[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 OF 1993
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the time of 6 o'clock has arrived.
I move now to table the Reid-Brown amendment and 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Alabama to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Nevada. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Baucus],
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], and the Senator from New
York [Mr. Moynihan] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] is
absent do to death in the family.
I also announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is absent
because of illness
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth]
is necessarily absent
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Thurmond
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--34
Bingaman
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feinstein
Gregg
Hollings
Kerrey
Kerry
Lieberman
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Simon
Stevens
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--6
Baucus
Bradley
Danforth
Moynihan
Riegle
Shelby
So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1637) was agreed
to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCain addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offered an amendment earlier today to
curtail congressional parking privileges at Washington airports. The
amendment occasioned brief but intense debate in opposition to it. At
the time, I chose not to respond to the arguments in opposition to my
amendment, although I did not find them persuasive. The Senate has now
resolved the matter by rejecting my amendment. I accept that, and I do
not desire to continue debate on this subject.
However, Mr. President, I would like to address one of the
implications in the arguments of the opponents of my amendment. My
friend, the Senator from Missouri, argued that my amendment contributed
to the public's ``corrosive cynicism'' for the institutions of our
democracy and evidenced a lack of respect for the institution in which
I am privileged to serve. I assume that implicit in that indictment is
the charge that the author of the amendment lacks respect for the
Senate. It is to that charge which I would like to briefly respond.
Mr. President, I am 57 years old. For nearly 40 of those 57 years I
have been privileged to work in service to our Republic and to the
institutions dedicated to its preservation. I consider myself blessed
by Providence to have had this opportunity to serve, and I defer to no
one in my reverence for all the institutions of the world's greatest
democracy including and especially the U.S. Senate. My disagreement
with the Senator from Missouri is not over whether the Senate merits my
respect, but over the reasons for which I owe my respect to this
institution.
My respect for the Senate is not the same as my affection for this
place, the physical presence of this beautiful Capitol, although I do
hold such an affection.
It is not given in gratitude for the distinction of being addressed
as Senator, although I am grateful for that honor.
It is not a product of my recognition of the serious and difficult
work before this body, although I am humbled by our responsibilities.
It is not a function of my reverence for the many distinguished
patriots who preceded me here, although my esteem for them is great.
It is not a consequence of my appreciation for the many able,
distinguished and honorable men and women with whom I am privileged to
serve, although that appreciation is genuine.
My respect is not, in the end, only a respect for the Senate itself
and all its attendant privileges and obligations.
My respect, Mr. President, is for the idea of the Senate, for the
idea of public service in America which it represents. My respect is
for this one noble idea: that in this country neither circumstances of
birth nor ranks of privilege nor the acclaim of elites qualify you for
public service. It is only the trust of your equals, by which I mean
every other American, which entitles you to serve in the U.S. Senate.
Ours is not a Government of uncommon men and women, and I make no
claim to being distinguished in my physical or intellectual attributes.
Ours is a Government of the people, and the privilege, the only
enduring privilege of service in this Government, is that the people
have entrusted you with their interests and should you represent those
interests faithfully you will have the singular satisfaction of
justifying that trust.
When the people perceive any other distinction between themselves and
their representatives--whether that distinction is apparent or real--
then, like it or not, we will lose that most precious commodity--the
hopefully given, but closely guarded trust of the people who sent us
here, and our work--our honorable work here--will lose its value.
My amendment was not intended to exacerbate the public's cynicism for
Congress, but to try, in an admittedly small way, to help remedy that
cynicism, to help repair a little of the frayed bonds that hold us to
our constituents.
I did not represent my amendment as a historical constitutional
advance for the Nation. I simply saw that one of the perquisites of our
office was perceived by our employers as an inappropriate distinction
between us and them. And if the removal of that distinction could
affect some restoration of our common identification that it would be
worth the loss of a small--a very small--convenience. My effort was
born of respect, it was not an affront to it.
In the words of one of my colleagues that effort was a fraud. I do
not think so. I neither require nor expect to ever be identified as
anything greater than an Arizonan and an American. I have found more
than enough honor in that distinction to last a lifetime. Any effort to
demonstrate how honored we are to be of the people--no matter how small
or symbolic--has real value, and is a useful contribution to the
preservation of this institution and the noble idea upon which it
rests.
amendment no. 1632
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the author of this amendment portrays it
as an attempt to prevent Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices,
and diplomats from getting free parking at the airport here in
Washington, DC.
But what this amendment will really do if it passes is require the
Federal Government to pay parking fees to the District of Columbia and
the State of Virginia for parking spaces that have been provided
without charge to the Federal Government for over 50 years. Members of
Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and diplomats who travel on official
business on many, many trips will continue to park at the airport and,
if this amendment passes, the airport authority will discontinue
providing parking spaces without charge for those Federal officials.
Instead, the U.S. Congress will be billed for the parking spaces and
will have to send payments to the District of Columbia and the State of
Virginia for the right to park in their airports.
The Federal Government provides enormous services to both the
District of Columbia and Virginia, and to the two airport authorities.
And in exchange for that, the airport authorities for 50 years have
provided a parking lot for certain Federal officials so that the
Federal Government would not have to reimburse for that parking.
The author of this amendment wants the Federal Government to spend
more money. I don't think that makes much sense, and for that reason,
I'm voting against this amendment.
But I want to be clear. This is not about whether Members of Congress
should be parking without charge. It's about whether the Federal
Government is going to be required to reimburse the local governments
for that which is not provided without cost.
It's taxpayers who benefit, because the Federal Government would
reimburse travel expenses including parking fees that Members of
Congress paid if the local airport authorities did not now provide
those allocated parking spaces to the Federal Government without
charge.
With all the resources we now provide the two local airport
authorities, we don't need to be sending them another couple of million
dollars a year in parking fees from the Federal treasury, inasmuch as
for the past 50 years, the tradition has been for those parking spaces
to be provided to the Federal Government without cost.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama yields the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized by the
Chair.
Explanation of Absence
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I rise to simply
explain my absence, my failure to respond to the rollcall which ended
just moments ago. Senators Bradley, Baucus, Danforth, and I were
meeting with the President, with leaders of the House, on a matter of
great importance to him, in a meeting in the Oval Office, which meeting
was delayed, as the President had a press conference on Bosnia of great
importance. He came directly from that press conference.
The Senate knew where we were and what we were doing. It was the last
vote of the day. There was no pressure to continue, and I would have
thought the courtesy of allowing four Senators to get back from the
White House--we were here within minutes of the vote having been closed
out. I find it difficult to understand and, in the circumstances, Mr.
President, unwelcomed. I understand the responsibility of the Chair was
to do what was done. But I find, as I say, the decision to do that
difficult to understand.
Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
MR. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would simply like to add my voice to
Senator Moynihan's. I was a member of that group. There were at least
two to three phone calls made, and I regret that the vote was missed.
But when meeting with the President of the United States, you do not
get up in the middle of the meeting and say, ``Sorry, I'm leaving.''
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret that I was absent during the
previous recorded vote on the Reid amendment to the bankruptcy reform
bill. However, as the Senators from New York and New Jersey indicated,
we were in a meeting with the President of the United States. Senator
Danforth was also in that meeting. This was a serious and bipartisan
meeting on a matter of national significance.
It is simply not possible, or courteous, to abruptly walk out of a
meeting with the President. Given the importance of this meeting and
the number of Senators in attendance, I regret that we were not given
an additional few minutes to return from the White House.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, on the rollcall vote just concluded,
four Senators were absent from the vote because they were attending an
important meeting at the White House. I regret very much that they
missed the vote, but everyone should understand that they were engaged
in important business. I also want to explain the circumstances which
led to the setting of the vote.
Mr. President, just shortly after 3 p.m. today, a vote was set to
occur at 5:30 p.m. on a then pending amendment to the bill.
At about 4 p.m., we received, through the staff of our Republican
colleagues, in behalf of one of the Republican Senators involved, a
request that we move that vote until 5:45 p.m. so that the four
Senators, two Republicans and two Democrats, could complete their
attendance at the meeting with the President and return to the Senate
in time for the vote. I acceded to that request, and at about 4 p.m. we
changed the time of the then scheduled vote until 5:45 p.m.
About an hour later, or at about 5 p.m., a member of my staff
received a call from the White House asking if we could again change
the time of the vote to 6 p.m., also to accommodate the four Senators
involved. I acceded to that request, and we changed the time of the
vote until 6 p.m.
So all of those involved have known since approximately 3 o'clock
this afternoon that a vote was going to occur, and on two different
occasions I changed the time of the vote at the request of the Senators
and at the request of the White House. Had I been asked to change it to
a still later time, I would have acceded to that request.
Mr. President, let me state with respect to the time limitation on
votes that in the Congress which sat during the calendar years 1987 and
1988. It is my recollection that Senator Byrd, then the majority
leader, imposed a limitation on the time for the votes. That limitation
was followed by the Senate faithfully.
When I became majority leader, I did not impose such a rule. And as a
result, for the succeeding 4 years, back in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992,
I received what must have been in total thousands of requests by
Senators to delay votes for a wide variety of reasons. And I usually
did so with the result that votes regularly lasted for 30 minutes, 40
minutes, and my recollection is in some cases beyond an hour. That led
in turn to a large number of Senators requesting that a time limitation
be reimposed on the votes.
In response to that request, I reimposed such a time limit, and I
announced it a year and a half ago. We have operated under that rule
for a year and a half. It has been described many occasions. I have
discussed it publicly on many occasions. So every Senator knows well in
advance that once a vote starts, there is a specific time limitation.
Among the many reasons which led to extensions of votes, one of the
most common was a meeting at the White House. It is a daily event.
Indeed, several times a day, groups of Senators go to the White House
to meet with the President. I am one. The Republican leader is another
who perhaps goes to the White House more often than other Senators. And
it happens, as I said, on a daily basis. We have tried very hard to
accommodate the White House and all Senators in that regard, and I
believe we have done so today when we changed the time of the vote on
two occasions at the request, first, of some of the Senators who are
were attending a meeting, and, second, at the request of the White
House.
The circumstances were important. But I want to say, having listened
to reasons for missed or extended votes, that there are literally
thousands of extenuating circumstances, and there are requests which
are made which are reasonable, legitimate, and appropriate which, if
observed, would result in votes extending for hours and hours.
It is my belief that, despite some inconvenience to Senators and the
fact that some votes are missed, the current rule is an appropriate
one, one which should be enforced, and that the only way that it can be
enforced is to have no exception because once there is an exception,
then there is no rule. And neither I nor any other majority leader in
the past has been able to discern a standard by which we could say yes
to some requests for extensions and no to other requests.
So I deeply regret that the Senators involved missed the vote. I note
that their absence did not affect the decision because the result was
by a very wide margin, and their presence could not have changed the
result.
I also want their constituents to know that they were working very
hard on an important subject. To be present for a rollcall vote is not
the only thing the Senator does. The work involves committee meetings,
committee hearings, meetings with constituents, meetings with foreign
officials, meetings with the President, and meetings with
administration officials.
So there should be no criticism of the Senators involved in the
circumstances. But I also believe there should be no criticism of the
fact that we have a rule, and we must observe the rule. Of course, I
will be pleased to consider requests by Senators if they want to change
the rule and go back to a procedure under which votes can be extended
beyond the specific time limitation.
We have gone back and forth in the Senate. As I have noted at various
times, there has been a rule at the various times, and whichever
process is followed, there is bound to be some dissatisfaction and some
inconvenience.
My principal reason for speaking was to make clear that everyone
understands that the Senators involved were absent because they were
doing important work and doing their duty at a very important meeting
and that we had taken every step to do what we believe was
accommodating to those Senators, to the President, and to the White
House.
I thank my colleagues for their diligence, and I regret that, at
least in this instance, the operation of the rule meant that a vote was
missed by the Senators involved.
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. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________