[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9275-S9280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 5142
(Purpose: To transfer previously appropriated funds among
highway projects in Minnesota)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the current amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senator Wellstone and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for Mr.
Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 5142.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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 IV, insert the following:
SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF FUNDS AMONG MINNESOTA HIGHWAY PROJECTS.
(A) In General.--Such portions of the amounts appropriated
for the Minnesota highway projects described in subsection
(b) that have not been obligated as of December 31, 1996,
may, at the option of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, be made available to carry out the 34th
Street Corridor Project in Moorhead, Minnesota, authorized by
section 149(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17;
101 Stat. 181) (as amended by section 340(a) of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-59;
109 Stat. 607)).
(b) Projects.--The Minnesota highway projects described in
this subsection are--
(1) the project for Saint Louis County authorized by
section 149(a)(76) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform
Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17; 101
Stat. 192); and
(2) the project for Nicollet County authorized by item 159
of section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2056).
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by
both sides. We are prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5142) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 5143
(Purpose: To provide conditions for the implementation of
regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation that
require the sounding of a locomotive horn at highway-rail
grade crossings)
[[Page S9276]]
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Wyden of Oregon and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for Mr.
Wyden, for himself and Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Moseley-Braun,
proposes an amendment numbered 5143.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. . TRAIN WHISTLE REQUIREMENTS.
No funds shall be made available to implement the
regulations issued under section 20153(b) of title 49, United
States Code, requiring audible warnings to be sounded by a
locomotive horn at highway-rail grade crossings, unless--
(1) in implementing the regulations or providing an
exception to the regulations under section 20153(c) of such
title, the Secretary of Transportation takes into account,
among other criteria--
(A) the interests of the communities that have in effect
restrictions on the sounding of a locomotive horn at highway-
rail grade crossings as of July 30, 1996; and
(B) the past safety record at each grade crossing involved;
and
(2) whatever the Secretary determines that supplementary
safety measures (as that term is defined in section 20153(a)
of title 49, United States Code) are necessary to provide an
exception referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary--
(A) having considered the extent to which local communities
have established public awareness initiatives and highway-
rail crossing traffic law enforcement programs allows for a
period of not to exceed 3 years, beginning on the date of
that determination, for the installation of those measures;
and
(B) works in partnership with affected communities to
provide technical assistance and to develop a reasonable
schedule for the installation of those measures.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to give
local communities time to work with the Department of Transportation
and the Federal Railroad Administration to find grade crossing safety
mechanisms that meet their needs.
Without this amendment, the Federal Government, beginning in November
of this year, will impose a one-size-fits-all standard on every
community in America with a railroad grade crossing. Many communities
have banned the blowing of train whistles. But the Federal Government
would preempt these local laws and impose a requirement that trains
begin blowing their whistles within one quarter mile of any crossing
that does not have the most expensive grade crossing safety equipment.
Without this amendment, every community in America that doesn't have
the fancy, top-of-the-line grade crossing safety gates will be forced
to go out and immediately spend upwards of $300,000+ to install this
equipment, or face Federal preemption. This means small communities of
several hundred will have to find $300,000 for this equipment, or see
their local train whistle bans preempted by the Federal Government.
Under current law, on November 2 of this year, all towns without
complex and expensive grade safety requirements will be required to
lift their train whistle bans. What this means for some towns in Oregon
and across the country, is that day and night the communities are going
to be barraged with train whistles.
These communities are essentially being blackmailed by cacophony into
raising taxes and putting up exorbitant amounts of money to install
highly sophisticated safety measures--when in many cases, much simpler
measures would have the same desired results.
My friends, there is a better way to do this. Safety is paramount,
but under these train whistle requirements, what we are seeing is
cookie-cutter solutions to safety that may not be appropriate for all
communities.
Many communities can make substantial improvements in safety through
public education, highway markings, and signage, but right now it looks
like their only choice is a costly four quadrant gates--otherwise, they
are going to be doomed to whistling trains.
The original legislation, while placing an important emphasis on
train safety, left out one key issue and that is community involvement
in the decision making on train whistle bans.
My very simple amendment would encourage the Department of
Transportation to work with communities to develop effective local
solutions.
First, the Department would be required to take into account the
interests of affected communities and the past safety record at the
grade crossing involved when determining how to implement safety
requirements.
Second, where the Department determines that a grade crossing is not
sufficiently safe, my amendment requires them to work in partnership
with communities to develop reasonable safety requirements.
In Oregon, there are two communities in particular that are concerned
about the train whistle ban requirements, Pendleton and the Dalles. In
these communities, trains may pass through certain neighborhoods every
few minutes. Trains are required to blow their whistles one-quarter
mile before reaching a grade crossing. Clearly this is a recipe for
chaos.
I think that it is important that the Department of Transportation
work with these communities to develop effective and timely safety
measures, instead of mandating costly and perhaps unnecessary grade
crossing equipment or threaten them with nonstop whistles.
My amendment will do just this and I urge the Senate to support its
inclusion in this legislation.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, this amendment provides important
direction to the Department of Transportation with regard to the
implementation of a provision of the Swift Rail Development Act of
1994.
Under this 1994 law, the Federal Government is required to develop
regulations that direct trains to sound their whistles at all hours of
the day and night at most at-grade railroad crossings around the
country, unless the local communities can afford to act on a specified
list of alternatives. The Swift Rail Development Act will require
trains to blow their whistles at approximately 168,000 railroad
crossings in the U.S. and more than 9,900 in Illinois--including about
2,000 in the Chicago area and 1,000 in Cook County alone.
This provision was inserted into the 1994 law without debate or
discussion. Communities had no input into the process, even though it
will be communities that will be most affected.
I am acutely aware of the need to improve the safety of railroad
crossings. A recent tragedy in my home State involving a train and a
school bus in Fox River Grove, IL, killed seven children and shattered
the lives of many more families. According to statistics published by
the Department of Transportation, someone is hit by a train every 90
minutes. In 1994, there were nearly 2,000 injuries and 615 fatalities
caused by accidents at railroad crossings around the country. Clearly,
ensuring the safety of our rail crossings is imperative.
The Swift Rail Development Act mandates that trains sound their
whistles at every railroad crossing around the country that does not
conform to specific safety standards. It does not take into
consideration the affect of this action on communities, nor does it
require the Department of Transportation to take into consideration the
past safety records at affected at-grade crossings.
Requiring trains to blow their whistles at every crossing would have
a considerable affect on people living near these crossings. It is
unclear, however, that there would be a commensurate improvement in
safety. In Fox River Grove, for example, the engineer blew his whistle
as he approached the road crossing, but the school bus did not move.
At many railroad crossings in Illinois and elsewhere, accidents never
or rarely occur, while some crossings are the sites of frequent
tragedies. Just as we do not impose the same safety mandates on every
traffic intersection in the country, we should not universally require
trains to blow their whistles at every railroad crossing in the
country.
When transportation officials decide to make safety improvements at a
highway intersection, they consider a wide range of factors, including
its accident history, traffic patterns, and conditions in the
surrounding area. Every intersection is a case study.
[[Page S9277]]
There are guidelines, but not inflexible rules.
The approach to railroad crossing safety should be no less reasoned.
The train whistle should be one tool in the transportation safety
official's regulatory repertoire; it should not be the only one.
Because every community has a different history and different needs, I
do not believe that a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach to railroad
crossing safety is appropriate.
In Dupage County, IL, for example, there are 159 public railroad
crossings. In 1994, there were accidents at only 18 of these crossings,
and 45 have not experienced an accident in at least 40 years. On one of
METRA's commuter rail lines, 64 trains per day pass through 35
crossings. In the last 5 years, there have been a total of three
accidents and one fatality along the entire length of this corridor.
Every one of the crossings on this METRA commuter line has a whistle
ban in place to preserve the quiet of the surrounding communities. The
imposition of a Federal train whistle mandate on this line would,
therefore, have a considerable negative impact on the quality of life
of area residents. The safety benefits, on the other hand, would, at
best, be only marginal.
METRA's Chicago to Fox Lake line has 54 crossings and is used by 86
trains per day. A whistle ban is in place on 37 of these crossings.
Between 1991 and 1995, there were a total of 13 accidents on this line,
with five injuries and one fatality.
In Des Plaines, IL, one of my constituents reports that she lives
near five crossings. In the last 11 years, there has been only one
accident at any of these crossings. She will hear a train whistle at
least 64 times per day and night.
In Arlington Heights, IL, there are four crossings in the downtown
area about 300 feet away from one another. 5,400 residents live within
one-half mile of downtown, and 3,500 people commute to the area every
day for work. Sixty-three commuter and four freight trains pass through
Arlington Heights every weekday between the hours of 5:30 am and 1:15
am.
Train whistles are blown at nearly 150 decibels, and depending on the
weather, they can be heard for miles. According to one Burlington
Northern railroad conductor, a train traveling from Downers Grove, IL
to La Vergne, IL--a distance of approximately 12 miles--would have to
blow its whistle 124 times. 144 trains travel this route every day.
Mr. President, the residents of these communities, and others across
Illinois and the country, are confused by the 1994 law that will
require train whistles to sound at all hours of the day and night in
their communities--in some cases hundreds of times per day--at railroad
crossings that have not experienced accidents in decades, if ever.
Under a Federal train whistle mandate, home-owners in many of these
communities would experience a decline in their property values, or an
increase in their local taxes in order to pay for expensive safety
improvements. The 1994 law, in this respect, represents either a taking
of private property value, or an unfunded mandate on local communities.
The train whistle mandate places the entire burden on the community.
Trains will keep rolling through quiet, densely populated towns at all
hours of the night, and both the railroads and the passengers will
experience no disruptions.
In aviation, by contrast, airline flights are routinely routed to
minimize the disturbance to surrounding communities. Flight curfews are
established, and restrictions are placed on certain types of aircraft
in efforts to minimize the disruption to area residents. These
restrictions place burdens on airlines, passengers, and the
communities; it is a joint effort.
The pending amendment provides the Department of Transportation with
important direction on how to implement the train whistle law in a more
rational and flexible manner. It directs the Secretary of
Transportation to consider the interests of affected communities, as
well as the past safety records at affected railroad crossings. The
concerns of local communities must be heard--not just the sounds of
train whistles.
It also addresses safety concerns. In situations where railroad
crossings are determined not to meet the supplementary safety
requirements, communities will have up to a maximum of 3 years to
install additional safety measures before the train whistle mandate
takes affect. In these situations, the Department of Transportation
will work in partnership with affected communities to develop a
reasonable schedule for the installation of additional safety measures.
Mr. President, I have been concerned about the implementation of the
Swift Rail Development Act since Karen Heckmann, one of my
constituents, first brought it to my attention more than a year ago.
Since that time, I have spoken and met with mayors, officials, and
constituents from Illinois communities, and visited areas that would be
most severely affected. In response to their concerns, I have written
several letters to, and met with Transportation Secretary Pena and
other officials numerous times, and have been working with the
Department of Transportation to ensure that they implement the 1994 law
in a manner that both works for communities and protects safety.
This amendment provides important congressional direction to the
Department of Transportation that is consistent with the ongoing
discussions that I, and other members of Congress, continue to have
with the Department. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this
important amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I was pleased to join with Senator
Wyden to cosponsor an amendment concerning an issue of great importance
to a number of my constituents. Many of them have contacted me about
the 1994 Swift Rail Development Act [SRDA]. As you know, the SRDA
allows for Federal preemption of local train whistle bans so that all
trains would begin sounding their whistles one-quarter mile before
reaching any grade crossing.
My home State of Massachusetts has 88 grade crossings in some 27
communities whose whistle bans would be preempted by this law. Many of
these communities have good safety record: From January 1988 through
June 1994, the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] noted 34 accidents
involving one fatality and 15 injuries at these crossings. Some of
these communities are strongly opposed to Federal preemption of their
whistle bans.
Their concerns were not allayed by FRA officials at a meeting that
took place in Beverly on October 25, 1995 to discuss the SRDA. A member
of my staff reported that many who attended desired outright repeal of
the SRDA. As Christopher Smallhorn of Beverly Farms wrote:
I doubt your representative will transmit to you the
feeling of frustration and anger taken away by those
taxpayers attending the meeting.
A sampling of my correspondence from other constituents reveals that
others share Mr. Smallhorn's concerns. John J. Evans from Beverly Farms
wrote:
This proposed new regulation * * * will render my home
uninhabitable as my house sits between two grade crossings.
Fay Senner wrote:
The safety at these railway crossings is a local issue and
one that we have been able to manage effectively in the 150
years that railroads have been a part of life in Acton.
Scott and Sharon Marlow of Andover wrote:
My daughter was born with a cardiac muscle defect and I do
not even want to think about the anguish loud whistle blasts
would have caused my family or any other family with a heart
condition.
William C. Mullin, chairman of the Acton Board of Selectmen, wrote:
If train whistles once again pierce the peace and quiet of
our community, the anger of our residents will be quickly
felt.
Richard and Nancy Silva of Beverly wrote:
The horn blowing will change the value of our home and add
more stress in an already stressful environment.
Diane M. Allen, chairman of the Wilmington Board of Selectmen, wrote:
We do not wish to have the Federal government set
unjustifiable standards for our local roads nor do we want
those decisions of our duly elected officials to be
overridden by the Federal government.
Nevertheless, the safety of railroad grade crossings is clearly a
real issue, as the October 1995 school bus accident in Illinois sadly
illustrates.
The FRA has released a study showing that accidents occurred at fewer
[[Page S9278]]
than 6 percent of the Nation's grade crossings where whistle bans are
in effect. A one-size-fits-all approach is therefore not appropriate. I
am thus proud to cosponsor this amendment, which contains a more
sensible strategy for dealing with this issue, and I compliment the
Senator from Oregon and his staff for bringing it before the Senate.
Knowing the impact that the SRDA is having on communities and
constituents in both Massachusetts and other States, I look forward to
working with the FRA and my colleagues to ensure the safety of grade
crossings without hurting the quality of life in our communities. I
urge my colleagues to join in supporting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5143) was agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. I move to table the motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I indicate at this point, that with one
exception, we have completed all the Members' amendments that we know
about and were part of the unanimous-consent agreement we reached last
night, which means the only amendments we have left, namely, two
relevant amendments for Senator Lott, six amendments on terrorism for
Senator Lott, and the McCain amendment, as I understand it, and the
Biden amendments, five of them on antiterrorism. We are about ready to
have a completion of the Bradley amendment.
We have completed all but the antiterrorism issue. Mr. President,
first of all, it is not relevant to this bill in terms of it being
legislative action on an appropriation. I am very hopeful that we can
have an agreement reached to remove that encumbrance to completing this
bill and having final passage.
I believe that is the only other vote that we will have to have on
this bill. We can do that following the vote that we are about ready to
take up, on a tabling motion of the Baucus amendment.
I urge any Member or any Member's staff person who has knowledge of
these amendments that we had included in our unanimous-consent
agreement, if they have any different viewpoint, or if they have any
question, they better address those questions during the next vote and
come to Senator Lautenberg and my desk here to go over the list to make
sure they have been taken care of in our efforts to cover the remaining
business.
Otherwise, we will proceed to end in a couple of colloquies for the
other two amendments, and hopefully by that time the leadership can
give us some indication of what kind of an agreement may have been
reached at a meeting that began at 6 o'clock tonight relating to the
issue of antiterrorism.
Amendment No. 5141
Mr. HATFIELD. With that, Mr. President, under the unanimous consent,
I move to table the Baucus 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. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table, the amendment No. 5141.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bumpers
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
DeWine
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnston
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Nickles
Nunn
Robb
Santorum
Sarbanes
Specter
Thompson
Warner
Wellstone
NAYS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bradley
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Ford
Frahm
Gorton
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Pryor
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5141) was rejected.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have one colloquy to be delivered on
the floor between Senator Bradley and the leader, Senator Lott. Then we
have the possibility of another perfecting amendment, or an amendment
dealing with the subject we have just failed to table; we have a Cohen
amendment to be dispensed with, and then we are ready for third
reading.
Amendment No. 5141
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Baucus amendment.
Is there further debate on the Baucus amendment?
Mr. HATFIELD. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the
amendment at the moment to engage in a colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not
object to proceed with business outside the scope of the Baucus
amendment, but I want to preserve the right to offer or to join with
others in offering an amendment on that subject. So I just want to put
Members on notice that this bill is not going to go forward until we
have that opportunity to do so.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think I indicated the other part of
the business was to complete that issue, so we are not cutting off
anybody's right to offer an amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have placed, I think, three or four spots
for amendments.
Mr. HATFIELD. Five.
Mr. BIDEN. Five spots. I want to report that due to the great work of
the full committee, Senator Hatch and I have elements of a bipartisan
agreement on terrorism, and as a consequence of that I am not going to
offer any of the amendments on this legislation.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator. That will also affect five or six
other amendments on both sides.
Mr. BIDEN. I understand they have placed five or six slots based on
that. I do not think there will be any amendments on terrorism on this
legislation.
Mr. HATFIELD. Senator Bradley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Baucus amendment is set
aside.
Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I have an amendment that deals with
newborns and insurance coverage for newborns, a bill that Senator
Kassebaum and I introduced last year. It is a bill that had been
improved greatly with the help of Senator Frist and Senator DeWine and
a bill that I care deeply about.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
[[Page S9279]]
Mr. BRADLEY. I am pleased to yield to the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. I would like to say I have been aware of this issue the
Senator from New Jersey is discussing. There was an attempt made
earlier to get it cleared for unanimous consent. We did not get that
done. But I want to tell the Senator I will be glad to work with him to
get this issue considered the first week in September. I think it is
something that we should take up and have an opportunity to consider.
In order to help expedite this legislation but also because I think he
has a good point, I want to make the further statement I will work with
him to get that accomplished.
Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the majority leader for his statement and his
commitment, and I will not pursue the amendment based on what he has
said. I think that Senator Frist of Tennessee concurs.
I simply want the Senate to know that this is an enormously important
issue in terms of children who are born and forced out of the hospital
in the first 24 hours instead of the first 48 hours, and we hope to
revisit this issue when we come back in September.
I am prepared to yield to Senator Frist if he has anything to say on
this amendment.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to say that we
have worked long and hard on this bill, the Newborn's and Mother's
Health Protection Act of 1996. It is a bill we worked on in a
bipartisan way and provides a safe haven for mothers with young
children. I am delighted the majority leader----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold. The Senate will be
in order. The Senator from Tennessee deserves to be heard. The Senate
will be in order.
Mr. FRIST. Thank you, Mr. President.
This bill does provide a safe haven for mothers and young children
over a 48-hour period. It is a bill we have worked on in a bipartisan
way, and do appreciate the consideration the majority leader has given
to take this up after Labor Day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I think we have two final technical
amendments to dispose of?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. We are also reviewing a matter with
the Senator from Maine and the Senator from New Hampshire. I hope we
will be able to have that resolved.
Mr. HATFIELD. I believe the Senator from Maine said he would withdraw
his?
Mr. CHAFEE. No, I do not believe that is correct.
Mr. HATFIELD. OK, let us do the technical amendments.
Amendments Nos. 5144 and 5145, En Bloc
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a technical correction to the
bill that simply changes the wording without changing any sums; and one
that makes reference to direct loans. We have cleared this with both
sides. I send them to the desk for their consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the
amendments en bloc? Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes
amendments numbered 5144 and 5145, en bloc.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 5144
(Purpose: To make a technical correction)
On page 19, strike lines 10 through 12 and insert ``For the
cost of direct loans, $8,000,000, as authorized by 23 United
States Code 108.''
____
amendment no. 5145
(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the bill)
On page 60, line 20, strike ``103-311'' and insert ``103-
331''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 5144 and 5145), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
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 might indicate following any action to
be taken on the subject of the Baucus amendment, we are ready for third
reading of the bill and final passage. I thank the Senators on the
antiterrorism amendments, of which we had 11, for reaching an agreement
to not pursue them on this particular bill but to have them as a matter
of business to be taken up at a later time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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 move, after final passage, the Senate
insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoint conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I cannot hear
what the Senator has asked for in his request.
Mr. HATFIELD. I will repeat. It would be to move ahead on the premise
we are going to pass this bill in final passage in a few moments, and
to go ahead and appoint the conferees.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have to object. That is getting a little
ahead of the game.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD. The only reason I do object, I think that request should
wait, I say this with apologies to my dear friend, until the final vote
on the bill occurs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I simply rise to inquire of the Senator
from Oregon when we might expect final passage on the legislation? I
have a couple of young children who go to bed at 9 o'clock, and it
would be kind of nice to get home.
It appears we are through the end of the amendment process. I had a
couple of amendments that I referenced that I did not offer. I wanted
to expedite the process of this legislation. But if we are near
completion, I wonder if the Senator can inform us when he can expect
final passage.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will respond that we have a piece of
unfinished business before we can go to third reading. The Baucus
amendment was not tabled, and we have not disposed of that amendment.
There is a process now, I am hoping, of finding some accommodation in
order to dispose of the Baucus amendment.
The Senator from North Dakota certainly made a correct point. We
should have had this bill passed yesterday. If we are going to do the
HUD-VA and independent agencies tomorrow, Friday and Saturday, we have
to get this bill behind us. So consequently, we are waiting for that
occasion to accommodate the Senators who have an interest in that. As
soon as that resolved issue is brought to us, we will do that and third
reading.
Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's response. None of us enjoy
waiting. On behalf of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who
has a young daughter who expects to wait up for him as well, to the
extent we can move ahead, I think all of us would appreciate it.
Mr. HATFIELD. I might say, we have a parliamentary situation beyond
an accommodation here to the Senators. We are in a parliamentary
situation. We cannot go to third reading until there is a final
disposition of either adopting the Baucus amendment or modifying the
Baucus amendment. So that is where we are locked in.
[[Page S9280]]
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation and the ranking member for their efforts. I believe we
are about ready to wrap up this very important appropriations bill.
There are good-faith negotiations underway right now. I am hopeful in
the next few minutes we will have an agreement on how to deal with the
Baucus-Gramm matter. I think we have a reasonable suggestion that can
be agreed to. Certainly we hope so.
Then when that is done, we will be able to go to third reading and
final passage of the transportation appropriations bill tonight. There
has been some suggestion that we carry this over until tomorrow, but as
we know, things have a way of growing overnight.
The chairman and the ranking member are absolutely right, as we are
very close to completing this appropriations bill. So if Members will
be patient a few more minutes, I think we can get it completed and go
to final passage.
____________________