Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. That is the way to go at this problem; otherwise, it seems to me that the Department of Labor needs to do the job that it has been charged to do. I think that is what those figures amply demonstrate. I am gratified that the administration's budget is seeking more money in order to meet these responsibilities, but that is where it ought to be done.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. The unions ought to have reporting requirements and they ought to file.

Mr. SARBANES. Those have been put into law. There are extensive authorities in the Secretary of Labor and the Department with respect to the unions--quite extensive authorities, I might add. We have established one statutory framework to control the reporting requirements and disclosure on the part of unions, which is a completely separate universe from what we are trying to address in this legislation. The Senator is absolutely right. It is in a sense apples and oranges. You are dealing with two different universes, and you have established two different statutory frameworks within which to address that.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. To impose it on corporations, you support that?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator support a provision that required all companies with annual receipts of $200,000 or more to meet all of these auditing requirements?

Mr. SARBANES. What about the requirement on unions that they list the employees whose total of salaries and other disbursements exceed $10,000, including position, gross salary, allowances, and disbursements? What about that requirement that is imposed on the unions to make that kind of disclosure? Where is a comparable disclosure in that regard with respect to corporations?

Mr. SARBANES. Has the Senator examined, with any care, the reporting requirements and the other matters that govern labor union reporting under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act?

Mr. SARBANES. It is obvious that one of the distinctions we sought to make in the underlying bill that is before us is that when a company becomes public, you then have an investor interest that has to be protected. Otherwise, manipulation destroys investor confidence and affects the confidence in our capital markets. That is the issue we are confronting now and the impact it is having on the economy. That was the universe we tried to deal with in this legislation. We were very careful that the legislation does not apply to most businesses in America and doesn't apply to most accountants in America, since most of them don't audit public companies.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. What is now pending before the Senate?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from Kentucky says they are not filing these reports. What are the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor doing, because they have the power to make them file their reports. In fact, they can impose penalties, as I understand it, including not only fines but also imprisonment for the failure of union officials to meet the requirements under the statute. My dear colleague from Texas says, well, look, this thing is on all fours. This is what we are doing to the corporations. And all the McConnell amendment does is it does it to the unions. Now, who could be against that? But let's look at what is already being done to the unions. Let's look at the requirements under which they already have to function. Let's look at the powers that the Department of Labor and the Secretary of Labor have with respect to this matter.

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am prompted to enter this debate by the comments of my colleague from Texas. You cannot evaluate the parallelism of the McConnell amendment without evaluating the requirements that are now imposed upon labor unions under the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The argument that this is logical is only if you drop out of the picture or the context the fact that the unions are now under extensive reporting requirements in the law, requirements that significantly exceed, in many respects, anything that is required of corporations. Now, the Department of Labor has the authority to conduct audits of labor unions.

Mr. SARBANES. Yes.

Mr. SARBANES. All right.

Mr. SARBANES. I yield.

Mr. SARBANES. I simply say that a statutory structure has been worked out for labor which is quite extensive and exceeds in many respects anything that applies to corporations. You can't make a judgment about whether you should do anything additional to the unions until you examine carefully what is already required from them under the existing statutory scheme. That is not happening here.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Of course, there is a special statutory arrangement that governs labor organizations. I take it this proposal--has this come to us from the Department of Labor?

Mr. SARBANES. But under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the Department has certain authorities it can invoke in dealing with the kind of problems the Senator has outlined. At least that is my understanding under the current state of the law. Is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kentucky be recognized for 5 minutes to speak to the second-degree amendment that has been offered, that is pending, and that be followed by the Senator from Georgia to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. No. What was the request? I thought the unanimous consent request was to set aside the McConnell amendment and offer the Miller amendment to the Leahy amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. I am sure the Senator would be able to find out from the Secretary.