[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.

                          ____________________