it starts with great interview. >> wow along with these television companies support c-span2 as a public service. >> now available to c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory, go there today to order a copy of the directory. this compact spiral bound book is your guide to the federal government with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and video statements. and order your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smart phone. every c-span shop purchase helps to support c-span's nonprofit operation. senate lawmakers are expected to continue debate on more of president biden's nominations today. confirmation votes are scheduled on at least two nominees. senators may also vote on whether to consider a bill that

would require so-called dark money groups to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle. now more on the floor of the senate 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. eternal and blessed god, in a dangerous and unstable world, we find solace from your presence. we praise you that even when wrong seems so strong, your providence continues to prevail.

today as our lawmakers grapple with pressing issues, give them the wisdom to seek your gui guidance. respond to their petitions by undergirding our senators with your enabling might, empowering them to exercise responsible stewardship of their influence by striving to be lights in a dark world. lord, open their ears and hearts this day to hear and obey your voice. we pray in your powerful 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., september 22, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration

of the motion to proceed to s. 4822 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 4822, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: when five conservative justices handed down their opinion in citizens united 12 years ago, the dissenters warned, quote, the court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. sadly, they turned out to be right. by giving massive corporations the same rights as individual citizens, multibillionaires being able to have their voice shouted out drowning out the views of citizens, and by casting aside decades of campaign finance law and by paving the way for powerful

elites to pump nowmly endless cash, citizens united has disfigured our democracy almost beyond recognition. today the senate will vote to begin curing our nation of this cancer when we take the first procedural vote on the disclose act. democrats are ready to move forward. republicans today must face the music. either vote to bring transparency and fairness back to our elections as the vast majority of americans want, or block this measure and cast their lot with the forces of dark money. so today is a very important day and it would not be possible without the work of my friend and colleague the senator from rhode island, senator whitehouse. more than anyone in this chamber senator whitehouse has labored relentlessly to shine a light on the link between dark money and so many of the ills that plague our politics.

from the radicalization of our courts to the rise of climate deniers and more. i thank him for his work. our entire caucus does. we stand with him strongly, fervently in supporting this bill. the need for the disclose act is great. the past decade has been the most expensive in the history of american elections. billions have been raised and spent in super pac and dark money. because of citizens united, a person's ability to affect the democratic process has largely become a function of their net worth in gross violation, gross violation of what the framers intended when they believed in one person, one vote. the disclose act will remedy these ills with the very simple notion that sunlight is the greatest of disinfeck tantses. it would require super pacs and other dark money groups to report anyone contributing $10,000 or more during an election cycle. the same goes for any group

spending money in support or in opposition to judicial nominees. in other words, it would apply familiar forms of transparency that traditional campaigns and candidates already face when accepting political contributions. i urge my colleagues to vote yes, all of us should vote yes. every single one of us should vote yes because so many of the ills in our democracy are rooted in the primacy of dark money. we must rid ourselves of this foulness before it's too late and our democracy could well become beyond saving. over the past few days the republican leader has come to the floor and repeated the same time-warn misleading arguments he's used for years when trying to discredit campaign finance reform. part of his arguments get to the point of absurdity. without a shred of irony, the republican leader, for instance, has claimed that the disclose act is equivalent to threatening

the privacy of individuals who want to make political contributions. i would as the republican leader what about -- i would ask the republican leader what about the privacy of tens of millions of women across the country? those rights are now gone because radical justices were put on the court because of dark money in the first place. does the republican leader really think the supposed privacy of the billionaire donor class trumps the rights of women who have suffered the consequences of dark money spending? he would also have us think that transparency requirements would add a burden to average americans who want nothing more than simply exercise their political opinions. that's bunkum. those with the power to cut $10,000 or million dollar checks can tilt the tide of an entire election with a single donation. these are individuals outsized

influence that average americans simply don't have. and when the supreme court extended the first amendment to absurd lengths in citizens united, they went way beyond what the founding fathers would have intended and what most americans, the vast, overwhelming majority of americans believe. at a bare minimum, the public has a right to know, simply to know who is behind these massive donations because at the end of the day, it is their rights that are on the line. and all of these arguments are really just done to ob secure the issue. i mean -- obscure the issue. i mean, it's hard to believe, it's hard to believe that multibillionaires will be intil dated if -- will be intimidated if they have to disclose their attempts to influence elections. it's just incredible that someone can argue that. but all these arguments are made for one purpose, by the republican leader and others in my judgment. and that is to obscure what's really at issue.

the republican party for years has been built on a foundation of dark money. it is how they've hijacked our courts. it is how they promoted groups that push for voter suppression. it is how they have killed climate policy for years before democrats finally pushed through our climate investments earlier this year. in a healthy democracy, american voters alone should have the power to determine the nation's leaders without fear that their voices will be drowned out by powerful elites or special interests. whether you're rich or poor, young or old, well connected or otherwise shouldn't matter. we should all be equal in our exercise of the franchise. that doesn't happen now. we all know that. the american people know it. over 80% despise dark money. the disclose act will help us restore that norm back into our politics. by instilling transparency that we desperately need. americans are tired of the

corrosive power of dark money in our politics. they know something has been deeply amiss for a long time and that we need reforms to bring democracy back into balance. so i urge my colleagues to support this measure. i urge my republican colleagues to work with us to break the stranglehold that dark money has in our elections. this bill would be a very important and much needed start. democracy can't prosper without transparency. i strongly support passing this legislation so we can safeguard our electoral process and keep the dream of our founders alive in this century. now, on another issue, tomorrow a cohort of house republicans will travel to western pennsylvania to roll out what they claim is their gop agenda. i want to skip right to the punch line. the gop has made its agenda perfectly clear for months -- a nationwide ban on abortion, medicare and social security on the chopping block, raising

taxes on working families, while democrats continue to fight to defend a woman's right to choose, a central feature of the republican agenda is eliminating abortions once and for all. many of them will deny it, but not two weeks ago, the senator from south carolina introduced a nationwide abortion ban here in the senate, and the american people should not forget that nearly every senate republican is on record sponsoring and voting for nationwide abortion bans. if americans want to know what the gop agenda is, look no further. also, while democrats passed legislation to lower prescription drug costs and extend affordable health care, every single republican voted against legislation that would lower insulin costs for seniors on medicare and have openly called for putting medicare and social security on the chopping block. they seem to think tax cuts for the rich is good policy.

but argue that medicare and social security should no longer be guaranteed. let's not forget when they had the house, senate, and presidency, their major, major accomplishment was cutting taxes on the rich. cutting taxes on the rich. is that what the american people want? well, if you do, elect these republicans. finally, while democrats want to keep taxes down for the middle class and working families, we want to help americans save on electric bills and health care, the senator from florida, who chairs the republican senate campaign arm, has released a gop agenda that calls for raising taxes on working people. it's amazing that the election is around the corner and republicans are still struggling to show a united front that appeals to the american people. their fundamental problem is that the gop is now the party of maga ex tremism. -- extremism, and there aren't

enough press conses in the world to change that -- press conferences in the world to change that fact. finally, on kigali. yesterday was truly a high point for the senate. after years of bipartisan works, the chamber ratified one of the most significant pro-climate, pro job measures ever. i thank the senators from delaware and new jersey, the senators from so many other states who worked so hard to make this happen. ratifying the kigali amendment, along with passing the inflation reduction act, is the strongest one-two punch against climate change any congress has ever taken. thanks to our commitment to phase out hfc's we'll put ourselves in a position to lower global temperatures by half a degree celsius by the end of the decade. so many people have overlooked this, but it's truly a significant milestone. half a degree mr. have an enormous -- will have an enormous, enormous impact on the global scale. the kigali amendment will has

help american businesses secure an edge against china in the emerging industry of next-generation refrigerants. this market will see most of its growth outside the u.s., and kigali will make sure u.s. businesses will be able to take advantage of the new opportunities that will yield billions in new investments. best of all, we'll create denz of thousands of -- tens of thousands of good-paying jobs. once again, ratifying kigali is a win, win, win. a win for u.s. jobs. a win for u.s. investment. and a win for u.s. leadership to protect the planet. i thank my colleagues for their excellent work in pushing kigali finally over the finish line. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> i think you will have really good staff and i would have thought you would know more about a bill like that before you come in front of the committee but we will follow up. next question i'll start from the right. is your bank opening unauthorized bank accounts? >> is your bank opening >> no. >> we regret we, i take for responsibility that we did open up unauthorized bank accounts, going back to 2010.

it's unacceptable. inconsistent with the principles and procedures as well as our ethics. we identify 342 accounts over that time and us against the population of 40 million open account. we took remediation at the care of the customers and we reimbursed any fees. we also make sure we strengthen our policies and procedures act in 2016 and that plans what we are concisely going to continue to do on a go forward basis. >> you no longer open unauthorized account? >> it's not tolerated. >> mr. ryder? >> we don't tolerate the opening of unauthorized accounts and we extensive training policies with our teammates. >> ms. frazier? >> we do not believe we have any unauthorized accounts. thank you. >> we have procedures in place to stop it and so they probably wouldn't be at the company. >> we have procedures to do, there's -- from

mid-2000-2010-2020 decade and we run this procedures everyday. >> we've made a host of changes from process to control to cultural changes to do anything to ensure that does not happen. >> thank you. starting again with mr. genter, what you commit to fight fraud given your customers their money back? >> we return money today for fraud. scam is a different issue. the owners are working to improve to get our customers monies back. >> we also reimburse for fraud and unauthorized transactions, work hard to work with customers to educate them on scant. >> understand people listening with exception of one of you you are the owners of the cell. mr. roger. >> we reimbursed for unauthorized and we worked together we do a lot of education for our clients to help avoid criminal activity.

>> ms. frazier? >> it's a top concern. we take it seriously. we reimbursed the unauthorized transactions. >> mr. dimon. >> we reimbursed and take a lot of entities to make sure off-price transactions are not scant. >> mr. moynihan? >> we reimbursed for unauthorized transactions and like mr. dimon said we send out notices and everything to avoid -- >> mr. shar? >> we reimburse for unauthorized transaction and we as a company and across ews world working toward reducing scam to try to drive it out of the system. >> last question in my remain for a second or so, yes or no, i asked his question last year. while you remain neutral if your employees try to neutralize? mr. shar? >> we believe we should have direct relationship with our employees. >> mr. moynihan? >> we will operate within for

shareholders copters employees. >> mr. dimon? >> no. >> ms. frazier? >> we will cannot be neutral. >> mr. budd? >> we would not obstruct any activity we can't be neutral to the benefits. >> we will not retaliate. we will continue to be close to our employees. we will abide by the law. >> mr. demchak in the union can't of pittsburgh -- town of pittsburgh? >> that was a little dig. we wouldn't obstruct but, of course, i would be in conversations with our customers about so yes, we would be involved. >> last day become i'll ask you if i had more time about supporting the child tax credit. you often come in finalist talking about tax reform and the child tax credit. a lot of money for the six months, those payments that 2 million children, the families of 2 million children in my state alone and a lot of money in your account and i would ask

you, not a question of but to support the extension of the child tax credit and what it means. senator toomey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dimon, i suppose you been dealing with tank regulators for most of your adult life. do you believe that the u.s. banking regulators have the statutory authority to determine how quickly america transitions to a low carbon economy? >> i do not. >> i don't either. >> that your authority. >> that's the way i see it but here's one of my concerns and i am concerned about the enormous power the some of the regulators have especially the fed and power that is exercise and opaque fashion. so my question is, i'm not accusing anybody at the fed of anything but as a practical matter to the have the power they wanted to, they could effectively pressure financial institutions into directing capital where they want to?

>> speaking for myself, they are my judge my jury and my hangman. they pretty much can do what they want and less constrained but you say yes, if they wanted ways to do some of this think they could easily do that. >> one of the concerns that i have is the interest that some have to use financial regulators, especially in the climate space, in europe of course they have broader authority and our fed has and they're pursuing this very aggressively. i worry the feds decision to join the network of central banks and supervisors and ongoing development of this climate risk scenario analysis are a precursor to regulatory edicts or at least pressure to debate energy companies and i would be exercising about that they don't legally have. let me move on to the issue of some of america's largest money managers that we know these managers routinely vote the shares that they hold including

the shares failed on behalf of the customers. they do that including for those shares invested in passive index funds with a $22 trillion in assets and average of 25% of the votes at s&p 500 shareholder meeting, a handful of asset managers can have seems to be a huge impact on companies decisions. mr. rogers let me ask you do you agree that the largest asset managers are capable of exercising significant influence over public companies? >> thank you for that question. we want to engage with all of our shareholders, engage with them individually, the largest and the smallest shareholder to date. certainly those who are owned more shares have more influence. >> well, so one of my concerns is a largest asset managers in the country have joined the net zero asset managers initiative that explicitly states as its goal a stewardship, and engagement strategy with a clear escalation and voting policy that is consistent with our

ambition for all assets under management to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. here's a problem. these large asset managers have enormous sway by virtue of the volume of votes they can cast, even though they don't even really own many of those shares. and, of course, control, if that sway goes to the level of control, then there are significant ramifications, legal and regulatory especially if they control is exercise over financial institutions. i have my staff looking into this issue with the intent of producing a report on this later. mr. demchak, there are folks including prominent regulators who seem to believe the larger regional banks, although not as big as g-sibs, are already too big to be resolved in the event of a crisis and, therefore, they have to be sold one of the other banks represented at the table.

correct me if i'm wrong,, is it true that your bank is required to submit a resolution plan to the fed and the fdic every three years? >> yes, we have done so for ten years. >> okay. did any of those plant that you submitted contemplate as the sole resolution i government bailout or a wholesale sale to one of these other banks. >> was no. it's pretty easy to draw circles about our regions and sell them. >> now, , the regulators are fuy authorized to reject a submitted plan if they thought it was not credible or otherwise sufficiently have the regulars ever rejected your plan? >> no. >> so it seems to be that the approval of your plan is at least a tacit admission that there is a credible resolution plan that has been articulated. >> yes. >> so it may make a final point you. some seem to think that

additional regulation and added capital requirements there's no cost so why not? it seems to me that there is a cost of adding unnecessary capital requirements on already well-capitalized institutions. could you share with us your perspective on what is the downside of adding unnecessary high capital requirements? >> well, in this instance it would crowd out other financings that are needed in the market. it's also making it more expensive and difficult for us to land at a time when our country needed. the cost of capital window. funds are being used for something other than supporting our economy. it doesn't make sense to. >> thank you. thank you, mr.t? chairman. be dd with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: first this morning, i was deeply saddened to learn that we lost a dedicated and long-serving member of the senate family this week. officer william thomas of the united states capitol police passed away after a battle with cancer. he was only 38 years young.

officer thomas joined the force nearly 14 years ago. he quickly became a familiar face to many of the senators and staff serving on this side of the capitol. by all accounts his dedication, his professionalism, and his service in the senate division and most recently in the communications division were a credit to the entire department and to our institution. the loss of officer thomas leaves a hole in a close-knit community of brave men and women who keep us save here at capitol. the entire senate joins officer thomas' brother vincent as well as his brothers and sisters here in uniform in mourning this tragic loss. now, on an entirely different matter, the painful story of democrats' runaway inflation is playing out in hardworking

communities all across our country. we learned last week that food inflation is now at the highest level since 1979. for folks in the phoenix metro area where inflation already outpaces the national average, that's meant a 3% inflation tax on food in just the last two months. according to one arizona shopper, it's all almost $300. i used to get the same groceries like around $150 before. across the border in nevada, the "las vegas review journal" reported how local coffee shops reported on it. the owner of one shop says that everything from coffee, beans, to cups gets more expensive. they've had to raise prices by about 10%. we've done our best not to pass this on to our customers because

we do not -- because we do understand that we're all in the same boat together. the "colorado sun" spoke with one new resident of westminster who said that he had moved towns to, quote, lower the impact of an 18% rent increase. he's cut back on cable, driving, and buying meat at the grocery store. in washington state, the seattle times is reporting that four in ten area renters are now spending more than 30% of their paychecks on rent. when one resident learned her rent would be increasing nearly 10%, she said, quote, i just wanted to cry. i'm barely making it. it's just a -- -- i'm just a senior senior citizen. or in georgia, "the augusta press" reports that according to the owner of one power washing business in evans, materials are getting more expensive and the

potential clients are, quote, more hesitant to get knit work done right now -- to get any work done right now. and with winter fast approaching, one resident of manchester, new hampshire, said that he feels like it's a band-aid after they stabbed you. these are the real-world consequences of washington democrats' inflation. every corner of every state is writing its own painful story. but the ones i just mentioned have something unfortunate in common. every resident of arizona, washington, nevada, new hampshire, colorado, and georgia is represented by two senators each who cast the deciding vote to set this inflation in motion. if just one single senator -- just one -- from georgia,

arizona, colorado, new hampshire, or washington had refused to give their vote to president biden's reckless spending, the working families and small business owners of these states would not be dealing with this much inflation, period. but every one of those state senators cast tie-breaking votes to bring on the worst inflation in four decades, and now every american is paying the price. now, on one final matter, democrats' reckless policies pos have stuck the american people with an inflation crisis, a border crisis, a violent crime crisis, and an energy crisis. today this democratic senate majority is spending time on legislation that tackles none of these things. they're addressing -- they aren't addressing any of the problems that keep moms and dads up at night. they aren't tackling any of the issues that are leaving small

business owners unable to pay their bills or unsafe in inner-city locations, or both. they aren't spending 10 seconds of the senate's time exploring the disconnect between vice president harris who says we have a secure border and the illiterate legal immigrant who told a reporter last week, quote, everybody believes the border is open. we see it on the news that everybody comes in illegally. so we do the same. so the democrats don't want to spend time on the people's business today. they'd remember spend time on their business, something we've seen time and time again over the last two years. today's liberal pet priority is a piece of legislation designed to give unelected federal bureaucrats vastly more power over private citizens' first amendment rights and political

activism and to usurp privacy away from americans who speak out about politics in their private lives. more power for washington, d.c., censors. less privacy for private citizens. and throw some ice on the first amendment. that's what our colleagues across the aisle have made their top priority for the day. so i'd have to say, madam president, it's a novel response to flagging poll numbers and public outcry. instead of trying to clean up the border mess, the crime mess, or the inflation mess, my democratic colleagues have decided it would be easier just to erode the american people's right to complain about it in the first place.

the legislation i'm speaking about itself is an insult to the first amendment, and the notion that it gets senate floor time today before everything else is truly an insult to the working people of this country. so i'd urge all my colleagues on both sides to stand with the constitution, stand with our citizens who deserve better, and vote no. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: does the name barry said ring a bell, barry said of chicago, a successful businessman. he was born in 1932, and he owned a company called trip light that made electronic products. he was very successful in the

course of his life. and he decided to donate the value of this company, something known as the marble freedom trust. does that ring a bell, barry said, marble freedom trust? the reason i bring those up on the floor of the united states senate is mr. said with this gift of $1.6 billion to marble freedom trust is setting out to change america. wait a minute. a 90-year-old individual who has been charitable in many ways gives money away, and it changes america? yes, i stand by my comment. because the marble freedom trust is now becoming the largest dark money, secret money contributor to american political campaigns in the history of the united states. and if you think i'm overreacting, the go-to leader

of the marble freedom trust is a man named leonard leo. i'm sure none of these names register with most americans. barre seid of chicago, marble freedom trust, leonard leo. what's this got to do with what my family is worried about? let me get to the bottom line because the republican leader just alluded to it. this $1.6 billion is going to be invested in political campaigns on the right for conservative republican candidates, period. leonard leo has a pedigree and well-known background of involvement in politics in washington, and he's been very successful. i'm a member of the senate judiciary committee, currently chairman, but over the years i've watched -- over the trump years -- every judicial nominee approved by the republicans had to pass one litmus test.

they had to be cleared by the federalist society. now, that's another name which the average american family won't recognize. but let me tell you what the federalist society s it is a clearinghouse for lawyers. you got to pay your dues. you have to show up. you have to pass the checklist before you can become a judge on the republican side. that happened over and over and over again in the hearings we had for nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal court during the trump administration. i would ask these lawyers sitting before us when you could question them, tell me about the federalist society. oh, we just got together for lunch once in a while. it's not that big a deal. what a coincidence that every nominee had to be approved by the federalist society. and it didn't end there.

when former president trump put out his list of potential supreme court nominees, which include the three that he ended up choosing, all of them were provided by the federalist society. the federalist society and leonard leo. sadly, they got the job done. senator mcconnell was complicit in that. when there's a vacancy on the supreme court with the untimely death of antonin scalia, it was senator mcconnell and senate republicans who blocked president obama in his last year in office from filling that vacancy. if fact, they refused -- they said to their members, don't even meet with the man. here's merrick garland, a respected jurist on the d.c. circuit, nominated to the highest court in the land, can't even get an appointment with a republican senator to plead his case that he would be a good nominee. and the reason? senator mcconnell was bound and determined to make sure that a federalist society nominee

eventually made it to the court, and he got his way. so now we have leonard leo in a new role. god only knows how much they're paying him. but this man is now set up on a new political agenda. it is the largest dark money, secret money effort in the history of the united states. how did we learn about barre seid giving $1.6 billion to this trust? someone leaked it to the newspapers. otherwise it would have gone unnotice because this is in fact the world of dark and secret money. senator mcconnell made passing reference to the fact that we're about to vote on something called the disclose act. the disclose act -- and i want to salute senator white house who is not on the floor at the moment. the disclose act is pretty basic. we're going to vote today on this provision which would be added to our campaign law.

protecting american democracy from foreign interference and requiring super pacs and special interest groups to disclose anyone contributing $10,000 or more to their cause. that's it. we don't prohibit the actual contribution. we just require disclosure. where is it coming from? and the reason we ask for this is that you go state by state with heated campaigns in the day and you'll find all sorts of ads online and on television. and you have to race to the tv set to get close enough to read the small print at the end of the ad would explains who pays for it. if you knew who really paid for it, it would explain a lot of things to you. i've been, for example, at war with the major credit card companies, visa and mastercard. they have a due oply. and i believe they overcharge

customers. as a result i passed an amendment eight or ten years ago which they have branded the durbin amendment which limits debit card swipe fees, interchange fees -- i get into the world of finance here -- and they hate it. visa and mastercard hated my amendment like the devil hates holy water. why? because it cost them $8 billion a year. it rawses the -- reduces the add-on charges that retailers, restaurants and shops have to charge when people use a visa and mastercard. every once in a while they work up the courage to come at me again and try to undo this amendment and they buy television ads. do the television ads say they're paid for by visa and mastercard? no. they say they're paid for by the committee for a better america or something. what we're trying to do with the disclose act is give to the voters of this country more information and in so doing,

protect the whole process from corruption by foreign money being spent or by individuals like mr. seid who puts $1.6 billion into the treasury of the republican side. now, if they came to the floor to debate this, and i don't think they will, they're likely to say you do the same thing. you use dark money and such. it is true that the campaign system is set up for organizations not to disclose. but we are authoring the solution to the problem for both political parties. we're standing by reform and a change. senator whitehouse has led the way. it would literally say to america you have the right to know who's paying for this candidate's ads, who's putting all those ads on tv, what special interest group is behind this cause? senator mcconnell says we should be dealing with serious issues. there is no more serious issue than the integrity of our campaign process. and i know as a person who has

been a candidate over many years, it's changed dramatically. i can remember not that long ago when the first super pac effort on the democratic side raised something in the range of $4 million to $10 million. i can tell you that has been increasing by multiples every year. and on the other side same story. do we need to sit down, both political parties, and put an end to this madness? do we need to tell mr. seid and his family take your $1.6 billion and spend it for something that is really wholesome and of value to your community and your nation rather than to get into the hunt to be the biggest spender -- mr. seid became the biggest spender of campaign funds in the history of the united states with his $1.6 billion contribution to leonard leo, the marble trust, and the republican cause. that's a fact. i think we ought to change it. this system we have in america

is one we need to protect and not exploit. when the u.s. supreme court and citizens united decided that money was speech and that corporations had a right to speak, it really corrupted the system in ways unimaginable. we're living with the results today. citizens united was a terrible decision. search the constitution all day and night for the word corporations. you won't even find it. this is no constitutional protection. and the idea that if you're rich you can speak more loudly and more often in america is a corruption of the basic right we all should pocket and enjoy -- should protect and enjoy. so i'm growing to vote in favor of the disclose act. i don't think it's as insignificant as the senator from kentucky does. i think it gets to the heart of the issue about the future of our democracy. madam president, i ask that a separate statement i'd like to make be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i yield the floor.

mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i understand that senator thune is next in order on the floor but not seeing him on the floor, i thought i would take the time before he arrives to echo the terrific remarks of my judiciary chairman, dick durbin. as i think people know, a lot of money has been spent in this effort to control the court by special interests. indeed the last count is that it cost $580 million in dark money

to achieve that purpose. i don't know anybody who spends nearly $6 million more than half a billion dollars without having a purpose in mind. and when you see the undog of women's rights to determine their own reproductive choices, when you see new weaponry rolled out against pollution regulations, when you see hundred-year-old gun laws being taken down, when you see the agenda of the big money right wink be -- right wing being implemented by the court, it begins to look like in fact they got their money's worth and they didn't mind spending big. one of the ways they did this was to make sure all of the trump sole legislations of nominees went through the federalist society. never in our history has that happened. with a private organization stepping in deciding who would be on the supreme court. i see that senator thune has arrived. the floor is his. i will interrupt any remarks because i was just filling time. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: thank you. madam president, i thank the senator from rhode island for yielding and appreciate his kindness. i know he has a lot to say on this subject. hopefully he'll be able to get back to it. madam president, i want to speak just a minute about the issue of high energy price, high grocery prices. they've become a distinguishing feature of the biden economy. electricity prices increased 15.8% in august, the largest year over year increase since 1981. 1981. i wasn't even married the last time we saw electricity increases like this and now i have grandkids. utility gas service was up 33% from a year ago in august. 33% increase year over year from august. and the price of home heating oil which many households in places like new hampshire rely on to keep their homes warm in the winter has soared.

all told the national energy assistance directors association estimates that home heating costs for the winter heating season will average $1,202, a 17.2% increase from last season. and i haven't even mentioned gas prices. gas prices may have decreased from their $5 high this summer, partly as a result of president biden's problematic decision to draw down our nation's emergency petroleum reserves at their lowest point since 1985 with no plan to refill them but customers are still paying $1.30 more per gallon than they were when president biden took office. the average price for a gallon of gas has increased this week, ending a streak of diminishing although still high gas prices. madam president, if there's one thing we should be doing about high energy prices, it's increasing our domestic energy supply, including our supply of conventional energy, namely oil and natural gas. i'm a long-time supporter of alternative energy and i come

from a state that derives a stub standings portion -- substantial portion of its electricity generation from wind. in 2021 where 50% of our state's power generation came from wind and 30% came from hydroelectric on the missouri river. but if it weren't for traditional fossil fuels backing up that generation, especially on days when the wind is still, we would be left in the dark. the fact of the matter is, mr. president, no matter how much democrats might wish were otherwise, alternative energy technology has simply not advanced to the point where our country can rely exclusively on alternative energy. attempting to pretend we've advanced further than we have or have solved all the requisite supply chain hurdles will lead to nothing but economic pain for american families. just look at california whose overreliance on alternative energy technology has resulted in an electricity grid that cannot sustain the demands being placed on it. californians were recently asked

to ration their energy usage and refrain from charging electric cars during certain hours to reduce strain on the grid. yet the state has issued a final regulation that will require all new cars sold in the state to be electric or otherwise zero emission by 2035. i don't see this ending well for californians. and this is the kind of unrealistic thinking that has permeated pretty much the entire democrat party. i am all for advancing clean energy technologies. i've done a lot of work here in congress to advance clean energy from renewable fuels to wind energy. but until clean energy technology has advanced to the point where it can truly, reliably, and affordably supply america's energy needs, we need to continue to invest in responsible conventional energy production as part of the all-of-the-above energy strategy that we need for this country. otherwise the high energy prices americans are struggling with right now could get even worse.

and persist long into the future. president biden of course has been discouraging conventional energy production since day one which is one reason why high energy prices have become a defining feature of the biden administration. from canceling the keystone xl pipeline to discouraging investment in conventional energy with a targeted esg agenda to making it more difficult for oil and gas companies to develop leases, president biden has shown a distinct hostility to conventional energy. last month the president signed into law the so-called inflation reduction act. the partisan tax and spending spree dacts -- democrats jammed through in august. i mentioned the high prices americans have been experiencing. well, apparently democrats think that the best solution is to pass a bunch of new fees and tax hikes that will drive up energy prices further. their so-called inflation reduction act includes a slate of taxes on conventional energy

production at the worst possible time. the methane fee in their bill alone has the potential to drive up americans' natural gas bills by 17%. 17%, just when americans -- just what americans need, i should say, while they're paying 15.8% more for electricity and 33% more for utility gas service and $1.30 more for every gallon of gasoline. but at least americans can feel good about the fact that their tax dollars will be going to fund democrats' green new deal fantasies, like tax credits for wealthy americans to purchase electric vehicles. that's right. the so-called inflation reduction act, which by the way even the democrat chairman of the senate budget committee admits will do nothing to fix inflation, pours hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into green new deal priorities.

in addition to tax credits for wealthy americans, the inflation reduction act includes funding for expensive electric vehicles for the u.s. postal service, mitigating urban heat island hot spots, and monitoring gaps in tree canopy coverage in climate-related political activity. that's right. climate-related political activity. mr. president, democrats succeeded in pushing through the inflation reduction act and its tax hikes on conventional energy by promising one of their members a vote on permitting reform legislation. now, real permitting reform is something i heartily endorse. too many energy permits spend years mired in bureaucracy, leading to completely needless delays in energy development. cleaning up the permitting process would help advance both conventional and renewable energy production. unfortunately, it's not clear that the permitting reform deal that was released last night

will do anything to meaningfully address permitting delays, and in some cases could make things worse. for one, it would expand ferc's authority to override state designation for projects the president designates, quote, national interest facilities, which is why the south dakota public utilities commission is opposed to it. and it would give states wide latitude to kill the very infrastructure projects the bill purports to expedite by expanding the state clean water act jurisdiction. in other sections, where this proposal seeks to shorten deadlines for various stages of permitting, which is a goal i support, the consequences for not meeting a deadline are merely notifying the office of office ofmanagement and budget e lead department secretary. it's hard to see this actually moving the chains, mr. president. on top of that, it's starting to seem extremely doubtful democrats have the votes in their conference to pass

permitting reform legislation. republicans, thanks to the efforts of senator capito, have a meaningful, substantive permitting reform bill ready to go. it's supported by every member of our conference, and it would need the support of just ten democrat senators to bass. it would be nice to think that there are ten moderate democrat senators, if the words democrat and moderate can still go together, in this time of the democrat party's rapid push to the extreme left, who would be willing to join republicans to pass our legislation and finally take a real step to ease the burden of high energy prices on american families. given the president's and the democrat party's hostility to any measure that would genuinely start addressing high energy prices, i am not holding my breath. mr. president, high prices for

energy and just about everything else have become the distinguishing feature of the biden economy, and if democrats continue to take steps to discourage conventional nawrnlg production, high energy -- energy production, high energy prices will be a democrat legacy that lasts long into the future. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: the place where i left off when senator thune came to the floor was in discussing the extent to which huge floods of dark money had taken control of our supreme court. i'll just dig into that a little bit further while we have a moment, because one of the vehicles for this effort was the

federalist society. it's extremely unusual in any modern democracy that the selection of who got onto the supreme court would be parceled out to a private organization. ity even more -- it's even more peculiar when that private organization has a very distinct political and ideological bent, and it is worse still when that private organization, while acting as the gatekeeper to supreme court appointment, was receiving massive dark money infusions. before it got that role, the federalist society department get loads of dark money. back in 2002, their anonymous donations summed to a grand total of $5,000. but once it became clear that they were the gatekeeper to the supreme court for the republican party, by 2010 they were up to

$7 million, pouring in in dark money. we don't know how those names were picked for donald trump's federalist society list. there was no public process. there was no disclosure. there was some backroom someplace where those lists were assembled, and who got a voice controlling who got on that list, i suspect, has a lot to do with that $7 million. and again, when you're spending $7 million, you're not kidding around -- you want results, and they've got them. the other piece of the pie here is leonard leo's little -- one of his little nodes of phony front groups funded by dark money. he's got an 85 fund, concord fund, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). that's the state of the art in dark money manipulation.

you do those, but put them in the same office, same staff, same oversight and funders, but pretend they're different. then, to make it even more complicated, you file under virginia corporate law fictitious names. that's what it's called under virginia corporate law, fictitious names, for other front groups. so in this dark money court capture machine, even the front groups have front groups. so, one of them is right here, it's called the judicial crisis network. the judicial crisis network was the one that took in the dark money from anonymous big donors to push out the television ads to capture the court, ads for gorsuch, ads for kavanaugh, ads for barrett. and they put out some pretty

good money to do that. for gorsuch, $21 million. for kavanaugh, they spent $17 million. for barrett, as far as we know so far, they spent $14 million. these came in not from grassroots donations. the checks were as big as $15 million. the checks were as big as $17 million. and if the same person was writing those $15 million and $17 million checks, our count is that it's $60 million or more. if one person has paid $60 million or more to influence who gets on the supreme court and we don't know what business they had before the court, that is an open avenue and prescription for corruption. and right now, right now, after all that money got spent by the judicial crisis network to push

all those right wing fed soc justices onto the court, the honest elections project, another fictitious name leg of this dark money critter, is in the supreme court right now pushing the argument developed by john eastman, the big lie argument, that in georgia and other states, the state legislature should be able to throw out the outcome of a federal election and replace the winner of it with the person they want. and the they're why i is so extreme -- the theory is so extreme that it even posits that the state court system can't control the state legislature. the principle of judicial review of legislative act is undone by this. it is wildly extreme. but there is the honest elections project, so-called,

showing up in court as an amicus, pushing the big lie theory to the very judges to the judicial crisis network paid to get on the court. guess what -- you think they disclosed to anybody that that was the connection? no. i've got to come to the floor of this senate to point that out. because the supreme court, which is behind so much of this, the unlimited money, the failure to enforce the transparenty requirement, the gobs of dark money that have gone through, also won't enforce the rule that requires amici curiae, the people who filed the briefs, to tell the court and other parties who is really behind them. so, they're getting away with it, from the judges who got put on the court. so, this whole dark money problem goes well beyond justice dirty dark money flooding into

our elections. it goes beyond the cause of the slime of the dirty, noxious ads that pour out of our tv screens and our devices, with a phony baloney name behind the advertisement. the good senator from new jersey, perhaps it could be new jerseyans for peace, puppies and prosperity. anybody watching the ad knows that's not a real organization. what does it tell you as a citizen when slimy, dirty, smear ads are pushed through to you, your tv screen and device by a group you know is a phony? who you do you have confidence in that? i'll close, because senator hirono is here, i want to have her speak, but i will say that i'm not alone in thinking that requiring people to stand up and identify who they are, when they're trying to influence our politics, is a distinctly

american quality. in fact, and i quote, requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. for my part, i do not look forward to a society, which thanks to the supreme court, campaigns anonymously. even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. this does not resemble the home of the brave. the author of that? just antonin scalia. i'll continue later, but with i want to defer to my busy schedule -- to the busy schedule of my friend, senator hirono, and i yield the floor.

ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from rhode island, senator whitehouse, for his long and strong advocacy for cleaning up the scourge of dark money in our country. our country was built on the founding principles of democracy where every person has a say, a democracy where the american people can make their voices heard in free and fair elections, and we the people can decide the direction of our country. but in 2010, the roberts court, in an obvious act of judicial activism, struck down corporate campaign contribution restrictions found in the bipartisan campaign reform act. suddenly, the supreme court said that corporations are people,

who had first amendment constitutional rights to make campaign contributions. this decision opened the floodgates to billions of dollars of dark money toisms our elections -- toively our elections -- to influence our elections, courts, and thinking on issues from gun safety to abortion. when the supreme court held that political speech by a corporation is protected by the first amendment, it left for congress just the narrow authority to take action to require disclosure of donor names. after knockdown, drag-out negotiation in the u.s. house in 2010 -- i was there -- the house passed a disclosure bill, only to see it fail in the senate very narrowly, without the support of a single republican. back then, we had the chance to require political spending disclosure so that the american people could see who was contributing millions to influence election outcomes.

so here we are, more than a decade later, and now it's not millions, but billions of dollars flowing undisclosed into races across the country. our country is awash in undisclosed money that is subverting the will of the american people. when 85% of the american people support reproductive freedom, 65% of the american support gun safety, and 63% of the american people support protecting the right to vote and senate republicans are preventing us from even having a legislative debate on the floor on these issues? what does that tell you? it tells you that too many elected officials are no longer answering to the people but, instead, to the secret dorps and corporations -- to the secret donors and corporations who are

funding their campaigns. but it is not just elected officials who have been influenced. megacorporations and the ultra wealthy have spent millions to stack our courts. one dark money group already spent more than $30 million in total on the nominations of neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett to the united states supreme court where they sit, in my view, busily overturning precedents such as roe v. wade. for the sake of our democracy, we need to get rid of the anonymous spending influencing our elections and our courts. that is a goal that everyone should be able to get behind regardless of whether you are a democrat or a republican. in fact, maybe my republican colleagues agree. the senior senator from iowa said, dark money is, quote, attacking the independence of the judiciary, end quote. another said, dark money is,

quote, sowing public distrust in the legitimacy of the supreme court, end quote. there is bipartisan agreement to limit dark money, but, sadly, we know republicans too often say one thing, then do another because not a single one of them so far has voiced support for even considering the disclose act which we will be voting to advance today. it is a bill that will increase transparency and accountability in political spending, a bill that would do the very thing that some leading republicans have called for. when given the chance, i hope my republican colleagues will step up for the american people and not their special interest donors. we shall see. we cannot accept a country where billionaires and corporations can secretly buy our elections, choose our leaders, and determine the fate of our

country. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the senator from hawaii, who has been such an ardent and effective ally in this fight for coming to the floor today and for all of our work in the judiciary committee and also through briefs that we file in the supreme court trying to wake up the court to what's happening around them. i would add an additional point to my description of this little node of the dark money apparatus that has controlled the makeup of the supreme court and works very hard to control the decisions of the supreme court, and too often does, because

you've heard senator durbin and others speak on the floor today about the biggest dark money contribution ever made -- $1.6 billion given to an organization run by this same individual. and you see it going in but only because some whistleblower told the bless what had happened. -- told the press what had a but even knowing that $1 .6 billion went in, you don't know what happens next. because this complicated apparatus and others like this enable the money to be sleuthed through underground, clandestined channels and pop out in political races through unknown phony groups with preposterously sweet names, and nobody who is a citizen is allowed to understand what's

happening. you can bet the word gets to the candidate about who was behind new jerseyans for peace and puppies and prosperity. and you can bet the big donors know, and if it is a house race, you can bet the house leaders know, and if it is a senate race, you bet the senate leaders know, and can bet that has clout in stopping things in this building. and sure enough, that $1.6 billion went into marble freedom trust. and one of the first things it did was give money to the concord fund, one of the other leonard leo groups. you'll recognize that, as this chart behind me -- and you add to it the marble freedom trust, which was the vehicle in which the $1.billion got dumped and then zoop, here comes money into

the concord fund. so this thing is sort of a creature of multiple fronts, and i was struck today when i read a news article about the resignation in iraq of the finance minister, who is largely regarded as being the voice of integrity and decency and honesty in that government, and he quit. and he said one of the reasons was that he felt that there was around him a vast octopus of corruption and deceit. this is just one piece of a vast octopus of corruption and deceit whose target is the american

people and whose desire is to control government from behind the scenes without even showing up and showing who they are. if you want to see some of this mischief in action and in relation to what i've said about how this captured court with its fed soc justices has delivered for the big donor interests, the biggest thing that they've done so far in terms of affecting the trajectory of honesty and decency and public accountability in this country has been in a case called americans for prosperity foundation v. banta. what did the judges who dark money put onto the court, that dark money built, do? they built a brand-new constitutional right to dark money. unprecedented. and when they did it, when the case came up to them,

interestingly, as part of this octopus of deceit, are innumerable front groups that file amicus briefs. i talked about how they don't disclose and the court lets them get away with it. let meet give you a number. -- let me give you a number. at certiorari stage is where the court decides whether or not they will take up the case. then there is the merits stage later on. but on the question of whether they take up the case, we counted about 50 -- 5-0 -- 50 of these phony dark money-funded front groups saying, you got to take up this case. you got to take up this case. you got to take up this case. it was signaling, it was flares, it was semifor. it was telling the court, we put you there. this is what we want you to do. so let's take a quick look at -- a little bit about the americans

for prosperity foundation. remember what i said about 501(c)3's and 501(c)4's. well, the americans for prosperity is the twin to a 501(c)4 called americans for prosperity. and guess what americans for prosperity is? it is the biggest battleship in the koch brothers' political influence operation. it is the mothership. it is as political as you get. it goes directly into elections and spends dark money. and here are the big differences between americans for prosperity and the americans for prosperity foundation. well, the ceo and director of americans for prosperity is amazingly enough the ceo and

director of the americans for prosperity foundation. and the secretary of the americans for prosperity group happens also to be the corporate secretary of the americans for prosperity foundation. how about that? oh, here's a big difference. the senior vice president of grassroots operations for americans for prosperity is the senior vice president of state operations for americans for prosperity foundation. there's a difference. the treasurer and vice president of americans for prosperity is the same as the treasurer and vice president of finance for the americans for prosperity foundation. and the director of americans for prosperity is the chair of the americans for prosperity foundation. there's a thing in law called piercing the corporate veil. this is a corporate veil you

could pierce with as banana. this is the kind of phony fun and games that dark money allows to intrude into our democracy, and in this terrible death loop, dark money puts justices on the supreme court who get told by dark money amici what they want in flotillas of 50 and then deliver for dark money to a nominal plaintiff who is the indistinguishable twin of the koch brothers' political battleship. letting that money loose into our politics with now constitutional imprimatur. and they show up in droves. here is one case. in seila law. they're trying town do american government as best they can.

here are some of the amici that showed up in seila law. i put this in my brief so they could see what was going on around them. a lot of good it did. so here are some of the front groups and here are some of the dark money traces. donors trust, the atm of the far right. it has no purpose. donors trust doesn't make a product. you can't buy a donors trust car or bicycle or tire or pedal. it doesn't provide services. you can't go to donors trust and get your taxes done p. you can't go to donors trust and get your shoes polished. it does one thing and one thing only -- it takes money in. it scrubs off the identity of the person that gave it the money, and then it sends the money where that person wants, as donors trust. that's it.

it's an identity-laundering machine for the dark money operation that we have running, for this vast octopus of deceit. and here are other barbara bush foundation for family literacies, bradley, scaith, searl e and look what it has in common. that was not described to the court. so my time is running out. i'll say two things as i go. one is, until the supreme court opened the floodgates of unlimited money, republicans wanted disclosure. republicans wanted disclosure. mitch mcconnell, the leader, we need to have real disclosure. why would a little disclosure be better than lot of disclosure?

he was in favor of a lot of disclosure on "meet the press." i think disclosure is the best disinfect tant, he wrote. we could do disclosure more effective. i think disclosure is the best disinfectant. mitch:. but then along came the supreme court, they opened the floodgates of money. and they know if it showed up as exxon, as chevron, as shell, the public would get the joke. their unlimited money would be useless because everybody would see the self-interest understand a the corruption behind all of that. so they immediately went to work through phony front groups, 501(c)4's, donors trust, shell corporations. and the supreme court let them do it. despite the fact that 8-1 the supreme court in citizens united

has said, without transparency, this unlimited money is corrupting. without transparency, this unlimited money is corrupting. despite having said that, for 12 years they've done nothing but let the dark money flow. over $1 billion now into any single election. it is intensely frustrating to see our country head down this filthy road where huge special interests, defined by just a few characteristics. one, they've got unlimited money to spend. two, they can win in politics by spending it. and three, they want to hide. is that group of people the ones we want controlling our country? i don't think so. how about regular voters? how about regular people? how about farmers and doctors and business owners, nurses?

no. i know the leader wants to come to the floor, and i will yield as soon as he comes to the floor. before he does, i want to thank him for bringing this measure here, for the strength of his statements, for the strength of his commitment, for his help to organize all of this. this began originally as his bill years ago, after citizens united. so i want to yield to him when he gets here, but i want to go back to this departure of minister allawi, who talks about the iraqi state having become degraded and become a plaything of special interests. that's the choice we face in this vote. is this going to be america the beautiful or is this going to be america the degraded placing of special interests? this vote will determine it. and i yield to the leader for his remarks.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to speak prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: well, first, mr. president, let me just give as many kudo -- because he taught me the word was kudo, not kudos -- as i can to our wonderful senator from rhode island. there is no one, i don't think in america, let alone just in the senate, who has done more to highlight the evil scourge of dark money that just plagues our republic. it degrades our democracy. one of the reasons that people are so upset with what's going on in this country is because of the dark money, and no one has shined that spotlight on it like senator whitehouse. hats off to him. now the choice before the senate is simple. will members vote today to cure our democracy of the cancer of dark money or will they stand in the way and let this disease

metastasize beyond control? members must pick a side. which side are you on? the side of american voters and one-person,one-vote? or the side of super pacs and the billionaire dough nra class rigging the game in their favor? sometimes the contrast is really that simple. today it's about standing either with the american people or the dark money donor class. and the disclose act itself is simple to its core. it says that a healthy democracy is a transparent democracy. a healthy democracy is a transparent democracy, one where all of us can exercise our right to the franchise on an equal playing field without regard to our wealth, our connections or lot in life. it is a quintessentially american ideal. in the 12 years since the conservatives on the supreme court ruled in citizens united, our elections have become rank with the stench of dark money.

you can smell it in every corner of this country, and particularly in washington. we must fix that. in free and fair elections, one-person,one-vote. american voters should have the power to determine our nation's leaders without fear that their voices will be drowned out by powerful elites or special interests. that's simply what the disclose act would do. for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of transparency in elections, for the sake of breaking the wretched stranglehold that dark money has on our country, i urge my colleagues, plead with my colleagues to rise to this occasion, to protect our democracy and vote yes. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules

of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar 484, s. 4822, a bill to amend the federal campaign act of 1971, and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 4822, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, super pacs, and other entities, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49 and the nays are 49, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not greed to. the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination, which account clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, united states agency for global media, amanda bennett, to be united

states agency for global media. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 60, the nays are 36. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president

will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: executive office of the president, arati prabhakar of california to be director of the office of science and technology policy. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, new data from the u.s. customs and border protection shows that the crisis at the border isn't going away, even if that may be the wish of the biden administration. in the last year, customs and border protection has encountered more than 2.3 million migrants at the southern border, which is an all-time high. and i know some people think, well, these are economic migrants or people fleeing violence and persecution. some of them are asylum seekers

that might potentially qualify, although the data indicates that if in fact they end up showing up for their immigration court hearing years after they claim asylum because of the backlog, that only about 10% qualify for asylum. and then you have the economic migrants, you have criminals, you have drug smugglers. it's a hodgepodge. and while many people turn themselves in in order to invoke our asylum system, which is broken and results in many people being given a notice to appear for a future court hearing that they never show up for, the situation at the border remains a public safety threat. and a humanitarian crisis. customs and border protection are the first line of defense

against dangers -- dangerous threats to the country. over the last 11 months, the hardworking men and women of cbp have aarrested nearly 700 criminal gang members, have stopped more than 140 people on the terrorist watch list from crossing the southern border, they've interdicted more than 645 pounds of illegal drugs including 13,600 pound oz of the -- 13,600 pounds of the deadly

is to divert law enforcement officers from their other important mission, and frankly that's part of these transnational criminal organizations' plans. they overwhelm border patrol, divert their attention, and then in the hole that's created in border security, here come the drugs. agents who would normally be on the front lines stopping cartels from smuggling drugs are now serving meals and changing diapers. so when you consider all of those stats that i mentioned -- hundreds of thousands of pounds of illegal drugs, 700 criminal gang members, 141 people on the terrorist watch list -- there is an important qualifier to remember. those are just the ones we know about. with law enforcement being shifted from patrol to care taking duties, we're leaving major security gaps that are being exploited by the cartels

and criminal organizations. there is a whole category of migrant that comes across the border known as the got-aways. the asylum seekers also typically show up and turn themselves in. but, frankly, i think it's the got-aways -- hundreds of thousands of people -- you have to worry about because they don't want to encounter law enforcement because they either data have any legal basis to enter the united states, or they happen to be transporting illegal drugs or have a criminal record on their own right. there's no question our security mission is taking a hit. every day cartel and gang members are trafficking and moving guns, drugs, illegal currency, and just about any other commodity that you can think about. and when they succeed, border communities aren't the only ones that see the impact.

as you can see, cartels and transnational criminal organizations have a presence in cities across the united states. once cartels make it across the border, they head to places as diverse as chicago, detroit, atlanta, new york, san diego, or just about any other city where they can do business, including bangor, maine, and other places. -- and other places in maine. these aren't the only people who are coming to the united states. these are not people coming to build a better life. they're coming here to prey on innocent americans for their own gain. last year the special agent in charge of dea-chicago field division spoke about what

happens once these drugs and criminals reach his backyard. he aid said, cartels use every possible means to get drugs into the united states and then to local markets a. then to chicago, for example, that means predominantly to the gangs that control the drug markets in chicago. if you're are concerned, as most americans are, about the spike in crime that we've seen recently, well, a whole lot of that crime is caused by criminal street gangs committing various crimes, including selling illegal drugs, and using guns to kill one another as part of their way to protect their market share and their territory. those are the same gangs that fuel the overdose epidemic, the same gangs that perpetuate crime and gun violence, the same gangs that engage in deadly

conflicts over territory. that's the cruel reality here. it's a self-perpetuating cycle. and it starts at the border. so even though you may not be a border state, at least a southern border state, you're affected because, as you can see, the network of distribution of illicit drugs coming across the border affects almost every major american city. and it's not just cities. a lot of our rural areas in texas and elsewhere are affected as well. and we're reading increasingly about young people, unknown to them, consuming fentanyl in a fatal dose and dying, and it's happening every day in every community around the united states. and 71,000 americans died of fentanyl overdoses last year alone.

this is where it comes from, this is how it's distributed, and those are the consequences. so no community in america has been spared the pain and suffering from this pandemic of drugs. in 2021, as i mentioned, 108,000 americans died from fentanyl overdoses, from drug overdoses. 71,000 of those 108,000 died from fentanyl. i remember on september 11, 2001, when terrorists diverted aircraft and killed about 3,000 americans. we declared a war against terrorism when 3,000 americans were killed here in the homeland. yet, 108,000 americans died last year as a result of what these open borders and our broken policy, and it doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves. of course being a border state,

communities in texas are dealing with the consequences of this humanitarian crisis and these drugs on a daily basis. last weekend three people in wichita falls died from suspected fentanyl overdoses, the oldest victim was 21, the youngest was 13. in the last couple of months four students from the hayes county consolidated school district, outside of austin, died from a fentanyl overdose. all four were between the age of 15 and 17. across the state, indeed across the nation, families are mourning the loss of loved ones who have died from an overdose of these drugs, many of whom had no idea what they were consuming. they thought they were taking something else and ended up finding that it was laced with fentanyl because the amount of fentanyl it takes to kill you is

microscopic. the alarming increase in supply across our borders foreshadows even more devastation in the months and years to come. here's my point, mr. president. the biden administration needs to start taking this problem seriously. cartels and criminal organizations are exploiting the security gaps at the border and sending these drugs and criminals along with them to communities not just in texas, not just in arizona, not just in california or new mexico, but all across the united states addressing the security breakdown at our border has got to be a priority. we can't ignore it because it's not going to get any better. this is not just about migrants and immigration. it is about that but it's not just about that. it's about security, it's about public safety, it's about knowing who's crossing our

border and reaching into our local communities. cartels are sociopaths. they don't really care about people, including the migrants that they smuggle into the united states. if you go to falfurrias, texas, which is in south texas at a border checkpoint about 70 miles from the border, which is where once migrants are stuffed into a car or a van or some other vehicle, they're then driven up the highway to these border patrol checkpoints. then they are told by the coyotes, which is the colloquial name for these human smugglers, get out of the car and walk around the checkpoint because we can't risk going through the checkpoint with you there where we might be discovered. and so they do. and so you go to brooks county, texas, which is where the falfurrias checkpoint is

located, and they have asked the federal government for help to bury the bodies of migrants who die from exposure, walking around that checkpoint in falfurrias, texas, because it gets hot in texas, particularly during the summer, and many of these migrants have come from far, far away and suffering already from dehydration and other exposure. but my point is the cartels don't care anything about them. they'll leave them to die. they're just another way to make a buck. but the the cartels terrorize more than than the migrants themselves. they terrorize communities across the country, and they seize on the obama -- biden administration's weak policies to grow their footholds in the united states. these transnational criminal organizations are getting rich

smuggling migrants, smuggling drugs into the united states and killing americans in the process. it's past time to do something, mr. president. the biden administration is being outmaneuvered by the cartels, and until we see leadership from the president, communities across this country will continue to pay the price. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. the number-one job of our commander in chief is to protect the homeland. the constitutional oath we all take as members of congress, similar to the one i swore when i joined the military, is to

protect our citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i want everyone in this chamber, the american people, our allies, and our adversaries , to all hear me today. iran, the world's most deadly state sponsor of terrorism, announced its intentions to track, target, and kill american citizens here on our shores. the radical islamists of iran and their terrorist proxies across the middle east are seeking to destroy america, and they're coming here to our soil. as you can see, the iranian regime promises to, quote, bring the orchestrators and perpetrators to justice, end

quote. this is an undeniable death threat, one that they have already attempted to follow through on. iran isn't making this threat from tehran, over 6,000 miles away. they made it here, folks, in new york city. yesterday at u.n. headquarters, the butcher of tehran, eeb -- ebrahim raissi was flanked by his security force. irgc terrorists tagged by our justice department as the entity responsible for attempting to kill mike pompeo, john bolton, brian hook, and others who ordered and executed the strike

on qassem soleimani. this president's obligation to safeguard and protect the life, liberty and prosperity of our people and to deter, defeat, and when necessary, destroy our enemies. the biden administration's desire to bring the 2015 iran nuclear agreement back to life is dliewcial. -- delusional. continued renegotiation with russia as our proxy -- no joke -- ignores our men and women in uniform, the iranian dissident community, our allies and partners in the persian gulf, and american citizens on the homeland who have bounties on their head today. our middle eastern partners in particular are begging the biden

administration not to reenter this so-called nuclear agreement. they plead with us not to give iran access to $1 trillion in capital by 2030. don't fund their military support of russia's aggression against ukraine and don't fund their acts of terrorism against our own people, they ask. mr. president, i'm demanding that america does not fund or support a regime trying to kill our own people. the president's ongoing negotiations pacify rather than hold iran accountable for targeting american citizens. the biden administration's

foolish pursuit of peace through appeasement must be stopped, and we can start today. yesterday, with 26 of my colleagues, i introduced the punish act, or preventing underhanded and nefarious iran iranian supported homicide act. my bill would enforce u.s. sanctions on iraq until the secretary of state certifies to congress that iran has not supported any attempt or activity to kill a u.s. citizen, former or current u.s. official, or iranian living within the united states. specifically, it would codify the trump administration's maximum pressure sanctions as well as preserve sanctions put in place by the obama and carter

administrations. it's hard to believe that after countless attacks on americans and multiple confirmed, confirmed plots against u.s. officials, the biden administration continues with these negotiations. president biden should not provide a dime of sanctions relief to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which is actively trying to kill u.s. officials and citizens at home and abroad. i will remain committed to protecting the homeland, our troops, and officials abroad from the violent islamic regime in iran. mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of s. 4924, which is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. first, this is a pretty long piece of legislation, impactful in the policy it makes. it was introduced yesterday. probably not a great idea for the senate to short circuit any process of reviewing this legislation and speeding to its passage today. but senator ernst is a serious thinker on matters of national security, and so i do want to engage for two minutes on the merits because i think it's important to have this conversation. senator ernst is right, at the

heart, at the center of u.s. foreign policy has to be the protection of our citizens. we've got to be cold-blooded about making sure that our policy keeps our people safe both here in the united states and abroad. the good news when it comes to iran policy is that we have tried both a policy of engagement and diplomacy and a policy of escalating sanction. e from those two periods of time, which one better protected american security and the specific security of americans here and in the region. during the period of time that the united states and iran was in an agreement regarding nuclear weapons together, there were not credible plots being hatched against u.s. persons inside the united states. there was not iranian proxies

firing at u.s. forces inside the middle east, but as soon as the united states removed itself from that agreement and started this process of escalating sanction, all of a sudden americans and american assets were at risk all over the world. the plots started against u.s. persons here. the iranians and their protproxiesstarted regularly sht americans in the region. the facts are the facts, less threats to the united states when we were in a diplomatic agreement, less threats when we weren't in a diplomatic agreement. this in the end actually protects americans best. secondly, i want to make this point. it's an important one. it's called the punish act. i understand why, it's a view of sanctions as simply a

punishment. and there is a moral message about our values and how they differ from the values of those we are sanctioning. sanctions are used to influence. in fact, most of the sanctions we are passing are not just punitive, they are designed to try to change the behavior of a regime. if we enter into a nuclear agreement, we should put an end to the sanctions that were put in place. i'm sure president biden would argue that we should keep in place the sanctions that have been levied against iran to try to influence their ballistic missle program or support for terrorists. i think it's important for us to come to a conclusion, although there is an element of sanctions, if we don't use sanctions to influence behavior, i'm not sure the policy of sanctions matters as effect live

as it should. iran they are malevolent actors, they are not good people. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enter into negotiations when we can protect our people. the nuclear bombs we dropped on japan were 15-kiloton weapons, modern nuclear weapons is 100 to 800-kiloton. we should have a policy to do whatever is possible to make sure that wildly irresponsible regimes don't get their hands on nuclear weapons. that should be more important than many of our other priorities. we should elevate the conversation about stopping a regime like iran from getting a nuclear weapon. they are bad actors. they are targeting u.s. forces, they are targets the u.s.

that is the rationale why we should make sure that that regime so dangerous, so destructive, so malevolent doesn't get its hands on a nuclear weapon. their bad action in the region is a reason to engage in diplomacy to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, not a reason not to engage in that diplomacy. i understand it is hard and distasteful to get your arms wrapped around an engagement with an enemy. the soviet union through their proxies killed hundreds. they had the ability to wipe out the hundreds. but we did at the very least four bilateral nuclear deals with the soviet union, seven multilateral nuclear deals with the soviet union because we

thought it was important to limit the scope of the nuclear probe and given their intention to wipe out democracy around the world. it's apples and oranges with comparing the soviet union to iran. we need to elevate our work when it comes to nonproliferation. that needs to matter more and we shouldn't be afraid to engage with enemies an adversaries to make sure that their bad behavior doesn't end up as having as a nuclear tool a weapon that could kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans. for that reason, i object. proo objection is heard. ms. ernst: mr. president, blocking the passage of the bill is not just disappointing, but it is endangering. you can read the tweet. it's right here.

they are seeking justice and looking for retribution and revengs. it -- revenge. if that doesn't constitute a clear and present danger demanding immediate attention, then i don't know what does. if a nuclear agreement is reached, folks, it's not going to change. iran's aggression was not curbed by the obama-biden administration's failures. in fact, it invigorated iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. it financed the world's best organized, most capable terror group to reign down attacks on the united states and israel and even the arab gulf states. after the deal was signed, iran went on the offensive, and i can give you some statistics to actually show that activities increased, attacks against the united states and our partners increased from roughly eight

incidents per every 100 days in 2015 to 28 incidents in 100 days during the 3.5 years that the jcpoa was in effect. so arguing that the nuclear deal is a credible deterrent against iranian terror doesn't actually hold water. thousands of folks have died fighting the global war on terrorism, including 600 u.s. service members. they have been killed at the hands of iranian proxies in iraq and in syria. i was there on the ground in 2003, operation iraqi freedom. the leader of that initial surge was a name that we all know well, general jim mattis. the men and women in uniform then and today know that iran is

an enemy. we have no common cause with the ayatollahs or anyone who chants death to america. jim mattis told our enemies, and i will quote the good general, i come in peace. i didn't bring artillery, but i'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you screw with me -- and he used a different word -- i'll kill you all. folks, iran is killing our people overseas, and they're trying to kill our people right here -- right here in the united states of america. we cannot appease and we cannot back down. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i note this has gone on longer than expected. i ask unanimous consent to move the vote until 1:50 so i can complete my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: the senate is several weeks on from passage of the inflation reduction act. this legislation is transform national and will transform the lives of millions. it is a big dose of affordable medicine, cheaper energy bills for homeowners and our businesses. the largest investment in fighting climate and a crackdown on tax cheats -- wealthy tax cheats who rip off the american people for billions of dollars every year and ensuring corporations pay a fair share. i'm proud to be able to say that

a vast majority of this bill came from the senate finance committee majority. our team collectively spent thousands and thousands of hours developing these proposals, building support for them under zero margin for error and guaranteeing that they could pass under the challenging senate rules. senate democrats spent a full year debating what would go into the bill before it finally came together, but the dedicated staff at the finance committee began its work long before that. several of the most important provisions of the bill go back more than a decade. so i want to spend a few minutes making sure that committee an personal -- and personal office staff as well as the incredible team at the legislative council and others -- counsel understand how important they are. i will shout out a few specifics

to senate staff and describe how some of the most important issues ■actuallygot into the bill. tiffany smith, for example, leads the best and hardest-working tax policy team in public life. in fact, she was was instrumenn working on tax with corporations. the clean energy for america bill, which passed the senate finance committee in the middle of 2021 made up 90% of the final climate package that we dealt with here in the senate. it meant that for the first time in american history we, in effect, set aside the tax code and say that for the future, the more you reduce carbon

emissions, the bigger your tax savings. none of it could have happened without a young staffer named bobby anders who day after day for years reached out to every member of the senate on both sides of the aisle so that we could build a technology neutral, science-driven, market oriented approach that is going to make it possible for us to reduce carbon emissions significantly by the end of this decade. it simply doesn't happen without this dedicated young man. chris and sarah schaffer, went after the tax loopholes, adam and eric helped to make sure the irs had the resources to go after wealthy tax cheats who

skip out on paying what they owe. had a lot of debate around here about taxes. working people, for example in maine, pay taxes with every single paycheck. that's not the way it works with the wealthy tax cheats and adam and eric focused on policies that would allow us to ensure they paid their fair share. drew crouch, contributed on prescription drugs, rachel put extension work on the billionaire income tax. the president, by the way, has a billionaire minimum income tax. it hasn't been enacted fully yet, but i think it's well understood that everybody in america has to pay their fair share. grace, assistant on the -- assisted on the clean tax policy, ersa helped to make sure we were ready for pt floor debate, arthur and melanie

helped. one point about the finance committee is the majority tax team. if anybody out there mistakenly believes that it is easy to offset legislation passed in the senate, the reason they might think that way is because our incredible tax team somehow made it look effortless. the truth is it takes a ton of hard work. patricia gonzalez, a member of the investigative team has been digging into the tax practices of some of the biggest drug companies. his work went a long way to convince key senators that our corporate tax laws needed reform. ryder tobin contributed to that work and made it possible for us to survive the ruling floor debate as did madison and claire and bonnie. health care, when it comes to drug prices, big pharma had had

a stranglehold on the united states senate for way too long. they used that ban on negotiation and guarded it like it was the holy grail. of course everybody wants to negotiate. that's the way it works in our economic system of free enterprise. we were able to lift that curse, and we were able to win negotiation. shawn bishop of the finance committee health team took on big phrma. -- pharma. ana. these two in particular showed that people, the seniors and consumers all over the country, can beat the biggest lobbies in the country and none of them are bigger than big pharma. we made other important changes. protection in medicare part d. $2,000 annual out-of-pocket cap

on medications and price gouging. rod made a huge difference there. by the way, mr. president, the penalty on price gouging kicks in in just a few days, october 1. that was because the senate finance team insisted on it. when families in oregon and across the country are getting hit by prices, he even worked on making sure there would be more help in the affordable care act for those families trying to afford their coverage. that's going to save people hundreds of dollars a year. a family of four with the help, with those aca premiums, some of them are going to save those family of four up to $2400 a year. peter worked on capping the out-of-pocket costs of insulin for seniors at $35, another huge savings. liz durbin expanded medicaid coverage for adults for vaccines. now, a lot of people pitched in

on this whole system known as the byrd rule, an extraordinarily byzantine complicated set of processes and it included liz durbin whose legal acumen was invaluable to help us navigate the byrd rule. peter, kristen, kimberly, mary, daniel, all from the health team were hugely valuable. and on the trade side, sally and virginia helped with the clean energy provisions which of course we hope to get our clean energy all across this country and a lot of people around the world are going to want to buy our clean energy as well. when it comes to the byrd rule, the point man on the finance committee is our inimmable counsel mike evans. the whole thing comes crashing down. if you don't comply with the byrd rules, nobody in america,

mr. president, is more skilled or experienced than mike evans at making sure that you have navigated this procedural gauntlet here in the senate known as the byrd rules. opposing counsel, somehow when they see mike coming end up weeping because when he enters the room and he's got stacks of paper in place, we know that the byrd rule which is arduous work mike approaches with humor, with grace, with skill, and a track record in terms of winning that is unparalleled. he's a valued member of our senior leadership team who put years into this. i want to thank him, jeff michaels, our chief of staff who has been with me throughout my time in public service who gets the intersection of politics and being able to find the votes better than anybody anywhere,

our chief at the committee josh, john, isaiah, they guided finance through setbacks and struggles to get the bill done. finally, some wonderful people in the communications space. ashley on tax and investigations, taylor harvey on health. ryan kerry who can actually put complicated political issues in english. and emily, our digital director. the ira dealt with some very complicated policy issues. we've taken on some very powerful special interests and these communication folks were expert in being able to take these complicated issues, mr. president, and relate it to people at their kitchen table in maine and oregon and across the country. finally, i want to thank the wonderful people at the alphabet

agencies, the joint committee on taxation called jct led by tom, the c.b.o. with director phil, senior legislative counsel that helped us, mark, jim, allison, and vince on health policies, john, kelly thornberg, ruth and phil and wele want to thank the senate parliamentarian and her assistants. you know, you're never happy with all the calls that the parliamentarian makes, but you believe -- but you can always believe that the parliamentarian is very fair and even-handed. mr. president, under normal circumstances i have a bit more to say but i think we're right on the time when colleagues apparently at the desk have places to go. i'd ask unanimous consent that the rest of my remarks go into the record and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. the clerk will call the roll. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: