United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2012

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, and we are informally closing DISCLOSE 2.0 in recognition of the original bill that Senator Schumer worked so hard to get passed a few years ago.

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special interest money in elections, bringing about an era where corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of voters in our political system.

Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous so the public does not even know who is spending millions to influence our elections. Here is how my home State newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained the Citizens United decision:

The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending

economic interests will determine who gets elected. More

money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns.

Free speech for most individuals will suffer because their

voices will count for even less than they do now. They will

simply be drowned out by the big money.

I think events have proven the Providence Journal correct. Senator John McCain recently described these events. He said:

I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with

their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck

down [the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law], that there

would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparency,

unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening.

If we look at the 2006 and 2010 congressional elections where there was not a Presidential race going on after Citizens United in 2010, there was a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other outside groups compared to what occurred in 2006, with nearly three- quarters of that political advertising coming from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006--three-quarters of it.

Also, in 2010, those 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations spent more than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. Anonymous spending rose

from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 47 percent of outside spending in 2010. Nearly half of the money spent through these outside organizations is anonymous and secret.

If we look at the 2012 race that we are in right now, a Presidential race, and compare it to the last Presidential race, we are already seeing similar ominous signs about the influence of money. The Federal Election Commission predicts that over $11 billion will be spent on the 2012 elections, about double what was spent in 2008.

Super PACs, mostly linked to individual candidates, spent about $100 million through the Super Tuesday contest in the Republican Presidential primary, again, about twice what was spent over the same period in 2008. In the two weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three times as much as the candidates themselves.

Our campaign finance system is broken. Immediate action is required to fix it. Americans of all political stripes, whatever their persuasion, are disgusted by the influence of unlimited anonymous corporate cash in our elections and by campaigns that succeed or fail depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their pockets.

Editorial boards across the country decry this new pollution of our politics. Republicans, such as former Governors Mike Huckabee and Tom Ridge, have concluded that super PACs are, in Mr. Huckabee's words, ``one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.''

Seven in ten Americans, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, believe super PACS should be illegal. Countless Rhode Islanders are fed up with the influence of corporate money in elections. I hear them at my community dinners; I read their mail. Charles in Little Compton wrote to me,

[I]t is wrong that someone who shouts louder or further, in

this instance solely because they have more money, should

drown out another person . . . [C]orporations have no problem

getting their views aired.

Hope-Whitney in Bristol wrote,

[J]ust the idea that a corporation is considered an

individual in regards to politics goes against everything

American to me. . . . [T]hey have become the Emperors as they

have the financial ability to be heard everywhere. . . . I'd

be willing to bet that a majority of their own employees do

not agree with their political representation.

Elizabeth in Wakefield wrote:

Big business should not control our elections. It is bad

enough that they deeply influence our politicians through

lobbyists.

But because of a 5-to-4 decision by the conservative Justices in Citizens United, Congress cannot prohibit super PACs from drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans in our elections. That leaves us with one weapon left in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of money from special interests. That weapon is disclosure, daylight, information.

Today, along with 34 other Senators, I am introducing legislation that will shine a bright light on these powerful shadowy interests. With this legislation, every citizen will know who is spending these great sums of money to get their candidate elected. I am delivering this speech at a time that Senator Bennet, the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado is presiding. I am very conscious and aware as I deliver it of the immense amount of work that he has put in in the process of preparing this legislation, working on a strategy for going forward, working with our leadership to commence that strategy.

I am grateful to him and the other Senators I will mention later. For now I will give the Presiding Officer the lead. In 2010, under Senator Schumer's leadership and guidance, we came within one vote of passing his original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous and unaccountable corporate money has become dramatically worse, and Americans are losing faith in our political system as a result.

More and more people believe their government responds only to wealthy and powerful corporate interests. As they see their jobs disappear and their wages stagnate, and bailouts and special deals for the big guys, they lose faith that their elected officials are listening to them. For our democracy to remain strong, this trend cannot continue. We must redouble our efforts and pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

The bill we are introducing today has been trimmed down so it just does two simple things: One, if you are an organization such as a corporation, a super PAC or a 401(c)(4) group spending money in an election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are spending it on in a timely manner. That should not be a controversial idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking special influence.

If you are a top executive or a major donor of an organization spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, you have to take responsibility for those ads by having your name on the ad, and in the case of an executive appearing in the ad yourself. That is it. Two simple provisions. Disclosure and a disclaimer. These are reasonable provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, the DISCLOSE 2.0 Act, trims down the original DISCLOSE Act in another way. We have raised the threshold for donations that require disclosure from $600 to $10,000. It may sound as though $10,000 is a ridiculously high threshold, as though that is an awful lot of money, but when we look at what is happening in these super PACs, $10,000 in this particular world is no big deal.

Ninety-three percent of money raised by super PACs in 2010 and 2011 that can be traced to specific donors came in contributions of $10,000 or more. So we will catch probably 93 percent of the money in this reporting provision, while leaving smaller donations and dues payments to membership organizations private.

The act also does not require the disclosure of nonpolitical donations, affiliate transfers, business investments, and other transfers of money that have nothing to do with electioneering.

At the same time, however, the bill also contains strong provisions to prevent the use of dummy organizations or shell corporations to hide their donations from public view. The way this bill is drafted, if somebody sets up a phony organization to take a contribution and, in turn, make that contribution to another phony organization and, in turn, make that contribution to another phony organization, before it finally lands in a super PAC that is benefiting a candidate, we will be able to trace that series of transactions.

So it is a good law, a simpler law, an effective law. It only goes after high-dollar givers. Passing it would prove to the American people that Congress is committed to fairness, that we are committed to equality, and that we are committed to the fundamental principle of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''

In closing, I thank Senator Schumer for his exemplary leadership and determination on this vitally important issue, as well as Senators Michael Bennet, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, and Tom Udall, all of whom have worked very closely on this legislation. I also thank the act's other cosponsors--all 35--who, similar to myself, understand that the legitimacy of our democratic process and the integrity of our democratic elections are at stake.

I look forward to working with any of my colleagues in the Senate who believe the voices of American citizens should be defended, and I hope all will join me in supporting this critical piece of legislation to restore integrity to our elections.

Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Whitehouse, Senator Schumer and many other Senate Democrats as we renew our efforts to curtail some of the worst abuses now allowed because of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections, DISCLOSE, Act of 2012 will help to restore transparency in the campaign finance laws gutted by the narrow, conservative, activist majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United.

Two years ago, with the stroke of a pen, five Supreme Court justices overturned a century of law designed to protect our elections from corporate spending. They ran roughshod over longstanding precedent to strike down key provisions of our bipartisan campaign finance laws, and ruled that corporations are no longer prohibited from

direct spending in political campaigns. I was troubled at the time and remain troubled today that in that case, the Supreme Court extended to corporations the same First Amendment rights in the political process that are guaranteed by the Constitution to individual Americans.

Corporations are not the same as individual Americans. Corporations do not have the same rights, the same morals or the same interests. Corporations cannot vote in our democracy. They are artificial legal constructs meant to facilitate business. The Founders understood this. Americans across the country have long understood this. A narrow majority on the Supreme Court apparently did not.

When I cosponsored the first DISCLOSE Act after the Supreme Court's decision in 2010, I hoped Republicans would join with Democrats to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United decision. I hoped that Senate Republicans who had once championed the bipartisan McCain- Feingold campaign finance law would work with us to help ensure that corporations could not abuse their newfound constitutional rights.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans filibustered that DISCLOSE Act, preventing the Senate from even debating the measure, let alone having an up-or-down vote in the Senate. By preventing even debate on the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured the ability of wealthy corporations to dominate all mediums of advertising and to drown out the voices of individuals, as we have seen and will continue to see in our elections.

By blocking the DISCLOSE Act, Senate Republicans ensured that the flood of corporate money flowing into campaigns from undisclosed and unaccountable sources since the Citizens United decision would continue. The risks we feared at the time of the decision, the risks that drove Congress to pass bipartisan laws based on longstanding precedent, have been apparent in the elections since. The American people have seen the sudden and dramatic effects in the Republican primary elections this year and in the 2010 mid-term elections. Instead of hearing the voices of voters, we see a barrage of negative advertisements from so-called Super PAC's. This comes as no surprise to the many of us in Congress and around the country who worried at the time of the Citizens United decision that it turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head. We worried that the decision created new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street. We worried that powerful corporate megaphones would drown out the voices and interests of individual Americans. It is clear those concerns were justified.

By reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act, we continue to try to fight the effects of corporate influence unleashed by Citizens United. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is focused on restoring transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a critical step toward restoring the ability of American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be overwhelmed by corporate influence and driven out of the governing process. I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will not renew their obstruction of this important legislation. Even Senator McCain, a lead co-author of the McCain-Feingold Act, has conceded that Super PAC's are ``disgraceful.''

Vermont is a small state. It is easy to imagine the wave of corporate money that has been spent on elections around the country lead to corporate interests flooding the airwaves with election ads, and transforming even local elections there or in other small States. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of corporate money to outspend all of our local candidates combined. If a local city council or zoning board is considering an issue of corporate interest, why would those corporate interests not try to drown out the views of Vermont's hardworking citizens? I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. Vermont refused to ratify the Constitution until the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending. I hope all Senators, Republican or Democratic, will support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural America Preservation Act of 2012. I appreciate Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Enzi, Brown of Ohio, Gillibrand, Harkin, and Nelson of Nebraska for joining on this bill, and in this effort.

As the Senate Agriculture Committee continues working on the next Farm Bill, one thing seems to be clear. The title one safety-net is going to look quite different than current programs. It appears the direct payment program may be done away with entirely. Some of my colleagues and agriculture groups have proposed a variety of new ideas as possible replacements to the current commodity title.

No matter what commodity program we create, my bill sets the marker on payment limitations. I introduced a similar payment limits bill last year, but this bill should better address whatever type of safety-net program we adopt going forward. The premise remains the same. We need firm payment limit. We need to close loopholes.

I support having a safety-net for farmers. This nation enjoys a safe and abundant food supply. Certainly a lot of that can be attributed to the ingenuity and hard work of the American farmer. But the farm safety-net helps small and medium-size farmers get through tough times that are out of their control.

We need an effective safety-net to assist farmers. But equally important is for Congress to develop a defensible safety-net. I will continue to work with my Agriculture committee colleagues to figure out what type of program will be most effective.

But we already know the steps that need to be taken to make it more defensible. Defensible means setting firm caps on the farm payments any one farmer can receive. The current approach does not have any overall cap. There is nothing wrong with farmers growing their operations. But big farmers shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars

to get even bigger. When the largest 10 percent of farmers receive 70 percent of farm payments, something is wrong. There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on their own. Smaller farms do not have the same luxury, but they play a pivotal role in producing this nation's food.

If you want to witness how farm payments to big farmers creates a barrier for small and beginning farmers, look at land prices. The current system puts upward pressure on land prices making it more difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy ground. This is not unique to Iowa. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in many other states.

This bill proposes an overall cap of $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high. But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise. Strong payment limits will ensure farm payments are helping those who payments were originally created for, the small and medium-size farmers.

Having an overall cap is more defensible from a Federal budget standpoint as well. This Nation needs to make tough decisions regarding all government programs. We need to find savings across the board. Setting strict caps on all commodity programs should be a no-brainer as we look to find savings and increase accountability in farm programs. Having a defensible safety-net also means closing loopholes in the current law.

For all the rhetoric that comes out of Washington, D.C. about eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, making sure non-farmers don't game the system is a common sense step to take. It's simple, if you are not a farmer, you shouldn't get a farm payment. The bill I introduced last year, and this bill, has language that closes the loopholes.

After I introduced the bill last year, we received some questions regarding the language from two camps of people. The first camp of people I would say were critical because they don't want the loopholes closed. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact people game the system. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact we have nonfarmers who claim to help ``manage'' the farm by participating in one or two conference calls a year. To those people, I cannot satisfy your concerns. I will not turn a blind eye to abuses. These are loopholes that need to be closed.

To the other camp of people, who have provided constructive feedback, I would say, we have listened. The revisions we made addressed the issues raised. We have improved the language closing the loopholes. This bill provides a tangible, workable, and fair approach. Closing these loopholes is the right thing to do for the American taxpayer. It is the right thing to do for the American farmer.

Hard caps on farm payments and closing loopholes should be supported by anyone who wants an effective and defensible farm safety-net. As the Senate Agriculture Committee heads toward a mark-up of the Farm Bill, I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am proud to have their support.

Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first responders around the country will get the essential training, education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and natural.

Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer-- always answer the call.

In a report released in September, the United States Fire Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent. During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be proud of this progress.

According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300 injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American families.

We must also continue to educate and train current and future generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the professional development of fire services personnel through the National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as well as many other critical courses.

My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is 17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from only nine in 2010--both are too many.

With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can make further progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in our nation.

I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. We appreciate Senators McCain, Carper and Scott Brown becoming cosponsors of this bill. The Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council back this measure. I am proud to have their support.

Reauthorization of the U.S. Fire Administration means that first responders around the country will get the essential training, education, and research they need to help prevent fire-related deaths and protect their communities from disasters of all kinds--man-made and natural.

Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

America's firefighters play a vital role in the security of our nation and it is important that, as a nation and a Congress, we support them. We can do so by reauthorizing the United States Fire Administration. Whether it is in response to a terrorist attack, a wildland fire, or a house fire the community, America has come to rely on firefighters. America's firefighters--whether career or volunteer-- always answer the call.

In a report released in September, the United States Fire Administration found that, over the past 10 years, the overall number of fires reported in the United States has declined by 18 percent. During this same time period, there was also a 20 percent decline in civilian deaths and a 22 percent drop in civilian injuries. We can be proud of this progress.

According to the report, however, ``although America's fire death rate is improving, it continues to be higher than more than half of the industrialized countries of the world.'' Sadly, during this same time period, there has been an average of 3,570 deaths and nearly 18,300 injuries per year. The Fire Administration must work tirelessly to improve these statistics, which represent loss and pain to American families.

We must also continue to educate and train current and future generations of firefighters. The USFA plays an important role in the professional development of fire services personnel through the National Fire Academy, by providing courses in Fire Prevention Management, Hazardous Materials, Incident Management, and Arson, as well as many other critical courses.

My home State of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average for the past decade is 17 per year, and 2011 sadly produced 23 fire-related deaths, up from only nine in 2010--both are too many.

With the continued work of the U.S. Fire Administration and the valiant efforts of our brave fire services personnel, I believe we can make further progress in lowering the number of fire related deaths in our nation.

I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.