Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. I yield back our time as well.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, we are prepared to yield back whatever time we have remaining. If that would be the case, then I think a motion to table would be made, and we could move on.

Mr. DODD. Better make it 8.

Mr. DODD. I think my colleague said he needs 5 minutes. I will give him 10 minutes. If he uses less, let me know.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope the world notes and records this moment. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mr. DODD. I am sure the President understood that. I have no objection.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object--I am not going to object-- Members should have the right to modify their amendments. For the purposes of clarification, I wonder if my colleague from Utah might take a minute to explain the modification.

Mr. DODD. Oddly enough.

Mr. DODD. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I intend to speak about this amendment at some future point in the debate. In the meantime, I recognize my friend and colleague from Massachusetts. How much time does he need? Fifteen minutes?

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Arizona, the author of the underlying bill.

Mr. DODD. I would like to see the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Why not of members?

Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, does my colleague from Arizona wish to be heard on this?

Mr. DODD. I will take about 5 minutes. My colleague from Oklahoma wants 5 or so minutes, if he would like, and others may show up. I would like to reserve the last 4 minutes to share some of that time with my colleague from Kentucky, if he needs it, or anyone else who may come over. Senator Schumer from New York made a very compelling and sound argument against this amendment. First of all, I know it is something Members do with great frequency. If you read this amendment, it is terribly complicated. It almost seems to be a flawed amendment. I get the thrust of what I think the Senator from Utah wants to do, but I am not sure, even if it were adopted, it achieves the results that he desires with the language he has crafted. It is rather complicated. In fact, the modification that the Senator from Utah made may even complicate it further, as I read it. Just on a first blush, if you look at this, the amendment itself probably should be recrafted in a way. So it ought to be rejected merely on technical grounds. Even for those who may support what he wants to do, I do not believe this amendment does what the author claims. For those of us who disagree with the intent of the amendment, there are deeper reasons why this amendment ought to be rejected. First, there is no parity. That is what my colleague from New York was suggesting. Whether people like unions or not, they are democratic institutions. There are laws which govern how union officials are elected. They may not always perfect elections. There have been some highly flawed elections. Recently, we went through one nationally where there was great controversy of one particular international union. Members of that union protested loudly over how that election was conducted. But, fundamentally, they are democratic institutions where the members get to decide a number of things. They decide whether or not to form a union. They decide who their officials will be by secret ballot. They have rights to access of information about union finances and operations. Under the law, they are required to have that access. Union rules are applied on an equal basis. Now, there are problems that occur in the breach, but the law requires it. If you change the word from ``union'' to ``corporation,'' the workers in a corporation do not have the right to organize themselves per se. They do not elect their officials, the management team. Access to information of finances is not legally required to be made available to all the employees. The rules apply differently than from unions. Corporations are hierarchical structures. They could not function otherwise. I am not suggesting it ought to be, but to suggest that unions and corporations are sort of parallel organizations is to fly in the face of factually what exists. So there is a significant difference between how a union is organized, how it functions, and how a corporation functions. Despite, again, what my colleagues have said, there are 21 States in this country where people who are nonunion members still get the benefits of what unions are collectively able to bargain for. Nonunion members get a free ride on the coattails of collective bargaining agreements in 21 States in this country. Further, there are laws in place to ensure that nonmembers in the 29 free-bargaining States can confine their payments to what is directly related to collective bargaining, contract administration. That is in 29 States in this country. There have been a bunch of different States that have tried to do what the Senator from Utah wants to do. Every one of these States rejected it. Only one has it--ironically, the State of Utah--and that State has not made a determination yet as to whether or not this paycheck deception, as I call it, is going to become the law of the land. Our colleagues in the State legislative bodies have rejected this. The courts have rejected this as being unconstitutional as well. Unions are the only member organizations that have to give their members the option of receiving all the economic benefits of membership whether they are actually members. So whether one likes unions or does not like them, there is a fundamental difference. To suggest somehow we are going to achieve parity, that is not the case. On the issue of shareholders, despite the fact there has been a tremendous and healthy explosion of involvement by average citizens purchasing stocks in America in the last 10 years--While I do not have the exact percentage today of Americans who own stock, own a piece of equity in American business, I would estimate it to be approximately around 70 percent. It is a wonderful, new statistic in terms of people's participation economically in their own independence. But a substantial part of stock that has been purchased is purchased through mutual funds. There are individual buyers, but a lot of it is done through large investors or larger conglomerates, if you will. However, when you start breaking this out and start to decide how a shareholder would vote on whether or not corporate funds ought to be used for political activities--I do not think I have to say much more-- you are entering a morass of problems on how you divide the percentages of corporate equity based on a corporation's political involvement. You are literally putting a sign around almost every corporation's neck saying: Indict me. Because I do not know how you do it without getting yourself into trouble. It seems to me, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. In a bill where we are trying to reduce the amount of money, the proliferation of soft-money dollars, in politics, to try, all of a sudden, to engage in a debate that is unworkable, and as the amendment is currently crafted, it is unworkable--and even if it were well crafted--I think this is fundamentally a step in the wrong direction and does not further the overall goals of this bill. My colleague from New York said it well. If corporate America thought this amendment was going to be adopted, it would be banging down the Senate doors. The idea that they should be treated exactly like unions is not something that corporate America would welcome. Here make no mistake, again there appears to be a lot of animosity here, a lot of venom, a lot of anger over the fact that organized labor fights on behalf of their people. They fight for a Patients' Bill of Rights. They fight for prescription drug benefits. They fight for a minimum wage increase. They fight to improve the quality of education. Make no mistake, there are people who disagree with them. And they wish the unions would just be quiet and go away and stop speaking out on these issues and stop getting themselves involved in the political life of America. I appreciate their desire to have that occur, but that is not right. It is not how America functions. It is not what we ought to codify as new law. Whatever else one thinks about McCain-Feingold--and despite the fact I agree with my colleague from Wisconsin, if this amendment were adopted, it would virtually act as a ``poison pill'' and kill this bill. To the extent people are interested in campaign finance reform, the adoption of this amendment would, for all practical purposes, destroy the fine effort that has been waged by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin to achieve campaign finance reform. If this amendment were adopted, aside from that issue, it would be a major setback, in my view, for millions and millions of working people in this country who want their voices heard, want the issues they care about to be on the table when politics is being discussed and candidacies are being decided. For those reasons, and others brought up today, I respectfully say to my friend from Utah that this amendment would be more properly withdrawn for the reasons I said at the very outset of the discussion. Notwithstanding all of the above, the amendment ought to be defeated. And I urge my colleagues to do so when the vote occurs. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Oklahoma wishes to be heard. I want to take a couple of minutes. I will be glad to give him whatever time he needs. I would like to reserve 4 minutes at the end of the debate. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York. How much time remains for the opponents?

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have many Members desiring to be heard. I want to make sure I accommodate everyone who wants to be heard. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. How much time does my good friend from Minnesota need?