Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I am going to make some comments about the pending amendment. But as has been the custom over the years, our distinguished former leader, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, makes it a point, at the change of the seasons in our country, to remind us of the importance of transition, hope, and promise. In the midst of this debate, I would like to yield whatever time the Senator from West Virginia may need for some remarks that do not pertain directly to this amendment but do pertain to the spirit in which this body ought to consider legislation in any season. So with that, Mr. President, I yield whatever time the senior Senator from West Virginia may need.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. That is agreeable. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee.

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

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to my colleague for a couple minutes.

Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't know if others want to be heard on this. If my colleague would like to rebut, I will be willing to yield some time to him.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think our colleagues have covered this. I think we can get to a vote fairly quickly. As my friend from Utah knows, I think of myself as the third Senator from Utah. I am not sure Utah thinks of me as its third Senator, but he and I have a wonderful relationship and have worked so closely together over the years that I am not comfortable disagreeing with him on his amendment. I admire him immensely. In addition to what my colleague from Michigan has said about the 1974 law, there is also a restriction in the 1974 law which doesn't pertain to any other kind of activity that has otherwise been described. Under the 1974 act, unions, corporations and membership organizations can only solicit their own members and stockholders, unlike other organizations which can solicit from the universe within the country. Under the 1974 act, as you are establishing your PAC, you can only get the support from your own organization's membership. That is a significant restriction which applies to them which does not apply to others. In addition, there is this balance that was written into the law in 1974, as the Senator from Michigan properly points out, where there has not been any identifiable abuse of this exception in the law whatsoever here. Secondly, because of the universe to which they are restricted in soliciting dollars, they then have allowed, in a sense, their general treasuries to be used in order to communicate with their restricted class and membership--not with people outside of that restricted class membership but with their own membership. Were they communicating to the universe at large, then I think the point the Senator from Utah has raised would be appropriate. But when you are restricting, under the 1974 act, the audience to which they can communicate, it seems to me this balance is appropriate, narrowly tailored and proper. To disrupt that now would be a mistake. The point the Senator from Arizona made is also worth repeating; that is, this is awfully difficult. One of the things we don't want to do is create situations which make people potential targets of indictment. This gets pretty amorphous, as to what constitutes an expenditure of soft dollars in order to solicit hard dollars for your PAC. Again, the Senator from Michigan and others have made this point. When you get into this area in trying to identify how much has been committed or whether or not it was committed at all, a simple address by the CEO or the president of a local to the membership of that community--how would you put a value on that? Your inability to do so or to provide a proper accounting of it exposes you then to the potential of indictment. I don't think anyone in our interests here should try to necessarily do that. It is so difficult to write that into law, even when the law has only civil jurisdiction. I urge a rejection of the amendment. A communication which is specifically protected by the Constitution and recognized by Buckley, where it is involved in a significant balance between the ability to communicate with your restricted class or membership and only that group, then the resources of that organization to do so are appropriate and proper. To upset that balance would be a mistake. The law has worked well for 26 years. We ought not to change it at this point. For those reasons, I respectfully urge our colleagues to vote against the amendment. I yield whatever time my colleague from Wisconsin so desires.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I will take a couple minutes to conclude. I have great respect for my friend from Oregon. We serve on committees together, and I enjoy working with him on numerous issues. There has been a lot described as to why the amendment is troublesome. There is one element not included in the language that I find appealing, and the public might be attracted to the fact that this may have the net effect of abbreviating sessions of Congress. That may have some appeal to a certain number of Americans. If you can only fundraise when Congress is not in session, we might be through with business in April or May. Seriously--I am not being facetious in those comments-- this is a provision that concerned me a little bit. It goes back to the debate we had earlier in the day about the nonincumbent. I understand the effort may be to modify this amendment and bring it back at a later time as a modified amendment. But it also affects the nonincumbent. As I understand the last provision of the bill, ``beginning on the first day of any session of the body of Congress to which the individual holds office, or for which the candidate seeks nomination for election or election,'' and it could be, of course, that someone in a larger State would begin to challenge one of us as incumbents 2 or 3 years out, which is not uncommon today in larger States, and if we are in session in those years, obviously, a challenger who wants to be heard, where you have a State such as California, or Texas, or Illinois, or New York, you may want to begin that process earlier and they would be restrained from raising any money if this amendment were adopted as presently crafted. So I, too, respect immensely my colleague's motivations. We talked over the last 2 days about the fact that under present circumstances in an average Senate race of $6 or $7 million--that is what an individual has to raise in a contested race--a Member would literally have to raise thousands of dollars every day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for the entire 6-year term. Somebody pointed out that in the State of California that number is more like $10,000 a day every day when you start talking about $20 million or $30 million. Obviously, for any Member of this body who is raising $10,000 a day every day for 6 years, there is a portion of your responsibilities, to put it mildly, as a Member of this body that is suffering. It goes to the very heart of what Senators McCain and Feingold are trying to achieve in this legislation. I don't subscribe to the notion that it is an inevitability that campaigns should increase in cost exponentially as they have been. I think you can put on the brakes. And what Senators McCain and Feingold are doing is trying to put the brakes on a bit in the area of soft money. Our colleague from Oregon is also trying to put on some brakes, and I respect that. For the reasons articulated by Senators McCain, Feingold, Thompson of Tennessee, and others, I reluctantly oppose this amendment, and I will look for an opportunity when a modified version may come back. I thank our colleague for raising the subject matter. I urge rejection of the amendment. I don't know if any more time is being sought. We can yield back the time left. I think our colleague from Arizona may want to make an appropriate motion. We are prepared to yield back time on our side.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it now there will be no more votes today. The intention is to lay down an amendment to be offered by my colleague from New Jersey, and that debate tomorrow will begin at whatever time the majority leader brings us into session. Hopefully, we might even complete the debate in less than 3 hours. I ask my colleague from New Jersey if that were possible. In which case, the very latest would be somewhere around 12:30, if we follow today's pattern at all. After that, I understand our colleague from Mississippi has an amendment, and after that I think Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has an amendment, as do Senator Wyden and Senator Wellstone. We have not worked that out yet, but it will be one of those three amendments to be offered.

Mr. DODD. OK.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before adjourning, I ask our colleagues, if they have amendments on this bill, to get them to us, and those who are interested in having amendments offered, let us know so we can start to line up these amendments and make sure all interested parties are aware of what amendments are coming. It would be very helpful.

Mr. DODD. We are just getting an amendment that raises hard money caps, based on triggers and formulas from 50 States. I am uneasy about this body taking on an amendment such as this without knowing the implications and going directly contrary to the thrust. While the bill focuses on soft money, many believe the issue of the amount of money in campaigns, raising this limit makes it that much easier later on for people to raise the caps on hard dollars. Nothing in here provides for the challenger who faces the incumbent with how many millions they may have in their own political account. I am troubled by this body on a matter such as this, when hardly a speed-reader would have time to read this amendment, understand it, digest it, and adopt it all in the next 10 minutes. It is troubling to me. I understand the need to move along. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. DODD. No. Wait a minute. Reserving the right to object, my point is that under the unanimous consent request a pending amendment cannot be a second-degree amendment unless there is a tabling motion. If there is a tabling motion, and that does not prevail, then that amendment is subject to amendment.

Mr. DODD. It can be done in a number of different ways: withhold and lay the amendment aside; then bring up a Republican amendment after the recess lunches and work on this amendment; or vote on this amendment; or have a tabling motion; and, if you do not prevail, then the amendment is subject to future amendment.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. DODD. I yield back whatever time we have.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I say in all due respect to my good friend from New Mexico that you have provisions in here, as I look at this thing, where you have inserts that I can't even find. Insert 301 in someplace, insert from 301--I am looking at an amendment that I can't even follow. With all due respect, this is pretty serious stuff. I need to have a guide to get me through this. You are asking me to vote in a couple of minutes on a 12- or 15-page amendment that is very important. This is a significant amendment. It seems to me that we ought to take a little time either to get this right or not. But if you are going to rush this thing through without any explanation, I say to colleagues who want to, come over here to see an amendment insert that I can't find. We ought to vote to table it, or take a little time and then sort this out so at least Members know what they are voting on. But to vote on this right now under these circumstances would be a travesty. It is not the way to proceed.

Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry: Under the unanimous consent agreement, a vote must occur on an amendment, if not this amendment, at 12:30 p.m.

Mr. DODD. Further inquiry: I presume the time will begin to toll once the amendment is introduced, and the fact there is no amendment pending per se, other than the one we are discussing, the time is not really tolling; is that correct or am I incorrect?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. How much time remains?