Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. It is, Mr. President. We may have additional requests. I think 10 minutes is what Senator Hagel wanted. We may have a request for 15 or 20 minutes over here tonight because people want to be heard. After the Hagel amendment, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has been waiting. We would be prepared to offer his amendment after the consideration of the Hagel amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes or less and that the time be counted against the opponents of the legislation. I am told, talking to staff, that is not objectionable.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, she makes the point, and I will quote her. I should give her credit for this. She says: Make no mistake, those who hide behind the shield of free speech have turned it into an oxymoron. In the context of American politics, speech isn't free. It belongs only to those who can afford it. That says it about as well and as concisely as anything I have seen in print. We will vote on this matter later today. We had 33 votes or thereabouts the last time, and I am hopeful we may get a few more of those who will want to join us in what I consider to be a noble cause. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for his efforts. As he has pointed out on numerous occasions, there are other examples where we limit speech. Speech is not a right without its limitations. And there are countless examples of where, in fact, we limit speech because of circumstances that we have discerned to be more valuable and more important than unfettered speech. Certainly, in my view, nothing can be more serious than the debate about campaign finance reform and trying to put the brakes on slowing down the money chase, trying to make seeking public office more available to more people, people with good ideas and creativity and imagination and energy who serve in public life but who, because of the rising costs of these campaigns, will be excluded from that possibility. The Senator from South Carolina has come up with the only workable solution that I can think of at this juncture. In the absence of it being adopted, of course, I will continue to support McCain-Feingold because I know of no other way in the absence of that than trying to do something about it. A better way of dealing with this is to adopt the amendment being offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I am pleased to be a supporter of it. I thank him for doing so. I regret there are not more Members here to engage in this debate today. I realize it is Monday. As the Senator from West Virginia said, people are probably out holding fundraisers all across the country. As one of our colleagues pointed out the other day, you have to raise $100,000 a week now to compete effectively in one of the largest States in this country. In my State, one of the smallest States in the country, you have to raise over $1,000 a day, every day; in fact, more than that in order to compete in a contested matter in the small State of Connecticut. I have watched a statewide race go from $400,000 in the mid-1970s to $5, $6, $7 million today in Connecticut. That is obscene. There is no other way to describe it. It is obscene. And anyone who has looked at it agrees. The idea, as some have said, that the problem is not that there is too much money in politics but that there is too little really just runs smack into what most Americans, the overwhelming majority of Americans, believe. They understand it. I think we know that they understand it. I think it is regrettable that we are not going to do something more about it, particularly the idea that is being suggested this afternoon by the Senator from South Carolina. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope as well Members who are not here will read the remarks of our colleague from West Virginia. It is about as concise and thorough a description of the current status of affairs as anything you are going to hear or have heard over the last week or so as we have discussed campaign finance reform or, I suspect, that you are going to hear for the remainder of this week or into next week, if we have to take additional time to debate the McCain-Feingold legislation. There is not a great deal I could add to it. He captures my thoughts, my sentiments, far more eloquently than anything I have ever said about the subject matter, and I have spoken on it on numerous occasions. His language is graphic in a couple of instances, but it is appropriate language to describe the current state of affairs, the current circumstances in which we find ourselves in this beloved Nation of ours. There is nothing more fundamental. I know there are other subject matters this body wants to address, issues of budget and taxes and education, environment, health care. They are all very important subject matters. They certainly have a more contemporaneous appeal than the subject of campaign finance reform. Certainly every poll that is done in the country indicates that this subject matter ranks near the bottom of issues about which the public cares. I think I understand why, at least in part. In part, it is because people have become so disgusted with it and have little hope things are going to change and are just so accepting, unfortunately, of the present state of circumstances with no likelihood it is going to change. While I think these other subject matters have value and importance, in my view nothing we will debate or discuss in the coming Congress or coming Congresses will exceed in value or importance the subject matter which we will decide later today, and during the remainder of the week if the Hollings proposal is rejected, as I suspect it will be based on earlier votes we have had. I say that with a deep sense of regret because he is addressing the issue in a way that, unfortunately, it can only be addressed. I am very respectful of the U.S. Supreme Court. As someone who is a graduate of law school, an attorney, licensed in my State, I was trained to revere the Supreme Court of the United States and respect all of its decisions. But the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, reached more than a quarter of a century ago, that equates money with speech, could not be more flawed, in my view. That is to suggest that the microphone which I am using here today is equal to speech, or that the sound system in here is equal to speech, or some other form of currency that may exist is equal to speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. Justice Stevens had it right: Money is property, just as this microphone is property, just as the sound systems are property. It is not speech, it is merely a vehicle by which we enhance the volume of our voice. A columnist and reporter in my State of Connecticut got it right. Only in American politics would we equate free speech with the present set of circumstances. It is an oxymoron, she said. There is nothing free about it. Speech only belongs, in American politics, to those who can afford to buy it. It is not speech at all. But because the Court arrived at that decision, we have found ourselves, over the last quarter of a century, grappling with how we can regulate to some degree this excessive--to put it mildly--explosion in the cost of running for public office. Not just the Senate; in the House of Representatives and local offices in our respective States, the cost has risen dramatically. I fear, as the Senator from West Virginia has so eloquently stated, if we do not do something meaningful about this, that we do put our democracy in peril. That is not an exaggeration. That is not hyperbole. When we have reached the situation in this country where the maximum contribution you can give is $1,000--in effect, $2,000--and we are about to raise that to possibly $3,000 or $6,000, for a couple to $12,000--and an annual calendar year level of contributions by individuals to $75,000 or a couple to $150,000, and we are told that is barely enough to finance the campaign system in this country, that we are going to have to index it so we can have incremental increases as the cost-of-living goes up--I always thought cost-of-living adjustments were done for the poor, people on Social Security, people who could not make ends meet, buy groceries, pay the rent, clothe themselves, so we built in a cost-of-living adjustment to assist those people. A cost-of- living adjustment for less than 1 percent of the American public who can afford to write a $1,000 check to finance a Federal office--they need a cost-of-living adjustment so they can buy more influence? That is incredible to me, that we would even entertain such a thought as part of the campaign finance reform mechanisms. I served for 2 years as the general chairman of the Democratic Party, a position I was proud to hold. I did not seek it. I was asked to do it. I filled a similar role to that held by the former majority leader of the Senate, Bob Dole, former colleague Paul Laxalt, and others over the years who had been asked to fill those roles, particularly during a national campaign. I got to see firsthand what could happen when the money chase gets out of hand. It got out of hand in both parties. My great fear is that if we don't learn these lessons, if we don't understand how disgusted the American public is and how narrow the pool of likely candidates for public office is becoming, and how that jeopardizes the institutions which we are responsible for preserving for future generations to be able to inherit and sit at these desks and chairs, and debate the issues of their day, that we are naive at best and border on corruption at its worst. It is getting to that. Two-hundred years ago in order to seek public office you had to be a white male who owned property. We changed the laws in this country. It is no longer the case. But we have established a de facto set of barriers that are almost as pernicious. That barrier has become money; unless you have wealth or access to it or are willing to make compromises, a coal miner's son or daughter, as the Senator from West Virginia said, or anyone else of modest means, for that matter, is going to be de facto excluded from seeking public office. I noted this morning in the New York Times a story by John Cushman, entitled ``After Silent Spring Industry Put Spin on All It Brewed.'' The subject matter of the article concerns the chemical industry and how it is particularly involved in this. But I suspect they are not unique, and that this happens across the board. It is interesting to read one paragraph. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. As is my colleague from West Virginia, I am most reluctant to amend the Constitution. I have resisted almost every single effort except this one during my 20 years as a Member of the Senate. I cherish and carry with me every day a copy of the Constitution given to me by the Senator from West Virginia, my seatmate. In fact, it is inscribed by him to me. I cherish it. To illustrate the point, I will bring it out of my pocket. I carry it every day--Senator Byrd carries his with him as well--to remind me of the important role we fill here as Members of this body, and how we should cherish and protect that document. But I know of no other means by which we can effectuate a fundamental change in these laws. I think we have made some decent progress on the McCain-Feingold legislation. I am a supporter of it because it is the only means by which we are going to be able to bring some possible discipline to the process. It will slow down the exponential growth of the cost of these campaigns. But the real answer is what the Senator from South Carolina has offered. That is the real answer. It is the only answer. Someday we may adopt this, if the situation continues to run out of hand. The Senator from South Carolina, myself and the Senator from West Virginia may no longer be Members of this body. I am sorry to say that, but that may be the case. Others may look back to this debate and the debate we had in 1997, or other debates over the years, in which the Senator from South Carolina has raised this proposal on the issue of campaign finance reform that came to the floor of the Senate, and rue that we did not in earlier times take the steps that the Senator has suggested as a way of providing us with a more simple and clear-cut manner by which to regulate the condition of our Federal elections. As the Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, we have now run Presidential elections for 25 years with public financing. No less a conservative than Ronald Reagan accepted public money, as had George Bush. As a condition of accepting Federal dollars, of course, they were limited in the amount they could spend. Public financing has even less of a chance of being adopted by this Congress than the proposal offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I am sorry that is the case as well--not because I particularly like the idea of public financing. But in the absence of that, and given the Buckley v. Valeo decision, it is very difficult for us to craft legislation that is going to survive constitutional scrutiny in light of the Buckley v. Valeo decision, hence the value of the importance of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina. I noted this morning that William Safire had a column called ``Working Its Will,'' in which he endorses the McCain-Feingold approach, as I read it. But I was struck by the story told at the outset of the column, which I will share with my colleague. He said: The story is told of the corrupt Albany judge who called opposing trial lawyers into his chambers. ``You offered me a $5,000 campaign contribution to throw this case to the plaintiff,'' said the fair-minded judge, ``and defendant's lawyer here just offered me $10,000 to find for his client. Now how about plaintiff giving me $5,000 more, evening things up--and we try the case on the merits?'' It almost seems like that is what happened here. Money talks, but money is not speech. That is the essence of the offense and defense of campaign finance reform. William Safire goes on in this column. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that column be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there is a column that addresses a situation in my own State of Connecticut but also talks about the subject matter of campaign financing across the country, written by Michele Jacklin of the Hartford Courant. I ask unanimous consent that her column be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. My colleague from Wisconsin is here, and my good friend from Nebraska is in the room. I oppose the Hagel amendment. I guess people always concern themselves. Chuck Hagel happens to be a good friend of mine, someone I admire immensely as a Member of this body. We have worked together on issues on numerous occasions. So my opposition, while it will come as no great surprise, is not rooted in anything personal at all; it is a substantive disagreement, and my admiration for him is in no way diminished, even though we disagree. I wish to focus on one aspect. Senator Feingold talked about the soft money aspects. My concern is that and also the raising of the hard money limitation. I know this gets lost on some people. There are distinctions between soft and hard money. To the average citizen, money is money, and they get confused between what is hard and what is soft money. But the hard money increases are troubling to me in that we raise it from $1,000 to $3,000 an individual. Let me translate that. That is really raising it from $2,000 to $6,000 because you contribute both to the primary and the general election. Let me get even more realistic. As a practical matter, when we call for contributions and there is a married couple, we usually get double that amount. So instead of $2,000 or $4,000, we are now talking about $12,000 for that couple. Those are the practicalities, and everybody who has ever raised money knows exactly what I am talking about. All of a sudden, we have gone from $4,000 to $12,000, plus we raise the individual total amount for a calendar year to $75,000, and then double that, really, because it is $150,000. Now we are getting into the bizarre world where there are individuals--and of course not many in the country can do it; we are told it is really not enough because we ought to index it according to the consumer price index or some other parameter, much as we do with Social Security recipients or people on food stamps who are having a hard time feeding their families. We are going to index how much you can give, how much more access you can have to the process for the less than a fraction of the top 1 percent of the American public who could even begin to think about writing a check for $150,000 per calendar year to support the candidates of their choice. As we look at this, just to put it in perspective, we had .08 percent of the population who actually gave $1,000 or more during the same period in 1999-2000. There were 1,128 individuals who gave $25,000 annual aggregate maximums to candidates. So, unbelievable as it is, here we are debating the need to raise contribution levels to benefit somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,200 to maybe 2,000 people in the country. How many Americans can write a check for $150,000 in hard money? Obviously, very few. The idea somehow we are impoverished as candidates and we therefore need to raise the limits so people who fall into that category can write checks for us--only in this bizarre world could we even be talking about these numbers in this context. My hope is Members will not be tempted to go this route. We ought to be looking for ways to reduce the amount of money in politics. There are those who disagree with me on this, but I think we are awash in it. It is running the risk of moving our very system of democracy into deep trouble. There is no issue more important than this one. The other issues we will have come before us are significant, but this goes right to the heart of who we are as a people, who can run for public office, who can get elected to public office. Our failure to do something about it places, as I said the other day, our democracy, in my view, in peril. So, reluctantly, because he is a good friend of mine, I will oppose the amendment of Senator Hagel. I think we can do better. There will be alternatives offered this week that I think will be more attractive, and therefore I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001, S. 395. This bill is designed to build on the success achieved by the Office of Advocacy over the past 24 years. It is intended to strengthen that foundation to make the Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. This bill was approved unanimously by the Senate during the 106th Congress; however, it was not taken up in the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment last month. On February 28, 2001, the Committee on Small Business voted 18-0 to approve and report this important legislation. It is my understanding the House Committee on Small Business under its new Chairman, Don Manzullo, is likely to act on similar legislation this year. The Office of Advocacy is a unique office within the Federal Government. It is part of the Small Business Administration, and its director, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies. As the director of the Office of Advocacy, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy has a dual responsibility. On the one hand, he is the independent watchdog for small business. On the other hand, he is also a part of the President's administration. As you can imagine, those are sometimes difficult roles to play simultaneously. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001 would make the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch acting on behalf of the small business community. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy will fight on behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the Presidents and his Administration. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001 would direct the Chief Counsel to submit an annual report on Federal agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to the President and the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. The Reg Flex Act is a very important weapon in the war against the over-regulation of small businesses. When the Senate first approved this bill in the 106th Congress, I offered an amendment at the request of Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, that would direct the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to send a copy of the report to the Senate Government Affairs Committee. In addition, my amendment also required that copies of the report be sent to the House Committee on Government Reform and the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. I believe these changes make good sense for each of the committees to receive this report on Reg Flex compliance, and I have included them in the version of the bill being introduced and debated today. The Office of Advocacy as envisioned by the Independent Office of Advocacy Act 2001 would be unique within the Executive Branch. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy would be a wide-ranging advocate, who would be free to take positions contrary to the administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they impact small businesses. During its consideration of the bill in 1999, the Committee on Small Business adopted unanimously an amendment I offered, which was cosponsored by Senator John Kerry, the Committee's Ranking Democrat, to require the Chief Counsel to be appointed ``from civilian life.'' This qualification is intended to emphasize that the person nominated to serve in this important role should have a strong small business background. In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal Government. Over time, it has been assumed that the Office of Advocacy is the ``independent'' voice for small business. While I strongly believe that the Office of Advocacy and the Chief Counsel should be independent and free to advocate or support positions that might be contrary to the administration's policies, I have come to find that the office has not been as independent as necessary to do the job for small business. For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy comes from the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full-time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. Today's allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on- board as the result of the longstanding hiring freeze at the SBA. The independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the discretion of the Administrator. In addition, the General Accounting Office undertook a report for me on personnel practices at the SBA, GAO/GGD-99-68. I was alarmed by the GAO's finding that during the past 8 years, the Assistant Advocates and Regional Advocates hired by the Office of Advocacy shared many of the attributes of Schedule C political appointees. In fact, Regional Advocates are frequently cleared by the White House personnel office-- the same procedure followed for approving Schedule C political appointees. The facts discussed in the GAO Report cast the Office of Advocacy in a whole new light. The report raised questions, concerns and suspicions regarding the independence of the Office of Advocacy. Has there been a time when the office did not pursue a matter as vigorously as it might have were it not for direct or indirect political influence? Prior to receipt of the GAO Report, my response was a resounding ``No.'' But since receipt of the GAO report, a question mark arises. Let me take a moment and note that I will be unrelenting in my efforts to insure the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small businesses. However, so long as the administration controls the budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy and controls who is hired, the independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business community. As our Government is changing over to President Bush's administration, this would be a opportune time to establish, once and for all, the actual independence of the Office of Advocacy. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001 builds a firewall to prevent the political intrusion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy. The bill would require that the SBA's budget include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the Agency. The separate account would also provide for the number of full- time employees who would work within the Office of Advocacy. No longer would the Chief Counsel for Advocacy have to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy. The bill would leave unchanged current law which allows the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of Advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. I believe this special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. In addition, S. 395 makes no change in the current law which authorizes and directs each Federal Government agency to furnish the Chief Counsel with such reports and other information necessary in order to carry out the functions of the Officer of Advocacy. This provision is very important for the Office to conduct its responsibilities on behalf of small businesses. The Independent Office of Advocacy Act is a sound bill. It is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and consideration by me, the staff of the Committee on Small Business, representatives of the small business community, former Chief Counsels for Advocacy and others. These individuals have also devoted much time and effort in actively participating in a Committee Roundtable discussion on the Office of Advocacy, which my Committee held on April 21, 1999. Since that time, the Committee on Small Business approved this bill twice by unanimous votes, and it was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1999. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of the Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2001.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I, too, commend our colleague from Illinois. Last evening, a very diligent member of his staff caught me about 9 o'clock with this proposal. I read it going back to my office. It looked to me like a good idea then and it sounds like a good idea this morning. The suggestion that the Senator from Arizona has made and that the Senator from Illinois, in fact, has endorsed--that we take a day or so to run the trap, so to speak, on this to make sure there are not any unintended problems with this--is a wise suggestion. I endorse that. My colleague from Kentucky can clarify this, but this may be the last amendment we consider so it could actually be the pending business when we come back in session. This is a very sound idea. I know of a case that is related to this kind of circumstances. This goes back now more than 10 or 15 years ago, where a candidate held a series of fundraising events. The events were $100 events or $200 events. An individual actually contributed through these five or six events, without keeping a good track of how much he had actually contributed to the particular candidate. He exceeded the dollar amount by, I think, $50 or $75. At any rate, the candidate then refunded the excessive portion of the contributions over $1,000 limit. It might have been the individual had contributed $1,200 or $1,050. Whatever the number was, it was relatively minor. The candidate was then fined by the FEC because he accepted excessive contributions. Notwithstanding the fact that the excessive portion had been timely refunded, the fact that the candidate accepted the contributions in excess of the ``per election'' $1,000 limit triggered a fine. The candidate was informed by the FEC that if he had gotten a hold of the contributor and said, Didn't you mean the extra $50 was supposed to go to the primary election, or, Didn't you intend for your wife to contribute the $50, there would have been no fine in connection with the overage. The affirmative act of refunding the excessive portion of the contribution had no relevancy in terms of the allegation. This amendment goes to part of that situation, and it is in everyone's interest, including the FEC, candidate and the contributor, to allow for a more efficient and effective method of streamlining this process than lending oneself to the possibility of an added bookkeeping problem. It seems to me like a very sound and commonsense amendment. I am hopeful the FEC will agree with that. We will take a look at that over the weekend and keep the Senator and his staff informed as we ask these questions. Maybe we can do it together, with the staffs, so they can be fully informed as to the FEC's response to this. I am very confident this amendment, or some technical modification of it, can be unanimously adopted. I hope it can be unanimously adopted by the Chamber.

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. Any motion to bring up an amendment requires unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside, is that not correct?

Mr. DODD. May I make a parliamentary inquiry. Is not the pending business the Specter amendment?

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. The problem is, we can't control what 98 other Senators want to do.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, the problem is that if you lay an amendment aside, it takes unanimous consent to continue to lay it aside for other matters to be brought up. Someone could object to that and provoke a delay in the consideration of the bill. We should probably go with withdrawal, with the commitment to the Senator that we will bring it back up.

Mr. DODD. Hopefully, we can narrow that. My colleague from Kentucky may want to be heard on this, but I recommend the Senator withdraw the amendment. Obviously, as soon as she is ready to bring it back up for debate, we will accommodate her. If she wants to bring back the amendment as crafted or whatever her version will be, that will certainly be allowable. It would be a good way for us to proceed. I recommend that, if she is so inclined, and we can all work together to try to achieve the result she desires.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona has described the hesitations that those of us have about this amendment. They are mere hesitations, not opposition. It is a desire to ensure that what the Senator from Texas is trying to achieve, will in effect, be accomplished by the result and nothing more. Certainly my colleague from Texas can appreciate that unintended consequences of our good intentions sometimes can have effects beyond our imagination.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have used 3 minutes?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I obviously did not object to the Member's desire to modify the amendment. That is the courtesy we extend to each other in the Senate. I point out that this amendment was poorly drafted. There were actual misstatements of current law included in the amendment. The modified amendment requires there be written notice. With all due respect to my friend from North Carolina, to begin with, this is an unnecessary amendment. Secondly, it is a type of union bashing again. This is the same process we have been through. Yesterday we voted 99-0 on Senator Nickles' amendment to strike the Beck language from this bill. We believed that the Senate should not be legislating like this on a decision the Supreme Court has left to the NLRB to interpret and decide. Under the Beck holding, there is a requirement of notice. This amendment attempts to specify the content of the notice, the means on a portion of the notice required under that decision. The courts have said that it is the purview of the National Labor Relations Board, through case law, to spell out what constitutes that notice. With the amendment we adopted yesterday 99-0, we said: Look, even though we have different opinions about what Beck holds, we should not try to include Beck in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill itself. Congress should defer to the NLRB with respect to Beck. Now, here we go again. We are going right back, almost with the next amendment, saying we are going to take portions of the Beck decision and tell you what Beck means. That, it seems to me, contradicts the exact vote we cast yesterday. I am somewhat surprised about this because I thought maybe we were going to put these amendments aside, particularly after having gone through any number of amendments that were designed to attack organized labor and unions and their involvement. But with that said, I must note that there are other political rights that union members have. I do not hear my colleagues suggesting that those rights ought to be enumerated and notice given about them. For example, you have a right to join with other union members to register members, their families, or other employees. Why not send written notice of that right to union members? You have the right to join with other union members and encourage and assist other members to vote. That is a right. Why not include written notice of that? There is a long list of rights that union members have that could be included. You have a right, on your own nonworking time, to volunteer to assist other candidates. I could go down a long list of union member's political rights that we do not require under law that there be a written notice. As a result, this amendment is targeted and pointed in a way that is unfair. Under Federal law, you have the right to organize a union in your workplace, to join a union. Under Federal law, you cannot be disciplined, discharged, or suffer any adverse action by an employer to join or assist a union.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. Under Federal law, you have the right to join or assist a union. Under Federal law, you have a protected right, together with any other employees, to present any views, requests, or demands to your employer about wages, benefits, and the like. Why not require that these be given written notice? My point is this--this amendment is adversely selective in its approach. It is picking out one part of the Beck decision, and saying to the NLRB: You have no right to decide in this area. Congress is going to specifically tell the NLRB how to do it. As I said, yesterday we voted 99-0 to strike the Beck language from this bill. We are coming right back in again today and asking this body to re-inject itself into the Beck decision. The Beck decision requires notice. The NLRB already has rich case law on what constitutes notice and how to make sure members receive legally sufficient notice. For us to specify, as the Helms amendment does, would be a return to exactly what we are trying to avoid by the vote we cast yesterday. For those reasons, I urge rejection of this amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?