Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Maybe we will consume all of it, and if the Senator from Kentucky----

Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the opponents' side?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know of three or four anyway. There may be a few others.

Mr. DODD. How much time does my colleague want?

Mr. DODD. Why not take the time the senator's need, and I am confident my colleague from Kentucky will yield us some time if we need it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New Jersey, once again, for raising the arguments that are being circulated around the offices of the Senate and pointing out the fallacy of those arguments. The facts are inarguable, when you look at the rates that are being charged in major markets all across the country. It goes back to the heart of the bill. As we are trying to keep down costs, for many of us it runs somewhere around 75 or 80 cents on the dollar that is spent on TV advertising. It varies from State to State, I am sure, but that is not an unrealistic number in modern campaigns to spend that much of a campaign dollar on TV advertising, considering how much the public relies on television for its sources of information. If we are truly trying to put the brakes on the ever-spiraling cost of campaigns, as my colleague from Wisconsin has eloquently described, there is no natural law that I know of which says that the costs of campaigns ought to continue to rise at the rate they have been rising over the last few years. Trying to do something about cost as well as the amount of dollars that are raised is the second part of this equation. If we are making the case that we don't need more money in politics, that case is more easily made if we are able to demonstrate that we can reduce the cost of trying to speak to the American public about what our views are, what their choices are, as we encourage people to participate in the electoral process. I thank our colleagues, the authors of this amendment, for offering the amendment and making the case they have. I know our colleague from Illinois, who is a cosponsor of the amendment, wants to be heard. I see my colleague from Wisconsin. Maybe he would like to take a couple minutes before Senator Durbin arrives. I yield a couple of minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DODD. Nor are they required to contribute union dues. Under those 29 States, that is not the case with respect to the contribution of union dues.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am expecting a couple of Members who asked to come over and be heard. Just to conclude, it is an encouraging sign we have heard nothing but strong support for the amendment offered by our colleague from New Jersey. I think the argument is quite clear. The facts have been laid out about as clearly as possible. There is clearly a loophole, to put it mildly--maybe something more serious occurs--when the lowest unit rate is not being recognized in major media market after major market all across this country, thus raising the cost of campaigns. Part of the idea was, of course, to have the lowest unit rate so people's voices could be heard during election season to hopefully enlighten and educate the public about the choices they would make. I do not want to say that is necessarily what occurs in every 30-second or 1-minute ad that the public is subjected to, but nevertheless the idea is the unit cost would be the lowest rate so the cost of campaigns would not get out of hand, which obviously what has occurred in the last few years. The charts Senator Corzine used, and Senator Torricelli, showed the exponential growth in the cost of campaigns. While there are a lot of reasons that has occurred, there is no reason any more clear than the rising cost of television advertising. I note the arrival of my colleague and friend from New York who would like to be heard on this issue as well. I commend her for her support of this as well and thank the authors of this amendment. This is really an important piece of this bill. If we are going to try to keep down costs, keep down the rising costs of campaigns, we have to address this issue. The Senator from New Jersey has done that with this amendment. I am happy to yield 3 or 4 minutes to my colleague from New York.

Mr. DODD. I ask for 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. That is not true.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, we disagree so fundamentally on that.

Mr. DODD. They get the benefits of the collective bargaining agreements even though they are not members per se. They all get the same benefits.

Mr. DODD. Are we going to keep that secret?

Mr. DODD. Should we know who are making the contributions to these organizations that are out every day with such activities as get out the vote, voter registration, voter information, and mailings? You talk about full disclosure, why not full disclosure on these organizations?

Mr. DODD. Should we have with all these independent 501(c)(4)s, the National Right to Life groups, the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association, should there be full disclosure of every member, including all their disbursements, contributions, and expenditures? Does my colleague support that?

Mr. DODD. May I inquire of my colleague from Kentucky--if I could interrupt for 1 second--we are down to about 17 minutes on the proponents' side. Will my colleague from Kentucky be willing at some point to yield us a little time if we need it?

Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the other side?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to yield to my colleague and friend, Senator Dorgan, but I wish to commend both of our colleagues from New Jersey--Senator Torricelli for being the lead sponsor of this amendment and Senator Corzine and others for their cosponsorship of it and to Senator Corzine for some excellent remarks on the purpose of this amendment. I will take some time later on this morning to address the substance of the amendment, but I commend both of my colleagues for their efforts. This is very well thought out. The point Senator Corzine made that we sometimes forget is that these are public airwaves which we license people to use for commercial purposes. Nothing is more important than making people aware of the choices, both issues and substantive choices as well as political choices that they make in national, local, or State elections. We can't say anything about local or State elections, but we can about national--Federal elections. I think Senators Torricelli, Corzine, Dorgan, and Durbin have hit on a very important point if this bill is to do truly what its authors intend it to do. I yield 15 minutes to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from New York and our colleagues in the House, Congressman Engel, for their introduction of this bill. I compliment my friend from New York for her wonderful remarks about Thurgood Marshall, who has been an inspiration for a generation of us who grew up watching him change the law of this country, making a difference in the lives of millions and millions of people but also for generations to come, who will remember and reflect on his work as an inspiration in their time to redress the wrongs of their age. It is appropriate, proper, and fitting that this building in New York that houses the Federal judiciary be named for such an inspiring figure of our times. I commend the Senator from New York for offering this, for her words today, and my compliments to Thurgood Marshall's family. Thurgood Marshall, Jr. has been a great friend to many of us here and has been a wonderful public servant in his own right. He carries on the great tradition his father carried as a judge and Member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to be a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I authored last year to enable the President to admit Chile into NAFTA. Nearly 6 years ago, a bipartisan majority of this body ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then the promises of new jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs and a clearer environment have all been realized. In other words, Mr. President, NAFTA has succeeded despite the predictions of some that America could not compete in today's global economy. As I said last year, with the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is now high time to move forward and expand the free trade zone to other countries in our hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, my legislation will authorize and enable the President to move forward with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile. President Bush has stated time and again that he wants to increase ties with Latin America and more fully engage our neighbors to the South. Western Hemisphere trade ministers are planning to develop a draft proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas at their ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires in April. This draft will then be considered by Western Hemisphere leaders at the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City at the end of that month. I hope that this summit bears fruit. Indeed, I have been working toward a free trade agreement of the Americas for many years. We should quickly take the first step toward economic integration with our Southern neighbors by including Chile, who has been in negotiations to join NAFTA since early January, in our North American trade agreement. Chile is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In fact, Chile has already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. And, in addition, Chile has also put in place a free trade agreement with Mexico. After a brief slowdown last year, today the Chilean economy is growing at a healthy annual rate of more than 6 percent. Chile is noted for its concern for preserving the environment, and has put in place environmental protections that are laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in order as evidenced by a balanced budget, strong currency, strong foreign reserves, and continued inflows of foreign capital, including significant direct investment. In addition, Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. Since 1998, the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile does not yet have a free trade agreement has fallen from 11 percent to 8 percent. That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall by a point a year until it reaches 6 percent in 2003. While some goods are still assessed at a higher rate, the United States does a brisk export business to Chile, sending approximately $3.6 billion in American goods to that South American nation. That represents 24 percent of Chile's imports. That $3.6 billion in exports represents thousands of American jobs across the Nation. Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities as mandated in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade cay play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic successes. It is unrealistic to think that the President will have the ability to negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will provide President Bush with a limited fast track authority which will apply only to this specific treaty. I believe that fast track is key to enabling the President to negotiate the most advantageous trade agreements, and should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, however, there are stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic fast track can be re-authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be allowed to stand in the way of free trade with Chile. Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that America, the Nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best workers, and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete with other nations. The past 6\1/2\ years since we ratified NAFTA have proven them wrong. Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The environment in North America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has created 710,000 new American jobs all across the Nation. The many successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential broader free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade and economic relationships foster American influence and support our foreign policy. In other words, this bill represents new American jobs in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy and greater American influence in our own Hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from New York and our colleagues in the House, Congressman Engel, for their introduction of this bill. I compliment my friend from New York for her wonderful remarks about Thurgood Marshall, who has been an inspiration for a generation of us who grew up watching him change the law of this country, making a difference in the lives of millions and millions of people but also for generations to come, who will remember and reflect on his work as an inspiration in their time to redress the wrongs of their age. It is appropriate, proper, and fitting that this building in New York that houses the Federal judiciary be named for such an inspiring figure of our times. I commend the Senator from New York for offering this, for her words today, and my compliments to Thurgood Marshall's family. Thurgood Marshall, Jr. has been a great friend to many of us here and has been a wonderful public servant in his own right. He carries on the great tradition his father carried as a judge and Member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to be a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I authored last year to enable the President to admit Chile into NAFTA. Nearly 6 years ago, a bipartisan majority of this body ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then the promises of new jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs and a clearer environment have all been realized. In other words, Mr. President, NAFTA has succeeded despite the predictions of some that America could not compete in today's global economy. As I said last year, with the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is now high time to move forward and expand the free trade zone to other countries in our hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, my legislation will authorize and enable the President to move forward with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile. President Bush has stated time and again that he wants to increase ties with Latin America and more fully engage our neighbors to the South. Western Hemisphere trade ministers are planning to develop a draft proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas at their ministerial meeting in Buenos Aires in April. This draft will then be considered by Western Hemisphere leaders at the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City at the end of that month. I hope that this summit bears fruit. Indeed, I have been working toward a free trade agreement of the Americas for many years. We should quickly take the first step toward economic integration with our Southern neighbors by including Chile, who has been in negotiations to join NAFTA since early January, in our North American trade agreement. Chile is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In fact, Chile has already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. And, in addition, Chile has also put in place a free trade agreement with Mexico. After a brief slowdown last year, today the Chilean economy is growing at a healthy annual rate of more than 6 percent. Chile is noted for its concern for preserving the environment, and has put in place environmental protections that are laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in order as evidenced by a balanced budget, strong currency, strong foreign reserves, and continued inflows of foreign capital, including significant direct investment. In addition, Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. Since 1998, the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile does not yet have a free trade agreement has fallen from 11 percent to 8 percent. That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall by a point a year until it reaches 6 percent in 2003. While some goods are still assessed at a higher rate, the United States does a brisk export business to Chile, sending approximately $3.6 billion in American goods to that South American nation. That represents 24 percent of Chile's imports. That $3.6 billion in exports represents thousands of American jobs across the Nation. Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities as mandated in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade cay play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic successes. It is unrealistic to think that the President will have the ability to negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will provide President Bush with a limited fast track authority which will apply only to this specific treaty. I believe that fast track is key to enabling the President to negotiate the most advantageous trade agreements, and should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, however, there are stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic fast track can be re-authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be allowed to stand in the way of free trade with Chile. Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that America, the Nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best workers, and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete with other nations. The past 6\1/2\ years since we ratified NAFTA have proven them wrong. Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The environment in North America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has created 710,000 new American jobs all across the Nation. The many successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential broader free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade and economic relationships foster American influence and support our foreign policy. In other words, this bill represents new American jobs in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy and greater American influence in our own Hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.