line are seizures of marijuana, and the green line

are the number of agents. if you see the decline in the number of people being arrested and the flow of people crossing the border, it begins in fiscal year 2000. that's when you start to see the long term secular decline, and you will recall that between 2000 and 2007, we had quite a robust economy, and notwithstanding that fact, the number of people trying to cross illegally went down significantly. this is not to deny the economy that has a role. it does. to be sure, but if you look at earlier periods, the recession in 1992, in 1991, 1992, 1990, or

in the early 1980s with the reagan administration, the flows do decline a bit, but not as significantly and recover with the economy quite quickly. same too here this binational, bipartisan effort to protect the border and change the pattern of migration, i think, is a major factor. let's take a quick look at what we can expect in the future, and then i can wrap up. the future of the u.s.-mexican border will change significantly for a number of reasons. first, and most importantly, the changes that are taking place in mexico today, the pugh foundation together with the independent deference of the migration policy institute and the woodrow wilson center twaim

sketched a very dramatic change in mexican demographics and the socioeconomic conditions that, for the most part, served as the push out of mexico together with the magnet pull into the united states of higher wage rates and more economic activity, but the decline in the fertility rate to 2.41 with a further decline in the last decade compared to 6.07 in the 1970s when large scale illegal immigration to the united states really began for the first time in our bilateral history, suggests that, in fact, the number of people in that age gap that supplied labor to the united states, that group of young men for the most part, although not exclusively men,

from age 18-28 is now no longer available, and when you couple that with the growth in the mexican economy, and other conditions affecting youth such as an increase in the youth literacy rate, youth school enrollment, and most dramatically in the growth of the mexican economy, you begin to see that the push and pull factors that have betweened this border for the last four decades are actually changing and changing very dramatically, and it will impact what happens over the next ten to 15 years in a very important way. in many ways, what mexico has come through with is the first phase of the industrial revolution in the last several decades, and the first impact of the industrial revolution is to

drive peasants off of the land into the cities and then in the case where there's insufficient employment, to lead to the kind of migration patterns seen in the 70s, 80s, and 90s from mexico. as the mexican economy continues to grow, we'll continue to also see the conditions of education and health increase so that we see the number of mexicans under the official poverty line in mexico has declined from 69% in the 1990s to just over 5 # 1% -- 5 # -- 51% today. that's tremendous and impressive economic growth.

what that will mean as we go forward is that we will see a decrease in the number of mexicans who are coming across the border and we will see something that the pugh data showedded for the first time which is these are the flows from the united states to mexico during 1995-2000 and the flows from mexico to the united states just under six times the flow of mexico into the united states. in the last five years, we have seen something remarkell which is that for the first time, we see a net outflow of mexicans voluntary and from the united states to mexico contrasted with the number of people coming into the united states from mexico.

this data shows that, in fact, the difficulty crossing the border suggests that more and more people have determined, my -- migrants determined not a further re-entry. the implications are dramatic for both countries. you know, the problem, the so-called problem of mexican illegal impolice station, really begins in the 70s, and it becomes pronounced in the 80s and 1990s. since the first time since 1900, we see the number of mexican-born population in the united states declining. that trend is expected to coferl -- to continue. so too with the population of the united states. 6.1 million up --

undocumented mexicans in the united states, a decrease of just under a million in terms of the last number of years, the number of lawfully present mexicans remaining relatively stable. so -- if you might go to the two slides. i will -- do you have the picture? so -- go to the next one if you might. this is what the border looked like when i first saw it in 1993. this is southern california -- this is the pacific ocean, this is in san diego on the parts of san diego, and this is what it looks like today with road work

and infrastructure that is maintaining the situation there. the next picture, though, is the real challenge. this, you know, for all of the activities i've been involved in, for me, it's the quality of life between the mexican and u.s. peoples' that count the most, and this is the story when it was not so difficult to cross. this is the crossing, today, notwithstanding the rebuilding of the largest border crossing area in the world. that's the next challenge for the american people, the people of mexico, and then by extension in north america to canada. we must recognize the extent to which we are a continental force, and that our economic

competitiveness as a nation requires that we solve this. we were able to solve increasingly with the cooperation of the government of mexico, the problem of illicit activity at the border, having to do with flows of migrants. i suggest that this is the next, a next great project of the two countries, which is to build a border that works from the stand point of commerce as well as the passage of people lawfully back and forth. why don't i stop there and pick it up with the possible if we might, andrew. >> thank you, alan. that was a wonderful presentation. you'll probably get questions on this last part of turning this into something that looks different five years from now. let me turn it over to my colleague, chris wilson, and we'll have time for questions for the assistant secretary. thanks so much.

>> raise your hand and identify yourself, please, and chris will take over. >> thank you very much, secretary? take questions right now? >> sure. >> we'll have a short question and answer period now and then move into the pam discussion of the 21st century border as well. please, yeah, just raise your hand, identify yourself, and there's a microphone going around. yeah, in the front, ted wilkenson for the foreign service institute. right up here. >> well, i wanted to raise the fairly obvious question that senator from san diego raised at lunch, and that is how do you develop -- how do you stimulate developing the infrastructure that we need on both sides of

the border to expedite both travel and tourism for trade? >> two answers in brief. one is we have to change the way in which we process traffic and people. by segments low risk traffic, cargo and persons from high risk traffic or that traffic which we don't know enough to make a judgment, and the second is that we need to build infrastructure in less dumb cumbersome ways. during the last three years, the united states and mexico have opened up three new ports of entry. the first ports of entry to be opened in ten years. we cannot move at that pace.

while we will rely on the government to build the large projects, such as renovations or to rebuild the bridge of the american el paso, we need to build into the call cue louse. a public-private partnership method of building infrastructure. one example currently being worked on is in san diego. the rodriguez airfield, the airport located immediately on the borderline, and a group of entrepreneurs secured a permit from the state department and a corresponding permit from mexico to build a brimming that -- bridge basically going from the san diego side right into an airport. a fee would be charged, but it

would expedite what is what happened to be 2 million americans who will use rodriguez airport, rodridguez airfield to fly to asia or elsewhere in latin america. in brief, change the processes of cargo, passengers, and pedestrians, and, two, supplement public appropriations and construction projects with public-private partnerships. >> thank you. do you have another question or comment? they are stunned, mr. secretary. >> some am i. >> i have a question here. >> i'm claire, a u.s. foreign policy masters student at the american university. i went to the pam last week about canada, the u.s.-canada border talking a lot then about some of the successes with precleanses and things like that at the canadian borderment plans

to duplicate those here at the mexican border? >> in terms of reengineering meths of processing -- methods of processing cargo, yes, in much the same way as being worked through with a canadian boarer authority. so, too, the obama administration working with the calderón administration, and confident the administration will continue this work. looking to do a preinspection meaning stationing a u.s. customs and border protection officials in canada, in mexico so that cargo crossing from mexico into the united states can be pre-inspected in mexico, all of the targeting and risk management can be accomplished before there's a crossing of the border, and what that then permits is the cargo can then immediately enter the u.s. transport network, the

interstate system, without stopping at the american port of entry. yes, the pre-inspection kind of regerminging is -- re-engineering is being discussed with mexican and canadian authorities with the intent being in the not too distant future, an auto manufacturer of parts in southern ontario will have the parts delivered to an auto assembly plant in mexico without stopping at any of the borders, and yet being fully secured because of the pre-inspection and the targeting that's taken place and the monitoring that's taken place as that cargo moves from canada into mexico through the united states. >> all right, well thank you so much, mr. mr. secretary, for wonderful remarks. we'll move into the second

section of the panel. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> so joining us today is the professor from mit.

andrew did a short introduction, but previously worked at cbp, one of the minds behind new strategies that berson outlined for us moving forward with the borderment it's a thinker on the issue and u.s.-mexico relations in general for quite some time, and we're honored to have you with us here today. >> thanks. if i sit here, can people mainly see? all right. okay. sometimes one doesn't recognizes one self in one introduction. that's the case here. i'm prief hemminged to be -- privileged to take ideas and make them withstanding. it's a wonderful institution. it's always a tall order to follow alan, but fortunately, i think most of what i say builds on some of the points he already made. many years ago, a debate erupted in the united states over how to

handle secretary inspection of trucks coming into the u.s. from canada, and the question was whether custom agents in the united states could bring the truck physically over the line in the middle of the bridge to the u.s. side to be pulled over into something like a break down lane and inspected there or whether the truck couldn't enter the united states at all and was subjected to secondary inspection in the middle of the bridge backing up traffic for miles at the busiest road. the way we work it now is not the way it used to be. we've come a long way, but we face the same basic challenges in border management today as we did then which is the supply chains, travel networks, global, flexible, adaptable, they respond to economics between different countries, and they are constantly changing, but

borders aren't. borders are fixed. they don't reflect economic realities or trading patterns or even commercial and travel exchanges between neighboring countries. this is a really high stakes issue to manage because facilitating trade and travel is a key element of international competitiveness and global economies that figure out the right regime to both secure and facilitate legitimate trade and travel sorting out the bad things win, and the countries that don't figure these out will lose. this is not just the flow of goods and people, but other as pelgts of border management like natural resources. i'm going to focus just specifically on two things. one is the issue of risk segmentation to which secretary berson eluded and also international collaboration in north america on the u.s.-mexico

border and u.s.-canada border because the issues are very similar. if we have time, i'll talk about natural resource management and planning force of entry, something to which the secretary referred to at the end of the presentation. the idea here, though, is that the goal of border management should be to facilitate lawful trade and travel while securing flows of good and services and ensuring good things are weeded out while -- bad things are weeded out and good things let in and to shift from managing lines, line in the sand like a border, to managing flows of goods and people and shift from a unilateral approach to a joint approach between neighbors like canada and mexico enhancing public safety for all three countries in north america so first issue is risk segmentation. the problem here is the great majority of flows at port of entry are kosher; right?

people supply 97%-99% crossing a land border are compliant with all existing laws and regulations. most of the violations that do exist are minor. somebody with an orange in the trunk of their car or in the glove compartment forgetting to declare it driving across the border. it's not mainly drug trafficking or illegal immigration. as a result, finding something bad, drugs or illegal migrants or people with outstanding warrants, whatever it is, is in the massive flow of goods and people across the border is like finding a needle in a hay stack or the better metaphor is a crone yum colored needle in a stack of colored needles. there's two approaches. adopt a screening regime where every person and cargo crossing

the border is subjected to the high level of screening or inspection. obviously, an enormously difficult and wasteful undertaking, both in terms was amount of energy expended on things we know to be compliant and not devoted to things we suspect might be risky, but also a negative effect on law enforcement, the effect of screening over and over again things that are legitimate and getting accustomed to finding nothing in the troping of -- trunk of a car. that could make law enforcement less effective in identifying the bad things or the dangerous people who are crossing the border. how do we get or work ourselves out of the needle in a hay stack and just as the commissioner suggested with the goal to segmentation the flow of risk, take the large purple arrow at the left and divide it into, a, things we absolutely know to be bad -- something like an

outstanding arrest warrant against a person or a solid type from the dea about a piece of cargo crossing the border; right? to, b, things that we suspect for a number of reasons might be higher risk even though we're not totally certain they are violations. that should be subjected to further scrutiny, secondary inspection. talking mainly about people, but the same principles of risk management apply to both goods and people. then, you know, c, there's going to be a segment of traffickers, segment of individuals about which we simply know very little. you know, might be an unfamiliar shipper, a broker we've not heard r -- heard of before for cargo, but the goal is to find out as much new information about that person to be able to reclassify that person or that shipment as risky or not risky, and finally, you know, separate and expedite the flow of goods and people we

know are unproblematic. the blue arrow at the bottom and don't expend resources on them. you know, two strategies. the first, if you think of the hay stack again, to blow off the hay; right? to get out of the system, all of the people we know are safe, and all of those cargo shipments we know are totally reliable, a shipment, you know, from one subsidiary of merck to another of merck, pharmaceuticals occurs on exactly the same day of the month in exactly the same quantity every month. that's not a risky shipment. merck is good at supplying their own supply chains. they should be inducted into a trusted shipper or supplier program which we have, and in the case of people, vetted or trusted traveler program, and i just offered examples there, but century is the program that governs travel across the u.s.-mexico border for ordinary people, fast is the program

that's for shipments, trucks, and an exus is in canada to century, and global people through the air environment. by the way, how many people are members by century, nexus, or global end try? shocking he's not anymore. you're not risks; right? we don't want to expend resources on you so we can spend it on the 20-year-old from yemen who traveled to pack -- pakistan. they should receive extra that people in this room shouldn't. the same applies to cargo. that's the strategy. blow off some of the hay so you're better able to identify the needle. the second strategy would be -- i don't have the slot here, but getting in the hay stack, and the term of art here in the law enforcement community is targeting. that is marshalling all information available to the u.s. government, including

information held by state, local, tribal and bringing it at the port of entry to decide whether that person crossing the border or that shipment entering the united states deserves further scrutiny. right? assigning effectively a score or a rating or a metric allowing us to classify that shipment or perp as higher or lower risk; right? focusing on law enforcement resources on that relatively small percentage of crossers of travelers and of goods setting off alarm bells in some way or another. if you want, in question and answer, we can talk about how targeting regimen can be built or improved, and i believe we can make it incredibly effective for people without in any way compromising civil liberties or engaging in profiling in the united states. we can come back. the general principle is get the

good people out of the system, devoting no resources on them, and get better at identifying the scary people and spending law enforcement time on them. okay, that's the first element of collaborative border management i wanted to talk about is better risk segmentation. the second has to do with international collaboration. in this case, within north america between the united states and can do or the united states and mexico and shifting our focus from thinking about each southern entity managing its border and preacing itself from -- protecting itself from scary flows, scary crossings, to enhancing public safety and prosperity in the north american region as a whole. let me just give you, you know, one example here. there is no point in building a port of entry on one side of the border if there's no port of entry on the other side of the border; right? then it's not a port of entry or a border crossing. there will be a beautiful port

of end try in the united states, but if on the mexican side is notary nonfunctional, you're in trouble. you can go beyond that. if the port of entry on both sides is terrific, but on one side, there's a superhighway with eight lanes and dedicated trucking lanes, ect., but the other side, it's a dirt road, then you don't have much of a port of entry. you want binational collaboration on the planning of infrastructure projects wells the financing of them alan mentioned earlier. shift the focus from thinking about defending our own border to securing the flows across the border within north america. you know, as a second example here, what's the ideal port of entry look like? i picked canada not to spook you why we can't do it in mexico, but i believe we can take many smaller steps along this path in our relationship with mexico.

here we have the perfect port of end try. it's a building. big open space in the middle. in the middle of that space is a dotted red line designating canadian territory from u.s. territory. on the one side is canadian officers, and on the other, american officers, maybe a room this side, and they can talk to the other officer immediately. an entry into one country is an exit from the other country so there's no need for any kind of double processing here. we should be able to do both. by the way, both the canadian officers or the mexican officers and u.s. officers are looking at screens with more or less identity information. that's the blue square on the chart there. there may be information that the canadians don't want to share immediately or automatically with the american counterparts and vice versa, the red or green lines in the blue square, but basically the other information is the same.

they are co-located, same space, no barriers, and able to communicate with each other in realtime, okay? pedestrians cars, whatever pass through the port of entry inhabited jointly by u.s. and canadian authorities here. what i tried to do in the next slide is give a sense of all of the little steps one could take along the path of the ideal. on the vertical axis here. i'm a professor, so i have to a this slide, i apologize. there's greater sharing of information. that is closer and closer to having up stan tan yows, realtime, direct communication between cues. -- between customs officers. on the other axis, there's greater jointness in operations. one can imagine tremendous amount of jointness in operations with modest increases in information sharing. for instance, invest gaitive

referrals or joint investigations at the border would be one example. you have have sharing of information without jointness, that is people on both sides of the border x-rated ports of entry look at more or less the same screen, and the systems talk to each other, but they don't meet every day; right? everything in between. n have oers with single entry processing. building.al in the bottom left, no cooperation at all, you know, the wrs aspects of the status quo applied across the border. in the middle, there's all of these more modest measures like binational port committees, united states and canada, where the officers or agents from both sides meet regularly on how to keep it running if there's an accident or shooting or another incident, an overturned truck,

whatever. they meet regularly to discuss and develop new protocols for managing incidents at the port of entry. coordinated hours, coordinated protocols, realtime community cation, precleanings regimes, the type alan discussed earlier, or shared data, not comprehensively shared data, but significant amounts of data, for instance, license plates on cars even if we're not in a realm of true single entry processing. the idea here is we're taking steps in the direction of greater jointness and information sharing. i think over the last three or four years, the u.s. government made really significant progress in this direction both with canada and mexico, but maybe from an outsider perspective, out of government for as long as i was in government, it could use another push. maybe we're not perceiving this lack we would hope because we live in a north america facing