Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Might I inquire of my colleague, is there going to be a requirement for a recorded vote on this amendment?

Mr. DODD. Why not just lay it aside.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from North Carolina has an amendment. Why don't you make that motion then, ask unanimous consent to lay it aside?

Mr. DODD. First of all, this has been a very valuable discussion. While I think initially there was some concern about the Senator's amendment, for the reasons articulated by the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Wisconsin, and others, the suggestion that the Senator from Pennsylvania has made is a valuable one. The debate has been valuable. There are some very serious issues that need to be thought through. The Senator from Maine has raised a very worthwhile question. I would strongly suggest that we lay this aside until the severability debate occurs. I think the Senator from Delaware agrees with that as well. In the meantime, we can see if we can work on some language as well. Some of us may have some additional suggestions with the findings of fact. I say to my colleague, I could talk about some of those. I appreciate the need for findings of fact, but there may be a way of doing this a little less graphically than he has in some instances. We can see if we can reach an agreement on this, pending the outcome of the severability debate. That is a very good suggestion. But the Senator from Pennsylvania has made a very valuable contribution to this debate this afternoon.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business? I believe the pending business is the Landrieu amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Landrieu amendment be temporarily laid aside. I say to my colleagues, there are efforts at crafting the language in such a way as to bring bipartisan support to this amendment. We think it is a very good proposal, and we are working on some of the specifics of it. While we are doing that, we will go to the Specter amendment, which I think is the intention of the manager, the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is unavoidably going to be absent from the floor for a few minutes, so I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and we will proceed to the Specter amendment, I presume, in about 10 or 15 minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Mississippi. This is a good amendment. I appreciate the efforts of the staff who worked on this over the last half an hour or so. What I thought we might do, for those who want to understand this better, the Senator from Mississippi and I, along with my colleague from Kentucky, will have a colloquy that we will write up providing more specificity on exactly what changes we made here and the rationale. Basically, this is a coordinating effort. We are saying that under existing law, where there are requirements of public disclosure, there ought to be a way to coordinate that information so that it is more transparent, more readily available for those who seek that information. It does not expand the requirements in law beyond those that already exist for public disclosure. I thank my colleague from Mississippi and my colleague from Kentucky. I know of no reason that we need a recorded vote.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire, how much time remains on the proponents' side?

Mr. DODD. If I may finish. This is not a liability and it should be applauded. The fact that corporations do not do that sort of a thing does not mean that other organizations should be condemned because they do encourage people to participate. To make one other point regarding parity, as of October 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Federal Election Commission, the ratio of ``total'' contributions from corporations versus unions was 15 to 1. As of October 2000, corporations had contributed more than $841 million dollars, while unions contributed just over $36 million. As of October 2000, the ratio of ``hard money'' contributions from corporations versus unions was 14 to 1. In 1998 and 1996, the ratio was 16 to 1. Between 1992 and 1998, corporate contributions increased nearly $220 million, while union contributions grew by $12.6 million. No parity in these statistics. These ratios and statistics are according to the Federal Election Commission. You talk about disparity--16 to 1--every year, I say to my friend from Utah. Corporations have massive amounts of money, hard and soft money, they are pouring into these Federal elections.

Mr. DODD. I want to point out, if I may, when you talk about the great advantage that labor has, because it does organize, it does work on voter registration, it does work on get out the vote----

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there was one other Member who wanted to be heard. He is not here. I am going to yield back the time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point? That is not our fault. That is your fault. Why don't you get somebody to organize the voter registration and GOTV?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Would you agree?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his comments. I think he hit it right on the head with this. I made comments earlier on the previous amendment offered by my good friend from Utah. He made the point. I understood the intent of what the Senator was trying to achieve. As Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, with whom I don't normally agree on these matters, properly pointed out, you cannot carry out the intent of the amendment. Despite the desire to do so, the language of the amendment, if followed to the letter of the proposal, or even the spirit, creates a tremendously bureaucratic nightmare for both corporations and for labor organization. I do not agree that anyone would have an interest to discourage activity at all. We want to know what is going on. Under current Federal law, labor unions are required to make various records be available and open. The records cannot be shielded or hidden. That is in violation of existing Federal law. To suddenly add even more bureaucratic requirements for every disbursement, receipt and expenditure in every level, including affiliates, and every minor tangible office, is not in the spirit of true disclosure. This is in the spirit of discouragement from anyone participating in the process. Everyone knows we have a hard time getting more people to participate in the process as it is. In last year's Presidential and congressional Federal elections, we had about 50 million who participated out of 101 million eligible voters in this country. It seems to me we ought to be doing better and we can do better. We lecture the world all the time about how important it is to vote. We like to think of ourselves as an example for nations that are seeking to establish democratic institutions. It seems to me it is in our collective interest to promote that idea, and to do so by example with an environment of full disclosure, of fairness, and of equity. But with all due respect to my friend from Utah, the adoption of this amendment is nothing more than to create unnecessary burdens on institutions that, frankly, we wish were more active in the political life of America. If they were, then in some sense through voter education efforts we might have greater voter participation. This amendment, in my view, only adds additional unnecessary burdens to a process that already discourages too many people from participating in the public life of our Nation. For those reasons, I urge our colleagues when the vote occurs tomorrow to reject this amendment. I think the provisions included in the bill drafted by the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin very aptly deal with this very question of true disclosure and information. They have done so in the spirit of seeking to make people aware of what institutions are doing that involve themselves in the political life of our country. But to add this amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill would have the opposite effect. It would not effectuate what we are trying to achieve. Our goals are to reduce the proliferation of the money in the political life of our country and to make it less costly for people to seek Federal office. We ought to simultaneously try to reduce the amount of hurdles, burdens, and gauntlets that institutions such as corporations and labor unions have to presently meet. To add to them, to make their involvement even more difficult, I don't think is in anyone's interest, Democrats or Republicans, and certainly not in the interest of the American people. For those reasons, I frankly urge that the amendment be withdrawn. But, if it is not going to be withdrawn, I urge my colleagues with the same expression that we saw with the previous Hatch amendment to vote with the same sense of collective voice on this particular proposal. For those reasons, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield my colleague 5 minutes. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his comments. We are going to meet in the morning for a half-hour debate before the final vote on this Hatch II amendment. I thank my colleague. The Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, there is a copy we can get.

Mr. DODD. Well, I suggest that the time be charged to both sides equally. That is normally how we proceed. Why not go ahead, and I am sure others will come to the floor.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the opponents' side?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.