[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1256-S1258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HOW THE SENATE OPERATES

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is a new day and I am enjoying it. I 
remember when I came from Frankfort, KY, as a former Governor, I had a 
file cabinet, one of those paper file cabinets, drawer size, with 
projects in it that I was unable to complete. If you remember--maybe 
you all are not old enough--but if you remember, we had a pocket veto 
of highway funds and utility funds by President Nixon. A suit was 
filed, as I recall--do not hold me to every detail, but a suit was 
filed--and I think Senator Muskie was the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, and the Governor of Missouri filed suit. The courts held 
that the President of the United States had to release that money.
  Well, we had been held up for a year and we were into the second year 
of appropriated funds, so we had a lot of money to spend. We were doing 
well. We got the first and second phases of some projects done--sewer, 
water, 
[[Page S1257]] things of that nature. So I came with that box of 
projects that I wanted to get finished. The senior Members here said to 
me--you know, I was gung ho. They said, ``That is all right, son; you 
just relax. We will get to it next week, and if we do not get to it 
that week, we will get to it the week after that.''
  It was hard for me to take. That has only been 20 years, and I 
remember it as if it were yesterday. I wanted to move. When I was 
Governor, I picked up the phone and the highway department would move, 
or I picked up the phone and somebody else would do something for me. 
It was something that I felt I would be in a position to do here, but I 
could not. The rules were different; attitudes were different; the 
institution was different from the Governor's office.
  So, as my learned friend from Pennsylvania said, the House and Senate 
are different. The Senator from Pennsylvania talked about the 
nongermane amendments. Well, if you recall, it was on both sides of the 
aisle yesterday. It was not just Democrats that put up a nongermane 
amendment. A Republican put up a nongermane amendment which took hours. 
Even your majority leader offered a nonbinding amendment, a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment to that amendment to try to get rid of it. We had 
another one on our side. It took hours. That proves a point, though, 
about the Senate.
  Every Senator has a right on this floor, and his right is not stymied 
by a Rules Committee and a vote of the Senate that limits him to 2 
minutes or 5 minutes or three amendments, or something of that nature. 
Every Senator has a right. That makes this body significantly 
different. So the Republican Senator was within his right to offer a 
nongermane amendment here. The Democratic Senator was within his right 
to offer a nongermane amendment, under the rules of the Senate.
  So maybe you do not like it, but that was his right and he exercised 
that right. As far as frequent flier miles, I tried to put that on 
congressional coverage. I argued strenuously that we were not truly 
doing what we had told the American people we were going to do about 
congressional coverage. Congress took care of itself. You are immune. 
The people out there think you are not.
  We set up a commission to study and see what should apply--about $5 
million a year. I, as former chairman of the Rules Committee, had set 
up the Fair Employment Office. That is about $1 million a year just for 
that office. You are not paying for it; the taxpayers are paying for 
it. I thought maybe we should lift the veil and let it all apply, 
instead of being special and Congress taking care of itself again. That 
was part of my problem.
  The distinguished majority leader said at that time that this bill 
would be accepted by the House and sent to the President.
  So I felt it was more incumbent upon me, then, and other Senators 
here, incumbent upon us to see that that bill was as good a bill as we 
could pass. Because it was not going to conference, we would not have a 
second shot at it. And so that became the concern of those that felt 
that congressional coverage was not adequate and that we were not being 
fair with the American people. So I just think you have to get it all 
in the right perspective.
  And when your leader says it will be accepted on the House side, I 
respect that statement. So, therefore, when I respect the individual 
and the statement he made, I became more concerned that this bill ought 
to be changed, if it was going to be changed, here, because they were 
going to accept it and, just like grease, go to the White House.
  So that was one of my concerns and one of the reasons I felt that we 
ought to debate that bill and try to change it and make it as good as 
possible. Because that was the last chance we were going to have; no 
other shot at it.
  So now on this piece of legislation, unfunded mandates, sure they 
want it. Oh, do they want it. I had a mayor from Kentucky, who is the 
retiring president of the National Mayors Association. Oh, do I get 
calls; do I get fussed at a little bit.
  But when you sit down and talk to them and say, ``Look, we are 
getting down to the amendments now that we feel are very important''--
and they are--``and we left out the elderly.'' We exempted everybody 
else but the elderly. I want to respect the elderly. I think they ought 
to be given the same kind of respect and coverage as others. So we put 
in the elderly. It is a good amendment. Everybody voted for it. Even 
those that are fussing at us because they think we are holding the bill 
up.
  My learned friend from Pennsylvania says we ought to get an agreed 
list. We have an agreed list. We did it last night. I stayed here until 
almost 1 o'clock this morning. I do not know where those Senators were 
when we made that agreement, but we made that agreement. And those 
amendments have to be offered by the individual Senator unless it is by 
unanimous consent. He or she has to be here and offer that amendment. 
We got that agreement. We have a time certain to shut off amendments, 
and then we go to third reading and that is debatable.
  We had a gentleman's agreement last night. And if, in the judgment of 
one or the other, that gentleman's agreement is breaking down, they 
have every right, it was said last night, to file a cloture motion.
  So I think we have done a decent job here, even though everybody 
wants to move it a little bit fast.
  I am going to vote for the bill. I am very strong for unfunded 
mandates. But I do not want to jeopardize the mother's milk of the 
economy, and that is business. If you are going to look at this bill 
and say you are going to mandate on business and not the public sector 
when they are in competition with each other, I think you ought to take 
a step back and look at it. Hopefully, some of these amendments will be 
taken very seriously. I hope that business will come forward. They are 
very strongly for the unfunded mandates bill. So I hope that they will 
look at it a little bit closer. Do they want to take a chance on having 
a public entity, government entity, to be in a better position to 
compete than they are? Maybe they already have. But this is another 
addition.
  I wish the Senator from Oklahoma were here. He talked about one 
filibuster that we filed cloture on.
  There were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 
18, 19, 20, 21, 22 filibusters. Here they are. You voted on them in the 
103d Congress.
  And now, when we are trying to correct a bill--and even getting 
Republican support for our changes in the bill--we are being fussed at 
because there is gridlock. There is no gridlock here.
  As the congressional coverage bill was to leave here and never to be 
considered again, we would never have another shot at it, I think it 
was incumbent upon us to try to correct it. And filibusters--there they 
are. There is the record. I will not put it in the Record. I do not 
want the cost of $480 a page.
  So Mr. President, I am overwhelmed by the attendance here this 
morning and those who want to wax eloquent. As I heard my distinguished 
friend from Arkansas say last night, he was going to wax eloquent. 
Someone said he was going to wax. He said ``no,'' it is going to be 
eloquent.
  So I am sure there is nothing waxing or eloquent about me. I am 
enjoying being here this morning and visiting with some of my 
colleagues and talking about this great institution and how we function 
here and what is good for the country and how fast we ought to be 
moving and that sort of thing.
  I was out here and someone said, ``You're awful nice, Ford.'' I said, 
``Yes, I'm a better human being than I was because I want to be good.''
  A lot of us got stomped on November 8--real good. I listened. I 
listened 8 years ago on unfunded mandates. I listened 7 years ago on 
unfunded mandates. I listened in 1991 when we cut off frequent flier 
miles for personal use. I listened then.
  The House Members came over here and wanted it. I turned it down. It 
was the Rules Committee who said ``no.'' I think we made a good 
decision under the circumstances. So those House Members came over 
here; and even the Vice President was interested in it when he was a 
Senator.
  So there are a lot of things. Just remember, it is all down in black 
and white in the history there. Let us be sure what we say, and I want 
to be sure what I say is correct.
   [[Page S1258]] I see another Senator here who probably would like to 
have some time.
  Mr. President, under the ruling of the Chair that when you are 
recognized each time, you have 15 minutes, I will yield the floor so I 
can be recognized again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Tennessee.

                          ____________________