[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 133 (Wednesday, August 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12064-S12076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
                           Amendment No. 2340

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending Roth 
amendment, to strike language from the pending legislation.
  Mr. President, I understand and appreciate the amendment of the 
Senator from Delaware. Clearly, it is very significant legislation on 
this appropriations bill. I do, however, want to point out that the 
action of the Appropriations Committee does have a certain logic 
associated with it. Right now, the amount of money that is going to be 
appropriated for 1996 is $8 billion; $6 billion of that comes from the 
aviation trust fund, which we know comes from fees, services, et 
cetera, and $2 billion 

[[Page S12065]]
comes from general revenues. The Appropriations Committee is required 
to come up with an additional $2 billion in revenues, which is what 
they are required to do in keeping with their obligations.
  Mr. President, I can certainly understand why the Appropriations 
Committee would seek action on the part of the authorizers or take 
action on their own in order to streamline the procurement process, 
streamline the personnel process and bring about the necessary changes, 
so that they will not be required, in these years of ever-declining 
budgets and ever-increasing cuts in expenditures, to come up with that 
additional $2 billion.
  I have had numerous conversations with the distinguished chairman of 
the committee, Senator Hatfield. I have been working on a bill with his 
staff, with the Secretary of Transportation, with Senator Ford's staff, 
and others, in coming up with legislation which would be, I say to my 
friend from Delaware, sequentially referred to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, because, clearly, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee has oversight over procurement or personnel reform. But this 
would all be in the context of the reclamation of the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  So I appreciate what the Appropriations Committee has done in an 
attempt to rectify the imbalance of some $2 billion that has to be 
found. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because I 
believe that if we get this legislation done, which will encompass more 
than just the revenues that the Appropriations Committee needs, but 
also a long, long overdue reformation of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. I do not want to talk too long because the hour is 
late.
  In case you did not hear, today, again, there was a power outage in 
northern California. Hundreds of planes were grounded all over northern 
California. There was a certain risk--I do not know how much--because 
planes were flying around all over northern California not under radar 
control. This is only one of a series of outages in the last couple of 
months. There was also one in Chicago.
  Clearly, there is something very wrong with the procurement process 
in the FAA when they are using vacuum tubes which they have to scour 
the country to get in their computers, and they are still writing down 
the name of an airplane and passing it to the person at the next radar 
scope. I do not want to go on very long because of the lateness of the 
hour, but it is clearly a compelling requirement to reform our 
procurement process as far as FAA is concerned and reform the personnel 
aspect of it and, very frankly, make them at least a quasi-independent 
agency.
  Mr. President, I am not often in the business of defending the 
Appropriations Committee, but there was an article in the Congressional 
Monitor this morning that said, ``Pork may shrink, but Senator Byrd 
still gets biggest slice.'' It goes on about how much money is 
appropriated in the transportation bill for the State of West Virginia.
  Mr. President, that is incorrect. That was in the report language; it 
was not bill language. As we all know, report language is not 
mandatory. I hope that can be corrected in this and other periodicals. 
That is not the kind of earmarking that is alleged here and, very 
frankly, overall, I think this bill is largely free of that kind of 
thing. I think the chairman and ranking member of the committee are to 
be congratulated.
  I, however, make two additional comments. One is concerning the Port 
of Portland. I will have a statement for the Record. I do not approve 
of $50 million to the Port of Portland to retire a debt, with an 
additional $10 million to make improvements in the shipyard.
  One additional comment. While I was in the cloakroom, an amendment 
was accepted by Senator Bumpers concerning essential air service, 
which, once you get through the language and match it up with the bill, 
basically carves out an exception for an airport. Obviously, that would 
not otherwise qualify for these funds. I object to that, obviously. 
But, also, I say that it is a reason why we should authorize these 
things rather than put them into appropriations bills.
  I also want to say again, while the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee is here, he and his staff have worked diligently in 
cooperation with me and my staff. I believe that significant 
improvements have been made, and I am pleased to note that most of the 
appropriations bills I have seen are largely the kind that I think 
Americans would be proud of.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds so 
that I might propound a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1026

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I had an inquiry of the Senator from South 
Carolina when he properly filed a cloture petition on the defense 
authorization bill for Friday. At the time, I was not aware that there 
was a previous DOD pending motion on cloture that might be called up 
tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that if a cloture vote is called for tomorrow 
on the defense authorization bill, the Senator from Nebraska be allowed 
10 minutes preceding that vote for appropriate remarks.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have a matter I would like to discuss 
with the Members, with the manager of the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from South Dakota 
will withhold on this third amendment question for a moment. I think 
the last speaker on this pending Roth amendment --and then I would like 
to take action on it--is the Senator from Michigan. He said he is going 
to be brief. I would like to complete this business before we turn to a 
new piece of business.
  Mr. PRESSLER. OK.


                           Amendment No. 2340

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Oregon.
  Mr. President, sections 350 and 351 in the bill before us would 
exempt the Federal Aviation Administration from the application of 
Federal acquisition laws. Now, in particular, ``Section 351 states that 
the following laws shall not apply to the FAA.''
  The bill before us says that the following laws will not apply to FAA 
acquisitions: competition in contracting; the FAA does not have to 
follow that one. Bid protest laws; the FAA does not have to follow 
that. Federal Procurement Policy Act; they are exempt from that one. 
Last year's Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act; they are exempt from 
that one. The Small Business Act. The Uniform Federal Acquisition Form 
Regulation.
  Now, our acquisition laws that apply to every Federal agency to 
require competition, allow for bid protests that protect us from 
improper expenditures, such as expenditures on recreation, on 
advertising, FAA is going to be exempt from all of them. We are doing 
all this on an appropriations bill.
  I think I understand the frustration of the appropriators--at least I 
try--in terms of getting a resolution of some of the procurement 
problems which the FAA has faced.
  But there has been no request to the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
that I know of, and I believe that the chairman knows of, from the FAA, 
for exemption from our procurement law.
  We adopt procurement laws for the Government. If the FAA has problems 
with it, they ought to come to the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
seek an exemption.
  I make a parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry is this: If 
a bill were filed to exempt the FAA from the procurement laws of the 
country, what committee would that bill be referred to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Governmental Affairs Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  As far as I know, there has not been a bill that has been introduced 
to exempt the FAA from procurement laws. These are serious laws. I 
really believe deeply that if there were a bill introduced to exempt 
the Defense Department from procurement laws, and on 

[[Page S12066]]
an appropriations bill, the Defense Department was suddenly going to be 
exempt from all of our competition laws, all of our laws that protect 
bid protests, our laws that stop expenses for entertainment, for 
advertising, all the work we have done for defense procurement, I think 
most of us would say, ``Wait a minute, there are problems with 
procurement laws.''
  On an appropriations bill, to exempt the Defense Department even with 
its duty to secure the safety of our forces and security of this land, 
we cannot give a blanket exemption on an appropriations bill, as 
frustrating as it may be to the Defense Department all these years to 
be governed by a procurement act.
  I am not familiar with the FAA procurement problems. Being a member 
of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I think this should have been 
brought to the attention of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make an inquiry of the 
Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could I ask the Senator from Delaware whether or not to 
his knowledge the Governmental Affairs Committee has been requested to 
exempt the FAA from the procurement laws of this country?
  Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished colleague that I have no 
knowledge of such a request from the FAA.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to frame this in a form of a question. I do 
not know if the Senator from Michigan is aware that last week we did 
have a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee concerning FAA 
reorganization, with all witnesses stating that procurement reform, as 
far as FAA is concerned, and personnel reform are two critical issues 
that need to be addressed.
  So in deference to the chairman of the committee, it is an issue that 
has been raised by the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Administrator of the FAA.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no, I have no greater respect for any Member of this 
body than I do for the Senator from Oregon, so I know that this is a 
problem which he has had a headache with.
  I have established, however, that the committee that has jurisdiction 
over the procurement law has not been asked by the FAA for an exemption 
from those laws. The hearing which my friend from Arizona is referring 
to is a hearing in front of the Commerce Committee.
  My point is that the committee with jurisdiction over procurement 
laws, which is the Governmental Affairs Committee, has not had this 
problem brought to its attention.
  Now, I know the Senator from Oregon has had plenty of material 
brought to his attention and there is a big problem here which he is 
trying very much to get some assistance on somewhere to bring to 
someone's attention to resolve. I respect that a good deal.
  All I am simply saying is that the committee that has jurisdiction 
over the procurement laws has not had that problem or been made aware 
of the problem through no fault of the Senator from Oregon or anybody 
else, but it has just happened. No bill has been filed to exempt the 
FAA from the laws nor has the FAA come to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to make a request for exemption from these laws.
  Now, the administration has given us a statement of policy. I know 
that this was solicited from them and there is a good-faith effort here 
on the part of the managers to try to implement their request and carry 
it out.
  The administration's written request says that they ``support fast 
track authority for departmental reorganization plan,'' which is not 
before you as I understand it, ``and Federal Aviation Administration 
personnel and procurement reform which the administration has proposed 
as part of comprehensive FAA reform.''
  We do not have the comprehensive FAA reform in front of the Senate. 
That is where they have said that they support personnel and 
procurement reform. It is that general. But it is only after part of a 
comprehensive FAA reform do they say that they have supported personnel 
and procurement.
  Now, that puts the managers in a difficult position, which I can 
understand because the administration has asked for personnel and 
procurement reform but as part of a comprehensive FAA reform. We do not 
have the comprehensive FAA reform before us.
  So the question is, what is the administration position on doing it 
separate and apart from comprehensive FAA reform? I suggest we are 
trying to find out. We hope to find out by the time dawn breaks on this 
Capitol of ours.
  Let me close, then, by just simply saying that to give an agency on 
an appropriations bill a blanket exemption from our procurement laws 
really is a recipe for chaos. There is nothing to take their place. All 
that the bill says is that the Secretary of Transportation should 
develop an acquisition plan for the FAA. Anything goes. The rest of the 
Government is going to be governed by law.
  This agency is going to have its own law as determined by its own 
Secretary, and anybody who wants to do business with this Government 
better start learning two sets of law: One is for the Government except 
the FAA, and another set of procurement laws is determined exclusively 
by the Secretary of Transportation--mind you, not by law, not by 
Congress, but by the Secretary of Transportation. People are going to 
have to learn that second set of what I would call regulations, because 
they surely are not laws.
  Again, I said ``finally'' once, and this time I will really mean it, 
but I think a year or 2 years ago we established a pilot program for 
the FAA. I do want to emphasize this. I know the Senator from Delaware 
has pointed this out, but I want to emphasize just this fact: We have 
authorized the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a pilot test of 
innovative and alternative procurement procedures. We authorized a 
pilot program. We do not have the results from that program.
  So, here it is that the agency got that authority, I believe, from 
the Commerce Committee in law, and the Federal acquisition specifically 
authorized the FAA to undergo this pilot study in the area of 
acquisition, and before the results are in we are exempting that agency 
from procurement law.
  While I think I can feel at least part of the frustration which the 
chairman and ranking member feel, I do not feel this is the right way 
to go about giving them kind of a different criteria for their 
acquisition in the rest of the Government.
  I thank my friend from Oregon for making it possible for me to give 
my remarks at this point before the Senator from South Dakota gave his. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am going to make a response now to 
this amendment to complete the debate on this so we can put it in line 
for a vote tomorrow, and that I will move to table the amendment 
following my brief remarks.
  Does the Senator wish recognition?


                  Unanimous-Consent Agreement--S. 1026

  Mr. EXON. Could I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds? My friend and 
colleague from Arizona has no objection that he had earlier.
  I ask unanimous consent that if there is a cloture vote on the DOD 
authorization bill tomorrow that the Senator from Nebraska be allowed 
10 minutes prior to the vote for the purposes of making appropriate 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2340

  Mr. HATFIELD. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota. I would like 
to complete this particular issue, but if the Senator is raising 
another issue, I guess he would have to do it by unanimous consent 
anyway.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I will do whatever the chairman says.
  Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator would bear with me for just a few 
moments, we are trying to proceed in an orderly fashion here and 
cleaning up these amendments as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, just a brief response to the proponents of this 
amendment. Let me make clear first of all to the Senator from Michigan, 
we did not solicit this administration statement. The administration 
submits such a statement to every appropriations bill, so this was a 
part of a normal routine. 

[[Page S12067]]
This administration policy statement is dated as of August 9--which I 
believe is today, since August 10 is tomorrow, President Hoover's 
birthday.
  Mr. President, I would like to say this. The administration 
approached us. Let me relate the story that the administration gave to 
us in desperation, to try to get some kind of help in a very serious 
situation. We are not talking about jurisdiction of one committee or 
another committee. That is important for our process. Nevertheless, the 
administration says to us that, for years--not just this year--but for 
years, one FAA administrator after another has talked about this, has 
pled to get out of the Federal personnel and procurement rules because 
they need to maintain the safety and the modernization of the whole 
operation. Over the last 2 years, Secretary Pena and Adminstrator 
Hinson have continued to focus on this as a major problem facing the 
FAA. They tell us this particular story. They say the FAA technology, 
the air traffic control system, is based on 30-year-old technology. I 
am greatly concerned when I think of the massive air transportation in 
our country today and throughout the world, that we are depending on 
30-year-old technology.
  The Senator from Arizona mentioned a moment ago about vacuum tubes. 
They told us the FAA is the largest consumer of vacuum tubes today, 
with funds in this bill designated to buy $7 million more of vacuum 
tubes, a technology that was thrown out by the private sector 20 years 
ago; 20 years ago.
  I think that ought to give us a pretty major signal this is not just 
some effort to try to escape rules or regulations set down. Because, as 
I say, they approached us, really, in a state of desperation.
  Let me illustrate it further, as they did to me. The Boeing 777 has 
as much computing power today as existed in the whole world a few 
decades ago--one airplane. As much or more than the whole world had in 
computing power, they now carry. I think we should have an ATC system 
just as advanced, helping to protect our planes and the people who fly 
in them.
  They tell me that these changes that they gave us, in the technical 
language, to incorporate in this bill, would do much to help improve 
the situation that has reached this kind of a crisis. I think also, as 
we note in the committee report, we are facing tremendous budgetary 
pressures this year. We are going to face greater ones in 1997.
  Let me repeat what I said earlier today in the presentation of this 
bill. In this bill, 70 percent of that funding is prior year 
commitment, and it is going to be greater in 1997. So we are squeezed 
down with the money, the demands for new technology, and the demand for 
greater safety continues to escalate. Also, the FAA tells us if they 
could have this kind of operational flexibility, they believe they 
could cut as much as 20 percent out of the procurement budget than what 
they are forced to spend today.
  I have just here, August 9 dated, again, the Airport Report, which is 
a publication of the American Association of Airport Executives. The 
President, Mr. Charles Barclay, says:

       The existing governmental personnel and procurement rules 
     serve as a straitjacket at FAA.

  Now, there is no one who admires and respects our orderly procedures 
and our methods of procedure, our jurisdictions, more than I. But I 
have to say that in many instances over the time I have served in the 
Senate, when authorizing committees either have failed or where they 
have been not been able to move within their own committee, they have 
approached the Appropriations Committee as a vehicle to get the action 
accomplished. I remember when Senator Thurmond, of South Carolina, as 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, came to me back a few years ago 
and said, ``Would you take the crime bill and put it on an 
appropriations bill to get this before the body and get it passed?'' I 
remember when Senator Percy, former Chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee said, ``Would you put on the foreign assistance authorization 
bill?"
  So, for years the committee has been approached by authorizers and by 
others as well to assist in moving something that had somehow bogged 
down, for whatever reasons. I am not faulting the authorizing 
committees. I have to say we gave notice we were going to take action 
on some of these things that were legislation on appropriations. I have 
indicated, also, we would like to see the kind of taking over of that, 
and we would be happy to relieve ourselves of that burden, within the 
conference committee, if we could see the substitution of the 
authorizers taking hold of something the administration has asked us to 
take emergency--what you would call emergency action on.
  We have enough problems without reaching out, trying to do the 
authorizers' work. That is not our intent. But, nevertheless, I have to 
put it in that kind of context. That led us to take this particular 
action.
  I have to, again, thank the Senator from Arizona for his kind 
remarks, and for clarifying again this relationship that we have with 
him as well as the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee 
Subcommittee on Aviation. We have full confidence in our authorizers. 
We have full confidence in our Governmental Affairs Committee. But 
nevertheless, the administration approached us with this crisis and 
said, ``Will you help?'' And we responded by saying, ``Yes, we will 
help.''
  Now, I do not want to cut off anyone on this.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I am about ready to make a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly comment to my 
friend from Oregon. First, the Governmental Affairs Committee has not 
bogged down on this issue. It has never been asked to modify the 
procurement laws for the FAA. It is not a bog down of the committee 
with jurisdiction. There has never been a request.
  Second, I have to agree very strongly, this is not a question about 
which we should get involved with jurisdiction, because that is not the 
issue. The issue is the procurement laws and who they are intended to 
protect. They are intended to protect the taxpayers of this country.
  The Defense Department, I can assure you, will tell you they could 
save 20 percent of their procurement budget if they did not have to 
follow any laws either. Every agency would love not to follow the laws. 
When my friend from Oregon says this agency has vacuum tubes--I think 
it is the only agency that does. And every other agency follows the 
procurement laws of this country. Why can FAA not get modern equipment 
like every other agency can? Why can they not use the laws, which gives 
them great flexibility?
  I would like to point out to my good friend from Oregon, the 
Competition In Contracting Act. This is all the FAA has to do. Under 
the Competition In Contracting Act, which Senator Cohen and I authored, 
all they have to do to meet the act is to say ``the head of the agency 
determines it is necessary in the public interest to use procedures 
other than competitive procedures in the particular procurement 
concerned.''
  Do you mean the head of the FAA, if he wants to get rid of the vacuum 
tubes, cannot say that it is necessary in the public interest to use 
other than competitive procedures? I mean, what is wrong with the 
administration of the FAA that they cannot get modern equipment if 
every other agency got rid of their vacuum tubes 20 years ago? Why 
could the FAA not get rid of their vacuum tubes 20 years ago using the 
same procurement laws as every other agency in this Government?
  So I hope we would not simply give a blanket waiver here to the FAA. 
I happen to agree that if they need reform they ought to have some 
reform. But this is not reform. This just says throw out all the 
procurement laws. That is not reform. That just says you are not bound 
to the competition laws, you are not bound to all the other laws which 
protect the taxpayer. And what is going to be substituted for it? 
Whatever the Secretary wants. I think it is arbitrary and I think it is 
going to be very confusing and in the end it is going to be very, very 
expensive.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. As soon as this 
is completed, I will then move to table.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might just make a comment, I did 
not want to get into this dispute. But there is almost an insinuation 
that comes 

[[Page S12068]]
out of the remarks of the Senator from Michigan about FAA's inability 
to stay abreast of things.
  I come out of the computer field, and I can tell you I was in shock 
when I saw the kinds of equipment they had. When I was in the computer 
business and when our equipment ran out of gas and was no longer worth 
keeping, we tried to give it away to charities and schools so they 
might use it for learning. And many times they turned us down because 
the cost of maintenance would have been far higher than the value of 
the asset that we were going to transfer to them.
  When I went for my first visit to FAA in 1982 or 1983, I was shocked 
to see the equipment that we could not give away still being worked on 
and being used to operate the FAA system.
  I point out to my friend from Michigan that there is one distinct 
difference. Leadership at the FAA turns over at an alarming rate. With 
every new Administrator comes changes in priorities and management 
structure. This almost constant disruption of the procurement process 
is something that is almost unique to the FAA. That is one of the 
things that I hope we will be looking at.
  If the Senator wants to use the Defense Department as a shining 
example, then lets look at it. Toilet seats at $600 and a couple of 
hundred bucks for a pair of pliers. If that is the shining example of 
the way we ought to do procurement, then I pity those that follow that 
example.
  I do not want to get into a long debate here. I simply want to 
support the chairman's comments. We were pushed into this, almost 
forced into it, to put a big enough pebble in some committee's shoe to 
say, ``Take care of this thing. If all you are going to do is gripe and 
complain about it, then we are going to do something about it.'' Though 
it was late at night, we succeeded in getting some significant 
attention focused on this issue.
  I respect the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Michigan, the 
Senator from Ohio, and our colleague from Arizona and his response.
  This is not simply a group of people sitting on their chairs and not 
doing anything to make the FAA's air traffic control system work. The 
FAA has handled an expanded volume with an incredibly good record on 
safety and maintenance. Though the service sometimes is late, the fact 
of the matter is we have the best aviation system by far. However, we 
would like for it to function a heck of a lot better. And that is the 
purpose of these parts of the bill.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I shall be brief because the hour is growing 
late. But I think it is important for the record to clearly show that 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 gave the Secretary of 
Transportation authority to test alternatives and innovative 
procurement procedures in carrying out acquisitions for one of the 
modernization programs under the Air Force capital investment plan. I 
point out that in part of this legislation, there is permitted a waiver 
of procurement regulations.
  So the point I want to make is that authority last year was granted 
the Secretary of Transportation to take action irrespective of the 
procurement rules and regulations.
  Unfortunately, I would also point out that early this year the GAO, 
in a February 1995 high-risk series, pointed out that the air traffic 
control modernization project, which covers all parts of the $36 
billion effort to overhaul the Nation's air traffic control system, has 
failed because FAA did not recognize the technical complexity of the 
effort, realistically estimate the resources required, and oversee 
contractors' activities or effectively control system requirements.
  So opportunity has been given but, unfortunately, the management of 
those efforts has not been successful.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor knowing that the chairman wants to 
make a motion to table.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to strike 
this language, and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur under the previous order 
tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2341

       (Purpose: To protect shippers in a captive shipper state)

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. BURNS) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2341.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. 3  . DETERMINING OF MARKET DOMINANCE IN RAIL CARRIER 
                   RATE PROCEEDINGS

       (a) In this section, ``market dominance'' means an absence 
     of effective competition from other carriers or modes of 
     transportation for the traffic to which a rate applies. Any 
     agricultural shipper without economically competitive 
     railroad or truck alternatives, shall be considered 
     ``captive'' to the market dominant railroad. Further, any 
     agricultural shipper or its representative, that does not 
     have access to two or more competing railroads for shipping 
     the same commodity from the same origin to the same market as 
     other agricultural shippers shipping to the same market, 
     shall be deemed `captive' by a market dominant railroad. 
     Competing railroads shall mean two railroads not under common 
     control for rate making purposes.
       (b) When a rate for transportation by a rail carrier that 
     is subject to the jurisdiction of an appropriate regulatory 
     federal agency, which is designated by Congress, and 
     adequately funded to protect the interests of ``captive'' 
     shippers, is challenged as being unreasonably high, the 
     Agency shall determine, within 90 days after start of 
     proceeding, whether the railroad carrier has market dominance 
     over the transportation to which the rate applies. After a 
     finding by the Agency that the carrier does have market 
     dominance, the affected shipper and traffic shall be 
     classified as ``captive.''
       (c) When the Agency finds, in any proceeding that a shipper 
     and associated traffic is captive, the Agency shall suspend 
     the carrier established rates and set the maximum reasonable 
     rates that may be charged by the market dominant railroad. 
     The Agency shall set the maximum reasonable rate at that 
     level which will return fair and reasonable profit to the 
     carrier that would have occurred has there been effective 
     transportation competition for the market dominant traffic. 
     This maximum reasonable rate level determination shall be 
     completed within 120 days of the initiation of the 
     proceeding. The Agency shall not set the maximum reasonable 
     rates any higher than earnings for traffic having similar 
     transportation characteristics with rail-to-rail competition 
     moving distances. In any event, the Agency will not set the 
     maximum rates higher than 180% of railroad systemwide 
     variable cost of the movement as determined by the Agency.
       (d) A market dominant carrier will be required to provide 
     its full common carrier obligation on rates and services to a 
     captive shipper without prejudice or preference, and without 
     any economic penalty to captive shippers. In addition, this 
     carrier shall offer identical or substantially similar 
     transportation services to captive shippers that it offers to 
     any other shipper moving a similar product on the market 
     dominant railroad carrier system.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment should be inserted after 
line 22 on page 7.
  This is no transfer of money. This is not asking for any money. This 
is really a pretty simple and straightforward kind of an amendment.
  We are slowing phasing out the ICC. When we phase out the ICC, we 
also phase out quite a lot of rules and regulations with regard to rail 
shipping. I think there is only a couple of States that fall in the 
same category as the State of Montana. We are captive shippers. If 
should something happen in the conference committee where we may have 
quite a debate about the phaseout of the ICC, this language can be 
struck. But basically it sets up the safeguards of those agricultural 
shippers located in captive shipper States. Montana happens to be one 
of those. If you do not think it does not have an impact on you, the 
rate of shipping a carload of wheat from Omaha, NE, to Portland, OR, is 
cheaper than you can ship it from Montana to Portland. So we have a 
problem as far as moving our grain to the ports.
  So I ask that this language be considered. It is just a safeguard; 
that should 

[[Page S12069]]
the ICC completely go out of business, this sets a parameter of which 
we deal with States that are regarded as captive shippers.
  I want to add a little footnote to the last discussion and associate 
myself with the chairman of the committee. When he said the Boeing 777 
had more computing power than all the computers put together in the 
world just as near as 10 years ago, one has to realize that our 
technology is so advanced now that there is an airplane that was 
completely designed on a computer and every part in it designed on the 
computer. There was never a mockup. There was never a prototype. It was 
built strictly by computer, one of the great airplanes, of course, on 
the cutting edge of civil aviation.
  I ask that this language be accepted and considered. Both sides of 
the aisle may have to look at this and then render a judgment tomorrow 
whether we have a receipt or not or work on the language, whichever 
would be proper. But I hope it would be accepted because we do need 
some safeguards or a safety net for captive shippers, and the State of 
Montana falls in that category.
  I thank the Chair and the managers. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Montana we 
still do not have a copy of the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the 
Burns amendment in order to complete the Pressler amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Local Rail Freight Assistance

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I shall be fairly brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Dakota is 
offering an amendment, it is not on this list. I would think it unfair 
to those who made requests earlier in the day for additional 
amendments, to whom we denied this opportunity, to now at this hour of 
the night suddenly open up the gate and take an amendment about which 
we know very little and that--
  Mr. PRESSLER. If I could just say something.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Has not been agreed to. Frankly, I would like to see 
it. I object to its being offered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have not offered an amendment. If I could get a word 
in edgewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Earlier today and throughout the day my staff has been 
discussing an amendment with the staff of the Appropriations Committee, 
and we thought we had it on the list. In fact, discussions were held 
throughout the day with Anne Miano. We called the cloakroom and said, 
please, put it on the list. I think there has been an error made, a 
good-faith error, and I would very much like to offer this amendment 
because as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 
Committee, several of my members wanted a chance to vote on this 
amendment.
  I will not take much time, but I am not trying to do anything by 
sleight of hand. There has been a genuine slip-up, so to speak, and I 
am not blaming anyone. I am not here to blame staff at this hour of the 
night. But we did intend to have this on the list. It was our 
intention. We discussed it throughout the day with members of the 
staff.
  I would like to ask unanimous consent--first of all, let me explain, 
if necessary. I am not going to get into a tit for tat about what is on 
and what is not. I will spend some time explaining what is in the 
amendment.
  As you know, on the Commerce Committee, we try very hard to work with 
various critical transportation modes--rail, passenger. Indeed, I went 
out of my way to help with the Amtrak bill this year even though my 
State has no Amtrak. There is assistance for different types of 
transportation in this country. My State frequently does not share as 
generously as some other States, but I have fought hard for things that 
the Senator from New Jersey believes in. I know there is Amtrak in his 
State, and I could have blocked the Amtrak funding in the Commerce 
Committee. But I did not choose to do so because I think there is a 
national interest.
  There is one area of service that is not included, and that is the 
local rail freight assistance program and the section 511 loan 
guarantee programs. These programs are critical to addressing our 
Nation's rail freight infrastructure needs. While billions of dollars 
have been invested in Amtrak over the years and now high speed rail 
initiatives are receiving increased focus, little has been invested in 
the rail freight lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas.
  Indeed, capital investment needed to maintain our secondary rail 
lines far outpaces supply. In my view, Federal involvement in rail 
service should not be limited to rail passenger service. Certainly 
Amtrak and high speed rail are important. However, to smaller-city 
States such as mine, which has no Amtrak service and will never benefit 
from high speed rail, freight rail is even more important.
  As my colleagues know, H.R. 2002 provides a good deal of money to 
fund rail passenger service. Certainly a limited amount of funding 
should be provided to meet very serious rail freight needs. Even 
limited Federal involvement will help to rebuild and improve the rail 
lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. These lines, run 
mainly by short-line regional railroads, are critical to the survival 
of rural America's economy, yet the capital needed to maintain these 
secondary rail lines is very limited.
  Mr. President, the LRFA program has proved to play a vital role in 
our Nation's rail transportation system. Created in 1973, the LRFA 
provides matching funds to help States save rail lines that otherwise 
would be abandoned. For instance, over the past few years, several rail 
improvement projects in my State and other States have been made 
possible. And I know we have been unable to reach the Senator from Iowa 
tonight, but he has worked on this. In fact, one of the east coast 
Senators wished to have a chance to speak on this tonight.
  Without LRFA, our freight funding needs would go largely unmet. Of 
particular importance is how LRFA's matching requirements enable 
limited Federal, State and local resources to be leveraged. Indeed, 
LRFA's success has been in part due to its ability to promote 
investment partnerships, thus maximizing very limited Federal 
assistance.
  Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal 
funding. For example, $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal 1995. 
But a substantial portion of this very limited appropriations, $6.5 
million, was rescinded recently by Public Law 104-6.
  In fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance for 59 
projects totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. 
Unfortunately, less than one-third of the funding was available to meet 
these rail infrastructure needs. With continued railway structuring, 
these legitimate funding needs will only increase. LRFA is a worthy 
program and should be funded.
  As my colleagues may already know, oftentimes small railroads face 
unique problems and difficulties securing needed financing. Unlike 
other businesses that need short-term loans, smaller railroads need 
long-term financing for big-ticket items, ranging anywhere from 
equipment to track rehabilitation. Yet, I understand most financial 
institutions will not make loans that are not repaid within 7 or 8 
years. These loans and loan arrangements simply do not work for smaller 
railroads. And 511 loans were permanently authorized to address these 
problems and should be funded.
  In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 program 
provides a cost-effective method of ensuring modest infrastructure 
investment on a repayable basis. We should support programs like the 
511 program and the LRFA that provide an excellent leverage of our 
limited Federal dollars.
  The 511 railroad guarantee program is permanently authorized at $1 
billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available for 
commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require appropriation for the 
511 program to cover the anticipated loss to the Government over the 
life of each loan.
  Based on a fiscal year 1994 appropriation for a 511 project in New 
York 

[[Page S12070]]
State--the first 511 application processed under the rules of the 
Credit Reform Act--5 percent of the total loan obligation must be 
appropriated. Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to 
submit loan applications as soon as the program is appropriated 
funding.
  My amendment provides $10 million to enable up to $100 million in 
loans.
  Mr. President, I wish to be up front regarding the offsets I have 
proposed. A portion of this funding is taken from the Department of 
Transportation's working capital fund. Another portion is being off set 
by reducing the next generation high speed rail account for planning 
and design.
  However, more than one-half of that account will still remain. Let me 
be clear. I am not opposed to the high-speed rail program. However, we 
are still waiting for two reports from the administration on high-speed 
rail. One is on the commercial feasibility of high-speed ground 
transportation. It will be submitted to Congress by the end of the 
year. The other report due next year is to provide the administration 
policy directions and a perspective on high-speed rail.
  They are two very important reports. They will lay out the 
technological feasibility of where we should go in the next 20 years 
with high-speed rail. Certainly we can delay some funding for this 
until we have a firm foundation and vision on high-speed rail.
  Of course, I am willing to entertain any other suggestions for 
offsets and invite my colleagues to provide an alternative.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I stand here as a 
Senator from a State where we do not have passenger rail service. We 
are, I believe, one of two States in the United States that do not have 
Amtrak. We have no prospect of getting high-speed rail. But I have been 
a supporter and a helper in those areas on the authorizing committee.
  Just the other day I assisted Senator Lott in working out the package 
that involved Amtrak. And I rise in good faith. I would ask that my 
amendment be considered. And I would ask unanimous consent that it be 
considered, and that we have a vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do object.
  Mr. President, I think it is a fair and appropriate courtesy that the 
Senator from South Dakota and I and the chairman of the subcommittee 
have a chance to talk about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota does not lose the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I know the position that my friend from New 
Jersey and my friend from Oregon, the managers of the bill, find 
themselves in. I have found myself in similar positions during long, 
tedious sessions of the Senate when we try and make appropriate cutoffs 
at certain times. And they would be fully within their rights, and 
maybe it is their final determination not to consider the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from South Dakota.
  I happen to feel that this was one of those very legitimate 
oversights where the chairman of the Commerce Committee, on which I 
have had the opportunity to serve with the Senator from South Dakota 
since we both came to this Senate 17 years ago--I know he has always 
been helpful and understanding on a whole series of matters. Therefore, 
I think the decision is up to the managers of the bill, but I would 
simply suggest that this was, I am certain, a very innocent error. I 
believe the Senator really felt that his amendment had been included.
  To make the point, if we would go back to the managers of the bill 
when they were reading the bill, the various amendments that have been 
offered, the Record will show the Senator from Nebraska rose and asked 
if his amendment would be included. And I was properly corrected by my 
good friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to the fact 
that the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska was indeed 
listed. So I was protected. There are occasions when we are not sure 
whether we are protected or not. And in this particular case I was.
  I simply say that I believe this was a simple oversight. And I was 
just wondering, is there any way we could possibly resolve this matter 
by considering some other kind of an offset of the funding that the 
Senator from South Dakota has used to finance the measure that he has 
requested? I do not know whether that is one of the problems or not.
  I have no dog in this fight except to say that fully understanding 
the problems that the managers of the bill have, I think this was a 
very legitimate error. If the wishes of the Senator from South Dakota 
could be accommodated, I think it would be fair. If there is any 
problem with the measure itself, you could always have a vote on it. Is 
it possible that there may be some other form of offset we might be 
able to work out?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend would yield for a question.
  I begin my question by thanking him very, very much for his fair 
statement that in our 20-some years together on the Commerce 
Committee--I believe 18 years we were together on the Commerce 
Committee--he has always been fair and thoughtful to me.
  I would certainly consider some other offset. As I mentioned, my 
State is, I believe, one of two States that does not get Amtrak. I have 
been a supporter of Amtrak to help out in other areas. And my State 
does not get high-speed rail. And I have been a supporter of high-speed 
rail. So, I am trying to help out. I am not trying to send any signals 
here, just that maybe it was another offset. These are hard to find. 
But I would like to offer my amendment. I know some other Senators who 
are not in the Chamber tonight who are very interested in this 
amendment. And so that is what I am trying to accomplish.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The discussion that evolves is one that often is 
decided in this kind of a forum when the pressure is on to close out a 
bill. And we look at new ideas that have not been considered. And I 
regard my relationship with the Senator from South Dakota, as well as 
the Senator from Nebraska, as good and friendly. And I certainly do not 
want to be contentious.
  But, Mr. President, the fact that suddenly now we are discussing 
Amtrak, and whether it is in New Jersey. We do not have essential air 
services in New Jersey.
  Mr. President, that will not resolve the issue as far as this Senator 
is concerned. We want to discuss it. I am absolutely amenable to 
discussing it.
  I do think that out of respect for those of us who have been working 
on this Transportation appropriations bill, after the budget resolution 
zeroed out local rail freight, that we ought to have a chance to 
discuss it.
  I do not want to diminish the opportunity for either of the 
proponents of this amendment. It is to service their States. That is 
something that is always kept in front of us.
  However, I think it is fair to say that adding this at the end, and 
before we clear the other amendments that have to be considered, is an 
inappropriate thing to do at this time. People want to close up shop. 
And that is not the primary reason for doing anything. But there is a 
precedent. Others have managed to get their amendments in place. And I 
would like to have a chance to discuss it before I even agree to 
accepting the amendment, Mr. President.
  So that is my request. And I hope that we are not going to get a 
balance sheet here with what was done for one or done for the other. We 
are discussing the Transportation Subcommittee bill. There are lots of 
things that benefit all of us: highways, rail service, air service, and 
transit service. All benefit different parts of America differently. 
But, we can never get the scales to be exactly equal.
  So, Mr. President, I would note the absence of a quorum until we 
resolve the couple of issues that are outstanding here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S12071]]

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2342

 (Purpose: To provide for a technical correction to Public Law 102-388)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Feinstein and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2342.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. 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 the appropriate point in the bill inset:
       ``Sec.   . The Secretary of Transportation is hereby 
     authorized and directed to enter into an agreement modifying 
     the agreement entered into pursuant to Section 339 of the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-388) to conform such 
     agreement to the provisions of Section 336 of the Department 
     of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1995 (Public Law 103-331). Nothing in this section changes 
     the amount of the previous appropriation in section 339, and 
     the line of credit provided for shall not exceed an amount 
     supported by the previous appropriation. In implementing 
     either Section 339 or Section 336, the Secretary may enter 
     into an agreement requiring an interest rate that is higher 
     than that specified therein.''

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is a simple, straightforward 
amendment that would allow formerly appropriated funds to be used in a 
backup on a bond matter. This has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2342) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2343

   (Purpose: To eliminate certain highway safety advisory committees)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Abraham and Senator Inhofe and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for Mr. Abraham, 
     for himself and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2343.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. 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 the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3  . ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEES.

       (a) National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.--
       (1) In general.--Section 404 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 4 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 404.
       (b) Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review 
     Panel.--
       (1) In general.--Section 31134 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The analysis for subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 31134.
       (B) Section 31140 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``and the Commercial 
     Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review Panel''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b)--
       (I) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Panel or''; and
       (II) by striking ``the Panel'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the Secretary''.
       (C) Section 31141 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Annual Analysis by the Secretary.--The Secretary 
     annually shall analyze State laws and regulations and decide 
     which of the laws and regulations are related to commercial 
     motor vehicle safety.''; and
       (ii) in subsection (c)--
       (I) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and all 
     that follows through ``shall--'' and inserting ``Not later 
     than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary makes a 
     decision under subsection (b) that a State law or regulation 
     is related to commercial motor vehicle safety or 18 months 
     after the date on which the Secretary prescribes a regulation 
     under section 31136, whichever is later, the Secretary 
     shall--''; and
       (II) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(5)(A) In'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B) In'' and inserting ``(5) In''.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in further demonstration of our resolve to 
downsize Government and eliminate needless departments, agencies, 
commissions, boards, and councils, I offer this amendment along with 
Senator Abraham to terminate the National Driver Registration Advisory 
Committee and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Regulatory Review 
Panel.
  The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee was established under 
the Highway Safety Act of 1986 to advise the Secretary on matters 
relating to highway safety. Moneys have not been appropriated for this 
committee since 1986.
  The commercial motor vehicle safety regulatory review panel. The 
purpose of this panel is to conduct a study to evaluate the need for 
the Federal assistance to the States to enforce specific regulations 
issued by the Secretary of Transportation. The panel was created by the 
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 and is not currently funded.
  Although these cuts are merely symbolic, they are illustrative of the 
type of needless activity that have outlived their usefulness. These 
types of programs drain the Government of its efficiency and clutter 
its structure with organizational deadwood.
  This amendment promotes the type of reform which is supported by the 
GAO, the CBO, and in some cases, the President. It terminates two 
committees whose jobs are finished. While it may not achieve savings in 
the millions of dollars, it is an important step in complying with the 
demands of the American people who told us on November 8, 1994, to 
balance the budget, and cut the size of Government. It is important 
that we demonstrate that resolve by reviewing even the most 
insignificant or inexpensive programs as well as the more prominent 
ones. Let us show the public we are serious and eliminate these useless 
panels.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this is a repeal of two existing 
committees within the Department of Transportation, and it has been 
cleared on both sides. These are two advisory committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 2343) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to indicate precisely where 
we are on the list of amendments. One was reserved for Senator Gregg of 
New Hampshire. I am informed Senator Gregg has departed the Hill. So, 
obviously, he will not be offering his amendment. We had one for 
Senator Coverdell, and we now have a colloquy that will replace that 
slot for amendment.
  Therefore, we are waiting the arrival of Senator Warner, and on 
behalf of Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, Senator Warner will offer 
an amendment.
  And then I say, from my list that I have, that completes all the 
amendments that were incorporated in the unanimous-consent agreement.
  If there is any information relating to Senator Gregg, I would be 
very happy to receive it. But if he is not here at the time we finish 
these other amendments and the amendment has not been offered, that 
closes the list.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there remains a colloquy between the 
Democratic leader and myself which we will have printed in the Record. 
As far as I can see, I think that takes care of it, with the exception 
of the two matters----
  Mr. HATFIELD. And Senator Burns. There is, I believe, a pending 
amendment by Senator Burns of Montana, which is being checked out on 
the Democratic side.

[[Page S12072]]

  Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have staff working ferociously to find other offsets 
that might be more agreeable, but I may be offering potentially a 
second-degree to the Burns amendment, if he were to concur in that. I 
just wish the managers to know of that intention.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe now that the last amendment we 
have before us is to be offered by Senator Warner on behalf of Senator 
Chafee and Senator Baucus.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If the Senator will yield for a question. I will be 
offering an amendment to second-degree another matter. I will be 
offering a second-degree amendment later this evening.
  Mr. HATFIELD. To what?
  Mr. PRESSLER. To the Burns amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers for 
permitting me at this late hour to offer this amendment. I will do so 
on behalf of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Chafee, 
and the ranking member, Senator Baucus.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2344

     (Purpose: To delay the effective date of a restriction on the 
   availability of certain highway funds and to provide for National 
                      Highway System designation)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 2344.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. DELAY OF RESTRICTION ON AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN 
                   HIGHWAY FUNDS; NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM 
                   DESIGNATION.

       (a) Delay of Restriction of Availability of Certain Highway 
     Funds.--Section 103(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``1997''; and
       (b) National Highway System Designation.--Section 103 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) National Highway System Designation.--
       ``(1) Designation.--The most recent National Highway System 
     (as of the date of enactment of this subsection) as submitted 
     by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to this section 
     is designated as the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Modifications.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a State, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(i) add a new route segment to the National Highway 
     System, including a new intermodel connection; or
       ``(ii) delete a route segement in existence on the date of 
     the request and any connection to the route segment;
      if the total mileage of the National Highway System 
     (including any route segment or connection proposed to be 
     added under this subparagraph) does not exceed 165,000 
     miles (265,542 kilometers).
       ``(B) Procedures for changes requested by states.--Each 
     State that makes a request for a change in the National 
     Highway System pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall establish 
     that each change in a route segment or connection referred to 
     in the subparagraph has been identified by the State, in 
     cooperation with local officials, pursuant to applicable 
     transportation planning activities for metropolitan areas 
     carried out under section 134 and statewide planning 
     processes carried out under section 135.
       ``(3) Approval by the secretary.--The Secretary may approve 
     a request made by a State for a change in the National 
     Highway System pursuant to paragraph (2) if the Secretary 
     determines that the change--
       ``(A) meets the criteria established for the National 
     Highway System under this title; and
       ``(B) enhances the national transportation characteristics 
     of the National Highway System.''.
       Page 69, line 3: At the end thereof insert the following: 
     ``and congestion mitigation and air quality program funds. 
     Provided, That a State shall not deposit funds that are 
     suballocated under title 23 or Public Law 102-240.''
       Page 63, line 16: At the end thereof insert the following: 
     ``Provided, That prior year unobligated balances may not be 
     withdrawn and canceled that were suballocated under title 23 
     or Public Law 102-240 or were made available under the 
     congestion mitigation and air quality program.''

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus to ensure that States receive 
their National Highway System and Interstate Maintenance apportionments 
on schedule by October 1, 1995.
  As my colleagues will recall, the Senate devoted 6 days of debate on 
legislation I am sponsoring, S. 440, to designate the National Highway 
System. As required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 [ISTEA], the Congress must enact the National Highway 
System before States receive $6.5 billion in 1996 highway dollars.
  I am pleased that the Senate acted promptly and passed legislation to 
meet the timetable established in ISTEA.
  At this time, however, I am very concerned that Congress will not 
meet this requirement and the States will be penalized because the 
Congress has failed to do its job.
  I offer this amendment today in the hopes that it is not necessary 
and that the Congress does enact legislation to designate this critical 
transportation system by September 30.
  This amendment accomplishes three purposes. First, it delays the 
sanction in ISTEA which prevents highway funds from being allocated to 
the States until the National Highway System is designated. Second, it 
extends for 2 years the deadline for Congress to complete its work on 
the NHS bill in conjunction with our schedule to reauthorize the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1997. Third, it 
designates the National Highway System as submitted by the Department 
of Transportation which was developed in cooperation with our States.
  As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, my first priority for this Congress 
has been to enact the National Highway System. The subcommittee held 
four hearings on the NHS and reported S. 440 to the Senate on May 10. 
The full Senate soon took action and approved this legislation on June 
22, 1995.
  I am also pleased that this amendment designates the system by 
approving the NHS map of 159,000 miles. For over 2 years, the Federal 
Highway Administration worked closely with all States and local 
governments to determine those most important roads which provide for 
the efficient travel of people and goods and enhances our intermodal 
transportation system.
  Mr. President, it is my strong view that the Congress should enact an 
individual NHS bill because of the other important transportation 
issues which were approved by the Senate. I am equally committed, 
however, that our States receive these funds on schedule so that 
contracts can be awarded and urgent transportation projects can proceed 
without delay.
  Mr. President, I understand that this amendment is in the nature of a 
technical amendment which is acceptable on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it would be fair for the Senator 
from Virginia to describe what this amendment is. It is a very 
significant amendment. It is now 10:40 at night, and it is far more 
than a technical amendment. I understand that it has been agreed to by 
other important members. But I say to the Senator from Virginia, an 
amendment of this impact, under normal circumstances, should be 
hotlined before it is agreed to.
  I do not intend to object, but I think we ought to be clear about the 
impact of the amendment. It is not technical, and under normal 
circumstances, one of this impact would be hotlined before it would be 
adopted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my distinguished colleague 


[[Page S12073]]
from Arizona that this amendment relates to the need for a certain 
relief under the ISTEA legislation, whereby States can begin to receive 
highway funds in the next fiscal year in the event the House does not 
send a bill here and that bill is conferenced and adopted by both 
Chambers. It is a matter of extreme urgency by highway governors and 
officials across America. It applies to all 50 States equally; also, 
the need for the adoption of the national highway map, such that 
planning can get underway for the future enlargement of the Nation's 
highway systems.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the amendment better now. I 
thank the Senator from Virginia. He just made my argument, that it is 
not exactly a technical amendment. I now better understand how 
important it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2344) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. I send to the desk two amendments on behalf of the 
distinguished chairman of the Environment Committee, Mr. Chafee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Parliamentary inquiry. I want to make sure it is 
clearly understood that these are technical amendments that were not 
incorporated in the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  I apologize to my distinguished colleague. I now find that the 
amendment that was just considered by the Chair contained the two 
technical amendments and were considered en bloc, so the two amendments 
have already been accepted.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the managers.


                           Amendment No. 2341

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the pending business is the Burns 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have not been able to clear the Burns 
amendment on both sides.
  Therefore, I suggest that we provide for the yeas and nays on 
disposing of the Burns amendment in the context of tomorrow's actions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I say to my colleague and comanager, on the written 
amendments that we have on our list, that concludes all of those 
amendments.
  Mr. GREGG. A recurring theme of this Congress is to find commonsense 
solutions to national problems. One of these is to create practical 
ways to promote recycling of waste material. This requires developing 
applications and processes in which benign waste performs, as well as, 
or better than, and at the same or lower cost as traditional materials. 
Experts at the University of New Hampshire have stressed to me that 
this requires integrating appropriate tests for long term physical 
performance with a thorough understanding of the long-term 
environmental implications. The committee provides $14,622,000 to FHWA 
for technology assessment and deployment and expresses its support for 
the priority technologies initiative funded under the section 6005 
program. Would the committee consider evaluation of environmental and 
physical results of using benign waste materials in transportation 
infrastructure and helping AASHTO to incorporate those results into 
their construction standards to be a priority technology under the 
section 6005 program?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, the committee believes this is a priority 
technology and encourages FHWA to fund this type of research which is 
important to the future of our Nation's infrastructure.
                          SIDNEY LANIER BRIDGE

  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership 
in crafting this Transportation appropriations bill before us. In light 
of the budgetary restriction placed upon all of these projects, I think 
the chairman has done a skillful job of handling many divergent 
interests.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would also like to thank the Senator for his 
assistance in attempting to remedy funding difficulties we have 
experienced with the Sidney Lanier Bridge in Brunswick, GA. As the 
chairman knows, the Sidney Lanier Bridge is in need of replacement. 
This bridge has been authorized by Congress as a hazard to navigation 
because of the 10 lives that have recently been lost there. In 
addition, the State of Georgia has matched every Federal dollar spent 
on this project since 1992, which to date, has been nearly $12 million. 
Given our current budget realities, I understand from the chairman that 
Sidney Lanier was not funded in the Senate under the project's 
traditional source, the Truman Hobbs Act. Am I also to understand from 
the chairman that the committee is aware of the importance of this 
project?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator is correct. The Sidney Lanier Bridge is a 
project of great importance to Georgia's growing ports industry not 
only for safety concerns, but also for commercial reasons.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator. With this recognition, would the 
chairman be willing to give every consideration to the House position 
of $8 million through the Truman Hobbs Act for continued funding of the 
Sidney Lanier Bridge.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Every consideration will be given to the House position 
in regard to the Sidney Lanier Bridge. The Senator is to be commended 
for his diligence on behalf of this important project and we will 
attempt to facilitate him in the conference committee.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the chairman for his efforts on behalf of this 
project.
                    faa military assistance program

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Department of 
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing us a balanced bill considering the current budget 
constraints.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $12.6 billion in new BA and $11.7 
billion in new outlays to fund the programs of the Department of 
Transportation, including Federal-aid highway, mass transit, aviation 
and maritime activities.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the bill totals $13.0 billion in budget 
authority [BA] and $37.1 billion in new outlays.
  The subcommittee is essentially at its 602(b) allocation in both BA 
and outlays.
  The Senate-reported bill is $526 million in outlays below the 
President's 1996 request. The bill does not incorporate the President's 
request for consolidating all capital transportation programs into one 
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.
  The Senate-reported bill is $201 million in BA and $386 million in 
outlays below the House version of the bill.
  I am concerned about one provision in the bill concerning the FAA 
Military Assistance Program [MAP]. The bill has set an arbitrary figure 
for the MAP Program, reducing its funding below the amount the 
statutory formula requires under the Airport Improvement Program [AIP]
  I do, however, support the bill, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the spending totals.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

....................................................................... 

[[Page S12074]]
    TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE SPENDING TOTALS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL   
                [Fiscal year 1996, in million of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget            
                                                    authority   Outlays 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................        382     25,376
  H.R. 2002, as reported to the Senate............     12,017     11,185
  Scorekeeping adjustment.........................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal nondefense discretionary.............     12,399     36,561
                                                   =====================
Mandatory:                                                              
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed......................................  .........         60
  H.R. 2002, as reported to the Senate............        582        521
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions..................          2         -0
                                                   ---------------------
    Subtotal mandatory............................        584        581
                                                   =====================
    Adjusted bill total...........................     12,983     37,142
                                                   =====================
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................     12,400     36,561
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................        584        581
                                                   ---------------------
    Total allocation..............................     12,984     37,142
                                                   =====================
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate                                  
 Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                        
  Defense discretionary...........................  .........  .........
  Nondefense discretionary........................         -1         -0
  Violent crime reduction trust fund..............  .........  .........
  Mandatory.......................................  .........  .........
                                                   ---------------------
    Total allocation..............................         -1         -0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                


                      faa military airport program

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the impact of 
this bill on funding for the FAA Military Airport Program [MAP] within 
the Airport Improvement Program [AIP].
  MAP is a 2.5-percent set-aside with AIP for current or former 
military airfields. Grants are issued to airport sponsors of current 
military airfields where there are joint use agreements with the 
military department controlling the airfield. MAP grants are used for 
projects that are most needed by eligible airports converting from 
military to civilian use. Current AIP discretionary funds cannot be 
used for most of these activities.
  The need for MAP funding is growing each year. With the Defense 
Department closing an unprecedented number of military airfields since 
1988, coupled with the current and projected growth in commercial and 
general aviation, more and more MAP sites across the country will 
become eligible for these funds. The FAA has identified almost 40 
airports nationwide in which MAP funds may be used in future years for 
the conversion of military airfields to civilian use.
  MAP funds play a vital role in New Mexico. In 1995, Albuquerque 
International Airport received $1 million for airports improvements 
related to the airport's shared facilities with Kirtland Air Force 
Base. In 1996, MAP funds will be used, in conjunction with other 
federal and local funds, for the rehabilitation of one of Albuquerque's 
main runways.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Transportation, I support passage of H.R. 2002. This bill is within 
the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation, and Chairman Hatfield has crafted 
a bill to meet the needs of all modes of transportation within a 
reduced allocation for transportation.
  However, I am concerned about the committee's action to arbitrarily 
cap MAP funding for 1996 by not allowing the full 2.5-percent set-aside 
for MAP. Under the committee's action of setting the AIP program at 
$1.25 billion for 1996, MAP should receive $26.4 million. However, the 
committee's action to cap this program at $20 million means that MAP 
will receive $6.4 million less than mandated under current law under an 
AIP program at $1.25 billion.
  It is in this respect I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of both the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Senator Hatfield, in a discussion. Let me first ask my 
colleague, if it is correct that the committee has capped the Military 
Airport Program at $20 million for 1996?
  Mr. HATFIELD. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is 
correct. The committee has capped the MAP program at $20 million for 
1996. The committee has also capped another AIP set-aside program, the 
Reliever Airport Program, at $50 million.
  As the chairman of the Budget Committee knows, our committee was 
forced to make difficult decisions in order to fund our nation's top 
infrastructure needs for 1996. As Congress, under the direction of the 
budget resolution, moves to balance the Federal budget by 2002, our 
committee will be faced with even more difficult choices over the next 
few years.
  One of the most difficult choices our committee faced was setting the 
obligation limitation for the AIP program. In 1995, funding for AIP was 
set at $1.45 billion. The Senate-reported bill has set this figure at 
$1.25 billion. Because of this lower AIP level, the bill has capped 
both MAP and the Reliever Airport Program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the comments from the chairman. While I 
understand his position on this issue, might I ask the chairman if he 
intends, within the confines of the final joint House and Senate 602(b) 
allocation for the Transportation Subcommittee, to work for a higher 
AIP funding level during the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2002? And 
in addition, if a higher AIP figure can be achieved in conference, will 
the chairman allow MAP funds to be distributed at 2.5 percent, as 
required by law?
  Mr. HATFIELD. At this point, without knowing our final 602(b) 
allocation for the Transportation Subcommittee, it is hard to predict a 
final AIP or MAP figure. However, I stand ready to work in conference 
with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico on achieving the highest 
funding possible for AIP and in turn, working for the highest possible 
level of funding for MAP.
                       air traffic controller pay

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that our bill 
may have the effect of reducing air traffic controller pay by as much 
as 2.5 percent. I am also advised that this action could impose 
additional burdens on our air traffic control system at a time when air 
traffic is undergoing rapid growth. Therefore, I hope the chairman will 
provide some assurance that these issues will be carefully examined and 
reconsidered prior to conference with the House.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for bringing his concerns to my 
attention. This action was only taken because of our difficult budget 
situation. As the Senator knows the House bill does not contain a 
similar provision and I am hopeful that in conference a satisfactory 
solution can be reached on this issue.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his willingness 
to take another look at this matter, and I know that with his 
leadership we will see a favorable resolution of the issue in the final 
conference agreement.


                 title information system pilot project

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to clarify a point in the committee's 
report concerning funding for a title information system pilot project. 
It is my understanding that the States frequently issue new titles for 
vehicles that were reported stolen in other States. To prevent that 
from continuing, the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 required the 
Transportation Department to establish an instant title verification 
check prior to the issuance of new titles. Congress required this 
system to be up and running by January 1 of next year.
  The House provided $1 million from the budget for the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to help a pilot group of States 
to modify their computer software and get the system started. Here in 
the Senate, the committee disagreed with this earmark. The reason 
stated in the committee report is that the system cannot work until all 
the States use uniform definitions and titling procedures.
  However, the Motor Vehicle Administrators' Association tells me that 
nationwide uniformity is not necessary for such a system to be 
effective. If a car is stolen, it is stolen. States simply cannot 
verify documents from other States. With the proposed system, they will 
be able to know instantly that the vehicle is stolen. In addition, the 
National Driver Register, an electronic system on which the title 
information system is modelled, has helped keep habitual drunk drivers 
from obtaining drivers' licenses, even though the States have widely 
varying terminology and definitions for ``drunk driving,'' ``driving 
under the influence,'' and so forth.
  My question to the Chair is this: Should the Committee not give 
serious consideration to this provision in the House bill when we go to 
conference?

[[Page S12075]]

  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for focusing our attention on this 
issue. All of us are concerned about auto theft, and we recognize the 
problems the States face in trying to cope with it. I agree we will 
thoroughly review the merits of the House initiative during the 
conference.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman.


                              aip funding

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would pose a question for the 
distinguished Chairman of the Committee. Would the Senator agree that 
airports which serve communities with a large number of displaced 
aerospace workers from defense base closures ought to be given a 
priority in the receipt of airport improvement grants which would 
encourage and promote commercial development, through the expansion of 
taxiways and aircraft parking ramps, which could employ a significant 
amount of displaced workers?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would agree.
  Mr. ROBB. Would the Senator agree that if a more robust funding level 
for AIP grant funding was possible that these priorities would have 
been established?
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would agree.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator agree that the Aviation Research Park 
at the Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport would qualify as 
a priority project because of the pending closure of the Naval Aviation 
Depot, Norfolk.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Under the circumstances as the Senator describes them 
as the Senator knows, I would have provided more AIP funds if the 
budget would have allowed, and not forced such difficult decisions in 
allocatting AIP funding. I would agree.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the distinguished Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from South Dakota 
wishes to proceed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As far as I am concerned, if I may, Mr. President, I 
am removing the objection that I had put forward before so that the 
Senator from South Dakota can offer an amendment.
  There are a couple of questions that I would like to deal with, so if 
the Senator would not mind, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. HATFIELD. 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. HATFIELD. Parliamentary inquiry. I believe that the Jeffords 
amendment has not been disposed of, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I now move to table the Jeffords 
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.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I inquire once more of the Chair, have all amendments 
now been disposed of that have been either presented or temporarily 
laid aside or any other action?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are three amendments that have been 
offered and laid aside. All the other amendments have been disposed of.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Would the Chair enumerate the author of those 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first amendment is the Burns amendment 
numbered 2341; the second amendment is the Roth amendment numbered 
2340; and the third amendment is the Jeffords amendment numbered 2337.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The staff are rewriting so that the offsets will be 
pleasing to the various Members.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. 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. PRESSLER. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Frist be added as original cosponsor for an earlier amendment I 
offered, No. 2336, regarding a U.S.-Japan bilateral agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2345

     (Purpose: To provide funding for rail freight infrastructure 
                             improvements)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, under an agreement I have reached, I am 
going to send an amendment to the desk and not debate it or say 
anything about it and tomorrow morning some of the numbers we are going 
to modify. This involves the local rail freight assistance. We are 
finding other offsets that may be acceptable or may not be acceptable 
to some other Members of the Senate.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Pressler be authorized to offer an 
amendment tonight and be able to modify that amendment tomorrow in the 
sequence of the amendments to be taken up tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like, if we can, to amend that 
unanimous-consent agreement that was just propounded by asking further 
under unanimous consent that the 10 minutes that may be available for 
debate be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Parliamentary inquiry: I would also like to ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as an original cosponsor 
first, after all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To this amendment?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator offer the amendment?
  Mr. PRESSER. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for himself, 
     Mr. Exon, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2345.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       On page 26, line 15, strike ``1996.'' and insert ``1996, 
     except for not more than 50,000,000 in loan guarantee 
     commitments during such fiscal year (and 5,000,000 is hereby 
     made available for the cost of such loan guarantee 
     commitments).''.
       On page 26, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:


                     Local rail freight assistance

       For necessary expenses for rail assistance under section 
     5(q) of the Department of Transportation Act, $12,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6 strike ``9,710,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,300,000''.
       On page 6, line 13, strike ``$139,689,000:'' and insert 
     ``$134,689,000''.
       On page 54, line 8 strike $99,364,000 and insert 
     $94,364,000.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Without making a speech on this amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent that tomorrow morning I be allowed to modify the 
amendment after consulting with my cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota should note that 
that is already part of the agreement. And that we would not ask for 
the yeas and nays tonight, but I would hope to ask for the yeas and 
nays tomorrow morning unless we get it agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is part of the agreement.
  Does the Senator from South Dakota want to have Mr. Harkin added as 
an original cosponsor?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I just want to make sure that I have made no commitment 
about the action tomorrow on this amendment. My unanimous consent did 
not involve all the procedures that will be open to handle this 
amendment tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment can be disposed of either with 
an up-or-down vote or a motion to table.

[[Page S12076]]



                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the voting 
order for amendments tomorrow morning be as follows: The motion to 
table the Roth amendment 2340, to be followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the Burns amendment 2341, to be followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the Jeffords amendment 2337, to be followed by action on 
the Pressler amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________