Sportsmen's Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the statement made on the floor by the Republican leader. It was a statement similar to one that was made yesterday. I responded to it yesterday and I wish to make a response today.

I am disappointed that this session of Congress has been so unproductive, but I know the reason why. It isn't for lack of effort. We have tried to bring to the floor time and time again legislation to help create more jobs in America, create a more positive business climate, create more consumer confidence in middle-income families, and we have consistently run into the same problem over and over.

In the last 6 years, since Harry Reid of Nevada has been the majority leader on the Democratic side, the Republicans have created 382 filibusters. How does this compare with previous years? There is no comparison. We have never, ever, in the history of the U.S. Senate, run into such a consistent strategy of obstruction by one party in the Senate.

It was no surprise, because the Senator from Kentucky who just spoke announced 4 years ago exactly what his strategy would be. He said his No. 1 goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term President.

I have served in the House and in the Senate with Republican Presidents, and certainly I supported their opponents whenever they ran for election, but I felt a moral and civic obligation to do my best to work with those Presidents to achieve some good for this country.

I would say that President George W. Bush is a classic example. He and I saw the world so differently, and yet when it came to specific issues I was prepared to stand and not only praise his work but join him in trying to pass important legislation.

President George W. Bush may not be remembered for this, but he should be: He spoke in favor of immigration reform. When is the last time you heard
a Republican leader speak about immigration reform? But George W. Bush understood it, and I admired him for it and complimented him for it, as I do today.

He stood and said the United States should lead the world in eradicating the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and he put his money and the money of the American taxpayers where his promises were, and I supported him for it. He was right to do it.

President George W. Bush stood up after 9/11 and reminded America we are not at war with people of the Muslim religion. George W. Bush told us it is a good and peaceful religion. Those who would corrupt it, those extremists in the name of Islam, are not a credit to that religion and do not reflect it, and I admired him for that. At a time when America was so angry over 9/11 and the loss of all those innocent lives, he showed real leadership.

What a contrast with those who come to the floor of the House and Senate and say our No. 1 goal is to make sure this President fails no matter what he tries. That is not good for America, and that is one of the reasons we have been as unproductive as we have been. But there have been exceptions. Let me tell you some of those exceptions.

We passed the Violence Against Women Act--an important piece of legislation. Go to a domestic violence shelter. I am sure the Acting President pro tempore did as attorney general of the State of Connecticut and as U.S. Senator, as I did, and sit across the table from a victim of domestic violence--a poor woman with two black eyes crying her heart out, saying: I just had to get out of that house.

Go to a domestic violence center in Little Village or in Pilsen in the city of Chicago where immigrant women come in, holding their children close by, for fear that drunken husband is going to take another swing at them or at her and tell me we could not agree, Democrats and Republicans, to put the resources together to protect those people.

Well, we passed it over here. We passed it in the Senate--a bipartisan bill--and it died in the House of Representatives.

The same thing happened on important legislation such as transportation. That used to be the easiest bill to pass. Who in the world, elected in the House and the Senate, does not want to see better highways and bridges and runways and ports across America? We know it is key to our economic development. We passed it on a bipartisan basis. What happened? It died in the House of Representatives. They ended up sending us a shell of a bill so we could go to conference and finally come up with something.

Then the farm bill. This one troubles me. I say to the Acting President pro tempore, I know Connecticut has some farmers. We have a few more in Illinois. My farmers have been through a pretty tough time of it. This summer has been exceptional when it comes to weather. Virtually every county in my State has been declared a disaster area because of drought.

It used to be routine on the Fourth of July to have shoulder-high corn, to watch in August as it just grew even more and was ready for harvest. It was a magnificent scene. I have seen it every year of my life. This year it was a sad scene in too many places in Illinois. The farmers--many of them will get through; 80 percent of them bought crop insurance--but they want to know what the farm bill is going to be next year so they can get ready.

Well, we told them in the Senate. We passed a bipartisan farm bill in the Senate. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan--what a great example of leadership. She not only put a good farm bill together, she brought Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas on her committee, with her to the Senate floor and passed it with 64 votes--a bipartisan bill. It not only wrote the farm programs for the next 5 years, it saved $23 billion, cut it off the deficit. Pretty good work. I am proud of her.

So what happened to that important bill we sent to the House of Representatives 3 months ago? It died. The House announced this week they were unable to pass a farm bill. Do you know why? For the same reason they have been unable to pass major legislation through the course of the last 2 years. They insist it be passed only with Republican votes.

Two of the bills I mentioned--transportation and the farm bill--have traditionally been the most bipartisan bills to come to the Congress. Why? Because we all share the concern about the infrastructure of America and the agricultural sector of America, Democrats and Republicans. But those bills have died in the House of Representatives.

When the Senate Republican leader comes to the floor and talks about how unproductive we have been, he fails to mention 382 Republican filibusters--an all-time record of obstruction. He fails to mention his promise to make sure his guiding principle would be the defeat of this incumbent President. And he fails to mention that graveyard of important legislation across the Rotunda in the House of Representatives. That is the reality, and the reality is a troubling one.

Yesterday, I did satellite radio and television feeds back to Illinois, and a number of the reporters said: Well, what can we do about it? I said: You get your chance November 6. Decide. Decide what you want. Decide if you want to send Democrats and Republicans to this Capitol with an awesome responsibility and also with the spirit of consensus and cooperation.

We have had one Senate candidate in the Midwest who announced: I am not going to compromise with anybody when I get to Washington. I hope the people of Indiana remember that on November 6. If that is what they want, that is what they will get.

But I sense the American people want more from us. They want us to work together. There have been instances, examples where that has happened. President Obama created a deficit commission called the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Eighteen people were appointed to it. Senator Harry Reid asked me to join the commission, and I did. I did not think much would come of it, to be honest with you. There have been a lot of commissions around here. They spend taxpayers' dollars and a lot of time and generate reports that are quickly forgotten. This was an exception simply because Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson came together and did an extraordinarily good job.

We spent a year looking at this budget and realizing that this deficit is unsustainable and unacceptable. We borrow 40 cents for every $1 we spend in this town. Whether we are spending it on food stamps, on missiles, on foreign aid, or on agricultural programs, we borrow 40 cents of it. And who is our No. 1 creditor in the world? The same nation that is our No. 1 competitor in the world, China. How about that? We are borrowing money from China. Borrowing that money, of course, is at the expense of interest payments which continue to grow because of the costs we are faced with across the board.

So we talked in the Simpson-Bowles Commission about coming up with a way to reduce the deficit in a responsible fashion. I was certain, when I walked in the door, that we were not going to get much done there, and I was even certain that I was not going to vote for it because I thought there were some issues I just could not see my way through. But I came to a different conclusion. I voted yes on the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan deficit commission, and out of the six Senators who sat on the commission--three Democrats and three Republicans--five of us voted yes. We believe it showed the path to a responsible reduction of the deficit.

Well, it did not go any further, unfortunately, because the commission did not have 14 votes, which it needed, and it did not have the power of law, which it needed. It turns out that the original legislation creating the commission had failed on the floor of the Senate when seven Republicans switched their votes and voted against it. After cosponsoring it, they voted against it.

Thank goodness the ideas behind Simpson-Bowles are still alive and continue to be alive. We have continued to meet. We have had Democratic and Republican Senators meeting almost nonstop for a long time trying to push forward this concept of reducing the deficit in a responsible way while still growing our economy and creating jobs.

We are going to have our chance soon to put on the table whatever we can come up with. Right after the election, on December 31, we face what is known as the cliff. At that point, many important pieces of legislation and laws will expire and automatic spending cuts will go into place. It is a pretty serious outcome. This is our chance to come up with a bipartisan answer to it. We cannot get to it until after the election, which I think is understandable. It is such a highly charged political atmosphere until November 6. But after the election, it is a test--a test of the House and Senate as to whether the Democrats and Republicans can put the campaign behind them and work together to solve some of this Nation's problems.

The path that Simpson-Bowles laid out is a pretty direct one and a pretty obvious one. We need to do two things to reduce our deficit. We need more revenue and we need to reduce spending. Those are the two things that reduce the deficit. I think we can do that. I think we can achieve that in a fair way. I have tried to work and continue to work toward that goal.

I would say despite the statement of the Republican leader just a few minutes ago, I am more hopeful, even for the rest of this session. If we can put these filibusters behind us for a moment, if we can come to the floor and work together, I think we can achieve something. We did with the farm bill, we did with the Transportation bill, we did with the Violence Against Women Act, and we did with postal reform--bipartisan bills, important bills that passed the Senate and died in the House. I hope if we show some leadership over here the House will follow in a bipartisan fashion to deal with these same issues. We know we have major problems facing us in this country, problems that will not be resolved unless we work together.

SUPER PACS

Mr. President, I would like to make a statement about another issue, which I think relates directly to the performance of Congress and what is going on in American politics today.

Across the street, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision known as Citizens United. It was a decision which has had a dramatic impact on the way campaigns are waged in America. We have seen unprecedented--unprecedented--influence buying by corporations and wealthy individuals in a way we have never seen in the history of the United States.

There are about 16 or 17 multimillionaires who are investing millions and millions of dollars--hundreds of millions of dollars--into our election process. The same thing holds true for major corporations.

Let me tell you some of the numbers to compare.

In the 2006 congressional midterm elections, outside groups spent $70 million to influence the result, Mr. President. 2006, $70 million.

Four years later, in 2010, outside groups raised the $70 million figure to $294 million--four times the amount they spent in 2006.

In the current Presidential election cycle outside special interest groups and wealthy individuals have already broken the record of 2010. These outside groups--and these are not the campaigns of any candidates or even political parties--have already spent, with 7 weeks to go, $350 million, breaking all records for outside money.

How is this money being spent? Turn on your television in a battleground State and try to get around the television ads. They have spent $50 million more than they did in 2008--and we are just entering the end of this campaign when the expenditures will skyrocket.

If there was ever any doubt that the Citizens United decision would lead to a flood of campaign cash from wealthy individuals and corporations, we have our answer.

At the end of 2010, there were 84 active super PACs. Two years later, there are now 657 super PACs prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to persuade voters.

The only thing worse than this unprecedented amount of money from special interest groups and wealthy individuals flooding our airwaves is the fact that ordinary Americans often have no idea where this money is coming from.

In 2006, only 1 percent of all outside spending came from secret donors. In 2010, after Citizens United and the rise of super PACs, secret donors rocketed to 46 percent of the outside spending in campaigns, which means when we see the ads on television, we have no idea, generally--in half the cases at least--who is paying for it.

As I have said before, these are not just super PACs, these are outside groups pouring money into elections. They are super secret PACs in many instances because the public has shockingly little information about the sources of the money. These super secret PACs and the wealthy individuals and corporations behind them are drowning out the voices of average citizens, and many times the voices of the candidates themselves.

Our representative democracy values transparency, participation, and open debates. Unfortunately, nonpartisan reports indicate that as the amount of money flooding into campaigns increases, core democratic principles are diminished.

The little that we have been able to learn about the major donors to these super PACs is very disturbing. Mr. President, 17 percent of all funds raised by super PACs came from for-profit businesses. It is safe to say that their primary goal is generally not advancing the public interest but, rather, enhancing their corporate bottom line.

Mr. President, 80 percent of funds given to super PACs during this Presidential election--80 percent of all the $350 million that I mentioned--came from 196 people--196 people who want to control our campaign process.

Moreover, there is an ultra-elite club of 22 millionaires and billionaires who provided half of all super-PAC money being spent in this Presidential election--22 Americans. I do not begrudge anyone their success in life or in business. I applaud it. The voices of business leaders, wealthy individuals, and special interests should be heard as part of the public debate. They are an important part of our country, and they need a seat at the policymaking table. Their voices, however, are not the only voices and opinions that matter. They should not occupy every seat at the policymaking table or buy control of what is served on that table.

A Las Vegas casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson; billionaire oil tycoons, two brothers, Charles and David Koch; and the multimillionaire head of a retail empire, Art Pope, may have achieved laudable business success, but their economic success does not entitle them to secretly use their virtually unlimited resources and impose their political will and their political agenda on America. Unfortunately, after the Citizens United case, that is exactly what they are trying to do.

The Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is reportedly the most generous super-PAC donor. He has contributed $36 million and threatens to spend even more. His first spend was on a candidate named Newt Gingrich. When he did not make it to the finish line, Mr. Adelson said that he is now going to give it to the Republican nominee for President. That is a lot of money and a lot of influence and probably more, but for this particular super-PAC donor, that $36 million contribution, when you look at his wealth, is equivalent to $168 from the average American.

The terms of the political debate and, I fear, the outcome of many elections are not being set by 314 million Americans whose lives, jobs, safety, and health are impacted by the decisions of the people they elect; instead, it is the 22, 22 wealthy individuals pouring money into super PACs that have outsized influence on the terms of our political debate and the outcome of our elections.

Our fellow Americans may not know the intricate details of campaign finance laws, but they know their voices are being drowned out by these corporations, special interests, and wealthy individuals. Many people are losing confidence in this democracy as a result. According to a recent survey, three out of four Americans believe corruption has increased over the last 3 years. Well, in some part, we can thank the Citizens United decision for that.

The time to fix our broken campaign finance system is now. I am a realist. I understand that most Americans view this flood of spending by special interest groups and wealthy individuals on political campaigns the same way they view gangland slayings: Let them shoot one another as much as they want. As long as the bullets do not hit us, as long as we do not have to watch, let them have their fun.

But it is more serious than that. If our political process is stolen away
from the average American, even the average candidate, by these special interest groups and wealthy individuals, it will diminish our democracy, there is no question. So here is an idea, one I have been pushing for a long time. I introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a public financing system that would free candidates from the dangerous reliance on super PACs once and for all. Under Fair Elections, viable candidates who qualify for Fair Elections programs would raise campaign funds in small amounts from individual donors--small amounts. Once they have raised a certain threshold number of small donations, they could receive matching funds and grants sufficient to run a competitive campaign. Fair Elections would fundamentally reform our broken system and put the average citizens back in control of their elections and their country.

I wonder what the American people would think of shorter campaigns directed to the issues, actual debates between the candidates? Would they miss us if they did not see all of those ads on television? I do not think they would miss us.

I also support the DISCLOSE Act. The Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United, but this bill we have tried to pass would require super PACs and other big spenders to disclose all donors who give $10,000 or more to influence an election. What is wrong with transparency and disclosure when it comes to our democratic political process?

I chair the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

I will tell you that when it comes to constitutional amendments, I have been pretty picky as a Member of the House and Senate. I think the Constitution which I have sworn to uphold and defend as a Member of the Senate and the House is an extraordinary document. I am not so bold or bigheaded to think I have a great idea that ought to be parked right in the middle of that fantastic and sacred document. I have been skeptical of those who have offered amendments over the years. As I have said, I do not believe we should take a roller brush to a Rembrandt. It is an amazing work of political art, and we should take care not to amend it except in the most extraordinary situations.

During the most recent hearing I chaired on the impact of Citizens United, our subcommittee received 1,959,063 petition signatures from Americans representing every State in the Union, almost 2 million Americans. These Americans support the constitutional amendment that would stop the pernicious influence of secret corporate and special interest money.

I see on the floor Senator Udall of New Mexico, who has been a leader on this issue on this constitutional amendment. As I have said, I am very selective in the constitutional amendments to which I will add my name. I have joined him because I think he is right.

Citizens United has corrupted this political process. The likelihood that Congress can change it is a long shot. If it is going to be changed, it needs to be changed in a meaningful way so that we can reclaim our political process for the people of this country and take it away from the 22 multimillionaires and billionaires who are trying to take control of this political process.

I stand with these 2 million Americans, and I stand with Senator Udall and so many others because the way we finance our campaigns in this country is in urgent need of reform.

This will be the last day or two the Senate meets before the elections. I wanted to come to the floor and speak to this issue before the election, whatever the outcome may be. America is not a better and stronger nation when we give up our political process to the wealthy and politically articulate. The strength of America is when every person has a voice and a vote and they are not going to be overshadowed or outdistanced because of someone who happens to be very wealthy and very successful and wants to buy their way into our political system.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source