[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10878-S10879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ISTEA AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a lot of sympathy with the remarks 
of the Senator from North Dakota. Being in a deadlock we are not 
accomplishing very much. The Senator is suggesting that we get off this 
deadlock; that we start to accomplish something. And he is suggesting 
that we vote on one of the amendments on this tree and suggesting under 
the parliamentary rules that we vote on the first one, which is the 
second-degree amendment. I am very sympathetic to that. I want to move, 
too.
  I also would like to get campaign finance reform passed. Why? I can 
tell you, having just been through an election, that this country has 
dramatically changed the way campaigns are run and financed from just a 
few years ago. The present system is so bad. It is so obscene with 
virtually no limit on the total number of dollars raised or spent on 
behalf of, or for, or by candidates that it is demoralizing the 
country. It is causing the American people to think that the whole 
system stinks and becoming less and less involved in the democratic 
process and beginning to lose interest. And we run the risk of 
fragmenting a country--a country where Americans are going their own 
way; not a country that works together as a whole.
  It is a huge problem. I can tell you, Mr. President. It is a huge 
problem. And if this Senate and this House does not do something about 
campaign finance reform very soon, this country, as we know it, is 
going to no longer be the greatest country on the face of this Earth 
just because we are going to be so awash in campaign money that the 
American people are just going to begin to lose interest in the U.S. 
Government--certainly in the Congress, and in the Presidential 
campaigns as well.
  That is a vivid exaggeration. I grant you. They will have some 
interest. But they are not going to be nearly as proud of this Congress 
and their Federal Government as they would like to be.
  At the same time, I think we have to pass this highway bill. Why do I 
say so? Because if the Senate does not pass the highway bill very 
soon--that is, within the next week or so--then the chances of it 
passing this year are virtually nil. If we do not pass a highway bill--
we know the House wants a 6-month bill. The House's 6-month bill is 
something that is just totally unacceptable, in my view, because every 
year, or every couple of years, we would be reauthorizing the highway 
bill. And it makes no sense. We need to pass a 6-year highway bill. It 
is that simple.
  I have a lot of sympathy for the Senator from North Dakota. He is 
right. We have to start moving. I hope that leadership on both sides of 
the aisle sits down and reaches an agreement today, and figure out a 
way to get off of this impasse so that we can do both--find a way to 
take up and work campaign finance reform, and also pass this highway 
bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is that the second-degree amendment that 
is pending is something that is acceptable, at least to the extent that 
I know it. I would vote for it. Would the Senator from Montana support 
it?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would. I think most Senators would support it.
  Mr. DORGAN. It seems to me that the only reason the tree is full with 
a final second-degree amendment that would be acceptable to everyone is 
simply to prevent others from offering amendments. I understand the 
parliamentary strategy here. But the problem is that it puts the Senate 
in the position of having kind of a glacial progress. I have never 
tried to watch a glacier move. But I have been told it will pass a lot 
of days.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator wishes, I will take the Senator up to 
Grinnell Glacier in Glacier Park where you can virtually watch the 
glacier move because the Earth is warming at such a rapid rate. It is 
moving in the wrong way. It is receding, is diminishing. In fact, in 20 
years that glacier will totally evaporate.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana has actually seen 
a glacier move, something I have not yet observed. Would the Senator 
from Montana agree that the glacier--however rapidly or slowly it is 
moving--is moving more rapidly than we are?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think the Senator makes a very good point. At least it 
is moving--the glacier.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Montana agree that we are not 
moving; that we have a circumstance where a bill is brought to the 
floor, and we are

[[Page S10879]]

virtually tied in knots with a procedural tree, which is not unusual? 
It has been used before, and used by Democrats as well. But it is 
rarely used. And it is used in most cases, I am told, to stop 
legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. The point is the tree was developed with the longest 
hanging fruit a second-degree amendment. If that is acceptable to the 
Senate, my point was, let's come here and ask for the yeas and nays, 
and have a vote on it. And if the vote is yes, as I expect it would be, 
then the tree is open, and we can offer amendments.
  My expectation would be that someone would come and say, ``We are not 
going to allow you to offer amendments. We will fill the tree again.'' 
I say that is fine. Let's vote again. Let's keep voting, and maybe at 
some point we will start making forward progress. You can have your car 
engine idling, and you can say, ``Well, the engine is running.'' Yes. 
But you are not going anywhere. That is kind of what is happening here. 
What I want to do is have the engine running with the lights on, with 
the heat going, and some discussion on the floor of the Senate. But we 
are not going anywhere. I want to go somewhere--both on campaign 
finance reform, and I want to make progress on the highway 
reauthorization bill. And we are going nowhere on both of those fronts.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is absolutely correct. We are at dead center. 
We are not moving at all.
  One way to perhaps get a little more momentum is the procedure 
outlined by the Senator. I hope that we could count on the same 
objective by the leadership sitting down and working out an agreement 
so that we don't have to go through this process. But we may have to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would observe, finally, that the chairman and ranking 
member are enormously patient. The bill is brought to the floor with a 
procedure that really doesn't allow any movement on the bill. I expect 
you will remain on the floor while the bill is being considered, and 
perhaps at some point when the bill is further considered that we will 
ask for the yeas and nays and see if by that manner we can make some 
additional progress.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I very much hope, as I said many 
times, that the leadership works out an agreement so we can solve this 
thing and get moving.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________