[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENTS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous ordered, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 540, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 540) to improve the administration of the
bankruptcy system, address certain commercial issues and
consumer issues in bankruptcy, and establish a commission to
study and make recommendations on problems with the
bankruptcy system, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
(Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the chair.)
Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, over the decades since enactment of the
last major reform of the Bankruptcy Code, the monetary and financial
landscape faced by both businesses and consumers has changed. As
financial institutions have expanded to become more interstate in
scope, and with increasingly complex transactions among companies,
there has emerged a need for a Bankruptcy Code which can adapt to these
changes. This code should reinforce the balance between the interest of
the creditor and the debtor while ensuring strong commercial markets
for both the consumers and businesses of America. The proposed
amendments, as designated in the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill, make
the necessary changes to carry the Bankruptcy Code into the next
century.
For the reporting period in 1993, there were a total of 918,734
bankruptcy filings. This represents a slight decrease in 1993 over the
number of bankruptcy filings reported in 1992, but even with a decrease
the filings in 1993 are still more than double the number of case
filings of any year prior to 1985. In fact, the annual reported filings
during 1990-93 have been about twice the annual average for the entire
1980's.
Over the past 8 years filings nationwide have increased by 152
percent. Filings have doubled during this period in 37 of the 50 States
and in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In fact, in 13 States
the bankruptcy filings have increased by a staggering 200 percent since
1985.
To give you an idea of the volume of cases, we can look to the
average number of new cases a bankruptcy judge handles at any given
time. In 1993 the average number of cases filed per judge was 2,818. In
1985 the average number of cases filed per judge was only 1,571. This
increase is nearly a double increase with only an approximate 41
percent growth of new bankruptcy judgeships since 1983 to handle this
caseload.
It is this sheer volume of cases running through a system which was
designed many decades ago, that has partially necessitated the Senate
Judiciary Committee to review and make proposed adjustments to the
Bankruptcy Code.
The omnibus bankruptcy reform legislation is an attempt to update the
code, as well as an effort to provide a rational framework from which
future changes can evolve. The Judiciary Committee has held hearings to
help determine the areas where changes were needed with the result
being the bill which is now before the Senate.
The omnibus bankruptcy reform bill before the Senate would make
numerous changes to the present Bankruptcy Code, including those
designed: First, to help streamline and update bankruptcy
administration; second, to bring a better balance between the rights of
debtors and creditors; third, to bring a better balance to the
relationship between secured and unsecured creditors; fourth, to bring
about a more efficient and expedited small business reorganization
procedure; fifth, to encourage the enhanced use of procedures where
individual debtors can have an opportunity to pay their debts over a
period of time rather than just outright bankrupt their debts; and
sixth, to create the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to study the
effectiveness of the current bankruptcy law and report on substantive
changes that the Commission deems needed.
Among the many provisions of the proposed legislation are the
following:
To enhance the increased use of the wage earner procedures by which
debtors pay their debts over a period of time as outlined in chapter 13
of the Bankruptcy Code as opposed to outright bankrupting their debts
under chapter 7.
Makes reorganization of small business quicker, more efficient and
with less red tape than under present regular business reorganization
procedures contained in chapter 11.
Simplify single asset real estate bankruptcy procedures.
Improve bankruptcy administration by establishing time limits,
hearing requirements, use of status conferences, expedited procedures
for debt reaffirmation, and appellate procedures.
Clarifies relationship between bankruptcy proceedings and antitrust
review of reorganization plans.
Requires an evaluation of how bankruptcy proceedings can be improved
through automation and computerization.
Requires expedited payment to creditors under chapter 13 procedures.
Gives authority to bankruptcy court officials to prevent abusive and
exorbitant attorney fees.
Insures that the debtor may not use bankruptcy proceedings to avoid
legitimate marital and child support obligations.
Prohibits the discharge of criminal fines exceeding $500 under
bankruptcy procedures.
Establishes a uniform definition of ``household goods.''
What I have said thus far will give you a flavor concerning the
contents of this proposed legislation.
I will have more to say about the details of the proposed legislation
shortly.
Now I wish to discuss with my colleagues legislation which I
introduced last November to significantly reform the bankruptcy system.
This legislation, S. 540, is the result of a bipartisan effort with the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative
Practice, Senator Grassley. We have worked diligently on this
legislation since its introduction in 1992 to craft a package of
amendments to the bankruptcy code which we believe are important and
necessary.
This Nation is facing a record number of bankruptcy court filings
from both individuals and corporations. There were approximately
940,000 filings--almost a million filing--during the 1991 calender
year, and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts only
expects this number to rise. In only the northern judicial district of
Alabama the number of filings has risen from 10,223 in 1986, to a
projected 20,000 plus filings for the current calender year.
This growth in filings is a result of a number of social and economic
factors which are unrelated to the code. The purpose of our Nation's
bankruptcy laws is to ``try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.''
This legislation is a measured response which seeks to address issues
which have become highlighted in the bankruptcy system over the last
several years. The Judiciary Committee has worked in a consensus-
building fashion in an effort to enact legislation to respond to the
calls for reform which have arisen and are highlighted by this
significant increase in filings.
This bill developed out of a series of hearings and a floor debate
during the last two Congresses. During those hearings and debate, the
subcommittee heard from nearly 40 witnesses during public meetings of
the subcommittee, and received numerous additional statements and
communications from those participating in making suggestions to the
subcommittee. This legislation was introduced and designed to address a
number of important bankruptcy issues which were identified during the
course of those hearings. Subsequently, the Judiciary Committee
improved and modified this bill to address additional substantive
issues and ensure that the bill's provisions are technically correct
and workable. As a result of the time, attention, and hard work of the
committee, I am pleased to note that this bill was favorably reported
out of the committee on a 18 to 0 voice vote.
The first title of this bill contains miscellaneous provisions to
update the Bankruptcy Code. Included in this title are changes in
monetary figures to adjust for inflation, provisions to address
compensation questions, provisions to address service of process
questions, and reforms to clarify tax issues in the Bankruptcy Code.
This chapter also mandates the judicial conference to report to
Congress regarding its efforts to modernize and computerize the entire
bankruptcy system.
Section 101--this section provides an amendment to the automatic stay
provisions currently found in the Bankruptcy Code. This section
provides that except upon a finding of good cause, final hearings on a
motion for relief from the automatic stay must take place within 60
days of the filing of the motion. I understand and appreciate the
crucial timing issues involved with the orderly administration of a
bankruptcy case, however, the prompt action by a bankruptcy court is
necessary in order to protect the rights of all parties in bankruptcy,
and thereby enhances the entire bankruptcy process. Therefore, I
believe this section is important and meritorious.
Section 104--this section is designed to accomplish two tasks by
clarifying issues of reaffirmation of a debt by a debtor. First, this
section provides that if a debtor is represented by counsel, it is not
necessary for that debtor to appear before the court to reaffirm a
debt. Second, in cases where a debtor is not represented by counsel,
this section assures that the hearing before the bankruptcy court takes
place prior to the discharge being granted to the debtor. I believe
that both of these clarifications are needed and are long overdue.
Section 107 makes clarifications regarding the parties who may sit on
creditor committees during a chapter 11 bankruptcy. This section would
allow the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and State pension funds
to be eligible for membership on these creditor committees. This
modification reflects the policy that some governmental entities, but
not all, should be allowed to participate on these committees when the
interest being protected by such entities is not strictly the
government's interest, but the interests of pensioner's assets.
Section 109--this section raises the threshold dollar limitations for
those persons eligible to file for chapter 13 bankruptcies from
$350,000 to $1,000,000. I understand that in many cases persons who
would otherwise deserve and desire the ability to file under chapter 13
have been prohibited due to this dollar limitation. In adopting this
section, I believe Congress will recognize the desirability of chapter
13 and provide for its greater use by those in the bankruptcy system.
Section 110 and 105--these sections are important clarifications to
the Bankruptcy Code in order to signal how the bankruptcy should
operate in a chapter 11 case. Section 110 clarifies the relationship
between bankruptcy proceedings and the procedures established under
section 7A of the Clayton Act for reviewing proposed transactions by
Federal antitrust authorities. Section 105, provides the explicit
authority for the bankruptcy courts to manage their cases and dockets.
While courts may not go beyond the bounds of the Bankruptcy Code, I
believe that this section is desirable for giving an explicit
expression of authorization which is already being exercised by some
courts.
Section 114--this section, I believe, is a crucial element to this
bankruptcy bill. This section seeks to ensure that debtors are fully
knowledgeable of the bankruptcy process and some of its most important
features. As I previously noted, many debtors desire to pay off their
debts, however, some attorneys have simply never fully explained the
benefits of this chapter to their clients and as a result an uninformed
debtor is only left with the option of filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy.
By requiring the U.S. trustee or their designee to discern an
understanding by the debtors of their options and obligations in
bankruptcy, the entire bankruptcy system is better served.
Title II of the bill addressing commercial and credit issues in
bankruptcy. This title contains a number of important proposals.
Section 202--this section was added on to the committee reported
bill. This section would create a statutory definition of ``single-
asset real estate,'' that is limited to the investment property of a
debtor who has filed for bankruptcy. In such situations, this section
would expedite the relief from automatically stay in cases involving
single asset real estate where realistic plans of reorganization are
not forthcoming.
To illustrate that a little bit, the only thing the debtor owns is,
for example, a shopping center. And that is a single asset real estate.
Therefore, it is only one issue involved. It ought not to have to go
through all the details and requirements of chapter 11 reorganization
and it ought to be handled in a much more expeditious manner.
This section would further allow foreclosure proceedings, which were
commenced prior to the filing for bankruptcy, to continue up to, but
not including, the point of sale, in order to ensure the prompt sale of
property if relief from the automatic stay provisions of the code are
granted by the bankruptcy court.
Section 207 contains amendments designed to enhance the protections
given pension plans in bankruptcy and resolve what is known as the
``antialienation problem.'' This problem arises when a bankruptcy judge
orders an ERISA qualified plan or State plans not subject to ERISA to
make a disbursement to an individual who has filed for bankruptcy in
order to pay that individual debtor's creditors. Such an involuntary
disbursement is in violation of ERISA law and may lead to the
disqualification of a plan. However, if the disbursement is not made, a
company risks facing the contempt authority of the bankruptcy court.
This section seeks to address this issue by providing stability and
protection of pension plans.
Section 208--this section would prohibit small business investment
companies from being able to file for bankruptcy. These companies often
operate similar to small banks who make loans to small businesses, and
the current Bankruptcy Code prohibits both banks and insurance
companies from filing for bankruptcy because alternative administrative
schemes, such as conservatorships and receiverships, already exist to
handle these types of financially troubled institutions. Small business
investment companies have full rights under procedures set out by the
Small Business Administration to reorganize and liquidate, and
therefore, allowing them the ability to file for bankruptcy is
duplicative. By taking this very simple step, the Congressional Budget
Office believes that there would be a decrease of outlays of $51
million for fiscal year 1994.
Section 214--This section seeks to overturn the Deprizio line of
opinions begun in Levit v. Ingersoll (In re V.N. Deprizio Construction
Co.), 874 F.2d 1186 (7th Cir. 1989). This case turned upon issues
involving guarantees and who may be considered an ``insider'' for
purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The specific language of this section
has received a great deal of attention in order to narrowly but clearly
overrule this series of opinions. We believe that we have accomplished
this task. The specific language contained in the substitute bill which
is before the Senate is different from that which was reported by the
committee. We believe that we have improved upon that language which is
reflected in this bill, and that it accomplishes its task of returning
the understanding of the status of the law to that which predated the
Deprizio opinion.
Section 215--this section is another clarification and modernization
of the Bankruptcy Code. This section alters the current 10-day time
provision to 20 days for a creditor to perfect a security interest
after a debtor has filed for bankruptcy. By extending this time
provision, this section simply protects the rights of creditors who may
be abiding by State law which provides for a lengthier time to perfect,
and thereby prejudicing the rights that the creditor may have in
bankruptcy. This section further acknowledges the problem outlined in
In re Tressler, 771 F.2D 791 (3rd. cir 1985), in which the operations
of a governmental unit may prejudice a creditor by failing to take
timely action in the perfection of a security interest. I believe this
section is a good example of why this bankruptcy legislation is needed
in order to improve and modernize our current bankruptcy laws.
Section 216--this section is designed to expedite the decisions by
air carriers who file for bankruptcy to determine whether to accept or
reject their airport gate leases. This section strikes a balance
between protecting the debtor airline's ability to make a business
decision in a timely fashion with protecting individual airports and
the flying public by giving them some assurance that airport gates will
be utilized to their fullest extent. In the past, some courts have been
lax in requiring airlines to make these decisions, and as a result,
substantial harm has occurred. By creating a lengthy period in which
the airline may make these decisions, and then through shifting the
burden of proving that substantial harm is not arising from the
continued indecision to accept or reject these leases, I believe the
committee has acted properly and thoughtfully in addressing this issue.
Section 219--this section clarifies the status of cash collateral in
bankruptcy. In some States, where an interest in rents has been
perfected by recording, some court's find this fact satisfactory for
perfecting under the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, some creditors who
believed they had fully secured interests have been caught short, even
where proper notice has been given through the recording of the
interest. It should be noted that this amendment is restricted to the
Bankruptcy Code, that no right to or priority in rents or leases is
conferred by this section, and that this section in no way preempts
State law on these questions regarding perfection of security
interests.
Section 220--this section was suggested and authored by Senator
Metzenbaum and makes clear that retiree health benefits generally are
to be paid in a manner similar to other administrative expenses during
the pendency of a chapter 11 reorganization. It is important to note
that this plan does not modify what can be agreed upon pursuant to a
plan of reorganization but simply enhances the protection and payment
of retiree health benefits.
The third title of this bankruptcy bill addresses the application of
the code when individual debtors are involved in the bankruptcy system.
This title seeks to substantially aid the bankruptcy process and its
relationship to individual debtors. In my opinion, it is the most
important part of this legislation. Rather than following the current
trend of going into straight bankruptcies under chapter 7, this title
seeks to increase and encourage the use of chapter 13 bankruptcies in
which wage earners reorganize their debts and are given the opportunity
over time to pay creditors the money owed. The bill provides for
important procedures by which debtors who file for straight bankruptcy
can learn that they have other alternatives, including filing under
chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and their ability of transfer their
filing under chapter 7 to a chapter 13 case. In my opinion, this title
is drafted with the clear view of encouraging the use of chapter 13
bankruptcies, by which a debtor pays his or her debts over a period of
time.
Sections 218, 307, and 301--these sections provide further refinement
regarding the operations of chapter 13. Section 218 simply directs
courts and trustees to begin making payments to creditor ``as soon as
practicable.'' Such distributions should be made in a timely fashion.
However, each case will be dependent upon the circumstances of an
individual case. Section 307 is simply another means provided for under
the code to ensure that creditors are able to received moneys
legitimately owed to them by parties who can pay. This section provides
another avenue of relief from the automatic stay in order for a
creditor to be able to go against a comaker or guarantor of a debt.
Section 301 clarifies that Federal bankruptcy rights provided in
sections 1322 and 1325 preempt conflicting State laws. Its intention is
to overturn cases such as In re Roach, 824 F.2d 1370 (3rd Cir. 1987)
and In re Perry, 945 F.2D 61 (3rd Cir. 1991), in order to allow debtors
to use their preemptive Federal bankruptcy rights to save their homes
from foreclosure.
Section 304--this section makes an important contribution to this
bill. It seeks to address the growing problem of bankruptcy preparers
who abuse the system in the course of preparing documents for debtors
to file in bankruptcy court. This section establishes important
procedures to police the wrong-doing by such preparers. This section is
substantially patterned after the current law involving tax preparers
and their obligations to those whom they aid in filing tax forms. This
section provides criminal and injunctive penalties for those violating
its provisions. Further, it explicitly recognizes that this section
should not be construed to provide authority for conduct which is not
otherwise prohibited by law, such as the practice of law.
Section 305--this section is a minor improvement and codification of
current practices in many courts by simply mandating that bankruptcy
clerks give notice to all creditors when an order for conversion or
dismissal occurs in a chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Section 306--I believe that this section is one of the most important
provisions of this bill. This section would protect the mortgage-backed
securities market, and address the issue of cramdowns in chapter 13
bankruptcies. In a cramdown, an individual debtor bifurcates a secured
claim against real estate into two components or claims: A secured
component--measured by the fair market value of the real estate--and an
unsecured component--measured by the excess of secured debt over the
fair market value of the real estate. This section would completely
protect the entire claim in cases of first mortgages on residential
real estate that is the debtor's primary residence. The section would
generally protect junior security interests except in circumstances
where the security interest was undersecured at the time of
contracting, and only could be subject to a cramdown to the extent that
it remains undersecured at the time of the bankruptcy. By inference,
this section does acknowledge a court's ability to bifurcate
residential real estate under section 1322 by the operations of section
506 of the Bankruptcy Code. By protecting these important interests,
the mortgage marketplace is protected, stability of this marketplace
enhanced, and therefore the consuming public who are currently faced
with uncertainty regarding residential real estate is served.
Section 308--I believe that this section is a modest amendment to the
Bankruptcy Code to create a Federal definition, for purposes of the
exemptions section of the Bankruptcy Code, that is in line with other
Federal law. The definitions of antiques and household goods contained
in this section follow a 1985 Federal Trade Commission rule on credit
practices and, therefore, aid in streamlining credit practices through
parallel provisions of Federal law. Finally, it should be noted that
this section does not have the force of law in the overwhelming
majoring of States who have determined to establish their own exemption
provisions.
Section 309 seeks to add to the body of law regarding attorney fees
in bankruptcy. This section has been adopted at the suggestion of
Senator Metzenbaum who has been at the forefront of this question. This
section has been subject to improvements and modifications from the
initial sections adopted by the committee in order to meet a number of
constructive criticisms by both the public and the Department of
Justice.
During the course of our hearings, it became very apparent that
chapter 13 is often the best overall process for debtors, creditors,
and the national economy. Numerous bankruptcy judges have indicated
that most individuals want to pay their debts in a manner similar to
the program offered under chapter 13 of the code. Unfortunately, the
use of this chapter is not widespread throughout the country, and many
people are simply not informed that this option is available when they
seek the Bankruptcy Code's protection. This title contains many
provisions that take into account these concerns.
The fifth title of the bill establishes a new National Bankruptcy
Review Commission. This Commission would be similar to the Burdick
Commission of the early 1970's that resulted in the current Bankruptcy
Code. It should be noted that this Commission is designed to review and
not to rewrite the entire Bankruptcy Code. Its purpose is to allow
further thoughtful study of the functions and balances which are
currently built into the Bankruptcy Code, and to provide Congress with
recommendations to address areas in which the Bankruptcy Code may be
improved and modernized.
The final title of this legislation is a technical title which seeks
to correct a number of minor problems which have arisen since the
Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978.
During the course of this speech, I have restricted my comments to
many of the provisions contained in the bill that was reported out of
the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous vote.
This bill is basically the same bill that also passed in the last
Congress in the Senate unanimously by a 97 to zero vote. It went to the
House, and the House passed a bankruptcy bill. The Senate passed the
conference report unanimously and without dissent. The House, however,
failed to pass in the last days of the last Congress this legislation.
So it was not enacted into law, and it is now back before us this
time. I expect that I will have further comments on these and other
sections of the bill as the debate on this measure continues.
I want to conclude these remarks by stating the obvious; that is,
that I believe it is a very good bill. I know that this bill will not
be all things for all people. We have done our best to legislate in
some important areas of the code and still be able to craft a piece of
legislation that is thoughtful and coherent.
Some of the issues which are not addressed in the current bill will
be subject to further attention hopefully by the review commission.
These efforts are designed to ensure equity and fairness in our
Nation's bankruptcy law. I believe the bill passed by the committee is
a good and a thoughtful piece of craftsmanship.
I know that it is not a perfect bill, and that if I alone were able
to pass legislation, this bill would look different than it does today.
However, this is not the world in which we live. Therefore, compromises
have been struck, agreements have been reached, and suggestions have
been accepted in order to pull together a wide range of interest and
put them behind this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Grassley and me in
supporting this legislation and seeing that this important bankruptcy
reform legislation is enacted into law.
I want to thank Senator Grassley for his work. He has been very
thoughtful. He has spent numerous hours and hours, days and days, and
weeks in this as well as his very competent staff in trying to come
forward with an omnibus bankruptcy reform bill which meets the demands
of a changing world and a changing economy today.
I thank him again for his work in this as well as the members of the
Judiciary Committee for their very thoughtful attention to a very
complex issue of our law.
At this time, I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
to Senators Heflin and Grassley, chairman and ranking Republican of the
Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice, for their
exceptional efforts with regard to S. 540, the Bankruptcy Amendments
Act of 1993. As the principle sponsors of this legislation they have
provided the leadership necessary to craft a bill that is acceptable
for the most part and, more importantly, fair to the diverse interests
in our creditor and debtor communities. I applaud their efforts.
I would especially like to thank and acknowledge Senators Heflin and
Grassley for their leadership in developing meaningful provisions to
assist the small business community of this country. Small businesses
are the foundation of this country's economy, creating three-quarters
of the new employment opportunities for our citizens. They deserve the
type of protection these Senators have agreed to provide in chapter 11.
These new provisions will expedite the bankruptcy process for small
businesses, helping them navigate through bankruptcy successfully.
America's small business community has been well served by their
efforts.
Let me state that I support the vast majority of the provisions in
this important legislation. However, I am also compelled to voice my
very strong objection to section 220 of the bill. Section 220 would
have a devastating impact on companies with substantial retiree
benefits obligations and on their employees. It offers an ill-conceived
approach to bankruptcy wherein a troubled company without sufficient
unencumbered assets is obligated to make first use of any cash
collateral, as well as any new credit, to fund prepetition retiree
health and insurance benefits. Under section 220, payments to retiree
health and insurance funds would come ahead of current employee
salaries and payments for operating expenses and needed supplies.
In my opinion, section 220, as currently in the bill, is far too
inflexible and will ultimately lead to the liquidation of many viable
business interests, rather than to their successful reorganization. The
many troubled businesses that are successfully reorganizing under
present law will be forced to close shop and liquidate, leaving the
current work force without jobs and retirees without any health or
insurance benefits. In my view, section 220 is both antiretiree and
antiemployee.
Mr. President, during the course of the Senate's consideration of
this bill, we hope to restore protection to retirees and current
employees. To accomplish this we must strike section 220 and add new
language which will clarify that a company's cash collateral or new
credit agreement will not relieve a bankruptcy trustee from its
obligation to pay retiree benefits. Furthermore, the language must
reaffirm that the obligation to pay retirees may only be modified in
accordance with the procedural safeguards established for retirees
outlined in section 1114. Unlike section 220, this approach not only
theoretically protects retiree rights, but also sets forth a balanced
approach which will lead to the actual recovery of health and insurance
benefits. It will provide the type of real protection our retirees
deserve and expect.
I will have more to say on this later. For now, I compliment my
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work on this
legislation.
In closing, let me reiterate my support for the vast majority of
provisions in this bill. This bill is simply designed to enhance the
effectiveness of the Bankruptcy Code, not to overturn it. It contains
several provisions designed to streamline and update bankruptcy
administration and provides for the creation of a National Bankruptcy
Review Commission. Additionally, several consumer bankruptcy provisions
will assist wage earners to successfully create a plan of
reorganization, pay their debts, and begin anew.
Finally, Senator Grassley will be floor managing this bill for the
Republicans.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I believe that the Senator from
Alabama has done a very, very good job of explaining precisely what
this legislation does, and what we intend it to accomplish, and also
some of the problems we had in working our way through to this position
of having a bill reported out of committee by an 18-to-0 vote.
For sure, I cannot do better than Senator Heflin has done in his
explanation of the legislation. I do not need to go into the sort of
detail that he did. But I think that he has demonstrated why we were
able to get this bill reported out of committee on an 18-to-0 vote. It
is because of his outstanding leadership as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts.
So not only does the product before us demonstrate a lot of very time
consuming hard work, but it also demonstrates a massive amount of
leadership as you try to get people to compromise, to be reasonable,
and still get a bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
I hope that we are able to get it through this body without a lot of
controversy because controversy in bankruptcy legislation might mean no
legislation at all.
The end result of that approach to this type of legislation would be
no legislation at all I feel. That is why we put considerable emphasis
upon the establishment of a bankruptcy commission that would study the
more controversial issues, that are not as necessary immediately to
pass, and move forward.
But the product before us is a result of the hard work and leadership
of Senator Heflin. I recognize that, and I thank him for it.
The need for this legislation is, of course, very great and urgent.
Our approach--to enact provisions on which there is consensus--does not
mean it is not needed. I hope the fact that there is consensus does not
cause anyone involved in this to think this bill is not important.
This year, as part of the reason for urgency, about 900,000
bankruptcy petitions will be filed. In most years since the Bankruptcy
Code was enacted in 1978, the number of filings has increased very
significantly. Last year, there was a small decline in filings, and we
are thankful for that. That is directly related to the economy
strengthening and consumers reducing their debt.
Future numbers are difficult to predict. But the recent Midwest
floods, as an example, or on the west coast the California earthquake,
could result in a downturn in the economy so that we will unfortunately
not reduce bankruptcy filings maybe in the short term.
To put bankruptcy filings in perspective, about 250,000 civil cases
and about 50,000 criminal cases are filed in our Federal courts. Thus,
of the 1.2 million cases brought each year in our Federal courts, about
75 percent are bankruptcy cases.
Indeed, 1 in 10 Americans can now expect to file for bankruptcy at
some point in their life. There is nobody involved in this legislation
who wants that to happen. If we can do some things to keep it from
happening, I would think we would all want to. But the fact is that the
bankruptcy is a fact of economic life. Maybe it is a little easier than
it should be. I think I would take the position that it is--but still
an economic fact.
So a Bankruptcy Code up to date with the realities of our economy is
very essential for the functioning of a free market economy.
Additionally, seemingly every day, the popular press reports on some
corporation that has filed for bankruptcy. And in today's economy,
bankruptcy has assumed a level of importance and prominence that it has
never had before. We can regret the fact that various economic
conditions have brought this result. And the legislation before us
today--I want to make this very clear--is not designed to encourage
bankruptcy filings, or make bankruptcy any more desirable.
We see ourselves as authors of this legislation responding to
reality. I might even look back at the 1978 legislation and say,
``Well, that made it easier to file for bankruptcy and that is bad.''
And I think I tend to believe that personally. I am not saying that
anybody else has to agree with me on it. Also, I think that when we
talk about bankruptcy legislation, people at the grassroots viewing
what we are saying have that in the back of their mind, that, well, it
is just too easy to file bankruptcy. They might have the view that we
are somehow making it easier to file bankruptcy, since every time we
pass legislation the number of filings go up. That was not the intent
of Congress in 1978, but that was the result.
I want to make very clear that that is not our intent, and we are not
making any value judgment in this legislation on whether or not
bankruptcy is good or bad.
We are saying simply that we have had bankruptcy law for the entire
history of our country. It is a constitutional prerogative of Congress
to legislate in that area. Our intent here is to just bring the code up
to date and not to have any impact upon the moral and ethical issue of
the right or wrong of bankruptcy.
With that reality behind us, the fact is that no other area of
Federal law has so many unresolved fundamental questions as bankruptcy.
What is the relationship, for instance, between bankruptcy laws and
environmental laws? What about the interaction of ERISA with bankruptcy
laws? Remember, ERISA was passed in 1974. The Bankruptcy Code was
enacted in 1978. So you could not foresee all that ERISA might impact
upon the economy and affect bankruptcy laws.
Let me say, Madam President, that there are even constitutional
questions about the operation of our bankruptcy system. We know that
the world is growing smaller because of trade, and so the globalization
of our world economy raises uncertainties about the code. Besides these
reasons for revising the Bankruptcy Code--and they are very good
reasons--we also must keep in mind that the code has not changed much
since its implementation in 1978. Numerous proposals have been offered
to make the code operate more effectively and fairly. Circumstances
require that these be considered, and that is the ``why for'' of S.
540. It responds to the need to reform bankruptcy laws in two ways:
First, it establishes a National Bankruptcy Review Commission. This
Commission, to be composed of bankruptcy experts, will review the
operation of the code, and it will report to Congress ways to make our
Nation's bankruptcy laws and our code more effective. I want to stress
that this Commission is designed to review the code, and we are not
setting it up to overhaul it. The term ``fine-tuning'' might better fit
the purpose we see behind the Commission's establishment, because we on
the Judiciary Committee are generally satisfied with the code, and we
are not interested in the proposals that start from scratch.
What we are interested in is a careful examination of the code and
suggestions for how Congress can best exercise its constitutional
powers under article I, section 8, which gives Congress the power to
establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the
several States.
Second, this bill contains several provisions that the committee felt
should be enacted right now. These represent changes in the code which
command consensus. And a consensus, I am sure, has been very hard for
our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, to find. I think
for the most part we have consensus, or we would not get a bill
reported out 18 to 0. That vote in itself represents consensus. I also
said that probably it would not be worth bringing a bill up on the
floor if we did not have that sort of consensus, because it is just so
complex that we would not be able to handle it here, and we would not
get anything done.
So the bill does command consensus, and there is no need to wait 2
years for this review commission to report these changes that we
already feel should be made.
Additionally, there is no need for the commission to spend its time
examining these issues when there are others on which expert opinion
will be more valuable.
These changes derive from a series of hearings that the Courts
Subcommittee held in the 102d and 103d Congress.
At these hearings, the subcommittee heard from dozens of witnesses on
various proposals. These hearings led to last Congress, S. 1985, and
that passed this body by a vote of 97 to 0, again showing consensus.
This bill before us, S. 540, contains many of the same provisions
that passed this body unanimously in 1992. One of the bill's features
is to increase the permissible limits in chapter 13 filings, and
eliminate the distinction between secured and unsecured debtors and the
debt that goes with them as a condition for satisfying the limits. The
maximum figure for filing a chapter 13 petition has not been changed
since our last massive reform of bankruptcy in 1978, despite very
significant inflation over that period of time.
So, again, bringing the code up to the economic facts of life of USA
1994, the outdated debt limit has eroded the ability of potential users
of chapter 13 to file wage earner plans. As a result of the increased
debt limit, more people will be able to file in chapter 13 compared to
chapter 7 liquidation.
I think that the extent to which we can avoid chapter 7, our economy
is better off, because a greater ability to file chapter 13 benefits
both debtor and creditors. This provision is one of a number in a bill
designed to foster chapter 13 usage among those who must file for
bankruptcy. Hopefully, it is always a last resort.
This bill also addresses the concerns raised in the hearings
regarding the seventh circuit's 1989 decision in Deprizio. Again, our
distinguished chairman discussed this at great length. I have one or
two points I want to emphasize. We believe that Deprizio should be
overturned by amending section 550 of the code in a very narrowly
crafted way. Under the current Bankruptcy Code, a trustee can recover
preferential payments made by the debtor within 90 days of the
bankruptcy filing.
The trustee may recover preferential payments made up to 1 year
before the filing, if the trustee determines the payment was made to an
``insider.'' That is an individual or entity that owns or controls the
debtor, or which is an officer or director or relative of such a
person.
In Deprizio, the seventh circuit extended to the trustee recapture
power to such persons as insiders merely because they may have executed
a personal guaranty of a loan to a debtor.
Section 214 of the bill does not change the trustee's preference
avoidance powers. Rather, it clarifies the trustee's remedies in the
event that the transfer is preferential. If a debtor acts in such a way
as to affect the Bankruptcy Code's pro rata distribution rule, the
trustee will have available a remedy against the party actually
preferred, and not against the innocent party.
Although this change is to a fairly technical and complex section of
the code, the change provided in section 214 has important practical
effects.
For instance, a lender may lend money to an interrelated corporate
group and be paid back by one of these corporate entities. Under
Deprizio, the lender could face a 1-year preference period, even though
it lent to a corporate group because of the existence of a guaranty
against the other corporate group. We believe that a lender should not
face a conclusive presumption that an outsider is tainted as an insider
by virtue of a guaranty; and notwithstanding the existence of the
guarantee, the lender should not have to worry about the possibility of
a preference period longer than 90 days.
Another provision of the bill, section 202, addresses the abuse of
chapter 11, and this is in regard to single asset real estate cases.
This abuse has been noted by some of the Nation's most eminent judges.
Owners of single asset real estate entities file presently to
reorganize, but because they have only a single asset, there is
nothing, then, of course, to reorganize. The filings are often made
without even a pretense of belief in the ability to reorganize.
Section 202 would terminate the automatic stay in single asset
filings 90 days after the commencement of the chapter 11 proceedings if
the debtor has not filed a feasible plan of reorganization.
Alternatively, the debtor may commence payment of interest at the fair
market value rate on the value of the real estate held as collateral.
The provision, which does not apply to small residential properties,
will ensure that the automatic stay is not abused while giving the
debtor an opportunity to create a workable plan of reorganization.
Madam President, S. 540 will set forth the framework for bankruptcy
reform, and this is a legislative initiative that is vitally needed. It
will do that, as I said, through the creation of a Commission to review
the code, and it will make necessary changes in the bill right now that
should not wait for that Commission to study and to make
recommendations.
This bill will not encourage the filings of bankruptcy petitions. I
want to say that again, and I hope that the chairman will comment on
this, because I think this is a message that we should send loud and
clear, that this bill will not encourage the filing of bankruptcy
petitions. But it will make positive changes in the operation of our
bankruptcy laws so that they will deal, then, with the very enormous
volume of petitions that are filed each year.
Equally, and perhaps more important, Madam President, this bill will
set the stage for a comprehensive review of the code, from which will
hopefully develop important and valuable ideas for future changes in
the operation of the Bankruptcy Code.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleague
and friend--Senator Heflin, chairman of the Courts Subcommittee--for
his leadership on the bankruptcy bill. Once again Senator Heflin's
dedication and perseverance have brought this important measure before
this body. And once again, I am certain that an overwhelming number of
my colleagues will support this measure. I also note that Senators
Grassley and Metzenbaum have made important contributions to this
process and they also deserve commendation for their efforts.
Mr. President, there are many important provisions in this
legislation and we will consider additional amendments as we proceed.
However, I believe that we will finish the process as we began: with a
good piece of legislation that improves the overall bankruptcy process
by addressing the legitimate needs of both debtors and creditors.
In that regard, I thank the distinguished manager for including my
Equipment Leasing Fairness Act as part of the bill. The act includes
several clarifications to sections 1110 and 1168 of the Bankruptcy Code
that will resolve ambiguities in the law without upsetting the delicate
balance of fairness and equity between the air and rail industries, the
equipment manufacturers, and the parties financing the equipment.
I was pleased to work with Senators Heflin and Grassley on these
provisions, and I ask unanimous consent that additional comments
regarding these provisions be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
I would also like to mention section 107 of the bill, which would
allow State pension funds and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
to sit on creditor committees in chapter 11 reorganizations. Currently,
State pension funds and the PBGC are precluded from participating as
voting members of these committees. The unique interests of retirement
funds, as long-term investors, are not represented by other creditor
and equity holder committee members, who may have different goals or
shorter term investments. These interests are thus put at an unintended
fiscal disadvantage. Section 107 would allow State pension funds and
the PBGC to serve on these committees, as long as they meet all other
appropriate criteria. It would not give them any special treatment;
rather, it would simply lift an unintended burden from their shoulders.
Finally, let me say that to many Americans--including sophisticated
businessmen and other professionals--the Bankruptcy Code appears to be
an archaic and somewhat cryptic statute. But the truth of the matter is
that the Bankruptcy Code provides critical guidance to businesses and
individuals who face the daunting task of resolving difficult economic
problems. And this legislation gives us the chance to clarify
ambiguities, make needed improvements, and to legislate fairness and
uniformity at the same time. So, I again commend the manager of the
bill and I yield the floor to my distinguished chairman.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Description of the Legislation
(1) Deletes the phrase ``purchase-money equipment''
throughout section 1110. Section 1110 currently provides
protection to purchase-money equipment security interests in,
as well as leases and conditional sales of, aircraft
equipment and vessels. Under the current language of section
1110, the only protected security interests are those
obtained at the time the equipment is acquired. This
application, however, is confusing in view of the fact that
both acquisition and post acquisition leases are protected.
The amendment deletes the phrase ``purchase-money equipment''
throughout section 1110. This deletion would guarantee that
all modes of debt financings and lease financings that
involve a security interest, not only security interests
obtained at the time the equipment is acquired, would receive
section 1110 protection. This change would be phased-in so
that only new equipment first placed in service after the
date of enactment of the Act would be affected by the
proposed amendment.
(2) Deletes the ``purchase-money'' requirement in section
1168 and restores historic equipment trust protection.
Section 1168 provides parallel treatment to purchase-money
equipment security interests in, and leases and conditional
sales of, railroad equipment. The proposed amendment changes
the phrase ``purchase-money equipment security interest,''
which appears in three places in the existing section 1168,
by deleting ``purchase-money equipment'' in the first two
appearances of the section, but deleting only ``purchase-
money'' the third time the phrase appears. The deletion of
the phrase ``purchase-money equipment'' in the first two
instances will enable the railroad industry to utilize a
variety of financing vehicles and will continue to protect
financing arrangements currently employed by the railroads.
For example, a finance lease, which historically has been an
integral part of a railroad equipment trust protected by
section 1168 and section 77(j) of the Bankruptcy Act (section
1168's statutory predecessor), would continue to be covered
by section 1168. In addition, the deletion of only the phrase
``purchase-money'' the third time the phrase appears is
intended to emphasize that section 1168 is meant to cover
financing of equipment and is not intended to extend to a
general mortgage on all of the carrier's assets. Further, the
deletion of the phrase ``purchase-money equipment'' in
section 1168(a) continues the application of section 1168 to
Philadelphia plan equipment trusts.
These changes to section 1168 would be phased-in to apply
only to new equipment first placed in service, and equipment
that is substantially rebuilt, after the date of enactment of
the Act. Railroad equipment would be considered substantially
rebuilt (i) when costs of rebuilding could be capitalized
pursuant to the regulations and practices imposed by the
Interstate Commerce Commission (``ICC'') on all carriers by
rail, (ii) such rebuilding would substantially extend the
service life of the equipment under such regulations and
practices, (iii) after such rebuilding the equipment would be
recognized as rebuilt pursuant to applicable rules and
regulations of the Association of American Railroads
(``AAR'') and, (iv) after such rebuilding, the equipment
would conform to applicable rules and regulations of the
Federal Railroad Association. Rebuilding would be
distinguished from repairs, routine maintenance and major
overhaul. The AAR has extensive rules and regulations
regarding the scope and quality of work required for
rebuilt equipment to be used in interchange service on any
railroad within the United States. To the extent that
equipment is covered by AAR rules and regulations, such
rules and regulations, in conjunction with ICC
requirements, would govern the standard of work and
materials required to constitute rebuilding. Such
rebuilding would have to be substantially in excess of the
original manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures
to ensure normal service life.
(3) Clarifies that costs and expenses attributable to a
trustees's failure to fulfill its maintenance and return
obligations are priority expenses of the estate. Most
financing agreements contain covenants requiring the borrower
or the lessee, as the case may be, to maintain and return
equipment in appropriate condition. If these covenants are
breached, the financing party's residual interest in the
equipment can be significantly impaired. The proposed
amendment adds a new subsection to the end of sections 1110
and 1168 to clarify that if an airline or railroad makes an
agreement of the type specified in sections 1110(a)(1) or
1168(a)(1), administrative priority would be given to all
expenses attributable to a trustee's failure to fulfill his
maintenance and return obligations.
(4) Provides a safe harbor definition of the term
``lease''. A substantial amount of litigation has focused on
the nature and type of lease agreements that may be within
the scope of sections 1110 and 1168. The result of this
litigation has been to cloud the rights to such aircraft and
railroad equipment for months while a court resolves the
issue, thereby effectively nullifying the purpose of these
sections. The proposed amendment adds a new subsection to the
end of sections 1110 and 1168 to provide a safe harbor
definition of the term ``lease'' for equipment first placed
in service prior to the date of enactment. Under the
amendment, a lease would receive section 1110 or section 1168
protection if the lessor and the debtor, as lessee, have
expressed in the lease agreement, or a substantially
contemporaneous writing, that such agreement is to be treated
as a lease for Federal income tax purposes.
This definition would be nonexclusive in nature, and other
agreements that would qualify as true leases for Federal
income tax purposes (and subleases, under such true leases,
to debtors) would also be covered under sections 1110 and
1168. The safe harbor definition is designed to provide
certainty for those parties seeking assurance that their
transaction falls within the scope of these sections, and
thus minimize needless litigation. The definition of
``lease'' and the distinction between section 1110's and
section 1168's coverage of leases and secured loans would
be inapplicable under the amendment with respect to
equipment first placed in service after the effective
date. In addition, to further minimize such litigation, an
agreement which would otherwise be treated as a lease
under this subsection would not fail to qualify for the
benefits of this section because the agreement contains
provisions: (1) permitting the debtor to subject the
equipment to interchange agreements and pooling or other
similar arrangements customary in the industry; or (2)
permitting or requiring the debtor to return the equipment
with substitute components, or substitute equivalent
equipment in the event of a casualty or loss.
(5) Updates and modifies certain citations and references
in section 1110. Section 1110's citation to the Ship Mortgage
Act and reference to the Civil Aeronautics Board are
outdated. The Ship Mortgage Act has been amended and
recodified, and the Department of Transportation has assumed
the Board's role as certifying authority for air carriers.
The amendment updates the language of section 1110 to reflect
these changes.
(6) Clarifies that the rights of a section 1110 or section
1168 creditor would not be affected by section 1129 ``cram-
down.'' In a recent airline bankruptcy proceeding, it was
asserted that equipment loans, otherwise protected by
sections 1110 and 1168, could nonetheless be unilaterally
modified by the debtor such that the terms of the loans could
be lengthened, the interest rates could be reduced and other
materials terms could be altered. This contention arose under
section 1129, dealing with procedures for approving plans of
reorganization, and would apply only to loans and not to
leases.
Although such an interpretation of section 1129 would
violate the fundamental premise to sections 1110 and 1168,
that the parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain
notwithstanding a bankruptcy proceeding, there is an enormous
concern in the marketplace that this issue is likely to be
the next subject of major and protracted bankruptcy
litigation.
The proposed amendment, then, simply makes clear that
section 1129 would not affect the rights which sections 1110
and 1168 are intended to preserve to financiers in financing
transactions.
(7) Application of the Amendment. The amendment of sections
1110 and 1168 shall not apply to bankruptcy proceedings
commenced prior to the date of enactment of the Act.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 540, the
Bankruptcy Amendments Act, sponsored by Senator Heflin and Senator
Grassley. This legislation reflects significant bipartisan efforts to
provide much needed reform of our bankruptcy laws by addressing new
issues which have arisen and attempting to streamline the bankruptcy
system. The bill is the result of numerous hearings before the
Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice over a long period
to consider various bankruptcy issues and their effect on the
bankruptcy community.
S. 540 represents a comprehensive reform of the Bankruptcy Code. The
first title of this legislation addresses issues involving individual
debtors and bankruptcy court administration. This title seeks to
encourage individual debtors to file chapter 13 bankruptcies, if
possible, as opposed to liquidating under chapter 7. Other provisions
of this title will increase the maximum eligibility limits for filing a
bankruptcy under chapter 13, and require that the debtor be examined
under oath to determine if he or she fully understands the consequences
of filing a bankruptcy.
Title II addresses a number of commercial and credit issues in
bankruptcy. It seeks to clarify bankruptcy law with respect to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act pension fund assets and encourages
bankruptcy courts to begin payments under a chapter 13 plan as soon as
possible. Title III relates to a variety of consumer bankruptcy issues,
including greater protection for children and former spouses who are
beneficiaries of child support or alimony payments.
Title IV establishes a National Bankruptcy Review Commission to study
problems relating to the Bankruptcy Code and develop proposals to make
the bankruptcy process more effective and efficient. The Commission
will report its findings to Congress for appropriate action. The final
two titles of the legislation contain technical corrections.
Mr. President, in my home State of South Carolina, as in the rest of
the Nation, bankruptcy filings have increased dramatically in recent
years. The Congress must take steps to ensure that the bankruptcy
system is not overwhelmed by this increase and the problems which have
accompanied it. The bill we are considering today contains many
necessary reforms that will assist in making the system more efficient.
I believe that overall this legislation is fair to all parties, and I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 540, the Bankruptcy
Amendments Act.
amendment no. 1632
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that all parking areas
reserved at Washington National Airport and Dulles International
Airport for Members of Congress and other Governmental officials should
be open for use by the public, and for other purposes)
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1632.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At an appropriate place in the bill add the following new
section:
Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the policy of providing reserved parking areas free of
charge to Members of Congress, other Government officials,
and diplomats at Washington National Airport and Dulles
International Airport should be ended; and
(2) the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority should
establish a parking policy for such areas that provides equal
access to the public, and does not provide preferential
parking privileges to Members of Congress, other Government
officials, and diplomats.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the reason for bringing this amendment
before the Senate is that this body should express its views on this
issue, and I would like to explain to my colleagues why this is
necessary.
Beginning in March 1992, I corresponded with the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, without commensurate press releases, in
my desire to see that free, reserved parking privileges for Members of
Congress at Washington National and Dulles Airports be abolished.
I wrote a second letter in August 1992, urging that that take place.
I received the following response on August 25, 1992.
Dear Senator McCain:
And I quote in part:
In my letter to you of April 24, I advised you that I
believe the Authority should receive a request from the
leadership of the Congress before we on our own end this 51-
year custom. I have not changed my mind.
When the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986 was
being considered by the Congress, I personally promised
hundreds of Members of Congress that the practice would not
be changed.
Under the circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate
for the Authority to withdraw a privilege offered to the 540
Members of Congress at the request of one or two of them.
Though I agree that the law does not require the Authority to
provide Congressional parking, we should nevertheless look to
legislative action by the entire Congress, or at least a
request of the leadership of both bodies, before eliminating
the parking privilege.
That was signed by Linwood Holton, who was chairman of the board of
directors.
I then submitted additional correspondence later to the Airport
Authority's board of directors in April 1993, urging again--without
press releases--that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority do
away with the free and reserved parking spaces reserved for Members of
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the diplomatic corps at Washington
National and Dulles Airports.
I received the following response on April 13, 1993.
Dear Senator McCain: I thank you for your letter of March 3
presenting a plan for parking at Washington National and
Dulles Airports. I refer to the previous correspondence
between yourself and predecessor Governor Holton and reviewed
the history of arrangement with the courts and diplomatic
corps. I do not believe it would be appropriate for the board
of directors of the authority to unilaterally terminate this
agreement.
So, Madam President, for nearly 3 years the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority has made it clear under two different chairpersons
that they will not, or do not believe that they have the authority to
do away with the parking places.
I think from a legal standpoint it could be argued in court as to
whether they do or do not, but clearly they do not choose to act.
So, Madam President, I come to the floor on this issue because I have
tried and exhausted every other avenue. I might also note that I was
advised that the chairman of the Airports Authority Board of Review,
Representative Norm Mineta, sent a letter to the Speaker of the other
body approximately 2 years ago urging this policy be changed, and, of
course, there was no action taken then.
I regret that the Airports Authority's board of directors continues
to abide by this unfair parking policy in this manner, but the fact is
that the continued existence of these privileges for Members of
Congress is due to questionable pledges that were made by the Airports
Authority board in the past.
As I mentioned, the former chairman of the Airports Authority board
of directors informed me that he had personally promised hundreds of
Members of Congress that the parking practice would not be changed.
It is an interesting admission, Madam President, but one that should
not surprise anyone. Apparently officials of the Airports Authority
quietly promised that special parking spaces, unavailable to the
general public, would be preserved for Members at the same time that
Members of this body were considering legislation that gave power to
the board to operate National and Dulles Airport.
In addition to the fact that excluding the public from these parking
areas is wrong, providing exclusive parking places to Members of
Congress completely free of charge carries with it a considerable cost
to the Airports Authority itself.
At National and Dulles Airports, the parking spaces that are reserved
for Members of Congress are located very close to the terminals. These
spaces are equivalent to the short-term spaces that costs our
constituents up to $26 a day to use. There are approximately 124
parking spaces reserved at National Airport and 51 at Dulles Airport.
Of the 124 spaces at National Airport, if they were open to the public
and fully utilized at current rates charged to our constituents, they
would garner over $l.175 million a year in revenues. If the lot at
Dulles were open to the public and utilized at capacity, it would
generate $484,000 a year in new revenues. This means that over $1.6
million in potential parking revenues to the Airports Authority is
being lost each year because choice lots are being unjustly cordoned
off to the public.
In addition to calling for the opening of congressional lots, this
sense-of-the-Senate amendment states that no preferential parking
privileges should be provided to Members of Congress and other
officials in the future.
In deliberating the amendment, I would ask my colleagues to consider
how the public provides for their own travel to and from Washington's
airports without any special privilege to rely upon. Business people
and recreational travelers consider taking one of the District's 8,000
taxicabs, use our multibillion dollar Metro system, or arrange for a
ride from friends and colleagues. If they do decide to use a parking
lot at National or Dulles Airports, they budget and economize in order
to pay for that convenience.
The loss of revenues caused by the congressional parking has occurred
at a time when the Airports Authority is receiving millions of dollars
in taxpayers' funds each year. Instead of raising the substantial
amounts of revenue that could alleviate the need for taxpayers'
dollars, the Airports Authority is apparently content to abide by the
status quo.
Madam President, I think it is appropriate at some point--perhaps
right now--to mention that I appreciate how emotional this issue is. I
have even received many verbal comments from my colleagues. I have even
received written letters from even a Member from the other body who
admonished me to get real.
I understand that there will be questions raised about my own
personal practices and habits as to whether I use the congressional
parking myself. I have not for over a year. That is an admission for
the many years I did. There is a tendency in this town to somehow
discredit the messenger if the message is not pleasing.
I will also admit and plead guilty to any charge that is leveled
against me for using any other perk that the Congress has, in order to
alleviate the Senate from having to undertake that part of the debate.
But the fact is that the American people feel, in a very strong
fashion, that we have separated ourselves from them.
I do not pretend that this action alone, if agreed to by the Senate
and the House, will significantly impact the increasing cynicism of the
American people about Members of Congress. But I do think it is
important for us to recognize that the American people are extremely
cynical, disillusioned, and many times angry about what they view is a
disconnect between Members of Congress and the American people.
Madam President, just this morning there was a poll that was written
about, which I would like to quote from. It is an extensive poll. It is
a two-part national telephone poll of 1,500 persons conducted in
November and January, and it focused not only on attitudes towards
Government, but on how voters felt about 50 proposed reforms.
The survey, in very dramatic ways, underscores how deeply cynical the
American people remain about the political process and political
leaders, said Stanley B. Greenberg, pollster for President Clinton.
While Mr. Greenberg hastened to add the President's approval ratings
are on the rise, he acknowledged we are seeing Watergate levels of
cynicism, and even higher levels. Frederic Steeper, pollster to former
President Bush, stressed that the results of the poll were not just a
knee-jerk, anti-Government reaction, but rather the latest evidence of
the Nation's rising distrust of its own Government over the past 36
years.
The article goes on to say, Madam President, that Congress was
singled out for particular criticism in the survey results. The most
popular of all 50 proposals favored by 81 percent of respondents was a
punitive measure to cut congressional salaries and benefits to let
Members know that voters are serious about spending cuts. By contrast,
a proposal to raise congressional benefits to encourage the best people
to serve was favored by only 13 percent of respondents. And it goes on
to add that term limits were especially popular, favored by 71 percent,
et cetera, et cetera.
Madam President, again, I do not pretend that the passage of this
amendment will somehow reverse a trend that, according to the people
who make a great deal of money analyzing these perceptions, that has
been going on for 36 years. But I do contend and I do allege that
measures that we take in order to make Members of Congress just like
the rest of our fellow citizens are desired by the people that I
represent. And that is all this amendment is really about.
Usually, because pressure is brought to bear, in addition to
publicity and a lot of rhetoric on the part of talk show hosts in
America, the Congress has taken appropriate action concerning free
haircuts, subsidized meals, the gymnasium, health care, et cetera.
If there is one phrase that gets applause in any town hall meeting I
have been to all through America, it is the following: ``We want the
same health care plan that Congress has.'' Even for a dull speaker like
me, that is the one sure-fire line that will get a lot of applause.
What does that mean, Madam President? It means that people believe
that we should live like they do.
Again, I want to emphasize an important point one more time, because
there may be people both on and off the Senate floor who will say that
this amendment is some kind of cursory response to populist attitudes.
I tried for 2 years in correspondence with the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority to get them to take this action, without benefit of
issuing any press releases, and without aggrandizement of any kind. But
the fact is, they would not act. And the Airports Authority says they
will not act unless Congress sends them a message.
This sense-of-the-Senate resolution will send that message on behalf
of the U.S. Senate.
I do not hesitate to admit that there will be inconveniences if this
reserved parking is done away with. There may even be a time when a
Member of this body misses a vote or misses a plane. I deeply regret
such possibilities, as a person who for 10 years has commuted back and
forth literally every single weekend to my home State of Arizona, where
my family resides.
I do not want to go on too much longer, but I hope we can get a voice
vote on this issue to get it over with, and have it accepted by both
sides.
If not, I must request the yeas and nays, which I will be prepared to
vitiate at any time if both sides are willing to accept the amendment.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I do not intend to engage in debate on
the issue. I believe the case is clear. This is an issue of fairness
and equity for the public. I do not wish to inflame emotions any more
than has already taken place. If I had advocated a declaration of world
war III, I believe it would have probably evoked less emotion in my
colleagues than this amendment has. So I am keenly aware of the
sensitivity and their strongly held views on this issue.
At the same time, all I am asking for is a decision on the part of
this body. Once it is rendered, I do not intend to bring this issue up
again.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered today by my colleague from Arizona that puts the
Senate clearly on record in support of eliminating parking at National
and Dulles Airports. My only regret is that this amendment is only a
sense of the Senate and is not, in fact, binding.
It is impossible to explain to residents of this country why elected
officials deserve or warrant the special perk of being able to pull
into a busy parking lot at Dulles or National Airport--and get free
parking at any hour of the day. It is time to ban this needless special
perk.
In addition, at both National and Dulles, significant amounts of
construction are currently underway. Traffic in and out is tremendous,
and access to parking lots is tough, particularly on a busy Friday
evening. Imagine the frustration that tourists--all of them a
constituent of one Senator or another--must feel as they struggle with
their luggage, get out of a parking lot bus and look over their
shoulder to see an empty or half-empty parking lot marked with a sign
that says: ``Reserved Parking: Supreme Court Justices, Members of
Congress, Diplomatic Corps.''
I know that some of my colleagues in the House and here in the Senate
will say that by having parking reserved at the airports, more business
gets done here because less time is needed in traveling to and from
planes. But for men and women anywhere else, if work or some other task
keeps them late they do not have the option of zipping into their free
parking spot at the movie theater or at the grocery store or at the
ball park. Instead, most people face the option of catching that later
move, or missing the first couple innings of the game. Without free
parking, we are faced with the option of catching that later flight. I
am certain that that is an option all of us can live with.
I commend my colleague from Arizona for continuing to bring this
issue before us, and I am pleased to support this amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am voting against the resolution to
eliminate the parking for Senators and others at National Airport
because, despite my concern about the appearance of special treatment,
the reserved parking saves taxpayers' money.
I have introduced and supported legislation to eliminate all Senate
perks so that Senators pay the fair market value for everything we
receive including, but not limited to, medical care, gym facilities,
haircuts, and so forth.
Parking, however, is a legitimate business expense. Currently, this
parking is provided at no cost to taxpayers. If the parking is
eliminated and Senators use the commercial lot, it has been estimated
that the cost to taxpayers would be more than $3 million.
Since I travel to and from Pennsylvania by train, I cast this vote to
retain the Senators' airport parking even though I almost never use the
lot. But I believe that as we take up these kinds of issues in our
effort to reform Congress, we must not be afraid to make choices that
are in the best interest of the taxpayer and the Congress, even though
the appearance of such a decision might seem otherwise.
In voting against this resolution, I understand that it will be
unpopular, probably misunderstood and possibly the subject of a
negative TV commercial against me in a future campaign.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona has indicated
that he would be prepared to vitiate the yeas and nays in order to
spare Senators from voting on the amendment that he has offered, with
the proviso that his amendment be accepted. This Senator would strongly
oppose accepting the McCain amendment. Therefore, it appears that we
will have a rollcall vote on the McCain amendment. If the vote is 99 to
1, and I would understand why Senators would feel constrained to vote
in favor of the McCain amendment, this Senator will be the one who will
vote against it.
Madam President, on its face the question of parking places at
airports is perhaps the smallest issue that could come before the U.S.
Senate.
It seems so small on its face, but, in fact, it is a very big issue
that has been raised, and a very big issue that I believe should be
debated, because I think that the whole thrust of the McCain amendment
is something that is wrong. It is bad for the country. Therefore, I
believe that we should just face up to it squarely, directly, and think
about it and talk about it, and then, if the Senator wants to press to
a vote, vote on it.
Part of our tradition as a country is to be skeptical about
Government, and for good reason: We do not believe that Government is
the be all and end all of the United States of America. We do not
believe that life within the beltway is the heart of this country. We
believe that the true America is out there somewhere in our States, in
our communities, in our homes--not here in Washington.
So for that reason, the skepticism about Washington, and the
skepticism about Government and Government programs is something that
is very healthy. But cynicism about Government is not healthy. Cynicism
is not the same as skepticism. Cynicism can be corrosive, and cynics
tend to take the position that people in Washington really are some
sort of malevolent force, some kind of different people who are engaged
in some sort of hanky-panky. Cynics contend people in Washington are
doing ruinous things to the country, and everything would be better if
those people up there were not there or if they were different.
That kind of cynicism is constantly fanned by people who make it
their business to fan the flames of that sort of cynicism. That is the
nature of talk radio today. The nature of talk radio is to fan the
flames of public passion, make people mad; make people mad about
Government; make people mad about Washington; make people mad about
those people up there, those politicians. So it is no wonder that the
polls that the Senator from Arizona cites are as represented.
Ask the American people about Congress. ``They are worse than used
car salesmen.''
Ask the American people about politicians. ``Scumbags,'' they would
say.
Ask them about various perks they perceive exist in Congress. ``Oh,
this is a terrible thing. Those people are milking us for all they are
worth.''
That is cynicism.
I submit that it is corrosive and that it is mistaken and that it is
time to face up to it and start talking about it and not playing to it,
not constantly playing to it, not constantly looking for opportunities
to whip up those passions, to whip up the cynicism that is already
there throughout the country.
So I believe that the issue that is raised is a big issue. It is
beyond parking places. It is a big question about Government and the
American people and how the two relate to each other. That is a very
big question, and it is much more than the question of parking places.
Maybe it is a safe thing for me to be the one who raises it. I am, in
a sense, a neutral observer. After 18 years in the U.S. Senate, I will
be retiring at the end of this term. It does not matter much to me what
the parking situation is from this point on at the airports. It does
not matter to me what people are going to be saying in negative
campaign commercials relating to parking, because I am not running
again. So I am really a neutral observer.
But it is really important to me to talk about Congress and to talk
about politics and to talk about the corrosive cynicism that I believe
this amendment represents and plays to and helps create.
Let me begin by talking about the practical consequences of this
amendment. People could say, ``Well, we're concerned about balancing
the budget.'' Right? ``Therefore, this is money and somehow this is
related to the budget and maybe we'll be better off for budgetary
reasons.''
The answer to that question, of course, is ``no''. The answer to that
question is no. It is my understanding that the Congress does not, in
fact, pay the airport authority for use of the space, so that the money
that is spent for cab fare or parking places, or whatever else, to get
to the airports would come out of the Treasury. So, if anything, this
amendment would lose money, not make money.
If you really believe that the problem of a $4.5 trillion national
debt can be reduced to parking fees--if anybody is silly enough to
equate the two--then the nickels and dimes that we are talking about,
relatively speaking, in this amendment would go the other way because
people would be reimbursed for their transportation, including their
parking.
Or, if we were rushing to get to the airport, we might ask some staff
person: ``Drive me over there. I don't have time to park the car.'' And
that, in a way, would be a cost to the taxpayers. So if we are talking
simply about cost--which, of course, is not what we are talking about,
but I simply make that point--if we are talking about cost, then, if
anything, this amendment will cost money; it will not create savings
for the taxpayers.
But, of course, this amendment fundamentally is not about cost. It is
about the idea that the public resents privilege. It is the thought
that somehow Members of the U.S. Senate or Members of the Congress are
a privileged group of people and that the surest way to stir up
resentment against Members of Congress is to portray ourselves as
privileged.
In a sense, it is a privilege to serve in the Congress of the United
States. I have always believed that it is a privilege to serve in the
U.S. Senate. It is the greatest privilege I have ever had in my life,
and I am immensely proud of it and grateful for the opportunity of
being able to spend a very substantial part of my life serving in
public office and, in particular, serving in the U.S. Senate. In that
sense, it is a privilege.
But let us not confuse privilege with the idea that somehow it is a
cushy job, because I think that is what the cynics would like to
believe: This is a cushy job; this is a lush job of some kind; this is
the lap of luxury; this is ease to be in the U.S. Senate; it is ease to
serve in the Congress; it is a luxury and we are privileged people and
we should be treated like everybody else.
Well, are we like everybody else? What is the typical work week in
the United States? It used to be 40 hours a week. I believe that now it
is somewhat less than 40 hours a week. Forty hours a week was the
standard work week. Is there anybody in the U.S. Senate who works 40
hours a week?
Most people work an 8-hour day, or at least they did. I think that is
declining somewhat: 9 to 5. The whistle blows at 5 o'clock. Does the
whistle blow here at 5 o'clock? Where are people here at 5 o'clock in
the afternoon? Where are people at 6 o'clock in the afternoon? Where
are the people at 7, 8, 9 at night?
Your wife calls you up at 6:30 in the evening and says, ``Are you
going to be home?''
``I don't know.''
``When will you be home for dinner?''
``I don't know.''
``Will you be home?''
``I don't know.''
``Will we be able to do something next week?
``I don't know.''
This is not a 40-hour workweek. Does anybody want an 80-hour workweek
in this country? Or a 100-hour workweek? That is more like it. How
about the airport spaces? Is that some kind of luxury, to be able to
park at the airport? Think about it. To be able to park at the airport.
Does that seem to be a great luxury item to park at National Airport?
Well, here is the usual situation. You are working in the Senate.
Generally, two nights a week perhaps, maybe three, you are working
late. Sometimes you start work at 8 or 8:30 a.m., you may have a
breakfast meeting at 8 o'clock in the morning. You are going right
through the day. You have something to do during the lunch hour. You
are going from meeting to meeting. You are working into the evening.
And then the Senate is to recess sometime on Friday.
Probably noontime or in the early afternoon there will be an
announcement, ``No more votes.'' You want to go to the airport. You
have to go to the airport because you have commitments back in your
State. So how many people have stood here on Fridays, looking at the
clock, asking when the debate is going to close. ``When are we going to
have the votes?'' Lining up here at the front desk to vote early, to
leave immediately after casting your vote, to rush to the airport--not
to proceed in a leisurely pace but to rush to the airport--in order to
catch a plane, because the plane is leaving in a half an hour and you
have to get to the airport.
It happens every week. It happens every week we are in session. There
are Senators pacing the floor of the Senate saying, ``When can we get
out? We have to catch a plane.''
Is it a luxury to have a place to park? What are you supposed to do,
shoot in a pneumatic tube over to National Airport? You have to get on
the plane.
Why, Madam President, do you have to get on the plane?
So many times when I am in the airport in Missouri, constituents will
see me in the airport and they will say to me, ``Oh, good, you are
getting some time off.'' It is a nice thing to say. It is a nice,
pleasant greeting. It is wonderful; you are getting some time off.
Time off? What time off? Who would like to spend weekends the way
Senators spend weekends? Here is how we spend weekends. We rush to the
airport, get on the plane, and we go out to our States. We have
speeches. We have town meetings. We live out of suitcases. We stay in
hotels.
A State such as Illinois, represented by the Presiding Officer, is a
very large State. My State of Missouri is 250 miles across. It is a
large State. You go back and you spend one night in St. Louis, one
night in Springfield, one night in Kansas City. That is not a vacation.
It is work. So many times I felt at the end of a working weekend, I am
glad to get back. This schedule seems like rest compared to what we are
doing on our weekends. It seems like rest.
What we consider to be weekends off are not the weekends that we have
to rush to National Airport or to Dulles. The weekends that we consider
weekends off, when we talk to each other--Do you have the weekend
off?--we mean when we do not have to go to the airport. When we do not
have to go to the airport.
It is said by the Senator from Arizona we should live like everybody
else. Who else lives this kind of life? The one thing that you have to
say about Members of the Senate is they work hard. The one thing you
have to say about Members of the Senate is that it is a high-energy
job. One question to ask ourselves is, well, say you have a plane to
catch, say you have a plane to catch on a Friday because you have a
commitment in your State on Friday. You have a plane to catch, and you
are here hoping to catch that vote.
Why are you hoping to catch that vote? You are hoping to catch that
vote because you take your voting record seriously. Most people in the
Senate want to vote 95 percent of the time, or more. Some Members of
the Senate do not like to miss any votes at all. That is not a lack of
conscientiousness. That is real conscientiousness about doing what you
are paid to do, about voting.
So the idea that it is somehow a privilege to have a parking place,
when you are rushing from the floor of the Senate to catch a plane to
get back to work for a weekend, just is not true. It just is not true.
It plays to a popular myth, and it just is not true.
It is hard work. It is not an 8-hour day.
Private life? Well, does the ordinary person put out a financial
disclosure? No. I was speaking last night to a very revered former
Senator about the difference between being in private life and being in
the Senate.
This person served with great distinction in the Senate. Really, I
think every Senator who served with this individual would say that this
was one of the great Senators. And he was telling me about the
difference between public life and private life.
I do not say all of this to complain, because I am not complaining. I
promised myself when I announced my own retirement that the last thing
I wanted to do was to complain, because I have considered it to be a
wonderful privilege to have had the opportunity to serve in the Senate.
I have enjoyed it, and I still do. It is interesting. It is the most
stimulating thing I can think of. It is very, very exciting and very
enjoyable. It is a privilege to be able to stand here right now and
debate in the Senate. I am going to miss it when I leave. I am going to
miss it, no doubt about it.
But the idea that it is somehow cushy or that they are a bunch of
pooh-bahs sitting around doing nothing is just false. It is just plain
false.
It is said that, well, Members of Congress are out of touch. Members
of the U.S. Senate are out of touch. Let us get them a different
parking place and put them in touch.
Madam President, the last thing that Members of the Senate are is out
of touch. The idea that Members of Congress are out of touch is totally
fallacious. We have never been so in touch. Why? Part of the reason is
the ease of transportation. Part of the reason why we are in touch is
that, unlike the old days when Members of the Congress would show up in
January and leave in June and never go back to their States, now you
can go back all the time. That is one of the reasons we are in touch,
is that our constituents can come here--and they do so every day--and
we can go out to our States, as many of us do each week.
We all use the public opinion polls, the focus groups, and all of
these ways of staying in touch. Some may argue that we are in touch to
a fault, that we have lost the sense of statesmanship because we are so
afraid of offending everybody, that we are so much in touch that we do
not necessarily do the job of good government.
Think about how we are going to vote on this particular amendment. I
suppose that one of the reasons for voting in favor of the McCain
amendment is concern about being pilloried when you are back home.
Everybody is going to know about it. ``You voted for a special parking
place.'' We are not out of touch. We have never been more in touch than
we are now.
I would also like to add that, in the opinion of this Senator, the
idea that Members of Congress are the object of scorn and ridicule,
that we are somehow ripping off the country by various perks and by
pay, is not only something that is erroneous and ferocious cynicism,
but it is a distraction from the real work that has to be done for our
country.
Let me give the Senate an example. The Presiding Officer and I are
members of a commission of 32 members. The point of the commission is
to try to address the problem of the entitlements and whether anything
can be done to control the entitlements. All of us who serve in
Congress know that the explosion of the entitlements makes the budget
something that we just cannot deal with. We know that there is no
alternative to dealing with the entitlements in a responsible fashion
other than a budget that just continues to spin out of control.
We have not been able to address the problem of the entitlements
because it is unpopular to do so. People want to believe that somebody
else is to blame. People want to believe that there is some solution to
the problem of the Federal budget that does not involve them. ``Do not
cut my program. Why, it is ridiculous to cut my program. How dare you
cut my program. Cut something else.'' And the something else is always,
always the same--waste. It is as though there is a line item in the
budget that is called ``waste.'' Other examples of ``something else''
to cut are foreign aid, which is less than 1 percent of Federal
spending, and always, always congressional pay.
Last winter, Senator Bob Kerrey and I, who have been asked by the
President to cochair this commission on entitlements, were invited to a
conference in Pennsylvania that was convened by Congresswoman Marjorie
Margolies-Mezvinsky. The subject of the conference was the
entitlements. The President came and spoke to that conference. Senator
Kerrey spoke to the conference, and I spoke to the conference. I tried
to talk about the importance of dealing with the entitlements.
I said to the audience--in order to show how people want, a quick
answer, and the cheap answer and the answer that does not involve
them--``What most people would like to hear us say is the way to fix
the budget is to cut congressional pay.'' Madam President, do you know
what the audience did when I said that? They burst into applause. I was
using it as a ridiculous throwaway to try to indicate the quickie
solution, the easy solution, that we have to be realistic, that it is
not going to work. When I mentioned it as an example of something that
cannot work and that is ridiculous, the audience burst into applause
with the very words ``cut congressional pay.'' Of course, it is an
applause line. Of course, that is what people want us to do; cut pay,
cut perks.
It is a national mindset now. We want to be victims. We want to be
victims of somebody up there. We want to be victims. We, the little
people, want to be the victims who are being abused and taken advantage
of by people who were up there somewhere. ``Oh, please, let us be
victims. Please let us find somebody else to blame, somebody to resent.
Give us somebody to resent. Why, Members of Congress, let us balance
the budget by taking their parking places from them.'' It is a whole
industry of building resentment.
A number of years ago I was participating in some debate in the
Senate. I cannot remember the subject. But I was participating in some
debate and assaulting the Senate for something or other, some kind of
criticism of us. After I finished the speech, the greatest guardian of
the honor and the tradition of the Senate that we have, our President
pro tempore, Senator Byrd, took me aside very gently. He did not even
refer to my speech. But he talked about Senators who ``soil their own
nests.'' I have always remembered that because it is true. It is true.
(Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I think we should be proud of serving in
the U.S. Senate. I believe that we should view this body as something
that is representative of the American people. We talk about gridlock.
Yes, I guess there is gridlock. But is that not representative of the
people? Are the people giving us a clear message to get on with the
business of balancing the budget, of cutting popular programs? No. Is
there a consensus on what to do about health care or the other big
issues? There really is not.
So, yes, there is disagreement here. That is the reason for having a
Republican form of government, to build in that disagreement. I think
we do represent the American people, certainly not perfectly, but well.
I think we should say so and not pander to resentment. I believe that
is what this amendment does. So I am going to vote against it. I do not
have much to lose because my political days are over, but I am going to
vote against it, and I am going to insist on a vote if the managers
have any idea of accepting this dreadful amendment, so that I, at
least, will have the chance to vote against it.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to first thank and
congratulate Senator Danforth for probably one of the better speeches I
have heard in my short time here as a Member of the Senate.
I am speaking extemporaneously, Mr. President. As you know, I was
just in the chair, and I had occasion to hear the speech. He really has
touched on some chords that struck near and dear to me as a junior
Member of the Senate. He has been here 18 years, and I daresay I have
been here barely 18 months. He is ending his career, and I am just
starting mine. Frankly, I have a tendency to attract thunderbolts of
controversy anyway, and this may be one.
Senator Danforth, if you are the one vote, I will be No. 2 against
this amendment. I want to talk a little bit, and pick up and associate
myself with everything that Senator Danforth said, because I think he
has properly characterized the issue.
I would like to add some personal perspectives, as a new Member of
the Senate, with regard to the larger issue and how it relates to this
amendment.
When I ran for the Senate, it was with a sense of real regard and
respect for this institution; with a sense of joining the greatest
deliberative body in the world; it was with a sense of extreme honor
and privilege to be a part of this--privilege, in the classical sense
of the word, that somehow or another by coming here, I was doing my
duty by contributing and giving back something of what the Lord had
given me, the privilege that I had been given in my life, that I could
somehow serve the community and I can help my fellow person, I could
somehow contribute something to the debate and to the resolution of
issues, and try to make things better for my children and for all of
the children in this country, and indeed in the world.
In fact, in spite of the popular myth around why I decided to run for
the Senate, the real reason, the real critical moment in my
decisionmaking to do this was a conversation with my son, who was at
the time 15. When I had been approached to run, Matthew and I had
talked about it over dinner. I said, ``I am being asked to run for the
U.S. Senate; what do you think of that?''
He asked me, ``Well, Mom, what are your qualifications?'' He has had
the benefit of a good education. He said, ``You know, Mom, your
generation left this world worse off than you found it.''
I was appalled by that. So for the rest of dinner, we debated whether
my generation had done its job and whether we had done what we were
supposed to do, to pass on to the next generation the great heritage
and legacy that this country stands for. After the conversation, I
said, ``Matthew, that is it, whether I win or lose is not as important.
I am going to go out here and try.''
As it turned out--obviously, I am here--I won the election and became
a Member of the Senate.
Senator Danforth is exactly right in talking about the kind of
workload which, again, I was not really expecting. Nobody told me. In
fact, they had talked about the Senate workload as though you work
full-time and then get time off. I have worked as hard here as I have
on any job in the private or public sector. We work on weekends, and we
work in the evenings.
We work evenings because that is when people come together and have
the benefits, parties, and meetings. As Matthew said earlier in his
young life when asked, ``What does your mother do?'' His answer was,
``She goes to meetings and parties.'' I do more than that. I go to
meetings and parties, and both of those things are work. When friends
call me and ask, ``What would you like to do for recreation,'' I can
think of nothing finer than sitting at home in front of a fireplace
with somebody I really like and not having to engage in the work of
this, because all of that is work.
In addition to the meetings and parties, though, Mr. President, also,
in the words of the former Mayor Daly of Chicago, ``We plant trees.''
That is to say that we are held accountable for results and for what we
do in office. We cannot just get on a talk show and we cannot just get
on the radio and talk about what is wrong with the world. We have a
responsibility to try to make it right. We have a responsibility to do
something, and what we do, we are held to account for every part of
that. And that is as it should be, Mr. President.
Accountability is what this institution has to be about. But when you
talk about accountability, I think it is important that you are honest
about what you are accountable for. The issue, the current issue that
has given rise to this debate is about parking spaces. Senator Danforth
is exactly right. It is more than just parking spaces. It is about
feeding into a malevolent attitude that says somehow the people in the
U.S. Senate, in the U.S. Congress, are all out looking to cut corners
and get special perks and privileges--somehow or another to be
different than the American people, the average folks who are out there
working on a job and having a life.
Well, Senator Danforth has already pointed to whether or not we are
exactly in the same situation, in talking about the difference in the
time schedules and time commitment, having to be here for votes and the
like. He talked about that. I would like to add another aspect of the
difference. I have friends who work on jobs, they work from 9 until 5,
they have their lives, and they have some privacy in their lives. What
they do is their business. I have friends, even at my age, still riding
motorcycles--and I notice the presiding officer, who rides a
motorcycle. That makes him probably unique in this body. But they can
go and hang out and have a good time, and they can say and do what they
want.
Mr. President, we not only file financial disclosures, as Senator
Danforth talked about, we publish our income taxes in many instances.
Income taxes are considered to be private by most Americans. People go
to great lengths to make sure nobody knows the bottom line on their
1040 or what the details are. We publish ours. Every aspect of our
lives is open to scrutiny, comment, conversation and criticism--
sometimes warranted, sometimes not, but you are out there. You put
yourself out for the public to have absolute ownership of what you do
in your life, whether it is going on vacation, or whatever.
I took a vacation after being elected, before I took office and was
sworn in. It wound up being news in my hometown. The day I came back
home, my face was the whole front page of the newspaper. ``Vacation
over.'' I do not know how many of my friends wind up having commentary
about what they do on their vacation between jobs, but that is part and
parcel of this--and I accept that--as to what this job is about.
I recognize that in taking this responsibility, I have to be
accountable not only in my public life, in the sense of what votes I
take and what I do, but also in my private life as well. So when I make
a decision in my private life, just as something to wind up as fodder
for the talk shows and for the television, as to whether or not I am
supporting airstrikes in Bosnia, I recognize that that is part of the
playing field, and I am not complaining, either. Senator Danforth says
it is not about complaining because that is just where we are in our
modern time. That is OK, because I guess it is OK for us to be
accountable.
I suggest to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues who are
listening to this, it is not OK to be accountable in the context that
is fraught with falsehood. And the falsehoods here are the perceptions
that somehow or another, we are taking advantage of the American
people; that they are victims of our malevolent dealmaking; that
somehow or another, this institution--this institution--is something to
be reviled and criticized instead of honored, respected, and regarded
with the kind of--not support; that is almost the wrong word--but
regarded with the kind of respect for what it is that we do and what it
is that we; in fact, what we represent and what our job description, if
you will, calls for.
You know, to talk about the one without talking about the other,
talking about parking spaces and not talking about responsibilities, it
seems to me is to set a perception and to set a frame of mind that is
destructive of our democracy, in the final analysis. Democracy means
the will of the governed; that the governed decide and elect
Representatives; they send people here to make decisions in behalf of
the public good and the common interests.
Most of us, if not all of us, and I presume all of us, try our level
best to live up to the high ideals of our democratic system. In so
doing, we sacrifice privacy; we sacrifice our dinner at home with the
family; we sacrifice things that normal people, ordinary folks who work
9 to 5, take for granted.
I daresay it does not get much play on the talk shows that the Senate
is in session at 12 o'clock at night. It does not get much play on the
talk shows that Senators are required to be accountable for what they
do on their vacations. It does not get much play on the talk shows that
we really are trying and working hard even if things are not all right.
It does not get much play on the talk show that we are held accountable
for what we do, and we cannot just get away with the glib sound bites
and the conversation, and make millions of dollars for doing so.
I would add, Mr. President, that does not titillate, that does not
stimulate the kind of cynical debate that unfortunately has permeated
the air and permeated our public conversation over the last decade and
more.
So, Mr. President, I submit to you that, as Senator Danforth has
pointed out, the debate here is really larger than parking spaces. It
really is more than parking. It is about this institution. It is about
restoring regard and respect for Government in our democracy.
To get us back to the point where people understand that we are only
here because the American people sent us here, and we are here to do a
job and we are doing our best in most instances to do that job, and in
any event, whether we do a good job or not, we are going to be held
accountable, weighed if you will, in an election for what it is that we
do here, and there are mechanisms in place.
And so having a parking space, or whatever other--I mean, I have not
been here long enough to know what all the perquisites are. I suppose I
am just figuring it out. But the fact is that a parking space at the
airport is not something that somehow or another represents some rip-
off of the American people. This is not something that is something. As
Senator Danforth again rightfully pointed out, if anything, taking away
the parking spaces is going to cost more money than not.
And so what you have is something that is counterproductive in terms
of cost; something that feeds into the most cynical elements and
cynical aspects and views about this institution; something that really
propagates a fraud, in my opinion. And I do not mean the idea
propagates fraud. I have worked many nights, being by myself, a woman
traveling back and forth, and I go back to my home State just about
each weekend. My boy is still back there, so I go back home, I suspect,
about every week. I work on those weekends. I know of nights when I
left here dashing out to catch the last plane back home by myself.
So I get to the airport by myself at night, running luggage behind
me, trying to get to that airplane. We have all done it. We all know
what that is like.
The fact that I can park the car and go in and leave it there for the
weekend until it is time to come back to work was something that was
helpful. Would my life end without it? Absolutely not. Most of the
time, I do not use that parking space. But I daresay the fact that it
is there allows me to do my job and does not penalize me further for
being in it.
I came home--you see, you get confused after awhile. I came back to
Washington on Monday, having gone from Chicago, IL. Senator Danforth
talked about how large my State is. It is a huge State. Illinois is
kind of in the middle of the country, and it is a long State. It is 600
miles long. I had gone from the northern end of the State down to
southern Illinois to do an announcement that morning. I caught a 7:15
a.m. flight and tried to get down there in time for the announcement. I
made the announcement in southern Illinois and went to the St. Louis
Airport to come here to Washington. I got off the plane at Washington.
As I walked out of the gate, out of the parking area, going to catch
a cab--I did not have a car and I was going to try to come to work on
my own, going to catch a cab--I found myself being photographed. So I
turned around to a young lady, and I said, ``Why are you taking my
picture?'' She said, ``Well, we are doing another story on
congressional parking perks.'' I said, ``Why are you taking my
picture?'' She said, ``You are a Senator, so we thought we would take a
nice picture of you.''
She was a pleasant enough person, so I did not really get into it.
But the point I ask is how many ordinary people walk out of an
airport and have someone snapping photographs of them? Does that go
with the job description? I do not think so. I do not think so. Does
that mean there is going to be a story? I do not know. It could well be
a story: Carol Moseley-Braun, you know, going to the congressional
parking lot. In fact, I was going to catch a cab.
So I just think, Mr. President, and again I had not intended--and I
daresay I suspect Senator Danforth had not either expected--to hold
forth on this amendment. But I was sitting there in the chair, and it
just struck such a nerve. It was just like: When is this Congress-
bashing going to stop? When are we going to stop allowing people to
propagate this fraud? It is selling false impressions to the American
people which, in the final analysis, degrades and demeans the
institution and becomes the functional equivalent of shooting yourself
in the foot.
The American people want better Government. The whole idea, it seems
to me, is to get the best people you can in it, not to make it
unattractive, to make it so that honor and duty, and concepts of doing
good for the common interests, those kinds of concepts, get buried in
the hoopla, in the hype, in the talk-show conversation that I believe
the pending amendment feeds into.
So, Mr. President, I took a few minutes to make some personal
observations. I say again they are not in the way of complaint. I went
into this with my eyes open, and frankly I have been absolutely
thrilled and honored to serve in this institution, for all the personal
costs it is taking.
Where else could I talk about these issues? I have a bill I was going
to introduce this morning, but I will do it later on today, providing
money to rebuild schools, education. Then someone comes out and talks
about what is going on in Bosnia. Yesterday, we talked about Haiti. I
mean where else could I do that?
I realize with the honor of this job and the excitement of this job,
there are going to be downsides. But I do not mind downsides in terms
of those things that are legitimate. But I do resent the propagation of
a falsehood, of a false impression, and I particularly resent what the
continuation of that trend, of that propagation, is doing to this great
institution. This is the greatest symbol of democracy in the world. It
will only be respected by the rest of the world to the extent that we
respect it.
I daresay, Mr. President, I do not believe that this pending
amendment is consistent with respect and support for this institution,
the individuals notwithstanding. And I, therefore, join Senator
Danforth and will be the No. 2 two vote against it.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am the chairman of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee and I have a responsibility, as chairman of
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, to make sure that
every year there is enough money to run the affairs of the legislative
branch, which includes far more than the Congress. Therefore, I am here
to tell everyone listening, whether it be a Member of the U.S. Senate,
a member of the staff or a member of the public, that if this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution passes, it will cost more money to run the
legislative branch of Government.
So everyone should understand, this is a cosmetic change. It is not
one that will save the American taxpayers money. It will cost the
American taxpayers money.
I would, first of all, say that I have always had great respect and
admiration for the senior Senator from the State of Missouri. As we
know, he is an ordained minister. He has been a person that has spoken
out on issues that he believes are important, many times
notwithstanding the party pushing a particular issue.
But I would say to the senior Senator from the State of Missouri,
this certainly speaks about the legend of Jack Danforth. This man is
not running for reelection, but yet he is here on the Senate floor
speaking out on an issue that perhaps a lot of people wish they had the
intestinal fortitude of a Jack Danforth to speak out on an issue of
this measure.
So I personally commend and applaud, as I have done on many occasions
on the floor, not only the Senator, but the people of the State of
Missouri who sent this Senator to represent them in these last many
years to the greatest debating body in the history of the world.
Mr. President, I do not live in Washington, DC. I live in the State
of Nevada. The State of Nevada is my home and always has been. I was
born in Nevada.
I am here on a temporary assignment from the people of the State of
Nevada. Yes, I have a home here in the Washington, DC, area, because I
have five children and I need a place to live. But it is temporary. I
have always known it is temporary. There is not a day that goes by that
I do not think of my home in Nevada.
That is the way it has always been back here. The people that serve
in the Senate represent the various States of our country. I represent
the State of Nevada. I go home as often as I can. My family spends most
of its time here because that is where the kids go to school most of
the time.
I am not going home this weekend because I graduated from George
Washington University School of Law and I am going to get some kind of
an award on Saturday. I am going to be here next weekend. The next
weekend, I am going home; the next weekend, I am going home.
I have things to do at home that are important for the people of the
State of Nevada. I am not going home to see a show on the Las Vegas
Strip. I am going home to do the people's business of the State of
Nevada.
But while I am here, I work for the people of the State of Nevada. I
get 4,000 pieces of mail a week and I respond, with my staff, to all
that mail. I work extremely long hours, as do all Members of the U.S.
Senate.
I came here early this morning. I will go home late tonight. During
the time that I am here, I am not going to be watching movies. I am
going to be working every minute. I do not take a nap. I will work
every minute that I am here. I will be on the telephone. I just left a
hearing that took all morning, very important to the people of the
State of Nevada. The Nevada delegation is waiting for me now at a
meeting that started at 12 o'clock.
The point of the matter is, every minute of my day is scheduled and
it will be on the weekends that I go home. I need to get home as
quickly as I can, not for my personal convenience, but because I have
work to do for the people of the State of Nevada.
Now it is all--I am trying to find the right word--foolishness to
think that we are going to close the airport to the ambassadorial corps
of the world that serves in the United States. I think that would be
rude. I think it would be very unfair to the diplomats that serve from
all over the world in Washington as Ambassadors to the United States.
To have an assignment to be an Ambassador to the United States is the
height of an ambassadorial career--to serve as an Ambassador to the
United States. I mean, should we not provide them parking where we have
major parking spots, not all over the country, but where they serve in
Washington, DC? I do not think that is asking too much, that we provide
parking to the ambassadorial corps.
The parking at Dulles and National serves the Supreme Court of the
United States, the ambassadorial corps. The spots are very limited.
There are many times that they are full. But my point is, the airport
facility is not for Members of Congress, the little spots they have
blocked off. They are for the ambassadorial corps, the Supreme Court,
and Members of the Congress.
Mr. President, if these things are closed--and if that is the will of
the Senate, we will all go along with it, we have to--I repeat for the
third time, it will cost the taxpayers of the State of Nevada, the
State of Colorado, the State of Missouri, the State of Alabama, the
State of Iowa, every State in the Union more money. Why? Because, the
rest of you have to get to the airport some way. I usually take my car
and drive myself to the airport and carry my bags to the luggage
counter. I have no problem with that.
Under the rules, I could charge any mileage for my car while going
back and forth. I do not do that. But I park there when I go to either
Dulles or National.
Mr. President, the point is, when I go to the airport, I am going on
the business of the people of State of Nevada. I am not going on a
vacation. And this business is no different than a lawyer going to
represent a client or somebody selling products for a company. We are
in the business of the country. That is why we are parked there. We are
trying to be more efficient for the people of this country.
Now if it is the will of this Senate that they do not want that to
make my office more efficient, to make me more efficient for the people
of the State of Nevada, then fine. But it will cost more money.
Roughly, it will cost probably about $3 million more each year if you
add up all the cab fares to National and Dulles Airports from around
this area. And this does not include, Mr. President--and I am sorry I
was not able to come up with that figure--but there will on occasions,
I am sure, that you will be at your office and you need staff to take
you to the airport. I am sure that would happen on occasion. Nothing
wrong with that. You are going on business.
The point of the matter is, the cost of eliminating this parking at
the airport is significant.
As chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, we will try to
find the money someplace, if that is what you want. But we are going to
have to cut someplace else to do that. We may have to cut in the
Library of Congress. We may have to cut staffs that write letters to
constituents and consider waiting 2 or 3 weeks or a month or 6 weeks
for a letter; you may have to wait a couple months.
There will have to be some cuts made if, in fact, the Senate decides
to make this cosmetic change, because it is only cosmetic. It is only
cosmetic in nature.
My friend from Illinois has left the floor. I would say to her, she
said she is new here and she does not know all the perquisites that are
here. She will not have to look very far, because there are not many
that I am aware of, and I have been here going on 8 years.
I was here several years, Mr. President, and finally I asked the
barber who I pay $10 to get my haircut here in the Senate, I said,
``Mario, every place I go, at almost every townhall meeting, they talk
about free haircuts. Where are they?''
I do not know the exact date. I think he said they stopped in 1963,
or some date like that--1967; 25, 30 years ago. No more free haircuts.
I guess there was a time here when Members of the Senate and House got
free haircuts. Well, that has long since gone.
This is a cosmetic change. I repeat, as chairman of the Legislative
Branch Subcommittee that appropriates money for this body and other
entities within the legislative branch, if the Senate feels this is
important of course we will go along with it. But everyone should know
it is going to cost taxpayers of the United States more money to do
this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from
Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is recognized.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, let me first congratulate the
distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth] for approaching this
sense-of-the-Senate resolution from an overall situation of asking when
are we going to stop beating ourselves to death pertaining to certain
items which might be termed a fringe benefit. I think the distinguished
senior Senator from Missouri said something that needed to be said, and
I congratulate him, and I congratulate Senator Reid and Senator
Moseley-Braun for their statements.
I did not intend to speak on this, but I have heard their speeches
and I think I at least ought to make some comment. Basically, what we
are talking about is time. Since the Senate has grown over the years,
and the world that we live in presents more and more complex issues,
the question has arisen: How do you save time in order that you might
devote priority time to the most serious issues?
I just look here and I see three staff people for the majority
leader. Why are they here? They are here to save the time of the
majority leader while he conducts other business. Why do I have staff
members on my Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice in the
Judiciary Committee? Why do I have a counsel who has spent, I would
say, 80 percent of his time this year on this one bankruptcy bill? The
object is to save me time in order that I might look after my duties in
agriculture, in national defense, and in all of the various issues that
confront a Senator in representing his State. Each staff member that
has been added to a Senator's staff has been added with the idea that
it saves him time and allows him to be more efficient in his overall
function.
The idea of having a parking place at the airport is to allow a
saving of the Senator's time so he or she does not have to prematurely
leave the Senate while he or she is working on issues of great
importance to his or her constituents. A Member of Congress can spend
an additional 20 minutes working on whatever the issue he may be
involved with and drive straight to the airport and not have to waste
time in searching for a parking place.
It also means his car is close by when he arrives back in Washington
from his home State, it saves him some time, in many instances where he
must rush to the Chamber for a floor vote. I think overall it will save
about 40 minutes time of a Senator, that he can devote to his business,
to his State, and to other important duties.
Some say that can be done on weekends or something else. But most
Senators never get away from their work. I do not think I have spent a
weekend away from my work this year or in the last past 12 months. I am
working all the time, and there is always something that is going on.
If I go home, even at a recess, and even if I do not have a town
meeting or a speech, my home phone is ringing and my office in the
State has things that they want me to do. There is very little free
time for any Senator. I think when you look at this, this is an issue
of time savings. The whole concept of all supportive staff, the concept
of having a parking place or anything else, is to save time in order to
devote more attention to serious duties than the distraction of having
to get to the airport. A Senator can spend more time in the office and
in working for your State and for your Nation.
I think Senator Reid, awhile ago, mentioned the matter pertaining to
the cost issue. If you add up the time, it would be a substantial
amount more than the $3 million he mentioned.
I also think Senator Danforth talked about the duties and the matters
here, and I might say it is true of the legislative staff. I do not
think there is a staff person who deals with legislation in any
Senator's office who works less than a 40-hour week. They stay here
much more than 40 hours and assist their Senators in legislative
matters. In my office my staff members are usually here until 7, 8, or
9 at night, and they work hard. This idea that Senators and the staff
do not work long hours is the most erroneous impression that is given
to people throughout the country by the press.
I thank Senator Danforth for bringing this up and making his speech
in the manner he has done. It is remarkable. I look around and there
are one or two Senators whose health is not too good. But they come. I
notice, for many of them, their steps are not as spry as they used to
be. But they feel an obligation to duty and they come and they work. I
can remember a Senator who is no longer here who came in because he
wanted to vote. He was on the other side of the aisle. Perhaps some of
us said, ``Well, they brought him in from the deathbed in order to
vote.'' But he felt a duty that he had to his country and to the issue
involved that they got him out of his hospital bed and brought him
here.
In how many private businesses would you have seen that? I can cite
many other instances which have similarly occurred. I can remember a
Senator who has passed away, who would come here and discharge his
duty, as painful as it might have been--in a wheelchair on several
occasions.
So I agree with Senator Danforth. This is not a cushy job. It is a
job we all appreciate. A job we honor. And it is a honor to serve in
the U.S. Senate. But the false idea that this is a cushy job, as
Senator Danforth brought out, needs to be told to the American people
through many, many different ways.
Again, I think that the issue is a question of timesavings.
Timesavings has brought about computers. Are you going to do away with
computers calling them a perk? The typewriter was a timesaver. Are you
going to say, all right, it was a mistake to have a typewriter?
Senators used to have pens with feathers and quills they would write
with, but modern technologies have allowed us to become more efficient
with our time.
In closing, I feel that Senator Danforth has done a great service by
speaking out on this particular issue, and I congratulate him on his
courageous stand on this resolution now pending before this body.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain
amendment, which is No. 1632, be laid aside until 1:15 p.m. today; and
that at 1:15 p.m. today, without intervening action, the Senate proceed
to vote on the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to
the McCain amendment No. 1632.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The McCain amendment will be laid aside until 1:15.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________