[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            COMPREHENSIVE ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5248, the Comprehensive 
One-Call Notification Act of 1994, received from the House and at the 
desk; that the bill be deemed read three times, passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements or colloquies 
appear in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to enter a colloquy in the Reocrd between Senators Exon and 
Danforth.
  There being no objection, the colloquy was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Mr. Danforth. Mr. President, I have a question for the 
     senior Senator from Nebraska concerning the High Risk Drivers 
     legislation that has been included in both the Federal 
     Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, S. 2132, and the 
     Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1994, H.R. 5248.
       Mr. Exon. As the lead co-sponsor and advocate of the High 
     Risk Drivers Act, I would be happy to answer a question.
       Mr. Danforth. In 1991, Congress created a drunk driving 
     prevention program which is found at 23 U.S.C. Section 410. 
     This program has been a great success. In fact, states have 
     qualified for approximately $40 million in grants for taking 
     tough steps to combat drunk driving such as administrative 
     license revocation systems. Unfortunately, this program is 
     only authorized at $25 million per year.
       Mr. Exon. As the Senator from Missouri notes, I understand 
     that there has been an annual shortfall of $15 million in 
     this program. Our legislation seeks to correct this problem 
     with Sec. 251 of both the one call legislation and the rail 
     safety legislation by providing that, ``In addition to any 
     amount otherwise appropriated or available for such use, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 for the purpose of carrying 
     out section 410 of title 23, United States Code.''
       Mr. Danforth. As I understand it, then, this legislation is 
     intended to provide a total additional authorization of 
     $45,000,000 or $15,000,000 in each fiscal years 1995, 1996, 
     and 1997?
       Mr. Exon. The senior Senator from Missouri is correct.
       Mr. Danforth. Thank you for this clarification.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to enter a colloquy in the Record between Senators Heflin and 
Mitchell.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   The Waste Flow Control Legislation

       Mr. Heflin. Is it correct that communities that have 
     contracted with a public authority such as the Southeast 
     Alabama Solid Waste Disposal Authority that have executed 
     contracts prior to May 15, 1994, that qualify for grandfather 
     protection under subsection F of the flow control legislation 
     are not required under this legislation to be subjected to 
     the competitive designation requirements of subsection C?
       Mr. Mitchell. Yes, that is my understanding.
       Mr. Heflin. I believe that since communities that have 
     contracted with the Southeast Alabama Solid Waste Disposal 
     Authority have previously demonstrated their needs to 
     exercise flow control authority over municipal solid waste, 
     and have also executed a contract prior to May 15, 1994, that 
     qualify for grandfather protection under subsection F of the 
     flow control legislation such communities should not have to 
     be subject to additional needs tests should they shift 
     designations from a proposed facility to a new proposed 
     facility.
       Mr. Mitchell. I believe the Senator has made a valid point.

                          ____________________