and shifting our focus, um, from thinking about each sovereign entity managing its border and protecting itself from scary flows, scary crossings to enhancing public safety and prosperity in the north american region as a whole. and 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? and that it's not a port of entry, it's not a border crossing. so you can have a gold-plaited, beautiful port of industry on the united states, but if the port of entry on the mexican side is nonfunctional or has different hours from the u.s. side, you're in trouble. and you can go one step beyond that. if the port of entry on both sides is terrific, but on one side there's a superhighway with eight lanes, dedicated trucking lanes, etc., but on the other side you have a kind of windy,

pot-holed dirt road, then you don't have much of a port of entry. instead you want binational collaboration on the planning and financing of infrastructure projects that alan mentioned earlier. so we want to shift our focus here from just thinking about defending our own border to securing and expediting flows across the border within north america. as a second example here, what does the ideal port of entry look like? i picked the example of canada so as not to spook you, but as i'll talk about in a second, i think we can take many smaller steps along this path in our relationship with mexico. so here we have the perfect port of entry. it's a building, and it's a big open space in the middle of the building. and in the middle of that open space is a dotted red line that designated canadian territory from u.s. territory. and on one side of the building you have canadian officers, and on the other side of the building you have american officers, maybe a room this size, and one can yell or talk to the other officer immediately. and an entry into one country is

by definition 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. and by the way, both the canadian officers or the mexican officers and the u.s. officers are looking at screens with more or less identical information. that's the blue square at the top of the chart there. there may be some sorts of information that the canadians don't want to share immediately or automatically with their american counterparts and vice versa, that's the red and the green lines or blue square. so they're co-located in the same space with no big barrier in between them looking at the same information and able to communicate with each other in realtime, okay? and pedestrians or cars or whatever are just passing through this port of entry inhabited jointly by u.s. and mexican or u.s. and canadian authorities. what i've tried to do in this next slide is just give you a sense of all the little steps one could take along the path to this ideal.

so on the vertical axis here -- i'm a professor at mit, so i have to have a slide with axes and data, apologize. the vertical axis, we have greater sharing of information. that is closer and closer to having instantaneous, realtime, direct communication between customs officers or immigration officials on both sides of the border. and on the horizontal axis we have greater jointness in operations. and one can imagine a tremendous amount of jointness in operations with only modest increases in information sharing. so, for instance, investigative referrals or joint investigations at the border would be one example. or you could have a tremendous amount of sharing of information without much jointness. that is, people on both sides of the border separate points of entry are looking at more or less the same information on screens, and their communications systems can talk to each other, but they don't meet every day, right? and everything in between. so you could have

cross-deputized officers with single-entry processing. that's the ideal maybe occupying the same building, and at the bottom left there you have no cooperation at all, right? the worst aspects of the status quo applied across the border. and, you know, in the middle there's all these more modest measures. you could have binational port security committees or binational port committees between the united states and canada where the officers from both sides or agents from both sides meet regularly to discuss how to keep the port of entry running if there's an accident at the port of industry or a shooting or some other incident, an overturned truck, whatever. but they meet regularly to discuss and develop new protocols for managing incidents at the port of entry. coordinated hours, coordinated protocols, um, realtime communication, some sorts of preclearance r o regimes of thee alan discussed earlier, or share data maybe it's not comprehensively shared data, but significant amounts of shared data, for instance, license plates on cars. even if we're not in the realm

of true single-entry processing. but the idea here is that we're taking steps in the direction of greater jointness and greater information sharing. i think over the last three or four years the u.s. government has made really significant progress in this direction both with canada and with mexico. but maybe from an outsider's perspective, i've now been out of government as long as i was in government, it could use another push. maybe we're not proceeding with the alacrity that we would hope because we live in a north america that is facing increasing international competition with lots of integrated supply chains, a big prize at the end if we get it right and a big hit to our economy with regard to other international supply chains in east asia, south asia or even europe and turkey if we get it wrong. so the goal, i think, should be for us to, you know, move much more rapidly as we can to consolidate these sorts of changes. and ultimately, you know, you've

now heard the vision. i won't go into detail about all the obstacles along the way, but you have a sense of what measures we could take. i talked, you know, about flows and travel of people. managing the border is a lot more complicated or a lot more expansive than just trade, travel and security. so i'll give you another example here before i close. and sometimes the picture says a thousand words. here's an aerial photo of the juarez/el paso area. you know, we're used to thinking of of these as totally different cities. you know, el paso, the safest mid-sized city in the united states. juarez no longer, but for many years the most dangerous city in the western hemisphere. but what you see if you look at google earth is a single urban area in the middle of the desert bisected by a narrow ribbon of blue -- sometimes invisible here -- that is the river which separates the mexican side of this population center from the

u.s. side of this population center. in what world of public health management would it ever make sense to inoculate the northeastern part of this area and not the southwestern part of this area from an influenza? simply none, right? in what world would it be rational to have a water treatment plant that just served one part of this city and not the other part of the city? or an electrical generation plant that just did the same thing? or, you know, an aquifer that spanned the border and actually was in commerce with the rio grande that cuts across the city, right? and yet was managed independently on both sides? not regulated on one, regulated on the other. of both sides basically sticking a straw in the same cup and not coordinating the way they do it. okay, the answer is in no world does that make sense. and so collaborative border management would be about

figuring out a way to manage resources jointly, natural and otherwise, in areas that are effectively single cities dotting and spanning the frontier. okay. so to conclude, because i know i'm probably running out of time, the borders were some of the key issues of the 21st century come together. security of global supply chains, travel networks, migration, natural resource management, i mean, these are big, heavy, important issues. and there are ways to solve them and real costs to getting it wrong. so i don't think these should be particularly partisan issues. i mean, all the things i've suggested should be bipartisan. they should be things that are regarded as just making common sense, not as a matter of politics. and i'm not totally ignorant of political realities in washington. i realize that common sense is not always that common. but i sincerely believe that all the plans we've put forward about collaborative border management and enhanced risk

segmentation could be implemented by a president of either party. thanks. >> thank you. >> switch to powerpoint one more time. [inaudible conversations] >> all right. so before i pass it over to my colleague, erik lee, who's actually the co-author of the paper i'm about to present, i'm going to go ahead and present our work which is on this section specifically on the economic issues. the report's chapters called the state of trade, competitiveness and economic well being in the u.s./mexico border region, so you can get a copy of that outside. it will be part of a larger report that we're putting together that's more comprehensive and a look at the border that will come out later

this fall. in our work on this chapter, we worked -- the woodrow wilson center's mexico institute, together with our colleagues at the north american center for transborder studies at arizona state as well as -- [speaking spanish] in tijuana. together we make up something called the border research partnership, and i can't move on without thanking the support that we get both from usaid and from the council of state governments west. so thanks a lot for being with us today and making a lot of this possible. so jumping right into our research and our findings -- [inaudible] in order to jump in. okay. just to show the sort of the overall picture, the starting point is very simple. bilateral trade between the united states and mexico matters to both the united states and mexico. it's enormous, and can it's enormously important to both sides. you know, we've gotten to this milestone, i think, on service

trade numbers are not out yet for 2011, but i think we've gotten to this milestone of a half a trillion dollars in goods and services trades between the two countries this past year. it's just enormous. it's obviously important to mexico where the united states makes up to around 85% of its export market, but it's also extremely important to the united states. trade, as this chart shows, has quintupled since 1993 which was right as nafta was produced and put into effect in 1994. but what i do want you to take notice as you remember as we move forward is that this growth in trade, this blue line that grows doesn't grow steadily. there are some turns, and i think those turns mark some of the defining points in the way the border's been managed and really in our economic relationship between the two countries as a whole. you see one around that 2000-2001 marker turning point where you had a period of a slowdown in growth of trade and another right around the economic crisis in the united states that also produced an

enormous recession in mexico, even stronger than in the united states actually. of so a huge dip in 2009 and then a recovery from there with really pretty remarkable growth happening in the last couple of years. want to point out that tourism, the flow of people back and forth across the border is actually trade also. it has a huge impact on our economies both nationally, but especially locally in the border region. so mexico is the second largest, has the second largest number of tourists entering the united states of any country and the fourth largest in terms of spending. but i think those numbers, that fourth this terms of spending doesn't actually reflect the entirety of what's happening. because if you live in a border community, one of these cities that as we just saw on the map there's really no difference, if you live inty wan know or san diego, a single urban area. all you do is maybe take out a

different bank card, or you pay in cash on your purchases, so we don't have those numbers registered. you know, mexico is probably the or one of the largest spenders in tourism dollars in the united states. and that's really, that cross-border retail is the life blood of a lot of border towns. so this is just a vital part of the border economy is how these border crossings work because you need border crossings that work in order to maintain this buying and selling, this cross-border retail that's happening all the time. this shows just the projected flows on of highway traffic, of trucks, of trade coming across the u.s./mexico border. and the point here is to just really take a look and see how important these networks of highways, these transportation corridors are which is where trade is happening. you know, 80% of bilateral trade crosses the southwest border,

70% of bilateral trade crosses the border by truck. so it's really these highway networks and the points at the border that they cross that are key to managing the flow of goods throughout the region. and you see that a lot of it really is coming from the industrial heartland, sort of the midwest in the united states, the automakers there. detroit, actually, rather than any city in the border region, in the southwest border region, is the largest exporter, the largestty exporting goods to mexico. and that's the auto industry, obviously, that's supplying it. but the east coast is also huge. the point here is that we also produce goods together. we don't just trade finished products with one another. so, for example, as we create a car some different numbers are thrown around, but the idea is somewhere between six or seven maybe more times part that are inside that car have crossed back and forth across the border as that car's being made. if you have -- when we have

imports from mexico to the united states, 40% of that content was actually generated here in the united states. i mean, you know, that's opposed to 4% from china. so if we buy a good from mexico, 40% of what we're spending, what we're paying mexico actually stays right here in the united states because those parts were generated, were built in the united states. american manufacturing job attached to our imports from mexico. four cents on the dollar for trade with china. so just a qualitatively different nature than our trade with any other part of the world. we're connected in a way, our economies are connect inside a way that's different than any other part of the world except perhaps canada who we have a similar connection to. it means that our destinies are link inside a certain way, our business cycles are connected. we experience growth and recession together, but even more than just our ups and can downs specifically our long-term

competitiveness is also linked. any action that improves the competitiveness of mexico has an impact on the competitiveness of the united states precisely because of 0% of those goods -- 40% of those goods, of the content comes from the united states. that means the similar situation vice versa. if we export a car to the world what matters is the price we can generate that car at together. so we need to think about how we can together make our economy more competitive. it also has another consequence which is that this back and forth of production sharing creates a multiplier effect on any sort of friction, on any difficulties that you have to cross the border. if you have goods crossing the border six or seven times as they're being created, every, you know, minute you have to wait in line to cross the border, multiply that by six or seven. every dollar you have to spend by filling out customs forms, multiply that by six or seven. these relatively small delays, small differences, small

challenges add a huge multiplier effect. you come up with really several billion dollar consequences to our economies. so trade is getting bigger. we see in that first graph we saw that trade is growing, so we would expect that we'd have a number of crossings between the two countries growing in a similar manner. you know, the population of the border region is one of the most dynamic in the united states. you might expect then that you'd have a number of people crossing the border growing over the years. but that's not the case. in fact, we saw that trucks which is the bottom line here grew from 2.9 million a year to 4.5 million a year. these are entries in the united states, legal, authorized entries. grew significantly throughout the '90s after nafta was implemented. but, actually, has relatively trailed off. there's been a slight increase recently but, you know, stayed between 4.5 and 4.7 million throughout the past decade. so even as we're seeing this huge growth in trade, there's

not a corresponding growth in the number of trucks crossing the border. for some reason these companies are having to figure out more ways to pack value into each truck. i think that's because they're having a harder time getting goods across the border. there's an incentive the to make a more efficient use of your resources because it's more challenging to get them across the border. you know, we see even more dramatic ups and downs in the other numbers. the green line in the middle is pedestrians coming across the border. you've seen a rise, and then you've seen a fall. and the most dramatic is the passenger vehicles which is how most people cross the border. personal vehicles which also grew senately throughout the '90s -- significantly throughout the '90s and has declined especially since 2006, 2007. and i think there are several factors that play into how these lines get drawn. you know, not least of which would be the security situation in northern mexico. it's really caused people to stay put, to be moving back and forth across the board beer less, maybe to move to the

american side temporarily. you have, certainly, the economic crisis that hit, you know, both sides of the border very strongly, caused another decline. but we would expect a rush, and we haven't seen that return in traffic yet as the recovery's happening. we'll have to see what happens there. the point really is just that the border has thickened over the years, and this thickening has result inside congestion, and that congestion has a cost. there are lots of studies that have been done about what that cost is, and this table just sort of details some of those studies that have taken place, but the takeaway is just that it costs several billions of dollars to our economies. i think i would take any one and all of these numbers with a grain of salt or two or three. but nonetheless, we see study after study finding that there is significant economic costs to increases in con congestion at the border. it just means we need solutions. we need more efficient border management, but we need to do

that without giving up the security gains that we really have put in place since 9/11. there, you know, has been a change in the way the border's been managed, and that has created, you know, gains in the security at the border and the ports of entry. we can't give those up. nobody's going to want to say we trade one for the other. but the point here is that we need to find a way that one does not come at the cost of the other. it's not a scale balance between security and efficiency at the border. creative ways such as the other speakers have already mentioned to have gains in both security and efficiency happening at the same time. during the bush administration here in the united states, that was called a smart border agreement. we had them with both canada and with mexico that really said, no, we can do this at the same time. we can have security gains and efficiency gains. fleshed out and deepened during the obama and calderon administrations with the 21st century border. and that's really, you know, the 2 21st century border means a

lot of things, but to me what it really was was a strong declaration of the two presidents, of the two administrations and have some of the architects of it surrounding me, but saying that we can make gains on competitiveness, on efficiency without giving up on the side of security. we can do both at the same time. in border communities there's -- just moving on a little bit -- there's a big focus on the need for infrastructure investment. and, you know, cbp has said a lot of people have said, you know, there's approximately a $6 billion sort of deficit or need for more infrastructure to fully modernize the border. but i think that in the current budgetary environment which is very constrained we don't need to have just people coming to washington saying, you know, my border community needs more money, we need more investment, but we need a new strategy, ways

to have better throughput, have better use of the resources that we have. it means a strategy. and that's exactly what this concept of the 21st century border is. so as described, we have these trusted travel lever and trusted shipper programs which really do just that. they can offer us gains in efficiency by expediting the traffic that's low risk and gives us gains in security by having more resources to focus on the traffic that has an unknown or higher level of risk. you know, so we've talked about which they are, but i guess i should say before we go into each program, you know, i think the name of the game in post-9/11 security is intelligence, is knowing who people are and especially if they want to enter the united states, we we need to know who y are, and these programs, zen try and nexus in the north, these are companies and individuals just walking up to the united states government and saying let

me tell you about myself. let me tell you who i am. le supplier

before they can use that lane. so you need to figure out ways -- and i don't propose, claim to have the answers, but you need to figure out ways to have the incentives meet the sort of requirements that are there to get involved. the other thing is just that, you know, you need to be promoting these programs. and i think that that's happened more in some areas of the border

than in others. i think the case of san diego and tijuana is pretty remarkable. the enrollment levels there seem to be much higher there, and, you know, that's great. that gives us an example to look at and say how can we do a better job of getting people enrolled in these programs? sort of final issue that i want to talk about is just the focus on the ports of entry and the areas between the ports of entry. actually, this slide i have to give credit to mark rosen bloom who's in the audience today from -- i think he is. maybe i didn't see him. the green here on chart is the border patrol. and the border patrol, you know, i think probably most people in this room know but not necessarily everyone in the country knows the border patrol monitors the area between the ports of entry and the officers of operations who wear blue uniforms at the ports of entry. so we've seen over the years we've seen a buildup in the

areas between the ports of entry, border patrol, without this corresponding buildup at the ports of entry themselves. and there have been, as assistant secretary bersin showed, you know, that buildup has led to something that does move the flows and even reduce the flows to a certain extent. so we've invested in that, and i think now the time has come to where we can start thinking about the ports of entry and we have an opportunity now to invest in the ports of entry because now, you know, really a lot it seems a lot of the harder drugs are coming through the ports of entry. a lot of illicit traffic comes through the ports of entry. so if the risks are at the ports of entry as much or more or as they are between the ports of entry, then we should be paying attention to the security at the ports of entry if we want to have security gains, and then we have on the side maybe you could just think of these economic gains that would also come with that increased focus on the ports of entry. we've already talked about other ways, you know, there are

several other proposals in the paper of how you could improve border management. a lot of them, such as public/private partnerships, have already been touched on, regional planning exercises through the border master plans. i encourage you to take a look at that, but i'm going to leave it there for now, and we can pick things back up in question and answer. thank you. and i'll pass things on to my colleague now, eric olson, since i'm the moderator, who's with arizona state university and a great colleague and partner on all our border work here at the wilson center. >> [inaudible] >> actually, i'm the other eric, erik lee pulling double duty within the border research partnership. i worked on that state of border competitiveness project with chris wilson that was a lot of fun to work on. it's a really fun area to work on, u.s./mexico cross-border

trade. it's very counterintuitive. not many americans know about this, how important mexico is to our nation's economy. eric olson asked me to collaborate with him on a chapter for our upcoming state of the border report of which the chapter that chris talked about is part of. this is another chapter in that report. we're trying to roll it out this fall. i am still optimistic that we can do that. but one thing i'm going to talk about, one thing you'll see is how if you haven't seen it already in these three fantastic presentations that preceded mine is how interconnected these issues are. and that makes this a really, really tough policy area to work on and to move the ball down the field on. um, once again thanks very much to eric, andrew and chris for the kind invitation, inviting me back here to the wilson center, the mexico institute. profuse thanks to edgar ruiz and

the very innovative u.s./mexico state alliance partnership of which we are a part as well as usaid mexico with offices in the u.s. embassy in mexico city for their support on this and related projects. i particularly appreciate assistant secretary bersin for his insightful comments and for his service to the united states as well as for his willingness to take on some of the least straightforward, most complex and contentious policy areas known to mankind. i think superintendent of public instruction in california was actually more difficult than your past job. but it's really remarkable, the positions you've had and how difficult these policy areas are. these chapters are meant as snapshots and to try to break down a large, complex topic for a broad audience and present some insights and value to the various segments of the

audience. we try to hit a number of people and audiences. .. including major related factors nor to evaluate security. these include the incidents of terror related activity and warnings at the border, levels of violence on both sides of the border, and assessment of how these might be linked.

seizures of dangerous drugs, money and firearms at the border, apprehensions of undocumented and unauthorized migrants. secretary bersin spoke quite eloquently about how those numbers are changing over time. and a number of related and often subjective factors. we have hard evidence on one side, but what you quickly realize working in this area is you have a whole other area of fuzzy factors, subjective factors that influenced how this policy area is perceived and talked about in the public debate. these include a number of things, politics, local politics, including a very fees state level politics such as we find in arizona. so feel free to as many questions you would like about arizona. rule of law efforts in mexico and issues related to perceived security, and cross-border

collaboration. also worth discussion, discussing in this vein going forward perhaps a future report, perhaps probably not in this marquee, border secure -- a new strategy 2012-2016 i believe, plants their current one. mexico has rolled out a very specific strategist on the federal level to deal with violence, tickle in the border region. the impact of technology, a fascinating area about which we've done a couple of reports, and we have made very surprising discoveries, we think. and ports of entry the enhancements that all search him and all the panel about, and antidrug efforts in u.s. see you can see all of that influences what we talk about when we talk about border security policy.

>> and our principal finding, one thing we try to get across to as many people as we can when we talk about this issue is that the state of border security really, when you look at it closely, it is varied and asymmetrical as a borders of the u.s.-mexico border is a very, very large geographical area. it's actually an article point whether the region even exists. honey, i think you to make a very good argument that it doesn't exist but it's basically a collection of interrelated north-south trade corridors that happened to find themselves along an international boundary. they compete with each other ferociously. el paso and san diego, san diego and phoenix, tucson. west -- depending on where you are, urban versus rural i think the security situation in the

major cities along the border, which i believe we touched on earlier is quite different from the situation in the rural areas. that is partly as a consequence of u.s. security policy. west versus east, the western part of the border, particularly on the mexican side is much, much colmer than those in eastern quarters, tickle in places -- particularly in places like -- and just want to make the point right at the outset that it's insufficient to talk about the border region being secure or insecure without specifying precisely where you're talking about. so in terms of our preliminary findings on the objective measures, i'll just focus on a couple here. terror related activity, i mean following 9/11 a lot was made about our perceived vulnerability at the u.s.-mexico

border, and this was one of the major driving forces behind, this was an additional driving force behind increasing staffing and infrastructure at our border with mexico. of specific interest to us, what we called aliens from special interest countries, or special interest aliens, these are countries that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism such as iran, our country for terrorist organizations are known to operate, such as colombia or pakistan. according to information from the cbp, the latest data that we have been able to focus on, arrest increase 40%, i'm stuck him fy 2007, 462 arrests were made, and fiscal year 2010 with six under 63 arrests were made.

during fiscal year 2011, a number of arrests went down to 380, 300% decline when compared to 2010. and the trendline through june 2012 shows that they are down another 32%. the majority of these arrests occur along the southwest border, including 192 reported between january and june of this year. the data available seem to indicate that reports in the southwest border are in decline. erik olson and myself are unaware if any of these cases have resulted in specific terror related investigations. nevertheless, the statement provided by the u.s. intelligence community and the department of state suggest that while there is a potential risk, but not in any terrorists entering the united states over the southwest border. full stop. shifting to levels of violence, shift pass this a little bit. in terms of the level of

violence, again without a tremendous discussion over the past two years about the safety and security of the southwest border. this is, in spite of the fact a lease on the u.s. side the fbi crime statistics seem to show increasing, or declining numbers in almost all cities along the border including phoenix where i live. this includes san diego as well as el paso, as chappell pointed out, one of the safest midsize cities in the united states. from 2007 forward to just recently, the situation on the mexican side of the border was quite different. and that is shown here by a slight put together by eric olsen and colleagues here at the wilson center. ciudad where's was up to 1200 murders in 2011. tijuana, quite a difference.

there's a difference between east and the west there. tijuana quite a few, quite a bit fewer. chihuahua city has been a point where we have seen an increase in violence as ciudad has gone down quite a bit. nogales is the major port on the arizona sonora border, a city of a few hundred thousand that it's a major crossing point for fruits and vegetables from sonora and points south into the u.s. nogales is basically the biggest headache for folks in sonora, which is our neighbor to the south. even nogales pales in comparison when you talk about cities to the east, including juárez, chihuahua city. i just wanted to leave that with you. way back i think, way back in march, eric and chris and i made a visit to el paso, a field visit for purposes of research on this project if we met with a

number of major stakeholders in the region including the fbi, border patrol, field operations, those are the folks in the blue uniforms as opposed to the border patrol which wears the green uniforms. they operate between the ports of entry. met with state prosecutors on the mexican side. our esteemed friends in chihuahua state congress as well, and as was a gentleman named jorge. jorge is a furniture industry executive who runs, coordinates what they call -- [speaking in spanish] >> this is an effort that arose out of very dangerous security situation in late 2010, and is noted for its input from local,

state and federal actors, as well as folks in civil society. basically what they were trying to do, one thing at their try to do is a stuffed the baseline, a statistical baseline to look at just a ciudad juarez. what we can say today is that we see an overall trendline heading downwards, thank goodness, for the people of ciudad juarez. this is in the air of homicide, and that is by far the most controversial, the most talked about measure. they measure other things as well, like carjackings, extortions. this is a big quality-of-life issue for their small business, small and medium-sized businesses, community in ciudad juarez and elsewhere. but in general usage homicides headed downward in ciudad juarez, which is, that goes back to what assistant secretary berson said about projecting forward from current events. so this is very notable. ciudad juarez being the most high profile and problematic

puzzle on the border. things are looking up. things are looking, i don't have statistics at that point, and things are looking not quite as good in places like monterey, those far eastern, northeastern cities in mexico are really the current flashpoints of these conflicts between mexican criminals, these transnational criminal organizations. we are also going to talk a little bit about, a little bit about apprehensions. one of the other major kind of hard data points that we have in this passionate this goes back to assistant secretary bersin slide, just pulled out some of the major sectors to take a look at. he talked about immigration being way down from its peak. i think that is borne out by several studies, including douglas massey, mexican

migration project, of princeton has rolled out its concept of mexican migration to the u.s. is that net zero. just looking at some specific sectors, i think this is worth going into, just looking at will bit more, el paso which in the early '90s, prior to mr. reyes coming on board and rolling out his policy changes their, had a peak of 117,000, but arizona standards that looks quite low, just looking at that. actually that is a peak in fy05. during fiscal year 2011, they had an amazingly low, 9633 apprehensions. this is interesting for a number of reasons. one of which is that the staffing of the el paso sector is at well over 2000 agents. so you're at a situation where you might be overstaffed and el paso sector. it's not a matter of, as we

talked about earlier today, you can move people around very quickly and the federal government. there are federal personnel rules that prohibit you from doing that. but we are seeing a situation where we are kind of seeing diminishing returns from our investments, particularly in that sector. san diego, fy 2011 at 41,000, a little over 41,000 down from a peak of 181,000 in fy 1990 these particular figures from cbp we had only back to fy 99. tucson, this is an interesting from were i in front. tucson, the tucson scheckte secs fallen off a cliff but it's a 111,000, apprehensions for fy 2011 come from a peak of six or 14,000 apprehensions in fiscal year 2000. we talk will bit about the flow being pushed eastward from san diego, folks trying to reach those southern california labor markets, were pushed out of

their by operation gatekeeper and into the arizona corridor which opened at that point had been a relatively sleepy immigration corridor. again, we talk about the reasons for this. weak u.s. economy. a pretty strong mexican economy that chris touched on enhance border deterrence in an increasingly dangerous security situation for migrants passing to mexico, particularly northeastern mexico with the massacre in late 2010. those are the only, those are the main kind of hard figures that i'm going to talk about today. and i think in general, just make a statement, i think this approach, the border patrol specific approach has reached a point i would say of diminishing return. i think that's worth repeating. i don't think we can continue to staff between the ports of entry in a way that we have in the past extensive. it is, and it is you're getting

diminishing results over time for all these reasons that we talked about. in terms of the subjective measures, and i will wrap up since we can get to the discussion, the subjective measures that i talked about, i think today while i have you here, secretary bersin, i wanted to talk about the concept a little bit of moving the border away from the border. this was, i guess you call this a metaphor that we talked about a lot over the past few years in terms of how to decongest those ports of entry, and make them more functional. i think we need an analog was lot was talked about in terms of enhancing the ports of entry, create even inland ports in mexico. the ideas joint customs inspection in mexico with u.s. agents. i don't think there's been a lot of movement, eric. i could be wrong but it seems like we're kind of stalled out there so i think it's more useful to think of moving the

border away from the border in a broader context, and talk about some of the fuzzy issues i mentioned at the beginning, issues of cross-border collaboration, how do we enhance collaboration, not only between the u.s. and mexico. i understand it's much improved from where it was just a few years ago, but how do we measure that and how do we advance that, particularly with the new mexican presidential, a new mexican president. how can we not only enhance vertical collaboration, but also advanced in the agency work that you rewired and made more rational about was in the old days, which was not very functional. how can we facilitate legitimate flows come as much as possible. chris talk about on tourism. i know in the southwest region we really need those mexican tourists. they really drive jobs. in 2008, there has been a more

recent study than this, but in 2008, mexican tourist, economic impact in arizona was at 3 billion. it really, really enormous, and this is a flow of tourists that is difficult to count for interesting reasons. mexican shoppers tend to use a lot of cash but once you use cash or lost to the statistics. you don't show up as a mexican shoppers if you would if you used a card or something along these lines. so how do we focus, in other words, on the flows that work for us and makes sense, like tourism and trade? how do we enhance technology so that is a potential game changer? i think there has been a number of technological innovations. it's interesting about sbinet was so incredibly controversial and such a political disaster for the u.s. government. we just completed a small study on this that looked at, that we

did several interviews with some folks in southern arizona who worked very close with us, and they all thought it was great. they thought it was fantastic, which goes completely against the grain of how this is supported in the media. so i think at the bottom line, going back to the title of this, of this panel, the bottom line on how to build a 21st century border, i think we have a very complex border situation on the ground, and the two federal government efforts in their current form only really have some control over this, over this but this is an area that is ripe for intervention -- innovation. new approaches and new approaches. we are past the point of diminishing returns on this, in terms of staff, particularly between the ports of entry. we can talk a little bit about staffing at the ports of entry. i know you love to talk about that, assistant secretary bersin. yet i don't think we have maxed out the approaches on the

outside, or the soft approaches. the softer approaches, the more indirect approaches such as cross-border collaboration, interagency collaboration, and u.s.-mexico, anything that can be done to strengthen that is worth serious consideration. just a quick plug, circumvent back to the economic side of this. max, we are cosponsoring a big event in september in tempe called realizing economic strength of our 21st century border. we're doing this in conjunction with u.s. department of commerce western hemisphere office. office. it is september 23-25th in tempe, outside of phoenix, and would be glad to talk to anyone hear about that in terms of participating with us been. thank you. >> thanks a lot, erik. [applause] >> so, as usual for people like us what we have gone on way too long talked about giving y'all a chance to jump in.

we have time for just a couple of questions. maybe we can take two or three questions and then have a panel respond. please raise your hand and identify yourself if you have a question. >> there's one question in the back. >> i just want to take the chance to ask, not commissioner bersin but assistant secretary bersin, regarding preclearance, six years ago about cancun and kabul san lucas, is that a dead and now? >> so, in canada when you fly to the united states from montréal, a number of a canadian can cities, we assess cbp officers who clued you into the united states while you're in canada so that when the plane arrives you

don't, you need not be admitted for immigration purposes, and her cargo, your package is not inspected. in mexico, we have been talking about instituting similar kinds of projects in cancun, the issue was determined to be one of security, and also the need to continue the kinds of reforms they have been working on in terms of mexican immigration. so what we have and now operating in mexico city in benito juárez airport i believe, and i think it's scheduled for cabo san lucas, is to have global entry kiosks in the airport. for the first time, mexican citizens potential in global entry, you can be vetted by the ssp, the federal police database, and you can join the

trusted traveler program in the united states. mexico is creating its trusted traveler, and americans will be able to join that program to when you get into mexico city you won't have to wait on line, go through the kiosks, and it's basically established a link between your biometrics and your passport, and you answer some questions on customs and immigration, and you passed through. but the preclearance in the way in which it takes place in canada is not yet ripe in mexico, and probably if we can get to scale, as chris wilson and erik lee suggested, we can get to scale on these programs, it won't be required to have cbp officers there, so they provide the ability to be a trusted

traveler, to preclearance on a mexican airport. >> i have a question. spent we are going to get you a microphone. >> this is edgar. >> thank you. for the last 20 years a lot of folks have been talking about improving the border through the early '90s, and certainly as you look at, it sounds like the technical solutions are there. what's missing is certainly the political will to address those solutions. in 2001, obviously september 11 -- changing the dynamics of the way that, you do, security can we address security in this country. so what will be the next equilibrium to get us to a

21st century border? what will be the type of change or event that will get us to achieve that political will together to where we need to be? >> i'll take a swing at that. i don't think it's going to be any one big event. unfortunately, these events are asymmetric. they cause us to clamp down but i'm not certain there will be a single event that will cause us to adapt more -- your first suggestion that it's a matter of continual pushing by political appointees, and setting a vision that corresponds to collaborative border management, which is going to get us there in the end and it's going to be a long process. because it's the government, and in this case is two or three governments so takes twice as long. >> without disagreeing, because i think that's right, it'll be a long-term process, i would just point to what has already occurred which is the global

economic crisis and recession as something that i think has a lot of opportunity, and it's still causing us to think in the united states about, you know, just a rebalancing of priorities in a certain sense. just if you look at the political debate that's going on right now, it's all about the economy, and that's a new era that we're in. and i think it's an era in which there's a lot of opportunity to have discussions about how north america as a region and the competitiveness of north america as the region can be one of the building blocks, you know, of the economy for the next century. and to do that, to get there, one of many things that need to be addressed, structural reforms in the united states, structural reforms in mexico, of the economy, but one of the things that needs to be addressed is clearly border management. and it certainly can be a driving force for some of the changes, and so the policies that have been discussed today. >> i don't think chappell would

disagree with this. big changes, bigger circle changes take generations. to take a generation. so i talk about what happened on the u.s.-mexican border from 1993 to now, 2012, 20 years. what i tell my mexican colleagues all the time is that i remember when we were fighting the mafia in the united states. it took us 30 years to beat them off the in the united states. when the fbi was given the tools, local and state law enforcement, it takes time. it just doesn't happen. and so what's important is to identify trends, not to be too impatient with the way in which the world works. because that's not something that any of us in our points of time are going to change, but the ideas is to build the momentum. and i think when you look at the

21st century border declaration presidents obama and calderón in 2010, beyond the border vision by prime minister harper and president obama and 2011, you begin to see trendlines established. i can assure you that the relationship with mexico and, indeed, with canada is simply not what it was five years ago. certainly not what it was 10 years ago. so without detracting from the proposition that it takes work, it takes work all the people in this room who care about these things. the fact of the matter is that we see trends that are considerably more favorable to this vision than what existed even a short time ago. >> chris, i was just going to add, i think in terms of, more in terms of actors rather than

events, and i wouldn't discount the role of local actors who can make things happen very, very quickly. a very short presidential process, so it can take generations for can happen like that but i think happened in 18 months that presidential process which usually takes about seven years spent i'm not suggesting that individual projects need to take up a generations. >> but i take your point, erik. thank you spent i think we can ended on that that note of where, they don't have a closing word from the senator of, for now. spent more of a question than a comment. i just wanted to say one thing to the panelists today, all of you really added to my personal depth of knowledge of the issue. and as we talk about this being more of a political solution in a practical solution, i was a these elected officials, you need to facts, plow the field

for us to move ahead. because the 40% versus 4%, the reemergence of trading blocs, the economy, jobs, economic security of the individual citizen, these are issues that all of you have to shed light on with the facts, otherwise the folks out there will continue to, you know, to listen to one side of the debate. so i encourage you to keep talking the talk that you're talking, you know, stand with a louder voice so to speak. the facts can win out the day. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator. that you all for coming today. and have a good one. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate is about to gavel

in for the day to continue work on the campaign finance disclosure bill. the chamber will recess from 12:30-2:15 eastern to allow members to attend their weekly party meetings. when we return we'll take a procedural vote at 3 p.m. eastern on whether to move forward with debate on the campaign finance bill. republicans defeated a cloture vote yesterday. the democrats get the senate in session late into the night to draw attention to the bill and a plan a second vote on the legislation today. now our live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and glory, you have already blessed this day. we pause now to acknowledge that we borrow heartbeats

from you and that because of you we live and breathe and move and have our being. continue to nourish and sustain this nation during these difficult and dangerous days. thank you for the brave men and women in our armed forces and the members of their families, who daily sacrifice to keep freedom's flame burning. surround our lawmakers this day with your spirit of reconciliation that they may put aside that which brings division and embrace that which engenders unity. may your blessing and

benediction enable our senators to work together in harmony and peace. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., july 17, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: mr. president, i now move to proceed to calendar number 446, s. 3e 3369. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 3369 a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: for the information of all senators, the time until 12:30 will be divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority the second 30 minutes. we'll recess until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. the time from 2:15 to 3:00 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled and at 3:00 there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed the disclose act which was debated last night and again this morning.

the effect of money on american politics sngt 5, more than 100 years ago moneyed special interests had tested the regulatory integrity of our system. in 1899, copper billionaire william clarke was elected to the united states senate by the montana state legislature. the contest was considered so blatantly swayed by bribery, the senate refused to seat him. here's how clarke responded. -- quote -- "i never bought a man who wasn't for sale" -- end of quote. now, mr. president, we in nevada have some connection with that name because las vegas is in clarke county. clarke county was formed in the early part of the 20th century, split -- at the time was the largest county in america, called lincoln county. and that was divided and --

between lincoln and clarke county and this character, clarke, was named -- it was named after him. after he said this, and people realized that he had blatantly swayed the state legislature by bribery, the senate here refused to seat him. but he became a senator anyway, mr. president. not for long, but he became a senator. as i've learned from people who know a lot about montana history, he was very clever. the governor of the state of montana went to san francisco, the acting governor, lieutenant governor, after he was denied his seat, reappointed him to the senate so he got -- to the united states senate by virtue

of that shenanigans that took place. but montana voters went on to pass the corrupt by referendum. they voted for it. less than a decade later republican president theodore roosevelt reined it in on the federal level as well. not only montana. this history has a long history of curtailing corrupting money in politics. but with the citizens united decision, the supreme court of our country erased a century of protecting the fairness of american elections. that opened the door for big corporations, anonymous billionaires and foreign interests to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing voters. for any who dismisses this change as politics as usual they should think again. during this year's election, outside spending by g.o.p. shell groups is expected to top $1

billion. that's billion with a b. the names of these new front groups contain words that are warm and fuzzy like freedom and prosperity. but make no mistake, mr. president. there's nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of billionaires for their own self-interest. up just one of those outside groups backed by wealthy oil interests has promised to spend $400 million on negative ads filled with half-truths and distortions of president obama's record. by comparison during the 2008 election, less than four years ago, senator john mccain's presidential campaign spent $370 million total. that was huge amount of money in that day. but it's being dwarfed by these outside groups this year. so this year's one group special interest money will dwarf the entire budget of the republican nominee, john mccain, in the last presidential election.

democrats and the majority of americans believe these unlimited corporate and special interest contributions should be outlawed. but in the post-citizens united world, the least we should do is require groups spending millions on political attack ads to disclose the donors. we owe it to the voters to let them judge for themselves the attacks and the motivation behind them but they can only do that if they know who is doing it. the disclose act would require political organizations of all stripes, liberal and conservatives alike, to disclose know dayses in -- donations in excess of $10,000 if they'll are used for campaign purposes. safeguarding fair elections used to be an arena where republicans and democrats. in 1997, the republican leader, my friend, senator mcconnell said -- quote -- "disclosure is the best disinfectant" -- end of quote. 14 republicans serving in the united states senate voted to

support stronger disclosure laws in 2000. last night those same 14 republicans did an about-face and every one of my republican colleagues voted to block the disclosure act. it's obvious their priority is to protect the handful of anonymous billionaires, billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to change the outcome of elections. but today again they'll have an opportunity to consider that backwards priority. we're doing that with the motion to reconsider that i announced last night and they have the opportunity to stand up for the average voter instead of these billionaires. i hope they join democrats as they work to ensure all americans, not just the wealthy few have an equal voice in the political process.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: last week in response to another disappointing month of job growth, president obama issued a truly bizarre ultimatum. a truly bizarre ultimatum. let me raise taxes on a million businesses or i'll raise taxes on everybody. let me raise taxes on a million businesses, or i'll raise taxes on everybody. yesterday democratic leaders in congress took this strange new economic theory whereby politicians purport to help job creation by hurting job creators, to dizzying new heights.

yesterday senate democratic leaders said they would actually prefer -- prefer -- to see america go off the so-called fiscal cliff this coming january along with the trauma that would unleash on our economy than let businesses maintain their existing tax rates. that was the position of democratic leaders yesterday. they'd rather see america go off the fiscal cliff in january than let a million businesses maintain their current tax rates. it's anistonnishing admission. anistonishing -- astonishing admission. democrats are saying they'd rather see taxes go up on every american at the end of the year than let about a million businesses keep what they earn now.

rather let taxes go up on everybody in the country rather than allow a million businesses to keep the money that they earn now. madam president, this isn't an economic agenda. it's not an economic agenda. it's an ideological crusade. this morning erntened young -- ernst and young is releasing a study that shows president obama's plan to raise taxes on these businesses will result in 10,000 fewer jobs. what a great idea. let's raise taxes on a million of our most successful small businesses and eliminate 700,000 jobs in the middle of the most tepid recovery in anybody's memory. what a terrific idea.

for those who manage to keep their jobs, real after-tax wages would fall by an estimated 1.8%, meaning living standards would decline as government sucks more capital out of the economy. the president's proposal, in other words, is a recipe for economic stagnation and decline. a recipe for economic stagnation and decline. but the murray proposal, the idea we should raise taxes on everybody, is even worse. not only would it trigger another recession, it would put the global economy at risk. here's the democratic theory, that a massive income tax

increase on 140 million american taxpayers wouldn't be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away. wouldn't be so bad because the effects wouldn't be felt right away. this bizarre conclusion can only be reached by politicians and budget analysts who never worked a day in the private sector. who don't understand what goes into cutting a paycheck for your employees, and who don't have a concept of the planning, the planning that is necessary when you are operating a business on thin margins in a tough economy. this shows how out of touch these people are. to rely on the analysis of ivy tower liberals instead of listening to the jobs groups that have been pleading with us to fix this problem sooner rather than later and end the uncertainty that is acting like

a bick wet blanket over our entire economy. today another nonpartisan group, the business roundtable roundtable, urged congress to adopt the republican plan to extend current tax law for a year and make a bridge to tax reform. in a letter to congress the group's chairman, the boeing c.e.o. jim mcnerney, warned that -- quote -- "without effective action soon, this uncertainty will spawn a dangerous crisis, threatening our economy, businesses and workers." what republicans have been saying is that we should eliminate this uncertainty right now, go on and eliminate it. eliminate the uncertainty that boeing employees, nearly 85,000 of whom work in washington state, and so many others are facing right now.

tackle these problems now rather than waiting until the end of the year. now, mr. president, let me just boil it down. faced with the slowest economic recovery in modern times, chronic joblessness and the lowest percentage of able-bodied americans actually participating in the workforce in literally decades, democrats one-point plan -- one-point plan -- to revive the economy is this: you earn and we take. you earn and we take. that's apparently the only thing they've got. surely we can do better.

i know we can, and so do the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would thank senator mcconnell for his remarks and the fundamental truth of those remarks that this administration and the majority in this senate want to raise taxes. they think by raising taxes and spending more through the government, somehow this will lift the economy. and we've been shown that that's not so. we stay here -- we stayed here last night, our democratic colleagues did, talking about an

issue that doesn't have the support to pass and should have been talking about the fundamental threats to our economy. not having a budget. why aren't we moving forward with a budget? why aren't we moving forward with the appropriations bills that are necessary to fund the government come october 1? when the majority leader senator reid has announce he has no intention to pass a single one, to bring them up. we'll be in here in late september passing a c.r., a continuing resolution, to fund the government, and no telling what else will be tied up in that, creating instability and uncertainty because this congress, this democratic-led senate, has refused to pass a budget, refused to lay out a plan for the future, refused to move the appropriations bill. i've been here 15 years. this is the first time i've ever

seen us not move a single appropriations bill. when i first came, we would move the 13 bills, almost every one of them, before september 30. it's hard work. you have to bring up the bill, how much you want to defend, the ag department, education department, and people offer amendments and debate. and do you work? that's what we're supposed to be doing but we're not. i want to talk today and call attention to to another serious, scan dahlous, re -- scandalous issue in the democrats are dismantling the statutory budget process and it is a tale and an explanation of how it is we're going broke. let me begin with a review of the situation. people need to remember this. last summer congress and the

president, facing a serious crisis as a result of the fact that surging government spending had driven our debt to the highest level allowed. the debt ceiling. we were hitting the debt ceiling. you remember that? a deal was struck then to raise the debt sealing. that's what the wanted. he didn't want to cut spending 40% because we were borrowing and remained borrowing almost 40 cents of every dollar we spend. all government programs would have had to have been cut 40% if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. amazing as that sounds, what i just said is undisputable. republicans prevailed in their insistence that debt spending should be reduced over ten years by an amount equal to the amount the debt ceiling was raised today, that day, last august. the legislation this deal produced the budget control act set certain spending limits on

the -- in the absence of any budget resolution that we should have passed as required by law but had not passed in the senate. so these spending limits come into effect when the chairman of the budget committee, senator conrad, filed the allocation numbers into the "congressional record," telling every senate appropriations subcommittee its allowed spending level; how much they can spend. that's the hour given to the budget chairman. senator conrad chairs the budget committee. the budget control act plainly dictates that 2013 -- beginning september 30 of this year, october 1 of this year -- spending limits would be derived from the congressional budget office spending baseline. this is crucial because the c.b.o. baseline contains the

$2.1 trillion over ten years -- not all in one year -- ten-year spending cuts, or really reductions in spending growth, not so much cuts, that the deal was supposed to implement in exchange for the immediate $2.1 trillion raising of the debt ceiling. and so herein lies the scandal. although it was buried in the spending allocation that senator conrad sent out, my staff on the budget -- senate budget committee discovered that senator conrad did not file an outlay limit based on the c.b.o. baseline. instead the outlay total he filed was $14 billion higher. curiously matching exactly the spending levels that president

obama had requested in the budget he submitted to congress in january. although this discovery was not readily apparent, chairman conrad, to his credit -- and he's an honorable man -- does not dispute it. he simply asserts that it is within his discretion to unilaterally set a higher total. again, because the c.b.o. baseline reflects the spending reductions passed by congress and signed into law, an increase above the baseline, as this allocation that he submitted does, is an abrogation of the deal. it's an abrogation of the agreement we reached in august. bipartisan really. and we told the american people, okay, we raised the debt ceiling. a lot of people didn't want to do it. a lot of americans were hot about it. but we said we're going to cut spending by that much over ten

years. as reported by publication "c.q." -- quote -- "conrad did not counter session's claim that the outlay limit would allow higher spending in fiscal year 2013." but this is not, let me emphasize, just the fault of senator conrad. this large violation of the budget control act is without doubt the decision of senator reid, the democratic leader, his leadership team and really the members of the democratic caucus who support him. remember, outlays are the spending figure which directly registers on the debt. $14 billion in higher outlays in 2013 means $14 billion added to the debt. it's just that simple. in fact, the higher debt that will accrue next year as a result of the higher spending

level means that interest payments, the amount of interest we pay on the debt that we accrue, will be greater and will also exceed c.b.o. baseline limits. as a result, the chairman had to also boost spending authority for the finance committee by $79 million to compensate for the higher interest payments on the $14 billion added to the debt. this shows that the debt deal legislation has been violated not only in spirit but in letter. why? because if you increase discretionary outlays, you increase the debt and therefore increase the interest needed to service the debt. it is crystal clear that the legislation provides no flexibility whatsoever to inflate spending authority for this interest payment. it is in a direct he violation

of the budget control act of last summer. but he had to do that to justify and to account for the $14 billion increase over the b.c.a. numbers that was agreed to last august. i previously sent two letters to chairman conrad urging him to correct and refile the proper numbers, but it's evident that the chairman does not intend to do so. so we'll be looking for an alternative course. this is a matter that ought to be considered by the full senate. and so i plan to pursue a vote on the inflated spending levels. each senator will, therefore, have to examine their own conscience and their duty to their constituents, to the nation, to the financial future of our country. plainly, this action violates

the spirit and the terms of the ten-year budget control act plan that was agreed to just last august. just 11 months ago. at that time congress declared that we would exercise some spending restraint. $2.1 trillion in reduced spending is really reducing the growth of spending and does not eliminate all growth in spending. we would go from something like $37 trillion being spent over ten years to $35 trillion. not going to break america, but to hear the wails that come about, you would think it would. so the test will be in this first year, since the passage of the debt deal, will we adhere to

its modest restrictions? or will we blink? we have members of congress -- and i raised this issue over the years -- that seem to take it as a personal challenge to see how they can spend more money than they're allocated. it happens every year. this is how a country goes broke. the consequences of the annual manipulations and gimmicks cumulatively have great impact over time. these are not small matters. think about it. this is a chart i put together. okay, so this year we are adding $14 billion more than agreed to to the baseline spending in our country. and this gimmick adds $14 billion to that baseline next

year. and so you think, well, it's only $14 billion, jeff. calm down. well, first, alabama's general fund budget not including education is less than $2 billion. $14 billion is a lot of money. we're an average size state. but this is how you need to think about these manipulations because it's very significant as time goes by. if you violate in 2013 -- next year -- the baseline by $14 billion, that goes into the spending level for the next year. and then if next year you violate it again, it's not just $14 billion next year. you're building $14 billion on top of the $14 billion gimmicked into the spending level this year. it's $28 billion next year added to the $14 billion we ripped the

taxpayers off the previous year, it's $42 billion. you see how that goes up? each year is adding to it. and we've been doing this kind of thing consistently. and if you just gimmick the budget $14 billion a year, that's hard to believe. but if you gimmick the budget $14 billion a year -- and i remember doing a chart like this about ten years ago, and we gimmicked the budget $18 billion that year, and there are probably other gimmicks that we're not referring to. this one gimmick, this one $14 billion gimmick, puts us on a track to add $770 billion to the debt of the united states over ten years. we have got to adhere to the agreements we make. if we don't stand with those agreements, then we make a mockery of law, we make a mockery of the senate, we undermine the respect and trust the american people have in us. so you run up $770 billion

more, you pay interest on that, estimated $112 billion, that $14 billion gimmicked up spending adds $900 billion to the debt. and remember, we are in debt today. so any dollar, every dollar we spend more than what we agreed to is borrowed, 100 cents. all of it's borrowed. any more spending we do is all borrowed because we're in debt now. it's pushing 40% of the money we spend is borrowed. we spend about 3 thoin $70 billion and we borrow the rest. it's unsustainable. so meanwhile the president

continues his call for higher taxes, saying that taxing more will reduce the deficit. but his plan is for the new taxes that he's proposed to fund more spending, more gimmicks, and more fraud and waste in government. i know you think that's not so. surely that's not so. that's not what the president is proposing. but unlike the democratic senate, the president did comply with the law and submit a budget as every president has done since the budget act passed in january. he submitted a budget. what did his budget call for? it called for new taxes, all right. it called for $1.8 trillion in new taxes over ten years. but it also increased spending by $1.6 trillion. you see what's happening there,

colleagues? the president's proposal is to spend $1.6 trillion in new spending above the budget control act level we agreed to in august. he proposes to wipe out the cuts, he proposes to spend $1.6 trillion more than we agreed to in august, and he pays for it with $1.8 trillion in new taxes. he didn't use his new taxes to pay down the debt. he used the new taxes to fund more government, more spending. that is not what we need to be doing at this point in history. we should have stayed here last night talking about the debt threat to america and not some controversial issue on campaign financing. and for three years, three consecutive years, this senate democratic majority has refused to bring forth a budget plan as

required by common sense and law. they refuse even to write a budget and bring it to the floor for consideration. they have no financial plan for the future of america. senator reid, what's your plan? he blocked senator conrad, who was willing and prepared to lay out a budget plan for the democrats. he called on him not to do so. and for three years they've not had a budget. we didn't even bring one up this year. they treat any effort to rein in waste and abuse as evidence of hait retd -- hatred for people no need. we want to help people in need but anybody who thinks these programs like some of the stuff coming out on flamps knows there

is waste, fraud, and abuse and we can clean them up and save money and not hurt people truly in need. from the i.r.s. checks sent to illegal aliens at -- that the inspector general of the u.s. treasury department said has to end, lavish g.s.a. parties in las vegas, reckless abuse of the food stamp program and now this surren tishous $14 billion debt increase, there is no financial accountability in washington. i'll be working to erase this $14 billion spending increase. it's important. i urge my colleagues to join me so that our actions will be consistent with our promises to the american people made just last august. otherwise, we are breaching this agreement the first year. so it's always a gimmick and danger, you know, to spend today and promise to pay for it in the future. spend more today than the

agreement called for, but we're going to pay for it in the future. the first year in our agreement, it's being breached. the best avenue maybe to raise a point of order and we'll look at that and see how to bring this matter before the senate. i'll be looking for that opportunity, but i really truly believe it's a defining moment for us. if we can't adhere one full year to the agreement we reached last august, that we told the american people we would abide by, then i think the distrust and lack of confidence already felt in congress by the american people will continue to further erode. i would thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: the question remains should taxpayers are forced to

send money overseas to countries that disrespect us or more precisely should we borrow money from china to send it to countries who disrespect us? should we borrow money from china to send to pakistan? should we borrow money to send to the muslim brotherhood in egypt? should we send good money after bad? for a decade we searched for bin laden. we spent hundreds of billions of dollars searching for him. where did we find him? not in the remote mountains. we found him living comfortably in the city in pakistan. we found him living in the middle of this city not far from a military academy. we were helped in this search by a doctor, a brave doctor in pakistan by the name of dr. shakil afridi helped us to find bin laden, helped us with ultimately getting bin laden. how was he rewarded for this heroism? where is dr. shakil afridi now?

he's been imprisoned by the pakistani government for 33 years. so for ten years we searched for bin laden high and low throughout afghanistan, throughout the world, throughout the mountains. we found him living comfortably in a city only miles from a military academy, and then the doctor who helped us, pakistan has now imprisoned this doctor for 33 years. so how did the president respond to this? how did president obama's administration respond to the imprisoning of this doctor, the doctor who helped us get bin laden? president obama sent him another -- them another billion dollars last week. we already send pakistan $2 billion and they disrespect us, so what did we do? we send them another billion dollars. people around this town are bemoaning there's not enough money for our military yet we took a billion dollars out of the defense department and -- an extra billion and sent it to

pakistan last week. where is dr. afridi? in jail for 33 years. i've obtained the signatures necessary to have a vote on this. the leadership doesn't want to allow a vote on this, but i will one way or another get a vote on ending aid to pakistan if they continue to imprison this doctor. he has an appeal that will be heard this thursday. if he's not successful in his appeal, if he is still in prison for life, we will have a vote in the senate on ending all aid to pakistan. not a small portion of their aid. every penny of their aid, including the billion they got last week. we will attempt to stop all aid to pakistan, and i ask any of the senators here, step forward if you think it's a good idea and tell the american people why you're sending their money to pakistan. we've got bridges crumbling. we've got roads crumbling. we'll have school crumbling in our country and we're sending money to pakistan that

disrespects us. we spent billions if not maybe trillions of dollars on the war in pakistan and afghanistan trying to get bin laden. and then the doctor who helps us is now in jail for 33 years. everywhere i go across this country, in our state in kentucky we have two bridges that need to be replaced. we have one that was closed down for six months last year in repairs, in the middle of one of our major cities. we don't have the money to repair our infrastructure. we're a trillion dollars short of money, period. we're borrowing over a trillion dollars a year. we now have a $16 trillion debt that equals our entire economy, and yet they're still sending your money to dictators overseas who disrespect us. 80% of the public thinks that this should come to an end. if you ask this question, should we be sending this money overseas when we have difficulty and needs and wants at home?

80% of the public will say it should end and yet when you force this body to vote, 80% of your representatives are for sending more aid overseas. they're all clamoring and clapping their hands. last week when president obama said he sent them another billion dollars overseas, they all stand up and clap. i don't think the american taxpayer is clapping. i don't think the american taxpayer is happy we're a trillion dollars in the hole and still sending money overseas to countries that disrespect us. what i say to pakistan is if you want to be our ally, act like it. if you want to be our ally, respect us. if you want to be our ally, work with us on the war on terrorism. but if you want to be our ally, don't hold dr. afridi, don't hold political prisoners, don't hold people who actually are working with us to get bin laden. i will do everything within my power to have this vote.

they don't want to have this vote. they make foreign aid up here. they love sending your money overseas but they don't want to vote on it so they've been blocking this vote and they will attempt to block this vote but i have the signatures necessary and you will see me on the floor next week if dr. afridi is still in jail next week, i will make them vote on this because it's the least you deserve, the taxpayers deserve to know why are your senators voting to send your money overseas when we're a trillion dollars in the hole. why are your senators voting to send billions of dollars to pakistan when they imprison the guy who helped us get bin laden. this is unconscionable. it has to stop. the debt is a threat to our country, it's a threat to the republic. and i will do everything i can to force a vote on this then the american people can decide, if you want to keep sending these people back to washington who are sending your money overseas to people who have no respect for us.

so i will do everything in my power to have to this vote and we will record the senate, your representatives will be recorded on whether or not they want to continue to send your money to pakistan while pakistan imprisons this doctor who tend us get bin laden. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the remainder of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders.

i would ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, for several weeks now i've spoken here on the senate floor urging my colleagues of both parties to extend the wind production tax credit or as it's known, the p.t.c. and the presiding officer has had the opportunity to listen to me on a number of occasions. i thank you for your attention and interest and support. i'm here again this morning to continue my work because i don't want to lose one more american job because of our failure, congress' failure, to act. i want to assure as i know the presiding officer does, that we, the united states, remains competitive in the global clean energy economy. today, i want to talk specifically about the p.t.c.'s impact on the state of utah, one of america's fastest growing wind energy plowers. like other western states,

including my home state of colorado, utah's geography and climate makes it's an ideal location for wind production. it's estimated that a -- if fully utilized utah's indian resources could provide up to 1 % of the state's -- 132% of the state's current electricity needs. think about that. the entire state's electricity needs to be met by wind power alone. if you look at the map of utah that is displayed here, mr. president, you'll see that the largest wind projects are located in beaver and mill ford counties. they are in western utah. in those two counties the first wind corporation instructed the -- constructed the milford project. this project avoids 52,000 tons of co2 emissions and provides good-paying jobs to hundreds of hardworking utahans.

beyond the obvious and enormously positive effect the milford wind project has had on job creation and utah's environment, it's also been an economic boom to the surrounding rural communities. beaver county's tax base has increased so much that it allowed for a new elementary school to be built without any tax increases to local residents. and in effect, mr. president, those tax receipts replaced a school that had really fallen into disrepair. this project has brought more than $50 million in economic benefits to utah as a whole, created over 300 on-site jobs during construction and engaged more than 60 local utah businesses throughout construction and development. that is a win-win, win-win-win situation, no matter how you calculate. mr. president, only if we extend the wind p.t.c. will we continue to see the investment, the job creation and the economic growth

like utah's seen in recent years. so now is the time for us to act to preserve and create thousands of jobs and to usher in a clean energy future for the american people. without our support, the growth of the wind energy industry will slow and in fact wind energy producers likely will shed jobs and halt projects. an art kel published this week -- an art -- article published in the "wall street journal" suggests if congress does not vote to extend the p.t.c., my own state stands to lose hundreds, possibly those of jobs. that is just one state. nationally the numbers are much higher with estimates suggesting we could lose as many as 30,000 jobs. the p.t.c. is a perfect example of how congress can play a positive, productive role in

encouraging economic growth and supporting american manufacturing. the american people expect us to do everything we can to create jobs and economic growth. they expect us to work across the political aisle and produce results. they deserve results, and we should not disappoint them by succombing to election year gridlock. we have a solid base of bipartisan support for wind energy and for the passage of the wind p.t.c. that's why i've been urging my colleagues to work with me to pass it as soon as possible. from colorado and utah and to rhode island and beyond, the p.t.c. has helped american families and businesses prosper in a time when other industries have faltered. the wind industry has been one of the few industries to have real growth in recent years, and it has so much more potential. americans have said again and again that they want congress to extend the wind p.t.c. let's not let them down.

our economy and our future depend on it. let's pass the p.t.c. as soon as possible. it equals jobs. mr. president, i'll be back on the floor tomorrow to keep fighting for this commonsense policy. coloradoans expect no less. let's pass the production tax credit as soon as possible and protect american jobs. mr. president, if i might, i'd like to turn to another topic that's on everybody's minds, and that's the efforts here in the united states senate to reform the way in which our campaigns are financed and the way in which that information is shared with the public. many of my colleagues took to the floor last night to discuss the importance of the disclose act and to draw attention to the enormous volume of undisclosed

money that's now flowing into this campaign season and to those campaigns. the democracy is strengthened by casting light on spending in elections act or as it's known in its shorter form, the disclose act, is an important step forward. it was conceived as a response to the u.s. supreme court's 2010 citizens united decision. many of us have watched with deep concern as the consequences of that decision play out this election season. unlimited and often secret contributions to organizations known as super pacs are pouring into our election system and literally drowning out the voices of ordinary americans who don't happen to be millionaires or billionaires. and instead of a system where candidates exchange ideas and share their vision for a more prosperous country, the citizens united decision has unleashed a relentless array of attack ads and the american people have no

idea where they're coming from or who is footing the bill. and this sort of unlimited and secret influx of cash is raising the specter of corruption in our elections. and, frankly, mr. president, i'm worried that we're entering into an era of politics that we haven't seen since the watergate scandal some 40 years ago. there is hope, however, because despite what i thought was a misguided decision tied to citizens united, the supreme court did uphold congress's power to require transparency when it comes to those unlimited campaign dollars. and so the disclose act was formed. and let me share with viewers what the disclose act would do. it would require that super pacs, corporations, labor unions and other independent groups file a public disclosure with the federal election commission for any campaign-related

disbursement of over $10,000 or more within 24 hours of the expenditure. this basic requirement is designed to bring the exchange of the secret campaign dollars out of the shadows, so coloradoans and all the american people know who is trying to influence our elections. that's it. it's simple and it makes sense. we are only asking that political spending and funding be disclosed and held to the same standard as traditional political action committees and candidate expenditures. this sensible requirement will not create burdensome regulations or be in conflict with any of the holdings of the supreme court. it's the kind of commonsense transparency that coloradoans are calling for. it might sound cliche, but sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. in fact, i heard the leader of our caucus, senator reid, mention that the republican leader, senator mcconnell, had

used that same concept. sunlight is truly the best disinfectant. and we literally stop on the basic principles of democracy when we allow tens of millions of dollars to be secretly spent on our elections. and i want to emphasize that this should not be a partisan issue. despite last night's vote, you would think we could all surely agree on transparency. for example, our colleague, senator mccain, has lamented that without reform and transparency, the citizens united decision could lead to a major campaign finance scandal. and of course that's not healthy for our democracy. the supreme court affirmed congress's authority to require disclosure, so let's do our job to protect democracy and bring sunlight to our elections. let's bring the disclose act forward and pass it right away.

i also know, mr. president, many americans would like to see us overturn the effects of citizens united altogether, and there are efforts to do exactly that. for example, senator tom udall of new mexico introduced a constitutional amendment that would give congress the power to regulate political spending. i support that effort. i also support an effort to change the way in which we fund presidential elections. and i've introduced legislation, the presidential funding act, that will reform the currently outdated public finance system. it's a bill that's aimed at preserving the voices of average americans. in 1974 the presidential public campaign system was developed in an effort to restore public faith in elected officials after the watergate scandal and it's been used in nearly every presidential election since.

by establishing public financing, we allow candidates to compete based on their ideas instead of competing on who has the most support from special interests and deep-pocketed donors. in fact, my father, congressman morris udall, who served in the house representing the second district in arizona for some 30 years, was actually one of the first to use the public financing system which he helped craft two years prior when he ran for the democratic nomination in 1976. my father was a big believer in running for office on behalf of his constituents instead of on behalf of big money. and i believe strongly that that ethos ought to apply to today's represented constituents more than ever. the funding campaign system has enriched the political discourse of the country by ensuring that the american people have more

sway than connected insiders, special interests or wealthy donors. unfortunately, the current system's ability to keep up with the enormous spending required in presidential campaigns has rendered it less effective. and thanks to citizens united, public financing is no longer a viable option to compete against unlimited special interest dollars. my legislation would strengthen the public financing system, incentivize candidates to obtain support from actual citizens, not special interest super pacs or secret financiers. it would ensure that our proven public financing system would be available for future elections and that corporate and special interest money don't drown out genuine ideas and debates in our presidential elections. so for those of us who are committed to fixing our campaign finance system in the wake of citizens united, there is a lot

of challenging work ahead. but i know that coloradoans agree with me that reform could be the single-most important issue to fix the way our democracy functions. as i've suggested and as we know, mr. president, unfortunately, federal elections are increasingly about who can secretly appeal more to wealthy and special interests instead of working to improve the lives of average and hardworking americans. this sows corruption, dysfunction and a government that is less responsive to the needs of the people. today we have an opportunity to start with a sensible requirement that we should all be able to agree on. disclosure is nothing to be afraid of, so i urge my colleagues to reconsider their vote and to allow the senate to at least debate the disclose act. we cannot afford to let another filibuster stand in the way of fair and open campaigns.

let's pass the disclose act and take a big step towards turning the power of our government back over to the american people. mr. president, thank you for your attention. i yield the floor. i note that the leader of this important effort, the disclose act, senator whitehouse of rhode island, is on the floor. i want to thank him for his leadership and for his commitment to ensuring that it's the american people that determine our future, not special interests, super pacs and millionaires and billionaires and financiers who leave no track, no trace of where their money is going or where it's come from. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the distinguished senator from colorado for his impassioned and eloquent support of this. i think we both recognize that through the course of our

country's history men and women have shed their blood, have laid down their lives in order to protect this experiment in liberty that is the ongoing gift of our country to the rest of the world. and when we take that experiment in liberty and turn it over to the special interests, it is a grave occasion. i see the majority leader is on the floor. if i could take one moment as he comes to the podium to ask unanimous consent that for the duration of today's session, alex link, rob femegliti and samantha freeman who are on my committee staff be granted floor privileges. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the committee on indian affairs be discharged from further considers of h.r. 205 and we now proceed to consideration of that measure. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 205, an act to amend the act titled, an act to authorize leasing of restricted

indian lands for public, religious, educational, residential, business and other purposes, requiring the grant of long-term leases, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i believe that chairman leahy will shortly be joining us to discuss the disclose act. in the time that we have before his arrival, i wanted to ask unanimous consent that an op-ed piece that was authored by former senator warren rudman and

former senator chuck hagel, two former senators, two republican former senators who really distinguished themselves in this body, and have gotten together to write an article about the disclose act. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the op-ed piece that they have written be made a matter of record in this debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: what i'd like to do is actually share some of the thoughts from it. here's what senator rudman and senator hagel, two republican senators, say. since the beginning of the election cycle, extremely wealthy individuals, corporations and trade unions, all of them determined to influence who is in the white house next year, have spent more than $160 million excluding party expenditures. that's an incredible amount of money.

to put it in perspective, at this point in 2008, about $36 million had been spent on independent expenditures, independent meaning independent of a candidate's campaign. in all of 2006, in fact, only $160 million was spent this way. in other words, we've already surpassed 2000, and it's july. in the near term there's nothing we can do to reverse this dramatic increase in independent expenditures. yet what really alarms us, these two distinguished former republican senators wrote, about the situation is that we can't find out who is behind these blaintd 25e6r789s to control -- blatant attempts to control the outcome of our elections. we are inundated with extraordinarily negative advertising on television every

evening and have no way to know who's paying for it and what their agenda might be. in fact, it's conceivable that we have created such a glaring loophole in our election process that foreign interests could directly influence the outcome of our elections. and we might not even know it had happened until after the election, if at all. this is because unions, corporations, super pac's and other organizations are able to make unlimited independent expenditures on our elections without readily and openly disclosing where the money they are spending is coming from. as a result, we are unable to get the information we need to decide who should represent us and take on our country's challenges.

unlike the unlimited amount of campaign spending, this lack of transparency in campaign spending is something we can fix, and fix right now without opening the door to more scrutiny by the supreme court. a bill being debated this week in the senate called the disclose act of 2012, is a well-researched, well-conceived solution to this insufferable situation. unfortunately, on monday the senate voted, mostly along party lines, to block the bill from going forward. but the disclose act is not dead. as of now, it is nine short of the 60 votes it needs. they then describe the bill and continue here, we believe that

every senator should embrace the disclose act of 2012. this legislation treats trade unions and corporations equally, and gives neither party an advantage. it is good for republicans and it is good for democrats. most important, it is good for the american people. what's more, every senator considering reelection faces the possibility of being blindsided by a well-funded anonymous campaign challenging his or her record, integrity, or both. the act under consideration would prevent this from happening to anyone running for congress. without the transparency offered by the disclose act of 2012, we fear long-term consequences that will hurt our democracy

profoundly. we're already seeing too many of our former colleagues leaving public office because the partisanship has become stifling and toxic. if campaigning for office continues to be so heavily affected by anonymous, out-of-district influences, running negative advertising, we fear even more incumbents will decline to run, and many of our most capable potential leaders will shy away from elective office. no thinking person can deny -- no thinking person can deny, they say -- that the current situation is unacceptable and intolerable -- intolerable. we urge all senators to engage in a bipartisan effort to enact

this critically needed legislation. the disclose act of 2012 is a prudent and important first step in restoring some sanity -- some sanity santd -- to our democratic process. and then the article closes by identifying the authors, former senator warren rudman, republican of new hampshire, is a chairman of americans for campaign reform. former senator chuck hagel, republican of nebraska, introduced disclosure legislation in 2001. let me add while we await my colleagues who are scheduled to come to the floor, let me add that it is not unique or unusual that senators rudman and hagel, former republican senators, should be supportive of the

disclose act and of disclosure of who is making these massive, now secret contributions to buy influence in our elections. first of all, it's not surprising because it's so darned obvious. it should be obvious to any thinking person, as senators rudman and hagel said, that when somebody is spending the kind of money that is being spent, a single donor making, for instance, a $4 million anonymous contribution, they're not doing that out of the goodness of their heart. they're not doing that just for the sheer fun of it. they're doing that because they have a motive. you don't spend $4 million in politics if you don't have a motive. if you think otherwise, you really need to wake up and have a cup of coffee. and if you add to that the

insistence on the funding being secret, there's only one reasonable conclusion that a thinking person can draw about why somebody who is spending that kind of money with a motive would want their spending and their identity to be secret, and that's because the motive is a crummy motive. it is a lousy motive for the american people. if the american people were excited about the motive, they wouldn't want to keep it secret. it's only because they want to do bad deeds in the dark. so i will go through when time permits again some of the republican senators who have spoken out in favor of disclose and transparency in the past. we all know from the debate last night that the minority minoritr has -- i will yield to the chairman as soon as he's prepared here -- but senator alexander has been on record, senator chambliss, senator sessions, senator cornyn,

senator collins, senator brown of massachusetts, senator coburn and most -- prominently and over a long period of time and with great distinction, senator john mccain. i yield to my distinguished chairman and friend, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and giving his voice to this debate. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i appreciate what the senator from rhode island has done. he has been a champion on this not only in the public forum like the floor of the senate but he's been a champion of it in the -- in the cloakrooms and the committee rooms, everywhere we might speak about it and he's been most consistent. and the people of rhode island are very fortunate in having

somebody with such a strong voice. for the last two and a half years, the american people have seen the devastating effects of the citizens united decision. that decision by five supreme court justices overturned a century of laws, a century of laws that have been supported by republicans and democrats alike because they were designed to protect our elections from corporate spending. and what these five men did, they unleashed a massive flood of corporate money into our elections. now, many of us in the congress may -- many of us around the country at the time of the citizens united decision, worried it turns on its head the idea of government of and by the

people. we worried the decision created new rights for wall street at the expense of people in main street. we worried that powerful corporate megaphones could drown out the voices and interests of individual americans. i wish i didn't have to say this but two and a half years later, it's clear these worries were supremely valid and the damage is devastatingly real. since the citizens united decision struck down longstanding pro pro -- prohibitions, hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed and unaccountable sources have flooded the airwaves with a barrage of negative advertisements. nobody who watched our elections or even tried to watch television since the citizens united decision can deny the enormous impact that decision has had on our political process. everywhere i go in vermont people say, well, who's behind

these ads? they say who's behind these ads? i say i don't know. they say, well, you're a united states senator. you money you don't know? i say no, because the supreme court has allowed people to hide who's paying for them, even though they're doing it to advance their economic interests, often to the exclusion of everybody else's. even though they're wanting to give themselves an advantage that all the rest of the people won't have. and nobody who is strained to hear the voices of voters lost among the flood of super pac's can deny that extending the first amendment rights to corporations, the supreme court put at risk the rights of individual americans to speak to each other and crucially, to be heard. just last month, without a

hearing, without even allowing americans' voices to be heard, the same five justices who in citizens united ran roughshod over long-standing precedent to strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws doubled down on citizens united when they sum lairlly struck down -- struck down -- sum mayorly struck down a montana state law, a state law enacted by the people of montana because they had seen the pervasive and sometimes evil effect of these corporate contributions. in doing so they broke down the last public safeguards preventing corporate megaphones from drowning out the voices of hard-working americans. make no doubt about it, in my

state of vermont we have -- we have -- we have a town meeting day. people come in, they can express any view they want but you know who is expressing it. you know whether it's john jones or mary smith. you know if it's the head of the local company or somebody speaking for a workers' union. you know who's speaking, and you know that you have just as much right and ability to answer as they did in speaking. now we're saying no, no. unless you are a wealthy corporation willing to hide who's speaking, you're not going to be heard. the supreme court decision not only goes against long-standing laws and legal precedents but also common sense. contrary to what at least one candidate has said, corporations are not people. corporations are not the same as

individual americans. corporations don't have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. corporations cannot vote in our democracy. we can elect general eisenhower as president, but general electric or general motors can't serve as president. but if you go to the logic of these supreme court decisions, it virtually says let's elect general electric or general motors as president. nor is the fact these are artificial legal constructs meant to facilitate business. the founders understood this. the founders knew we were not going to allow corporations either to vote or to take over our electoral process. vermonters and americans across this great country have long understood this apparently by

members of the -- five members of the supreme court, just five people, did not understand this. like most vermonters, republicans and democrats alike, i strongly believe that something must be done to address the divisive and corrosive decision of the supreme court in citizens united. that decision was wrong. the damage must be repaired. the harmful ways of skewing the democratic process must be fixed. that's why i held the first congressional hearing of that terrible decision in the weeks after it was issued. that's why we scheduled a hearing next week of the senate judiciary committee constitution subcommittee, led by the distinguished senator from illinois, senator durbin, to look at proposals for constitutional amendments to address citizens united. but today, without waiting for the years and years and years a constitutional amendment might take, the senate can take action

by passing the disclose act, we can restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws, by assuring that all americans know who's paying for campaign ads. it's a crucial step towards restoring the ability of vermonters and all americans, voters to be able to speak, to be heard and to hear competing voices and not be drowned out by powerful corporate interests. any of us who are in an election, we expect our opponent to be able to speak out, and the public expects it. they want to hear from both of us. and they should. that's why we have debates. that's why we have candidates forums. but it all becomes irrelevant if you have a huge megaphone paid for by anonymous donors, anonymous corporations. when i cosponsored the first disclose act after the supreme

court's decision in 2010, i hoped republicans would join with democrats to mitigate the citizens united decision. from the depths of the watergate scandal forward until only recently, the principal disclosure was a bipartisan guide, a clear-cut reform like the disclose act would have easily drawn bipartisan support in those days after watergate. i hoped the senate republicans, like my friend from arizona, senator john mccain, who once championed the bipartisan feingold-mccain finance law would join with us to make sure corporations tkphot abuse their -- not abuse their newfound constitutional rights. regrettably, every single republican joined to successfully filibuster the disclose act in 2010. and despite a majority in the house and a majority in the

senate and the american people voting and being in favor of passing the disclosure law, it fell one vote short of breaking the republican filibuster in the senate. one vote, and not a single republican would stand up and help us restore some of the core disclosure aspects of mccain-feingold. senate republicans are continuing to filibuster this commonsense legislation. and by filibustering it, they deny the american people an open public and meaningful debate on the importance of transparency and accountability in our elections. last night they again filibustered the bill, even though a majority in this senate voted in favor of it. in fact, they refused to even proceed to debate on the bill in the senate. beyond record voting yes or no,

they said we vote maybe. if we filibuster the proceeding, we vote maybe. what a profile in courage, to stand up and vote "maybe." vote "yes" to limit the power of corporations or vote "no" to allow the power of corporations. i know which vote i would cast. but stand up and vote one way or the other. have the courage to say either i want the american people's voice to be heard or i want a small number of corporations to be heard. don't hide behind a "maybe," a "maybe" vote. that's not what the united states senate stands for. that is not a profile in courage. and by doing that "maybe" which is what they do when they say we can't proceed to this bill, they ensure the ability of wealthy

corporations to dominate all immediate he -- all mediums of advertising to drown out the voice of individuals as we see and will continue to see in our elections. despite the clear impact of ways of unaccountable corporate spending that led senator mccain to know concede that super pacs are disgraceful, a minority in the senate consisting exclusively of republicans continue to block passage of this important law. why are they against this bill? why when so many in the republican party taoufd champion disclosure laws. why do they continue to prevent us from having a debate? why when the supreme court made clear even with the citizens united decision the disclosure laws are constitutional. it is the senate republican leadership's insistence on this

reform. what happened to americans who say our elections should be open? what happened to those americans who said we ought to know who's involved in these elections? mr. president, there should be only one thing secret in our elections. your secret vote, your right to vote in secret. one-person, one-vote. but nothing should say there should be a powerful hidden secret hand overwhelming the voters of america and telling them how they should vote. we know disclosure laws can work because they do work. individuals americans donating directly to political campaigns. mr. president, when you and i give money directly to a political candidate, our donation is not hidden. it's publicly disclosed and that candidate, people can look at who's supported him or her. and that goes into their

thoughts when they vote for him. yet the disclose act preserves rights for corporations and wealthy donors, rights, mr. president, you and i do not have. we've seen since citizens united that the lines the supreme court imagined existed between individual campaigns and the super pacs is an all but meaningless one as super pacs have poured more and more money into influencing election campaigns. in reality, super pacs have simply become a way to funnel secret, massive funds nondisclosed donations to political campaigns. citizens united decision allowed corporations and large donors to avoid disclosure laws that apply to you and me by giving money to groups that fund super pacs as a way of laundering money and keeping secret the real funders of these campaign ads.

the average vermonter wants to contribute to my campaign or my opponent's campaign, that's going to be public. people are going to know and they'll make their decision, part of their decision would be based on who supports us. but when you have a secret, a secret, wealthy entity supporting you, nobody knows who it is and none of these entities use their real name. they are always for good government, for clean air, for motherhood and apple pie, for the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. there's no reason those funding these super pacs should not be bound with the same disclosure rule for giving directly to campaigns. public disclosure donation to candidates has never chilled campaign funding, never prevented millions of americans from participating openly.

i follow the rule that releasing every single donor to my campaign -- i think we had one of 85 one kept disclosed. but we have seen some on the other side of this debate disgracefully compare the attempt we're making to make sure the same disclosure laws that apply to you and me apply to same laws that kept african-americans from having the right to vote in the 1950's and 1960's. we all remember the bridge in selma and the blood spilled in the long effort for voting rights that led to the voting rights act. at a time when we're seeing renewed effort to deny americans their right to vote with laws that serve as modern-day poll taxes. in comparison, to bring sunlight

to those evil days is shameful and wrong. our ballots should be secret but not massive corporate campaign contributions. i can tell you what i'm fighting for. too many vermonters and other americans still looking for work. we need to continually look for ways to spur job growth and economic investment in this country. we have to continue our effort to increase jobs and reduce unemployment, support hardworking american families struggling to keep food on the table and roofs over their heads. we have to protect americans' access to clean air and clean water. we have to fight for their economic security. so we'll keep on fighting for those things. i want to put my full statement

in the record and ask that it be considered that way. i yield to senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: i thank chairman leahy. i'd like to ask unanimous consent in terms of scheduling the floor time, that senator manchin of west virginia be recognized now for up to five minutes. and i will take his place in the chair. and that senator mccain, if he is on the floor, be recognized at the conclusion of senator manchin's five-minute period. and if senator mccain is not present on the floor that i be recognized in his stead. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: senator manchin. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today to address the disturbing role that monies play in our politics, especially when it comes to anonymous groups with deep pockets that are trying to tear people down.

there's no question this is a corrosive situation, and it is hurting our democracy. when you have an unaccountable outside groups with virtually unlimited pockets, more and more lawmakers, all of us included, have to spend more time dialing for dollars that take us away from legislating. that's simply backwards, sir. elected officials should be working on fixing our problems, not having to worry every day on raising money so he can be protected or fend off people who are attacking you. the effects are very clear. this congress has stalled when it comes to tackling our biggest problems as a nation. but we're raising more money in politics than ever before. those priorities in my state of west virginia are totally out of order and we need to do something to change the system. i'm not alone with this concern. in private, i've talked to my fellow senators on both sides,

democrats and republicans, that basically said they're spending more money, more time raising money for reelection and that constant fund-raising events internear with the everyday business of our great nation and the time they're spending to do that. mr. president, i try to spend time in my great state of west virginia every weekend and i can tell you the people of west virginia are also deeply troubled by the increasing role that money is playing in our politics. ever since the supreme court's decision on the citizens united campaign finance case we have seen outside groups unleash an unprecedented flood of money to sway elections. weaver seen it time and again in west virginia over the past couple years. i was deeply troubled by how few americans are involved in financing elections. this is cited by professor lawrence lussick, a campaign finance expert in the atlantic.

let me put this in perspective for our viewers and our colleagues. the population of this country is approximately 311 million people. 311 million of us live in this great united states of america. a tiny number of those americans, 806,000, only 806,000 of the 311 million give more than $200 to a congressional campaign. $200 to a congressional campaign. to break that down even further, only 155,000 out of 311 million contribute the maximum amount to any congressional candidate. then you look at the people who participate in a number of elections that give more than $10,000 an election cycle. the maximum that they can give to a candidate and give to other candidates. so those people in the united states of america, out of 311 million, only 31,000 americans

do that. only 31,000. now let me break it down to even the super pac. the money that comes from the super pac's. just in this presidential election, mr. president, just in this presidential election so far, there are only 196 millions out of 311 million, only 196 people that give hundreds of millions of dollars. they account for 80% of the funding so far. 80%, which is unheard of. first of all, let me thank senator whitehouse of rhode island. he has been truly a champion of common sense, of bringing this together and bringing all sides together. now, some of my friends would say that spending money to influence an election is their first amendment right of freedom of speech. to my friends i understand and respect your concerns. but i truly believe that the

disclose act won't limit your freedom of speech. instead, it will prevent the anonymous political campaigning that is undermining our democracy. the people of west virginia believe that we need openness and transparency to stay informed, and keep our democracy strong. and the disclose act would do just that. the people of this country have a right to know who is spending large amounts of money to influence elections. the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. manchin: this would make the information available. i ask unanimous consent for two more minutes, sir. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: in fact the measure is quite simple. any time an organization or individual spends $10,000 or more on a campaign-related expense, and that is the thing that is important, campaign-related expense. they have to file a disclosure report with the federal elections commission within 4 hours. every one of us that run for office have to disclose every penny that we get and that it should be that way. some states like our sister state of virginia already have a

transparency and disclosure law and it is not -- it has not stifled their free speech there. nor does this provision affect organizations' regular praigdz. the disclosure is only required when organizations and individuals spend money on campaigns or try to influence elections. instead, this bill makes sure that every person and organization plays fairly by the same rules. whether those organizations and individuals are in the middle, the left, the right, forward, backward, or upside down, they all have to play by the same rules. in fact, i truly believe that this provision will take an important step towards -- forward to increase transparency and accountability. seems only right and fair to me, and i am proud to cast my vote in favor of the disclose act. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: here we are with

41 months of over 8% unemployment in america, the national defense authorization bill languishing in the shadows while we continue to have this debate, and obviously there's no doubt in most people's minds that with the full knowledge of the sponsors of this legislation that it will not pass, it is obviously for certain political purposes. i oppose cloture on the motion. my reasons for opposing this motion are simple. even though the subject of campaign finance reform is not. in its current form, the disclose act is closer to a clever aattempt at political gamesmanship than actual reform. by conveniently setting my thresholds for reporting requirements, the disclose act forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support while

allowing -- allowing others, notably affiliated with organized labor to fly below the regulatory radar. as my colleagues i am sure i have a long history of fighting for campaign finance reform and to break the influence of money in american politics and regardless of what the united states supreme court may do or say, i continue to be proud of my record because i believe the cause to improve our democracy and further empower the citizens of our country was and continues to be worth fighting for. but let's be clear. reforms we have successfully enacted over the years have not cured all of the public cynicism about the state of politics in our country. no legislative measure or supreme court decision will completely free politics from influence peddling or the peerns of it. but i do believe that fair and just reforms will move many americans who have grown more

and more disaffected from the practices and institutions of our democracy to begin to get a clear understanding of whether their elected representatives value their commitment to our constitution more than their own incumbency. for far too long money and politics have been deeply intertwined. anyone who has ever run for a federal office will assure you of the fact. candidates come to washington not seeking wisdom or ideas, but because they need help raising money. the same candidates will most likely tell you that they are asked one question when they announce they're going to seek office. unfortunately, it's not how do you feel about taxes or what's your opinion of the role of government. no, the question they are asked is how are you going to raise the money? couple this sad reality with the dawn of the super pac spending from corporate treasuries and record spending by big labor, and one can easily see that a major scandal is not far off.

and there will be a scandal, mark my words, there will be one. the american people know it and i know it. reform is necessary, but it must be fair and just, and this legislation before us is not. i say that from many years of experience on this issue. a recent "wall street journal" article by tom mcguinne titled "political spending by unions far exceeds direct donations" noted that organized labor spent about four times as much on politics and lobbying as originally thought. $4.4 billion from 2005 to 2011, according to "the wall street journal"'s analysis, unions are spending far more money on a wider range of political activities than what is reported to the federal election

commission. report plainly states, and i quote, this kind of spending which is on the rise, has enabled the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase their clout in washington and state capitals even though unionized workers make up a declining share of the work force. the result is that labor can be a stronger counterweight than commonly realized to super pac's that today raise millions from wealthy donors in many cases to support republican causes and candidates. the hours spent by union employees were equivalent in 2010 to a shadow army much larger than president obama's current reelection staff, data analyzed by the journal show. the report goes on to note, another difference is that companies use their political money differently than unions

do. spending a far larger share of it on lobbying while not undertaking anything equivalent to unions' drives to persuade members to vote as their leadership dictates. corporations and their employees also tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist democrats. in 2008, democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate pac's and company employees while labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations with 92% of it going to democrats. the traditional measure of unions' political spending, reports filed with the f.e.c., undercounts the effort unions pour into politics because the f.e.c. reports are mostly based on donations unions make to individual candidates from their pac's as well as spending on campaign advertisements.

unions spend millions of dollars yearly paying teams of political hands to contact members, educating them about election issues, and trying to make sure they vote for union-endorsed candidates. such activities are central to unions' political power. the proportion of members who vote as the leadership prefers has ranged from 68% to 74% over the past decades said afl-cio ao affiliated units according to statistics from the labor federation. additionally, a february 22, 2012 "washington post" article titled "union spending for obama democrats could top $400 million in 2012 election" ascme reportedly expects to spend $100 million on -- quote --"political action including telephone phone

banks and member action while the iseu expects to spend $85 million in 2012. that analysis combined with the $1.1 billion that the unions reported to the f.e.c. from 2005 through 2011 and the additional $3.3 billion unions reported to the labor department over the same period on political activity. the need for equal treatment of political advocacy under the law becomes readily apparent. i repeat again, the need for equal treatment of political advocacy under the law becomes readily apparent. given the strength and muscle behind all these figures it's easy to understand why disclose may sound nice but unless the treatment is completely fair, taking into account the diverse nature and purpose of different types of organizations, disclosure requirements will likely be used to give one side

a political advantage over another. that's just one of the flaws of the bill before us today. the disclose act would have little impact on unions because of the convenient thresholds for reporting. but would have a huge effect on associations and other advocacy groups. from my own experience, i can state without question that real reform and in particular campaign finance reform will never be attained without equal treatment of both sides. a half dose of campaign finance reform will likely and rightly be 4r5eub8d as political favoritism and undermine future opportunities for true progress. furthermore, these games and measures will only make the american people more cynical and have less faith in what we do. the authors of this bill insist it's fair and not designed to benefit one party over the other. sadly, the stated intent does not comport with the facts.

the disclose act is written to burden labor unions significantly less than the other groups. in the united states, there are roughly 14 million to 16 million union members, each of whom is required to pay dues to his local union chapter. historically, these local union chapters send a portion of their revenues up to their affiliated larger -- quote -- "international labor unions, and while each union member's dues may be modest, the amounts that ultimately flow up to the central political arms are vast. the disclose act protects this flow of money in two distinct ways. one, organizations that engage in political conduct are only required to disclose payments to it that exceed $10,000 in a two-year election cycle, meaning the local union chapter will not be required to disclose the payments of individual union

members to the union, even if those funds will be used for political purposes. what's the final difference between one $10,000 check and a thousand $10 checks other than the impact on trees, very little. so why should one be free from having to disclose its origin in two, the bill exempts from the disclosure requirement transfers from affiliates that do not exceed $50,000 for a two-year election cycle. as a result, unions would not have to disclose the transfers made to it by many of its smaller local chapters. given the contrast between union and corporate structures, this would allow unions to fall beneath the bill's threshold limits. for local union chapters, this anonymity is probably very important because among other

effects, it prevents union's chapter members from learning how much of their dues payments are being used on political activities. while the exemptions outlined in the disclose act may be applied to business organizations and associations, it is apparent to me that the unions' unique pier pyramid staoul structure would allow unions to not be treated equally by the disclose act. unlike unions, most organizations tkphot have thousands of local affiliates where they can pull up to $50,000 in -- quote -- "affiliate transfers." i've been involved in the issue of campaign finance reform for most of my career. i am proud of my record. i am supportive of measures which call for full and complete disclosures of all spending in federal campaigns. i reaffirmed this commitment by

submitting an amicus brief to the united states supreme court regarding campaign finance reform along with the author of the disclose act. this bill falls short. the american people will see it for what it is: political opportunism at its best. political demagoguery at its worst. senator feingold and i set out to eliminate the corrupting influence and how campaigns are paid for. we vowed to be truly bipartisan and do nothing which would give one party a political advantage over the other. and the fact is that this gives one party an advantage over the other. and i say with great respect to the senator from rhode island, the way i began campaign finance reform, i'll tell the senator from rhode island, is i found a person on the other side of the aisle who was willing to work with me, and we worked together to campaign finance reform. the senator from rhode island and the sponsors of this bill have no one on this side of the aisle. so by not having anyone on this

aisle, the senator from rhode island is now embarked on a partisan enterprise. i suggest strongly that the sponsors of the bill, if they are serious about campaign finance reform, about curing the evils that are going on now, they will approach members on this side of the aisle and make sure that our concerns about the role of labor unions and financing of political campaigns are addressed as well. it's too bad. it's too bad that the members on that side of the aisle are now orchestrating a vote which is strictly partisan in nature when they know full well that the only way that truly campaign finance reform will ever be enacted by the congress of the united states is in a bipartisan fashion. this is a partisan bill, and i am disappointed that we are wasting the time of the united states senate on a bill that, on a cause that is of utmost importance, in my view, in a

partisan fashion. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, before i yield the floor to senator sanders, i wanted to take one minute and thank senator mccain for his many, many years of principled advocacy in this area. people have written entire books about the work that he has done. i think it was elizabeth drew who wrote one of the best books about the courage that senator mccain has shown over the years. so i come to this debate with enormous respect for him. i will say that this bill is not bipartisan, but that is not for lack of trying. we have reached out over and over again, and in the face of an absolute stonewall on this subject, have changed the bill ourselves in order to accommodate concerns.

the "stand by your ad" provision was criticized by the republican witness in the rules committee, so we removed it. the n.r.a., the national rifle association, was livid about the $600 threshold because it would require them disclose their members. so we raised it to $10,000. over and over again where there have been substantive objections to the bill, we have met them. and at this point not one republican for all of our contacts across the aisle has expressed anyplace in this bill where an amendment could be made. we've never been given any language. we've never been shown the area that in theory is better for the unions. it is, as senator mccain himself admitted, facially applied to corporations and unions and other organizations alike. and i would refer back to the op-ed in today's new york times

by republican former senators, rudman and hagel agreeing that this is in fact a fair bill. it is balanced among all parties, and all senators should support it. and with that, i will yield the floor to senator sanders with appreciation for him allowing me that moment of his time. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i want to thank senator whitehouse, senator schumer and all those who have been working so hard on this enormously important issue which has everything to do with whether or not our country remains the kind of democracy that most of us want it to be. mr. president, i come to the senate floor today to express my profound disgust with the current state of our campaign finance system and to call for my fellow senators as a

short-term effort to pass the disclose act. passing the disclose act would be an important step forward but clearly we have much more to do on this issue. long-term, of course we need a constitutional amendment to overterm this disastrous supreme court decision, the citizens united 5-4 decision of two years ago. long term, in my view, we also need to move this country toward public funding of elections so that once and for all big money will not dominate our political process. long term, there is no question in my mind that citizens united will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever rendered by a united states supreme court. five members of the court came to the bizarre conclusion that

corporations should be treated as if they were people, that they have a first amendment right to spend as much money as they want to buy candidates, to buy elections, and somehow in the midst of all of this unbelievable amount of spending, millions and millions of dollars, the supreme court came to the conclusion that this would not even give the appearance of corruption. i think that is, frankly, an absurd conclusion. mr. president, let me tell you -- and my take on this may be a little bit different from some of my colleagues -- what concerns me most about the citizens united decision. and that is if we look at citizens united in tandem with other trends in our economy today, what we see is that this nation is rapidly moving from an

economic and political sense to an oligarchic form of society. economically what we see are fewer and fewer people who control our economy. we see a nation which has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, in which the top 1% of our nation owns 40% of the wealth. the bottom 60% own 2% of the wealth. and that gap between the very, very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider and wider. that's wealth in terms of income distribution, the situation is even worse. the last study that we have seen suggests that 93% of all new income between 2009 and 2010 went to the top 1%.

so economically, we are moving toward a nation in which a few people have a significant amount of the wealth of america, significant amount of the income of america in terms of concentration of ownership. we see a situation in which six financial institutions on wall street have assets equivalent to two-thirds of the g.d.p. of the united states of america, over $9 trillion controlled by six financial institutions whose recklessness, whose greed, whose illegal behavior drove us into the recession that we're struggling with right now. so as a nation now, the trends are fewer and fewer people own the wealth of america. fewer and fewer large corporations control the economy of america. but apparently that is not good enough for the 1%, for our

millionaire and billionaire friends. now what they want to do is take that wealth and exercise it even more than has been the case in the past in the political realm, which now takes us to citizens united. now in the real world, we all know what's going on with citizens united. we know that billionaires are saying, look, it's great that i own an oil company, great that i own a coal company, great that i own gambling casinos. but, gee, i could have even more fun by owning the united states government. so you have entities out there who are worth some $50 billion -- the koch brothers come to mind. and if you're worth $50 billion and you have all kinds of interactions with the federal government, you have strong political views, why wouldn't

they spend $400 million, which is what the media says that family is going to spend, and maybe even more if you can purchase the united states government? that's not a bad investment. that's what citizens united is about. it is billionaires spending huge amounts of money without disclosure. without disclosure. now i would have gone further than this bill, but this bill is certainly an important step forward. what does it require? it says if you're going to spend more than $10,000 on a campaign, in a campaign, that you have to make public who you are. i don't think that is a terribly onerous provision. now, the american people are not stupid. they understand that if somebody

is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political activities, they want something. that's what it is about. why do people make campaign contributions? now, many of us get a whole lot of campaign contributions from folks who give us $25, $30, $40. most of my campaign contributions come from people who spend -- give us less than $200. but if somebody is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign, i think the american people have a right to know who that is and what they want, who is taking that money and what those contributors are going to get in return. if you're a billionaire and you want lower taxes, have the courage to say, hey, i'm a billionaire, i'm putting money into a party and what i'm going to get out of it is lower taxes for the rich. and if i'm somebody in a corporation that is polluting the air and the land and the water and i want to get rid of those regulations, have the guts

to come forward and say, yeah, that's what i want. i want to eviscerate the e.p.a. i don't care that children in vermont or rhode island get sick. that's what i want. so what this is about is fairly elementary. what this is about is simply having those people, those institutions, corporations that are putting in unions, putting more than $10,000 into the political process say who they are. now, what concerns me very much about this whole process -- and i think concerns the american people -- is while our middle class disappears and poverty increases, while the gap between the very, very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider, it appears very clear right now that these folks are not simply content. the top 1% are n