[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.

                          ____________________