State Wolf Management Act

Mr. President, I come here today on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho to introduce the State Wolf Management Act. This act as drawn is aimed at some particular issues we have in Idaho with the management of wolves, and that other adjoining States that share Idaho's boundaries have with the Federal Government.

First of all, I want to thank the Governor of the great State of Idaho, the Honorable Butch Otter, for his assistance in crafting this bill. I can tell you, Governor Otter, as the chief executive of Idaho, his predecessor, who happens to be yours truly, and my predecessor, as Governors of the great State of Idaho have all joined in the effort to obtain delisting of the wolf in Idaho. That is particularly true as we attempt to wrest management of this particular species away from the Federal Government.

What the act does is it identifies as a distinct population a segment of the gray wolf population. Specifically, it identifies this specific population in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, in which there are few if any wolves, and the State of Montana and the State of Idaho, all of those States in which there are a lot of wolves and indeed are too many wolves.

First of all, let me say, the official estimates, in 2008, for Idaho are that there were 846 wolves in Idaho, with 39 breeding pairs. Virtually everyone in the State agrees that estimate is very low. In the year 2010, again virtually everyone agrees there are well over 1,000 gray wolves in Idaho and well over 39 breeding pairs.

How did we get to where we are?

Wolves have been gone from the State of Idaho and adjoining areas for many years. In 1995, someone--I cannot identify who--in their infinite wisdom, who lived back here on the banks of the Potomac River, decided we in Idaho needed wolves again.

The State of Idaho was indeed not very happy about the decision. The chief executive of the State, the executive branch of the State, the legislative branch of the State, and the vast majority of Idahoans were absolutely opposed to reintroducing wolves back into the State of Idaho.

After litigation, and after the usual things you go through, nonetheless, 34 wolves were captured in Canada and brought to the State of Idaho and introduced into the State of Idaho against the objections of almost everyone. Indeed, there was a group of people who did want to see wolves brought to Idaho, and they got their way.

To give you a little bit of background as to what happened, we in the State of Idaho are very proud of our big game management. Under common law in this country, and indeed in England before this country, all wild game belonged to the sovereign. The United States of America is probably surprised to hear they are not the sovereign, that indeed the States are the sovereign. As a result of that, over the centuries--the couple of centuries we have been in existence as the United States of America--litigation after litigation has determined that indeed all wildlife in the State belongs to the sovereign; that is, the State in which they are located.

Idaho has a long and proud history and culture of hunting and outdoor life. We have managed our wildlife to the point that we are getting--or had been getting--the maximum out of our wildlife for big game harvest every year. Before Europeans inhabited Idaho, there were very few deer and even less elk. Elk were a plains species. They were not a mountain species. After settlement of the State, the elk were pretty much removed from the plains and took up residence in the mountains, where they have done very well and adapted very well.

Again, over the years, the premier species in Idaho, as determined by the people of the State of Idaho, has been elk. Elk are difficult to manage; that is, they are not as easy to manage as deer. They are not as prolific as deer. As a result, they require relatively intensive management.

As a result, the State has broken into many different game units for elk, and each of these units is carefully managed by the fish and game department to determine the birthrate of the elk each year and the survival rate over the winter and a determination of how many elk can be harvested. As a result, we have had a robust and relatively stable population of elk in the State of Idaho.

Fast forward to 1995. The Federal Government released its 34 wolves into the State of Idaho, and contrary to what some people believe, they are not vegetarians. Also contrary to what some people believe, they need to eat every day. And when they eat, they eat our elk.

As a result, there has been considerable depredation on our elk herds and for that matter on domestic livestock. The domestic livestock losses are not large in number, unless, of course, it is your livestock they are preying on, of which a number of us in the livestock business have experienced losses in that regard.

Back to the elk. We want to continue to manage our elk. We want to continue to manage our deer. Indeed, we manage a lot of big game species. We manage moose, we manage bears, we manage cats, we manage all big game in the State of Idaho and do a pretty decent job of that.

On top of the Federal Government's introduction of these 34 wolves into Idaho, which have now exploded into 1,000 wolves, with regulations that at the outset were very, very intrusive, to the point where you couldn't shoot wolves--even if you found them attacking your livestock, it was unlawful to take a wolf. Of course, the regulations that were imposed on us by the Federal Government have created a considerable amount of animosity and bad blood.

What we want at this point is the ability to manage the wolves just as we manage every other population of big game and animal species in Idaho. The fact is that the wolves are there. They are going to be there. We obviously made the effort at the outset to not have them. We did our best to keep them out. We lost that fight, so now we have to accept the fact that they are there. But the fact that they are there does not mean that we, in the sovereign State of Idaho, should not have the ability to manage our own game species.

Recently, because the numbers have exploded in the amount that they have--when I was Governor, I pressed

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process, which happened on my watch. The start of the delisting happened on my watch as Governor. As time went on, my successor, Governor Otter, did an excellent job of continuing to press the case for delisting. After all, the Federal Government has absolutely no business in the State of Idaho dealing with wolves other than the hook it has of the Endangered Species Act. To argue that a species that has been introduced--34 of them--and then explodes to well over 1,000 is endangered simply flies in the face of not only science, but it also flies in the face of logic.

Let me tell my colleagues what we were told and what we were promised by the Federal Government at the time they brought in the wolves. They told us that once we got to the point of 300 wolves and got to the point of 30 breeding pairs, the party was over and they would delist. Well, we reached that point in 3 years, and we have been trying to delist ever since. We got them delisted. The matter went to court. We actually had a hunting season last year. But now it has gone back to court, and, again, those who are trying to protect the number of wolves, to the great disadvantage of elk, won again, and they got the judge to order that the wolves be listed again in Idaho and Montana.

That is as a result of a dispute the State of Wyoming also has with the Federal Government, and they have been unable to reach an agreement as to how wolves should be managed. The Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior were perfectly happy with the plans from Idaho and Montana, but because they have been unable to settle with Wyoming, we now find ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage. This simply isn't fair.

This bill will very simply turn management of the wolves back over to the State of Idaho unless and until the time that the Federal Government can again or can ever claim that they are an endangered species. When that happens, the State again will be subject to the lawsuits that will inevitably come if, indeed, they are endangered. But in the meantime, I will urge every Senator to vote for this bill. This is a States rights issue. We are a sovereign State. We are entitled to take over management of these wolves. I can promise everyone that the State of Idaho will do a substantially better job, a cheaper job, and a much more efficient job of managing the wolves in the State of Idaho than the Federal Government could ever do or will ever do, and we will be able to do it with due deference to all the other species in the State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I come here today on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Crapo, from Idaho to introduce the State Wolf Management Act. This act as drawn is aimed at some particular issues we have in Idaho with the management of wolves, and that other adjoining States that share Idaho's boundaries have with the Federal Government.

First of all, I want to thank the Governor of the great State of Idaho, the Honorable Butch Otter, for his assistance in crafting this bill. I can tell you, Governor Otter, as the chief executive of Idaho, his predecessor, who happens to be yours truly, and my predecessor, as Governors of the great State of Idaho have all joined in the effort to obtain delisting of the wolf in Idaho. That is particularly true as we attempt to wrest management of this particular species away from the Federal Government.

What the act does is it identifies as a distinct population a segment of the gray wolf population. Specifically, it identifies this specific population in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon, in which there are few if any wolves, and the State of Montana and the State of Idaho, all of those States in which there are a lot of wolves and indeed are too many wolves.

First of all, let me say, the official estimates, in 2008, for Idaho are that there were 846 wolves in Idaho, with 39 breeding pairs. Virtually everyone in the State agrees that estimate is very low. In the year 2010, again virtually everyone agrees there are well over 1,000 gray wolves in Idaho and well over 39 breeding pairs.

How did we get to where we are?

Wolves have been gone from the State of Idaho and adjoining areas for many years. In 1995, someone--I cannot identify who--in their infinite wisdom, who lived back here on the banks of the Potomac River, decided we in Idaho needed wolves again.

The State of Idaho was indeed not very happy about the decision. The chief executive of the State, the executive branch of the State, the legislative branch of the State, and the vast majority of Idahoans were absolutely opposed to reintroducing wolves back into the State of Idaho.

After litigation, and after the usual things you go through, nonetheless, 34 wolves were captured in Canada and brought to the State of Idaho and introduced into the State of Idaho against the objections of almost everyone. Indeed, there was a group of people who did want to see wolves brought to Idaho, and they got their way.

To give you a little bit of background as to what happened, we in the State of Idaho are very proud of our big game management. Under common law in this country, and indeed in England before this country, all wild game belonged to the sovereign. The United States of America is probably surprised to hear they are not the sovereign, that indeed the States are the sovereign. As a result of that, over the centuries--the couple of centuries we have been in existence as the United States of America--litigation after litigation has determined that indeed all wildlife in the State belongs to the sovereign; that is, the State in which they are located.

Idaho has a long and proud history and culture of hunting and outdoor life. We have managed our wildlife to the point that we are getting--or had been getting--the maximum out of our wildlife for big game harvest every year. Before Europeans inhabited Idaho, there were very few deer and even less elk. Elk were a plains species. They were not a mountain species. After settlement of the State, the elk were pretty much removed from the plains and took up residence in the mountains, where they have done very well and adapted very well.

Again, over the years, the premier species in Idaho, as determined by the people of the State of Idaho, has been elk. Elk are difficult to manage; that is, they are not as easy to manage as deer. They are not as prolific as deer. As a result, they require relatively intensive management.

As a result, the State has broken into many different game units for elk, and each of these units is carefully managed by the fish and game department to determine the birthrate of the elk each year and the survival rate over the winter and a determination of how many elk can be harvested. As a result, we have had a robust and relatively stable population of elk in the State of Idaho.

Fast forward to 1995. The Federal Government released its 34 wolves into the State of Idaho, and contrary to what some people believe, they are not vegetarians. Also contrary to what some people believe, they need to eat every day. And when they eat, they eat our elk.

As a result, there has been considerable depredation on our elk herds and for that matter on domestic livestock. The domestic livestock losses are not large in number, unless, of course, it is your livestock they are preying on, of which a number of us in the livestock business have experienced losses in that regard.

Back to the elk. We want to continue to manage our elk. We want to continue to manage our deer. Indeed, we manage a lot of big game species. We manage moose, we manage bears, we manage cats, we manage all big game in the State of Idaho and do a pretty decent job of that.

On top of the Federal Government's introduction of these 34 wolves into Idaho, which have now exploded into 1,000 wolves, with regulations that at the outset were very, very intrusive, to the point where you couldn't shoot wolves--even if you found them attacking your livestock, it was unlawful to take a wolf. Of course, the regulations that were imposed on us by the Federal Government have created a considerable amount of animosity and bad blood.

What we want at this point is the ability to manage the wolves just as we manage every other population of big game and animal species in Idaho. The fact is that the wolves are there. They are going to be there. We obviously made the effort at the outset to not have them. We did our best to keep them out. We lost that fight, so now we have to accept the fact that they are there. But the fact that they are there does not mean that we, in the sovereign State of Idaho, should not have the ability to manage our own game species.

Recently, because the numbers have exploded in the amount that they have--when I was Governor, I pressed

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process, which happened on my watch. The start of the delisting happened on my watch as Governor. As time went on, my successor, Governor Otter, did an excellent job of continuing to press the case for delisting. After all, the Federal Government has absolutely no business in the State of Idaho dealing with wolves other than the hook it has of the Endangered Species Act. To argue that a species that has been introduced--34 of them--and then explodes to well over 1,000 is endangered simply flies in the face of not only science, but it also flies in the face of logic.

Let me tell my colleagues what we were told and what we were promised by the Federal Government at the time they brought in the wolves. They told us that once we got to the point of 300 wolves and got to the point of 30 breeding pairs, the party was over and they would delist. Well, we reached that point in 3 years, and we have been trying to delist ever since. We got them delisted. The matter went to court. We actually had a hunting season last year. But now it has gone back to court, and, again, those who are trying to protect the number of wolves, to the great disadvantage of elk, won again, and they got the judge to order that the wolves be listed again in Idaho and Montana.

That is as a result of a dispute the State of Wyoming also has with the Federal Government, and they have been unable to reach an agreement as to how wolves should be managed. The Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior were perfectly happy with the plans from Idaho and Montana, but because they have been unable to settle with Wyoming, we now find ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage. This simply isn't fair.

This bill will very simply turn management of the wolves back over to the State of Idaho unless and until the time that the Federal Government can again or can ever claim that they are an endangered species. When that happens, the State again will be subject to the lawsuits that will inevitably come if, indeed, they are endangered. But in the meantime, I will urge every Senator to vote for this bill. This is a States rights issue. We are a sovereign State. We are entitled to take over management of these wolves. I can promise everyone that the State of Idaho will do a substantially better job, a cheaper job, and a much more efficient job of managing the wolves in the State of Idaho than the Federal Government could ever do or will ever do, and we will be able to do it with due deference to all the other species in the State of Idaho.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak, as many of my colleagues have today, on the DISCLOSE Act, which is being sponsored by Senator Schumer, primarily, and other Members of the Senate, to try to fix and make significant adjustments to an area of law that is very important to many Americans and actually is at the basis of the operation of our democracy.

Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to express their concern about the importance of fixing this, and the DISCLOSE Act is how many of us intend to try to get something fixed that needs to be fixed. No matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, or if you are a progressive or a centrist, I think you think it is right to be honest. I think that is a principle everybody can agree to, to be honest and to be forthright and to be truthful and to have been aboveboard.

The problem, as you know, with the outcome of the Court case has to do with the way we run our elections. If we do not fix this, we are going to be in a situation in this democracy where people can spend unlimited amounts of money in a secret way. That is the problem. It is not that corporations can do it or labor unions can do it or conservatives or liberals, it is that it can be done at all in secret.

I do not think Americans want this. I know the people I represent do not want this. They want to have an honest debate. They want to have an open debate. They want people to stand and say: Hi. My name is Joe. My name is Jane. This is my position. This is my position. Debate it. Then people can vote. The problem, if we do not fix this Court case, is that you will never know who is saying what, and that is not right.

That is akin to walking out into the school yard and getting hit from behind and you do not even know who hit you and no one will tell you. How can you fight someone you do not know? How can you participate in something like that? So this loophole has to be closed. I think, and most people in my State believe, that elections should be open, should be honest, should be transparent. Corporations can participate, labor unions can participate, big companies, small businesses. But you do need to disclose who you are in a report.

I have an article from the Washington Post. I wanted to have it blown up, but we had difficulty. I will try to explain it, and I will hold it up so maybe the cameras can see it. This says in the last cycle in 2008, 117 entities reported donations, and there were 372 that didn't. That ratio is about one-third reported, and the other two-thirds did not. The trend is going in the wrong direction. More people are participating but not saying who they are so nobody knows. The report for this year, 2010, is already a ratio of 1 to 6. So we are not even into the end of this election cycle. We are getting close to it. The ratio is 15 have been reporting, 85 haven't, which means about only 1 in 6. It is all becoming secret.

I don't think that is right for our people. I think our people should know who is saying what, what money is behind what ad so it helps them understand better the arguments and why they might be seeing such ads.

I have a real problem, and I will give an example. The Presiding Officer may have this problem in Minnesota. We have a big problem in Louisiana and Florida with Chinese drywall. This product came in from China, and it is rotten. When people put it in their house, they get sick. Their kids get sick. Their copper piping starts rotting. It is horrible. Our people had

their homes flooded, and we had to gut their homes. We didn't have enough drywall in the United States so we started needing it so much, it came from lots of other places. Some of it is really bad.

So a couple of us have a bill that says: Don't send us any more rotten Chinese drywall. We are going to try to pass that bill.

I think my constituents would like to know, if they see an ad on television saying how great drywall is, these ads that say this is a fabulous product, tell Senator Landrieu to support this product, I think my constituents would like to know if that is actually the Chinese drywall company that is behind that product telling them not to vote for me because I am trying to protect them from this company. That is one example, but I could give 100 examples. I am not saying the Chinese drywall company that sent us rotten drywall should not advertise, although I don't think foreign companies should be advertising in elections in America. But let's say it was an American company that sent us this bad drywall. If they want to argue against a bill, fine. But at least let people know that is what they are doing. If it is a labor union advocating for something, let people know.

That is why I support the Schumer bill. That is why I support the DISCLOSE Act. That is why I think most people in Louisiana support it. They might make up their minds, but they would like to know who is paying for the ad. That is all this bill does.

I know there have been some friends from the other side who have come down and tried to convince the Senate that we don't have to tell people, that we should have all of our elections in secret. I think democracy is best served when people are educated, intelligent, and informed about all aspects. Let them make their own judgments. We live or die by that; we are either in office or we are not.

I wished to express my support. I hope we vote on it tomorrow. I wish we could get 60 votes in the Senate. It is mind numbing to me and mind boggling that we couldn't have a handful of Republicans stand and say they too believe we should have honest and open elections. It is not about corporate money or union money. It is not about trying to block corporate money or increase union money or block union money and increase corporate money. It is just about disclosing the money from wherever it comes and having reasonable limits that are fair to everyone. I don't think that is too much to ask. That is basically all this bill does.

I support cloture and ending the debate on something we don't have to take that long to understand. It is pretty clear. One is either for transparency or not, for disclosure or not, and we fought fairly for everyone.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge support for legislation I am introducing today to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin by any organization, program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, including colleges and universities. If recipients fail to comply, the federal agency providing the assistance may terminate funding, and organizations risk losing their eligibility for future funding.

The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, is tasked with enforcing Title VI as it applies to colleges and universities. OCR, however, believes that it does not have jurisdiction over complaints based solely on religion as opposed to race, color, or national origin. This means that when a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Sikh is harassed or discriminated against for being a Jew, a Muslim, or a Sikh, OCR must first determine whether the harassment or discrimination is a result of the student's religion or a result of her race, color, or national origin.

In most cases involving such discrimination, the perpetrator himself probably wouldn't even know if his hatred stems from prejudice based on religion or prejudice based on race, color, or national origin. Yet, before acting to protect these students, OCR has to determine the motive behind the perpetrator's actions. This wastes valuable time and allows the discrimination to continue pending the determination. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example to require OCR to make such a determination and then in essence say the harassment and discrimination is okay provided it was based on religion and not on race, color, or national origin.

Many people are not aware that Title VI does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. This is because discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited in virtually every other civil rights law and has become such a fundamental principle of our country that we just assume the protection exists. For example, titles other than Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibit religious discrimination in other contexts.

In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the Federal Government and in the defense industry on grounds of ``race, creed, color, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate discrimination on the basis of ``color, race, religion, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself included numerous prohibitions on religious discrimination, just not in Title VI. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Act prohibits discrimination in employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 governing housing, continued to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ``race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.''

When it comes to education, the 1964 Act provides two mechanisms that address religious discrimination. First, the Attorney General is given limited authorization to sue public colleges that deny admission on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in a way that limits educational desegregation. Second, the Attorney General is authorized to intervene in certain pending equal protection cases claiming discrimination ``on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin'' if the case is of sufficient public importance. However, the Justice Department may not institute such actions on its own, and no federal agency is authorized to investigate run-of-the-mill religious discrimination cases at educational institutions or cases in which the victim has been unable to initiate litigation.

Why was religious discrimination left out of Title VI? Key members of Congress wanted to make sure that religiously affiliated colleges maintained their ability to discriminate in favor of co-religionists in admissions and extra-curricular activities. The original version of the bill that would become Title VI, drafted by the Department of Justice, did ban religious discrimination in federally assisted programs or activities. However, Emanuel Celler, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and sponsor of the bill, explained during floor debate that he wanted to permit denominational colleges to engage in certain forms of discrimination in favor of co-religionists. Celler stated that he wanted to ``avoid a good many problems'' relating to funding that ``goes to sectarian schools and universities.'' He explained that ``for these reasons, the subcommittee and, I am sure, the full committee or the majority thereof deemed it wise and proper and expedient--and I emphasize the word `expedient'--to omit the word `religion.' ''

Congressman Celler may have been right that eliminating religion made it expedient, but it did not make it correct. Congressman Celler's concerns could have been addressed with some clarifying language that such institutions would still be allowed to favor co-religionists.

The bill that I am introducing contains such language. It states that the amendment is not to limit an educational entity with a religious affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying admissions policies, degree criteria, student conduct regulations, student organization regulations, or policies for faculty and staff employment, when these policies relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or purpose of the institution. Furthermore, it does not require educational entities to provide accommodation to any student's religion obligations such as dietary restrictions and school absences. Finally, if the educational entity permits expressive organizations to exist by funding or otherwise recognizing them, the amendment does not require the entity to limit such organizations from exercising their freedom of expressive association by establishing membership or leadership criteria.

Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment simply provides the same protection against discrimination based on religion that this title already provides for discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

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

Mr. President, when I was home in New Hampshire over the recess, I had the opportunity, as I am sure the Presiding Officer did, to see all of the television ads that are being run by various candidates and special interest groups. Already--again, I am sure this is true in Minnesota and it is true across the country--because of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, a decision many of my colleagues talked about earlier today, the airwaves in New Hampshire were flooded with ads from essentially anonymous, unaccountable special interests. I think the question we all should ask and certainly voters across this country should ask is, Who is really paying for these ads? Voters don't know. Sure, the ads give the special interest groups great mom-and-pop, apple pie-sounding names, but voters today have no way of knowing who is funding these groups and who is really putting up the money for these ads.

Personally, I think there is too much money being spent on elections these days. During the 1990s when I first ran for election in New Hampshire for the State senate and then for Governor, in New Hampshire we had a voluntary spending cap law. I think the law worked extremely well in limiting the amount of money candidates could raise and spend. Under our State law, a candidate who didn't want to voluntarily limit campaign spending had to obtain a certain number of signatures from voters or pay a higher fee to get on the ballot. And when that law was in effect, almost every candidate chose to abide by the voluntary spending limit. That had two very positive effects. First, candidates could spend less time raising money and more time talking to voters about the issues they faced. Second, a candidate needed to rely more on volunteers to help get their message out because they didn't have as much money to spend on ads and staff. You also became very efficient at how you spent your money--something that I think is helpful when you get into elective office. Now, unfortunately, New Hampshire's voluntary spending cap law was struck down in a decision very similar to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

When I look back at my three campaigns for the State senate in New Hampshire, I spent about $20,000 each time. Fast forward to today and the impacts of repealing that law by the Supreme Court in New Hampshire, and today candidates routinely raise and spend about five times that much. In my campaigns for Governor, I raised and spent about $1.25 million to $1.5 million based on what the campaign spending law was that year. Today, in New Hampshire, serious candidates for Governor raise and spend several times that amount.

Now, because of the Citizens United decision, we can no longer limit the amount of spending by special interests on Federal elections. But what we can still do and what we should do is require these anonymous groups to disclose who is funding their ads. That is exactly what the DISCLOSE Act does. It also prohibits foreign corporations from spending money to influence American elections.

I think unlimited election spending by anonymous groups and potentially foreign corporations poses a real threat to our democracy. This should be a bipartisan issue. For years, it was.

As the Presiding Officer knows, because I have heard him talk about this, back in 1997 the minority leader said--this is back in 1997, so over 10 years ago--that ``public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.''

Then just this spring, even after the Citizens United decision, Senator Cornyn, the Senator who is leading the Republicans' election efforts, told the Wall Street Journal:

I think the system needs more transparency so people can

more easily reach their own conclusions.

I agree completely. If all the Senators who are on public record supporting disclosure of campaign contributions voted in support of the DISCLOSE Act, we would pass the DISCLOSE Act today by a wide bipartisan margin.

I hope, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think about the DISCLOSE Act and about what is happening to manipulate our elections in this country, that they will join me--and all of us who believe that the best way to make sure that our democracy remains strong and that we address how money is being spent in elections--in supporting the transparency and the accountability that is available to voters in the DISCLOSE Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.