[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17593-S17601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE SUNSET ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3065

(Purpose: To provide for the comparable treatment of federal employees 
   and members of Congress and the President during a fiscal hiatus)

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3065.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 
     section:

     SEC.  . PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT DURING 
                   GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS.

       (a) Comparable Pay Treatment.--The pay of members of 
     Congress and the President shall be treated in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as the pay of the most 
     adversely affected federal employees who are not compensated 
     for any period in which appropriations lapse.
       (b) This section shall take effect December 15, 1995.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment I have sent 
to the desk which is sponsored by myself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
Bumpers, and Mr. Feingold, simply says that Members of Congress and the 
President should be treated the same way as other Federal employees 
during a shutdown, a partial shutdown, during any period where there is 
a lapse in appropriations.
  Now, Mr. President, the Senate has passed it a couple of times, but I 
hope it was not a sham when everyone said, ``Yes, we are for it,'' take 
it by voice vote. We put it on the D.C. appropriations bill. It seems 
to be stuck there. The other times we passed it, it has not seen the 
light of day.
  I have been around here long enough to know when I am getting conned. 
This is not happening. Everyone says they are for it, it passes here, 
and it has not really gone to the President's desk. He supports it.
  The reputation of this Congress is at a very low point. The approval 
rating of this Congress is in the 20's. I submit that one of the 
reasons, first of all, was the fact that there was a Government 

[[Page S 17594]]
shutdown, that we could not get our job done. We failed.
  This Congress did not get the appropriation bills out to the 
President. This Congress could not even pass a clean debt extension. 
Chaos is the name of the game around here.
  During the Government shutdown, we know there was a lot of angst, 
anxiety, to Federal workers, for people who needed the Federal 
Government, for people who want to go to the parks, for veterans who 
could not get help, for new Social Security applicants who wanted to 
file their papers, but no sacrifice around here. Our own staff was not 
getting paid, but we were getting paid. No problem.
  Yes, some Members of Congress felt bad about it and gave some money 
to charity. Some did not take their checks. Some gave their money back 
to the Treasury. But this was an institutional failure, Mr. President.
  There was a poll done in San Francisco, a place that believes there 
is a very important need for a national Government, and 89 percent of 
the people responding to the poll of the San Francisco Examiner said 
Congress should not get paid unless they do their work.
  What could be more fundamental than making sure that appropriation 
bills move forward or, in lieu thereof, a continuing resolution that 
keeps this Government running?
  Now, Mr. President, we have deep divisions in this body on Federal 
priorities. The Republicans have laid out their budget. It is clear. 
Mr. President, $270 billion cuts in Medicare, huge cuts in Medicaid, 
education, the environment. The President says, ``No way.'' We will 
balance the budget in 7 years, we all agreed, but we need to take a 
better look at priorities.
  Well, that is all well and good, but the fact is we should not be 
playing games with people's lives, and if we do, we should get 
penalized just as other Federal employees would.
  So we have our disagreements on the level of spending, but we should 
still get to work, get some compromises going, and move forward as a 
Nation.
  So we have not passed the Boxer-Durbin bill. It is stuck in all sorts 
of committees. I intend to offer it every single chance I get, on every 
single bill that I can. I intend to get a vote on it. I will be 
persistent, and I know around here persistence is looked at in two 
ways: Some people love it, other people hate it. They especially like 
it if they agree with you; and if they do not, they hate it. But I am 
going to be persistent on this. I have been persistent on other things 
around here. And I will say this. This bill makes eminent sense. Let me 
read it to you. As an amendment it says:

       The pay of members of Congress and the President shall be 
     treated in the same manner and to the same extent as the pay 
     of the most adversely affected federal employees who are not 
     compensated for any period in which appropriations lapse.
       This section shall take effect December 15, 1995.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Boxer amendment 
will be set aside.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your patience.


                           Amendment No. 3064

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume deliberation of the 
Dorgan amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes to say I urge 
all Senators to vote against the Dorgan amendment. We have taken care 
of the problems which the Senator from North Dakota raised in this 
bill. This is a carefully crafted bill which Senator Exon and I and 
others have worked out over months of negotiation and this is 
unnecessary additional regulation. I rise in strong opposition to the 
Dorgan amendment. I urge all Senators to vote against it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and, Mr. President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that time be charged 
equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to offer an amendment at this time and to have it voted on 
immediately following the vote on the amendment by Mr. Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I do 
not want to object--some of the Members may want to have a chance to 
speak on the amendment. I am trying to find a way here to cooperate 
quickly. But we do not know what the amendment is.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. The Senator makes a good point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order for me 
to offer my amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3066

(Purpose: To provide for a minimum penalty of 30 years of imprisonment 
  and a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the destruction of a 
  motor vehicle or motor vehicle facility if a motor vehicle carrying 
  high level nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel is involved, or for 
wrecking or sabotaging a train that carries high level nuclear waste or 
                          spent nuclear fuel)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today we are considering S. 1396, the 
Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. For over a century, 
the ICC has protected shippers from unfair competition and monopolistic 
pricing by the railroad and trucking industries. The bill before us 
reflects the deregulation of the transportation industry, and the 
declining need for many of the functions of the ICC. But, even as we 
consider the changing nature of transportation, we must also consider 
that new threats have emerged against shippers and the Nation's rail 
and trucking industries. Those threats are not in the indirect form of 
predatory price gouging, but rather manifest themselves as direct acts 
of violence and terrorism that threaten innocent bystanders.
  We are considering this bill in the wake of the sabotage of the 
Sunset Limited in the Arizona desert on October 10. That derailment is 
the latest act of terrorism against the American people, following on 
the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Federal 
building in Oklahoma City. When the ICC was first created, such acts of 
violence were unknown.
  Today, we must act to deter terrorism, and in so doing, must think 
the unthinkable--namely, that a terrorist could target a shipment of 
the most lethal of all possible cargoes, high level nuclear waste. This 
is the most toxic substance known to mankind. Exposure to even the 
smallest amount--amounts so small that you could not see it--would 
result in death. High level nuclear waste is not simply lethal, but 
also long lasting. It can take up to a quarter of a million years for 
this waste to fully decay, and lose its lethal radioactive character.
  My amendment would increase the penalties for an act of sabotage 
against a train or motor vehicle carrying spent nuclear fuel or high 
level nuclear waste. Current Federal law stipulates that the penalty 
for an act of sabotage against a train or motor vehicle is a maximum of 
20 years--which means they could be given 5 years, or 10 years, or 2 
years--or in the event of a fatality, a minimum of life imprisonment or 
the death penalty. Therefore, a terrorist who targets a train or truck 
carrying high level nuclear waste, but who fails in his mission to 
spread this poisonous radioactive contamination, might receive 
considerably less than 20 years in prison.
  Under my amendment, any individual who commits a ``willful'' or 
deliberate act of sabotage against a train or motor vehicle used in 
interstate commerce transporting high level nuclear waste or spent 
nuclear fuel would receive a minimum penalty of 30 years to life. The 
current provision of law regarding a fatality would remain in effect.
  My amendment is necessary because shipments of nuclear waste and 
spent fuel are already occurring. Furthermore, there is the possibility 
of a significant increase in the number of such shipments within the 
next few years. If that should occur, there would be increased public 
attention focused on 

[[Page S 17595]]
these shipments. The public would be aware that, under my amendment, 
any act of sabotage would receive the certain and minimum penalty of 30 
years imprisonment.
  Past shipments of nuclear waste have crossed through the majority of 
our States, including my own State of West Virginia. These shipments 
traveled on many of the primary routes of interstate commerce, and 
passed within close proximity to major urban areas, and millions of 
American homes. Thus far, we have been lucky, with no recorded acts of 
sabotage against these shipments. But the possibility has always been 
present, since this toxic cargo is carried by both rail and truck.
  From 1979-1994, there were 1,282 separate shipments of commercial 
spent nuclear fuel. Ninety percent of these shipments traveled on the 
Nation's highways, with only 10 percent traveling by rail. And it is 
important to note that this figure does not include classified 
shipments of high level nuclear waste from Department of Energy or 
military facilities, although my amendment covers those shipments, as 
well.
  Even though more trucks were involved in this commerce than trains, 
over 70 percent of the total volume of radioactive waste was carried by 
rail. And, this volume could dramatically increase before the end of 
this century. Current plans call for this spent nuclear fuel, along 
with even more high level radioactive waste from Federal facilities, to 
be deposited in a permanent geologic repository. At the present time, 
Yucca Mountain in Nevada is under consideration as such a repository. 
The Yucca Mountain site is behind schedule, and the site suitability 
study is not due to be released until 1998 at the earliest.
  In the meantime, pending legislation would authorize the construction 
of an ``interim'' storage facility at the Nevada Test Site. This 
interim storage facility would be used until Yucca Mountain, or an 
alternative site, is approved. I want to emphasize that my amendment 
does not address the issues posed by that pending legislation, namely, 
whether Yucca Mountain, or an interim storage facility, should be made 
operational.
  My amendment, does, however, address the danger presented by the 
dramatic increase that would occur in the shipments of toxic nuclear 
waste to either of these facilities. Current proposals call for the 
shipment of 2,000 to 3,000 metric tons per year, from up to 79 
commercial nuclear reactor sites that have spent nuclear fuel and waste 
stored on-site. Furthermore, this does not include DOE facilities. The 
interim site, if it is approved and constructed, would eventually 
receive up to 100,000 metric tons of spent fuel and high level nuclear 
waste, pending the opening of a permanent geologic repository.
  The Department of Energy has not publicly announced which routes will 
be used in shipments to Yucca Mountain or an interim storage site. 
However, these shipments would originate at up to 79 commercial sites, 
as well as Department of Energy facilities, and would therefore likely 
travel across large sections of our Nation.
  But our concern should not be only about the routes that will be 
used, but also the sheer number of shipments, and the quantity of 
highly radioactive waste involved. From 1979 to 1994, a total of one 
ton of spent nuclear fuel was shipped in the United States by 
commercial facilities. These proposals to build an interim or permanent 
nuclear waste facility envision shipments of thousands of tons in a 
single year.
  Again, I am not commenting on whether a permanent waste repository or 
interim storage facility is needed, or whether such shipments should 
occur. This body has debated that issue in the past, and will do so 
again in the future.
  Regardless of how that debate is resolved, the fact remains that we 
are currently shipping the most toxic substance known on our Nation's 
highways and railroads. And we may dramatically increase those 
shipments in the future. The very least that we can do is to increase 
the penalty for sabotage against such shipments, in an effort to deter 
such acts of terrorism from occurring.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3066.

  Mr. BYRD. 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 new section:

     SEC.  . DESTRUCTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTOR VEHICLE 
                   FACILITIES; WRECKING TRAINS.

       (a) Destruction of Motor Vehicles or Motor Vehicle 
     Facilities.--Section 33 of the title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     undesignated paragraph:
       ``Whoever is convicted of a crime under this section 
     involving a motor vehicle that, at the time the crime 
     occurred, carried high-level radioactive waste (as that term 
     is defined in section 2(12) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
     of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(12)), or spent nuclear fuel (as that 
     term is defined in section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(23)), shall be imprisoned for 
     not less than 30 years.''.
       (b) Wrecking Trains.--Section 1992 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the fourth undesignated paragraph 
     the following:
       ``Whoever is convicted of any such crime that involved a 
     train that, at the time the crime occurred, carried high-
     level radioactive waste (as that term is defined in section 
     2(12) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
     10101(12)), or spent nuclear fuel (as that term is defined in 
     section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10101(23)), shall be imprisoned for not less than 30 
     years.''

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I think we very much want to accept the 
amendment, and the Senator from West Virginia would like a rollcall 
vote on it immediately following this one. I should be clearing with my 
partner here. But as far as I am concerned we would be delighted to 
either accept it or have a rollcall vote immediately following this 
vote, whichever the Senator prefers.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the 
bill.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote 
occur immediately after the vote on the Dorgan amendment which will 
occur momentarily, I understand.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this 
amendment, the Dorgan amendment, was to be debated in this time period. 
There are some brief points that could be made, and I wonder if the 
floor manager would include 2 minutes for the proponents and 2 minutes 
for the opponents so that we may conclude discussion.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Just to explain, the times were reserved between 5 and 
5:15. Some Senators have to go on to other schedules. We now will have 
two rollcall votes starting almost immediately. As far as I am 
concerned, I would suggest we could yield 2 minutes to the Senator. The 
Senators who had that time were not here. It might inconvenience other 
Senators is my point, but as far as I am concerned, I have no objection 
to 2 minutes being added on at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, would the distinguished manager ask unanimous consent that 
there be no intervening debate on my amendment and that there be no 
amendment to the amendment?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri will now proceed to speak for 2 minutes on 
this amendment, after which there will be two consecutive rollcall 
votes without there being any discussion in between.


                           Amendment No. 3064

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would ask to be notified when 1 minute is 
gone. I want to give the prime sponsor the final minute.
  Basically, the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota says that 
the Clayton Act standards--will there be lessening of competition in 
any line of commerce--be applied to rail mergers. All of us have seen 
the case in airlines where there is no competition 

[[Page S 17596]]
from one nearby city to another and find the cost of that travel is 
greater than the cost of travel coast to coast. That is because 
competition is not in effect.
  I agree that we ought to get rid of Government regulation, but we 
need competition to protect the customers in the marketplace, and we 
can only have competition if the Transportation Board has to apply the 
same standards to rail mergers it does to other industries.
  I urge support of the Dorgan amendment. I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes for 
closing argument.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I addressed this amendment earlier, and I 
hope that the Senate will vote it down. It is a violation of the basic 
principles that we put together with a near unanimous vote, if not a 
unanimous vote, of the Commerce Committee. This amendment would simply 
place in the Justice Department a veto over things that should be 
properly decided by the independent body that used to be the Interstate 
Commerce Commission and now will be a body under the Department of 
Transportation.
  Once again I say, I think that the Justice Department should be a 
legal advisor, which they are, in the bill introduced by myself and the 
chairman of the committee, but this is a bad step in the wrong 
direction, and I hope the Senate will vote it down.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment, 
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. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I might ask the sponsor of the amendment if 
he wishes additional time.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate having expired, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of the 
Senator from North Dakota. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 585 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Biden
     Warner
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 3064) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3066

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). At this time, the Senate will 
proceed to vote on amendment No. 3066 offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 586 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Biden
     Warner
      
  So the amendment (No. 3066) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3065

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment proposed 
by Mrs. Boxer for herself and Mr. Harkin.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to point out to the 
Senate that article II, section 1, clause 6 of the Constitution states 
very succinctly:

       The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his 
     Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased 
     nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been 
     elected. . . .

  In addition to that, the people of the United States have ratified 
the 27th amendment to the Constitution, which states:

       No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
     Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an 
     election of Representatives shall have intervened.

  I intended to make a point of order that this amendment is 
unconstitutional. In the interests of time, I have been asked not to do 
that and to permit this amendment to be taken to conference. I want to 
put the Senate on notice that should this provision come back to the 
Senate in a conference report, I shall raise that point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senator 
from Alaska is not going to have us vote on the constitutionality of 
the amendment that is pending. In fact, we have passed a version of 
this already at least twice in this U.S. Senate.
  I think anyone who looks at the legislative history of why we moved 
not to change pay for Members of Congress until the next election knows 
it was because of pay raises, first.
  Second, I would point out to my friend that we did talk with many 
various attorneys on this--Senate legal counsel, we talked to CRS.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator have any such opinion from either of 
the agencies she just mentioned?
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will let me finish I will give him a 
synopsis of what they said and I will be happy to get that to the 
Senator in writing. There is divided opinion on this. It is a gray 
area. If the Senator read this 

[[Page S 17597]]
amendment, which I know he has done, there is nothing in this to say we 
are changing the pay. As a matter of fact, if you look at the last 
shutdown, every single Federal employee was made whole. The issue was 
would they be made whole, and many Senators feel, I think on both sides 
of the aisle, including Senator Snowe from Maine who actually wrote 
this with me, that it is very important we not treat ourselves in a 
different fashion.

  So, I say to my friend, I will be happy to send him the opinions and 
I will, in fact, monitor this myself. Because, I have to tell my 
friend, this issue is not getting serious attention. It has been kicked 
around and everyone says what a good idea it is, but it is never 
becoming law. I will say to my friend, the Senator from Iowa and I are 
very clearly of a mind that we are going to make this stick. We will 
work to make this constitutional. We think there is nothing in this 
that says the pay is changed. We feel there is a way we can even make 
that point clearer.
  But I will be glad to furnish my friend with these opinions over the 
next few days, as we get them, in writing.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator from Iowa for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to do so, yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will ask the Senator, since I am a cosponsor of this, 
am I of the understanding--this has passed before, has it not? At least 
twice before it passed in the Senate?
  Mrs. BOXER. Actually a harsher version of this has passed twice.
  Mr. HARKIN. And in both of those cases the President was not 
included, was he?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. The President has been included because, when I put 
this out the first time, the other side made that point. The President 
said he wants to be included. As a matter of fact, he thinks that is 
the appropriate course. And we did put the President in because the 
other side said they would not take it unless the President was in it.
  Mr. HARKIN. In other words, our friends on the Republican side said 
they would not take it unless the President was in it and now we are 
hearing the argument from the Republican side it is unacceptable 
because the President is in there, is that right?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. It feels like a runaround, to me.
  Mr. HARKIN. Article II of the Constitution says that the President's 
salary shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for 
which he shall have been elected. But amendment 27 is much different. 
The 27th amendment, we all know why that was adopted, and the language 
shows that deals with pay raises. Is that not correct?
  Mrs. BOXER. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is worded differently than article II of the 
Constitution because it states in there that the pay of Senators and 
Representatives, the compensation, shall not be varied during that 
period of time.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. So there is a difference between the wording of the 27th 
amendment and article II.
  The Senator answered my questions.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend my 
colleague from California for her excellent work and diligence in 
pursuing this important amendment.
  For the life of me I cannot understand what this is really all about. 
Late last year and earlier this year a hue and cry went up that Members 
of the Senate and the House ought to be treated the same as other 
people in this country. OSHA laws and all of these other things ought 
to apply to us as well as everyone else so we would know what ordinary 
people went through. We all voted for that. So we covered the Congress 
with these laws. I think the people of this country thought that was 
wise.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Just to correct the Record, there is one Senator who did 
not vote for that. That was the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think the Record will show that I did not say it was 
unanimous.
  Mr. BYRD. One Senator, no Member of the House voted against it. One 
Member of the Senate voted against it. I voted against it, and I do not 
regret my vote. I think time will prove me to have been at least 
partially right.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that the Senator from West Virginia did not 
vote for it, but we may have a difference of opinion on this since I 
believe the Congress should have been covered by the same laws, just 
like I think this also should cover us the same way.

  I find it more than passing strange that when the Government shuts 
down, as it recently did, that FBI agents, air traffic controllers, 
even our staff, all of our staff who work here, do not get paid. Most 
people thought that those who were not essential did not get paid, that 
the ones that went home did not get paid. I talked to a lot of my 
colleagues who did not know that those who were essential and went to 
work every day still did not get paid except for Senators and Members 
of the House.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. I assume the Senator knows it is because of a law passed 
by this Congress that put that into effect and that it was never 
exercised by any President before, but this President did exercise it. 
This President did, contrary to what President Carter did in 1977. He 
closed down the national parks. He closed down the various other 
essentials. But the concept was just to put pressure on Congress.
  If you want to get into a political argument here, I thought that the 
understanding was that we would make a statement, and that if it came 
back I would raise a point of order. If the Senator wants to have this 
debate now and go into the evening, I am more than willing to get some 
documents in here and have the debate now. It was my understanding we 
would have it, if it came back from the conference.
  Is what the Senator from Iowa saying is the Senator intends to say 
that the provisions I have raised do not cover this? I happen to be 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I share the 
Senator's feelings about putting people in the position where they are 
either told to go home or work and not get paid. But that is an act of 
Congress which I would like to get changed.
  But I do not intend to get beat around the head because I want to 
raise a point of order based on the Constitution of the United States. 
Are we going to have this bill go to conference tonight or are we going 
to have this debate?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not know. I cannot answer the Senator's question. I 
know I want to speak on this. I went to some extent and length to get 
here to talk on this tonight. I intend to have my say on it. I have the 
floor, and I intend to speak on it. I do not know how long it is going 
to take me. It may take me just a little bit, but I am going to have my 
say on it because I feel very strongly about it.
  Mr. President, once again the people of this country see Congress 
being treated differently than other people that work for the Federal 
Government. You know when you get laid off of a job and the plant 
closes down, you do not get paid. We have laws here that say when the 
Government closes down and we do not pass the appropriations bills, it 
is not a law. It is basically that we do not have any money to pay 
them.
  So I really do not know what law the Senator was talking about. When 
we do not pass the appropriations bills--and that deadline occurs at 
the end of the fiscal year and we do not have any money to run the 
Government--for those appropriations bills that have not been passed, 
those agencies shut down unless we have a continuing resolution. When 
that runs out, then, of course, there is no money to pay it.
  Well, there is a law that talks about essential personnel who have to 
show 

[[Page S 17598]]
up. For the life of me, I still do not understand how you can demand 
that someone come to work every day and still not pay them. I thought 
slavery went out of existence 130 some years ago in this country. I 
tell people this, and they are dumbfounded by it. I say, yes, the 
Federal Government can order people to come to work every day and not 
pay them. Imagine that: Order them to come to work and not pay them. 
But that is exactly what is happening. It is unfair.

  Quite frankly, I think it is unconstitutional. I do not know if 
anyone has ever tested it, but I do not think that is constitutional. 
Certainly, I think it is a violation of civil rights to have someone 
come to work and say, ``However, you are not being paid for that period 
for which you work.''
  So I think that we ought to cover Congress just as well as we cover 
other members of the Federal Government. We passed it two or three 
different times here. It always goes to conference, and then it gets 
lost. We know what kind of game that is. We passed it, and everyone 
says, ``Oh, yes, I voted to cover Congress just like everybody else, 
but something happened in that gray mist of the conference committee.''
  Well, I think the Congressional Accountability Act that we passed is 
a good bill. I know the Senator from West Virginia did not think so. 
But I think the vast majority of Congress obviously did think so. I 
think it is time that we cover ourselves the same way as other Federal 
workers. If there is a shutdown in the Government, and the 
appropriations bills have not been passed and other Federal workers are 
not being paid, whether they come to work or not, then I do not think 
Senators and Congressmen ought to be paid for the same period of time 
either.
  It is a basic issue of fairness and equity. You can cloak arguments 
in constitutionality. I do not want to violate the Constitution. But I 
think a clear reading of the 27th amendment and the reading of the 
history of the 27th amendment shows clearly that it was not intended to 
cover this. It was only intended to cover pay raises enacted by 
Congress.
  The Senator from Alaska may have--indeed, I think probably does--a 
valid point regarding article II of the Constitution. But I do not 
believe it is a valid point when it comes to the 27th amendment which 
talks about Members of the Congress.
  The continuing resolution I know did stipulate that all Federal 
workers could be paid in the next pay period.
  So, again, we have this odd system where we had the Government shut 
down and no one gets paid. They are not paid, but they are paid later. 
A lot of people get time off but still are going to be paid.
  We may be facing another shutdown of the Government on December 15. I 
do not know. I hope not. But we will be in a situation there again 
where Federal workers could be told to come to work every day and not 
get paid. When? During the height of the Christmas season when they 
have their bills to pay and, as I said, earlier, their mortgages to 
pay, their car payments to make, and Christmas presents to buy. And, 
yet, we are going to tell them, no, they do not get paid. But that is 
all right; Senators and Congressmen will get paid.
  It is, Mr. President, a basic issue of fairness and equity. I 
congratulate the Senator from California for pursuing this, and I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of it. I join with her in saying that, if it 
does not make it on this bill, there will be another one and another 
one and another one, and we will keep attaching it until finally we get 
something that must pass.
  This is an issue we should not let go of because it has to do, as I 
said, with basic fairness and equity. And we should not be treated any 
differently than any other Federal worker, I do not care where that 
Federal worker works, for what agency.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am not going to prolong the debate. 
Clearly, it is the intersection of the Antideficiency Act and our 
having reached the debt ceiling as enacted by Congress and the failure 
to have appropriations bills all occur at the same time that led to an 
Executive order of the President instructing Cabinet officers not to 
have other than essential people work. It was an act of the President 
of the United States himself in signing that Executive order that 
brought about everything that the Senator from Iowa has just complained 
about.
  Now, we would be more than happy in my committee to consider changing 
the law. I have said before I think it should be changed. And I do not 
see any reason why we should have a situation such as existed. We are 
not in a position where we are borrowing money to pay those people, but 
it was just done to put pressure on the Congress.
  At this time, however, I am not going to raise this point of order, 
but I again put the Senate on notice if it comes back from conference 
we will have a debate on the constitutionality and we will let the 
Congress and the Senate in particular determine whether it wants to 
enact an unconstitutional law.
  I take it without any question that the article II concept applies. 
Under the 27th amendment to the Constitution, if the Senator from Iowa 
wants to know how that would work, if we have such a collision on 
December 15, as we think we will have, and it extends beyond December 
31, the compensation of every Senator in this body would be varied 
because he or she would not have been paid the compensation we are 
committed to pay him or her for the year of 1995, and this would be a 
denial of the compensation to a Member of Congress in violation of the 
27th amendment.
  There may be a way we could do it, and I do not have any problem 
about doing it right, but it is not to be done by an amendment just 
thrown out in the Chamber every time something comes up to try and make 
the proposition that this Senate under our majority control is somehow 
or other treating Federal employees different than we are treating 
ourselves.
  That is not true. The laws that we are following were enacted before. 
The President of the United States followed those laws and signed an 
Executive order, and that is why people stayed home when they were told 
not to report to work and we are paying them, as we should, under the 
laws. But they are not covered by the Constitution as is the President 
of the United States and Members of Congress.

  I would be perfectly willing to continue the debate. I personally 
would like to vote on the amendment by voice vote, and we will discuss 
it later. But if the Senate wants to get into it, I will get a few 
tomes over here and we will get into chapter and verse of why this is 
unconstitutional legislation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am not going to devote chapter and 
verse, and I look forward to working with my friend from Alaska to make 
this right if he feels it can be improved. I just want to point one 
thing out. This is not something that was just put together. This 
particular amendment is something I have been working on with my 
colleagues for a long time because I saw this train wreck coming.
  A lot of people said, oh, it will never happen; everything will go 
smoothly. And I said, well, I am concerned because I had heard certain 
statements made, particularly in the other body, where I felt we were 
going to have a train wreck, and at that very moment when I had that 
sense I realized I wanted to make sure Members of Congress were treated 
the same way as other Federal employees.
  So I just want to say this is not sloppy work, I do not believe, on 
the part of Members of this body, including the Senator from Maine [Ms. 
Snowe], who actually really helped to write this. But I will work to 
make sure that every time we offer this up, because clearly we are 
going to have to do it again, we improve it in terms of clarity as far 
as its constitutionality.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just want the Record to be clear in response to my 
friend from Alaska. I do not think the Record will show I was saying it 
is because the Republicans are now in the majority. That is not the 
problem at all. I never said that and the Record will show I never said 
that. Basically, I have said all along this is an issue of basic 
fairness and equity, and it goes to the heart of whether or not we 
consider 

[[Page S 17599]]
ourselves some sort of different class of people in this country above 
everything else, where we can continue to get paid while other Federal 
workers do not during a period of time when the Government is shut 
down. People in this country understand that. I do not care who is in 
the majority, whether Democrats or Republicans. It is not fair and it 
ought not to be done that way. That is my basic point and I will 
continue to make that point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3065) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Chair asks that the Record 
show he opposes the Boxer amendment.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Grassley be added as a cosponsor to S. 1396.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the managers' amendment accepted earlier 
today to the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995 will 
greatly assist Vermont in maintaining its intercity passenger rail 
service. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me 
on this important amendment.
  Almost 1 year ago, residents of Vermont were informed that they would 
lose their passenger rail service. In an effort to cut costs and 
revitalize our struggling national passenger rail corporation, Amtrak 
announced a major restructuring. This effort included cutbacks in 
service, downsized management, streamlined operations, and retirement 
of older equipment. This plan also called for elimination of certain 
routes, including the Montrealer, which had served Vermont for many 
years.
  Ending Vermont's connection to our national passenger rail system 
would certainly have hurt our small State. An integral component of our 
transportation infrastructure, Amtrak brought skiers, business people, 
and leaf peepers to our beautiful State. In addition, Amtrak allows 
residents of Vermont to travel economically to nearby destinations and 
across the country.
  In an effort to save this service, I worked with Senator Leahy, 
Governor Dean, the Vermont State Legislature, and many dedicated 
Vermont citizens to develop a plan to continue passenger rail in 
Vermont. Amtrak became an active partner in assisting with this goal, 
and early last spring the new Vermonter began service from Washington, 
DC to Burlington, VT.
  The Vermonter has become a model for how Amtrak and States can work 
together to preserve passenger rail service. Monthly ridership on the 
Vermonter has increased over 60 percent since April. The train allows 
residents of New York City to reach the ski slopes of Vermont in a few 
hours. A baggage car was added to the train, with state-of-the-art ski 
and bike racks designed by Vermont crafts people and Vermont-made food 
products are served in the dining car. Vermonter's are proud of this 
train and we will do all we can to see it survive for the long term.
  The plan establishing the Vermonter required the State of Vermont to 
pay any costs over and above the revenue generated by the train. For 
1995, the State agreed to pay $750,000 to support the train. Like all 
States, Vermont responsibly maintains a balanced budget. This task is 
becoming more and more difficult, as there are increasing demands on 
the State to provide services.
  To assist States such as Vermont, Senator Roth offered an amendment 
to the National Highway System Designation Act, NHS, which would have 
granted States the flexibility to use highway funds to support Amtrak 
service. This effort had the strong backing of many State legislatures 
and the National Governors Association. When brought to a vote in June, 
the amendment passed by an overwhelming margin here in the Senate, 
giving States hope for preserving their passenger rail service. 
However, during conference negotiations on the NHS bill, Senate leaders 
were forced by the House to drop this important provision.
  My amendment will allow Vermont to use unobligated highway funds to 
pay its portion of the Vermonter's operating costs. In fiscal year 
1996, Vermont will obtain over $71 million under the Federal-aid 
highway program. This funding comes from the highway trust fund, paid 
for by motor fuel taxes. Vermonter's pay into the trust fund each time 
they fill their cars with gasoline. I believe these same Vermonters 
would strongly support using this funding to maintain our passenger 
rail service.
  All States should be granted this flexibility, and the success in 
utilizing this flexibility in Vermont should prove to skeptics the 
value of giving all States the authority to spend their Federal 
transportation dollars to support passenger rail.
  Mr. President, I hope in the future we are successful in providing 
this flexibility to all States. But for now, without the authority 
provided by my amendment, Vermont may risk losing the Vermonter. This 
would be a tragedy.
  I thank my colleagues for considering this provision, and I 
appreciate their support.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, throughout this Congress, a great deal of 
discussion has been devoted to a review of existing agencies and 
functions. The budget resolution and the Department of Transportation 
appropriations bill called for the elimination of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission. S. 1396 sunsets the Interstate Commerce Commission 
and the Federal Maritime Commission and creates a new intermodal board 
within the Department of Transportation. I believe S. 1396 has taken 
the right steps to provide for reform while retaining a competitive 
atmosphere for railroad, motor carrier, and shipping industries.
  I have been a strong proponent over the years for rail reform that 
provides an atmosphere for a strong rail industry as well as retaining 
a competitive balance for small shippers. I am particularly concerned 
about the impact of changes upon small shippers, including the small 
grain handlers, shippers and processors of Kansas and the Midwest.
  The legislation before us retains important provisions that have been 
provided in the past to small shippers while reducing unnecessary 
regulatory requirements. I believe S. 1396 more adequately addresses 
the concern of small shippers by providing common carrier obligations, 
protections on agriculture contracting authority, notice procedures for 
rate increases, and abandonment procedures. In addition, protections 
are provided for individuals who lose their jobs due to mergers or 
acquisitions. For these reasons, S. 1396 has gained bipartisan support 
and deserves passage.
  The railroad industry is going through some interesting times. The 
Burlington Northern/Santa Fe merger coupled with the proposed Union 
Pacific/Southern Pacific merger has created concern about the impact of 
these mergers on shippers. Shippers face unique challenges as railroads 
merge, creating less options and uncertain futures. Under these 
circumstances, it becomes increasingly important to ensure an 
atmosphere where economically viable competition is allowed to exist. 
The mergers being proposed are of great concern for several States, 
including Kansas. I believe these mergers can accomplish a strong base 
for the various industries and small businesses they serve, however, 
the impacts of the merger must be closely monitored. The reduction in 
the overall number of railroads should not mean a reduction in services 
to those who depend on these services the most.
  I would like to thank Senator Pressler and Senator Exon for their 
efforts on this legislation and urge your support.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission Sunset Act, and I would like to thank the chairman, 
the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for his interest in, and 
assistance, in putting language in the bill that addresses the serious 
problem of trucker fatigue.
  The bill would place the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] on a 
time line for publishing regulations related to trucker fatigue. The 
purpose of 

[[Page S 17600]]
this language is to move the decisionmaking process forward.
  What this language in section 216 will do is require FHWA to issue an 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPR] dealing with fatigue-
related issues such as 8 hours of continuous sleep after 10 hours of 
driving, loading and unloading operations, and rest and recovery cycles 
no later than March 1, 1996. This would be followed by a notice of 
proposed rulemaking [NPR] within 1 year and a final rulemaking within 2 
years.
  It is estimated, Mr. President, that truck driver fatigue may be a 
contributing factor in as many as 30 to 40 percent of all heavy truck 
accidents.
  FHWA has been looking at the issue of trucker fatigue since the 
1970's. I believe it is time we moved from studying the issue to making 
decisions about what is to be done to reduce the number of accidents 
related to fatigue. I know that regulations alone will not stop these 
tragic accidents, we need increased education, we need increased 
awareness and better enforcement as well. But we can set an example and 
start making changes in laws and regulations--some of them adopted 60 
years ago--to improve safety on our highways.
  The Office of Motor Carrier Safety currently has six studies underway 
on tired truckers. Three of them will be completed this year: Fitness 
for Duty Testing, Multiple Trailer Combination Vehicle Driver Fatigue, 
and Stress and Rest Areas, and one, Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study 
will be completed next spring. And I would like to thank the chairman 
again for arranging a series of staff briefings on these studies, at my 
request. I believe it is important that this committee stay abreast of 
the work being done in this area so that we may better formulate 
legislative responses, where necessary.
  In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] released 
a study in January, 1995 on trucker fatigue that called on FHWA to 
complete rulemaking within 2 years on issues related to trucker 
fatigue, so the bill's language is in keeping with NTSB's 
recommendation.
  By establishing a time line for FHWA, we are requiring that the 
decisionmaking process begin on this important issue. There is a lot 
more to be done in this area, but the beginning of the rulemaking 
process is a big step in the right direction.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge any Senators who have any final 
amendments to come to the floor. I understand one Senator may offer an 
amendment, at which time I hope we can pass this bill by unanimous 
consent. I think we are prepared on this side of the aisle to pass this 
bill. But as I understand it, Senator Ashcroft may have an amendment.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. 3067

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3067.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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:

       On page 413, after line 14, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) The remedies provided in this part, concerning 
     matters covered by this part with respect to the 
     transportation of household goods by motor carriers are 
     exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or 
     State law.''

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to provide for a 
fair and uniform way of compensating individuals, shippers of household 
goods for damage to those goods and to ensure that there is a fair and 
uniform way of making sure that those damages can be received by 
shippers of household goods.
  Interstate commerce involves the transmission of goods from one 
jurisdiction to another. Something shipped in California may well cross 
numerous States on its way to Connecticut. It is important that we do 
not have the responsibility for those who ship goods to try and prove 
where damage happened to the goods if there are damages to the goods. 
It is important that we do not have to try and impose on those who are 
the carriers of the goods some ability to defend about whether or not 
there was negligence.
  There is in this amendment, and the meaning of this amendment, a 
requirement that if goods are damaged, that no person whose goods have 
been damaged has to prove that the damages were caused by the 
negligence of the carrier or, otherwise, by the improper activities of 
the carrier. There is an automatic right of the person who ships the 
goods to recover the value of the goods, and that would be uniform.
  Absent that uniformity, there are other things which might exist. For 
instance, normally, in order to recover against someone who has damaged 
something, you have to prove negligence. And I do not think that people 
who ship goods are in a position to prove negligence. They were not in 
possession of the goods. They usually were not with the goods. They 
were not in the area where the goods were damaged. They would have a 
hard time proving that.
  So, this measure would provide that you do not have to prove 
negligence, that if you deliver the goods to the shipper, the household 
goods were being shipped across the country, and they were damaged, 
that you could automatically recover the value of the goods without 
proving negligence, without having to show that there was a particular 
substandard way of dealing with the goods on the part of the carrier 
involved.
  In return for the concession that the shipper of the goods, the 
person who sends the goods, does not have to prove negligence, the 
damages are limited to the value of the goods. You cannot recover 
emotional harm or pain and suffering because of the anguish of learning 
that your Aunt Millie's vase was crushed in the shipment. You can only 
get the value of the vase.
  So, the carrier is protected from having to pay some very subjective 
damages, but the person who ships the goods is guaranteed that if the 
goods are damaged, that those goods can be replaced because of the 
strict liability on the part of the carrier. This is a good system. It 
is a system which has long worked. It ought to be enshrined in this 
statute.
  Now, the alternative is to have States create different laws about 
what kinds of recovery could be made by individuals whose goods were 
damaged. You have the potential of someone who ships something from 
California to Connecticut trying to prove that their goods were damaged 
in the most generous State or that their goods otherwise were valuable 
so that if that State allowed for pain and suffering or emotional 
distress, that those kinds of damages ought to be considered.
  In my judgment, such damages ought not to be considered because they 
provide an incentive for forum shopping, people trying to make sure and 
prove that goods were damaged in one State as opposed to another. They 
subject shippers to unreasonable requirements to try and prove where 
the damage happened or where it did not happen. And we would be well-
served in regulating interstate commerce to say that the person 
shipping the goods does not have to prove negligence, but the person 
who is carrying the goods is not responsible for a level of damages 
which is above and beyond the value of the goods, which would include 
emotional distress or other kinds of subjective things which are very 
difficult to prove and the amount of which could go into very high 
levels of expenditure above and beyond the value of the goods.

  It is with that in mind that I have proposed the amendment, and I 
believe the amendment would be something that should be included in 
this measure.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have on this side not seen the amendment 
before it was proposed tonight. As I understand it, there may be some 
on our side, particularly on the Commerce 

[[Page S 17601]]
Committee, that would object to the Senator's amendment. I am put in 
the position of trying to secure some advice and counsel now from at 
least the ranking member of the Commerce Committee. So, we will be 
delayed for some time because he is in a conference, and we will have 
to try to reach him and see what we can do.
  So, Mr. President, I have no alternative but to suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.


                      Amendment 3063, As Modified

              (Purpose: To modify the manager's amendment)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to 
modify the manager's amendment. This amendment just changes one word, 
and it has been agreed to by both sides of the aisle.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 3 of the amendment, between lines 14 and 15, insert 
     the following: ``On page 311, line 16, insert `reasonable' 
     after `a'.''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

                          ____________________