[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10204-S10205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use just a few minutes of
my leader time, if I can. I know we are on the D.C. appropriations
bill, and there is a Mack amendment pending. But until we get back to
it, I would like to just take a couple of minutes.
I do not know whether we will have the opportunity again today to
talk about campaign finance reform. I certainly hope so. But on the
possibility that we will not have that opportunity, I wanted to
reiterate an offer that I have made publicly and I would like to do it
for the Record, if I can.
Obviously, we are in a situation now where the tree has been filled,
and there are no opportunities to offer amendments. I am disappointed
we are in that set of circumstances because, clearly, with campaign
finance reform, as important as it is, with Senators waiting to have
the opportunity to offer amendments, we are being denied that right. I
hope that at some point we could clear the tree and allow Senators the
opportunity to offer amendments. That is what a good debate is all
about. It is not how long you spend on any given issue as much as it
is, during whatever time you spend on the issue, whether or not you
have had a good chance for debate.
I must say I think the debate has been very good with regard to
Senators coming to the floor to express themselves on an array of
positions, and I respect Senators on both sides of the aisle who made
the effort to come to the floor and express themselves as clearly as
they can.
My hope is that we can get back to this issue and have the
opportunity, therefore, to offer amendments. The offer I made--and I
will personally make this same offer to the majority leader--is that we
take the Lott amendment and separate it. Democrats would be prepared,
just as soon as we finish campaign finance reform, to allow this bill
to be debated without filibuster, to allow the bill to be voted upon up
or down. Obviously, we have amendments because in our view, whatever
treatment we accord labor, we ought to accord corporations and other
organizations that may have membership requirements. We do that,
[[Page S10205]]
and we can have a good debate about that.
To add an extraneous amendment onto this bill, and therefore not only
preclude Senators from offering the amendments that they had hoped they
could but to preclude us from even getting a vote on campaign finance
reform makes it a poison pill and nothing more. If we are interested in
debating the issue about whether or not organizations ought to refund
part of their membership fees, that is one question. We should have a
good debate about it. We should have an opportunity to discuss it. And
we are prepared to allow a final vote on that issue if we can get
agreement on this proposal.
If, on the other hand, we are simply using this as a guise, as a way
in which to prevent Senators, perhaps the vast majority of Senators,
from having a vote on campaign finance reform, from offering
amendments, then it is nothing more than that.
So I hope we can work through this. I hope we can find a way to
resolve this impasse. But certainly that would be one way to do it.
Let us take the Lott amendment. Let us set it aside. Let us have a
good debate. Let us schedule a time when amendments could be offered.
Senators will not filibuster the motion to proceed, nor the bill
itself. I am hopeful we can work through that and at some point, as I
have indicated, I will discuss this matter at greater length with the
majority leader.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
____________________