[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.

                          ____________________