Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that is also my understanding.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I agree. I think it is a wise decision and I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Arizona recommended it. It will give the committees an opportunity to do what we wanted them to do in the first place, very frankly, and the reason for the language in the bill. So I think it is a good idea.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is our understanding that the Sioux Falls airport, in fact, will no longer be considered a small hub according to preliminary data compiled by the Department of Transportation for 1994.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I, too, think the conferees could consider this request when it considers the section 3 funding.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to join in the colloquy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2332 (Purpose: To remove the State of Hawaii from an exclusion relating to payments to air carriers)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2339

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have a question on the amendment, and I would ask if we can withhold action until we clear up a question we have. If the Senator from Vermont will agree, perhaps we can move along to the next amendment while we chat about what we see here. So I ask unanimous consent that the Jeffords amendment, for the moment, be set aside to consider other amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As far as I am concerned, if I may, Mr. President, I am removing the objection that I had put forward before so that the Senator from South Dakota can offer an amendment. There are a couple of questions that I would like to deal with, so if the Senator would not mind, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman. aip funding

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there remains a colloquy between the Democratic leader and myself which we will have printed in the Record. As far as I can see, I think that takes care of it, with the exception of the two matters----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The discussion that evolves is one that often is decided in this kind of a forum when the pressure is on to close out a bill. And we look at new ideas that have not been considered. And I regard my relationship with the Senator from South Dakota, as well as the Senator from Nebraska, as good and friendly. And I certainly do not want to be contentious. But, Mr. President, the fact that suddenly now we are discussing Amtrak, and whether it is in New Jersey. We do not have essential air services in New Jersey. Mr. President, that will not resolve the issue as far as this Senator is concerned. We want to discuss it. I am absolutely amenable to discussing it. I do think that out of respect for those of us who have been working on this Transportation appropriations bill, after the budget resolution zeroed out local rail freight, that we ought to have a chance to discuss it. I do not want to diminish the opportunity for either of the proponents of this amendment. It is to service their States. That is something that is always kept in front of us. However, I think it is fair to say that adding this at the end, and before we clear the other amendments that have to be considered, is an inappropriate thing to do at this time. People want to close up shop. And that is not the primary reason for doing anything. But there is a precedent. Others have managed to get their amendments in place. And I would like to have a chance to discuss it before I even agree to accepting the amendment, Mr. President. So that is my request. And I hope that we are not going to get a balance sheet here with what was done for one or done for the other. We are discussing the Transportation Subcommittee bill. There are lots of things that benefit all of us: highways, rail service, air service, and transit service. All benefit different parts of America differently. But, we can never get the scales to be exactly equal. So, Mr. President, I would note the absence of a quorum until we resolve the couple of issues that are outstanding here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do object. Mr. President, I think it is a fair and appropriate courtesy that the Senator from South Dakota and I and the chairman of the subcommittee have a chance to talk about it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Has not been agreed to. Frankly, I would like to see it. I object to its being offered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Dakota is offering an amendment, it is not on this list. I would think it unfair to those who made requests earlier in the day for additional amendments, to whom we denied this opportunity, to now at this hour of the night suddenly open up the gate and take an amendment about which we know very little and that--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might just make a comment, I did not want to get into this dispute. But there is almost an insinuation that comes out of the remarks of the Senator from Michigan about FAA's inability to stay abreast of things. I come out of the computer field, and I can tell you I was in shock when I saw the kinds of equipment they had. When I was in the computer business and when our equipment ran out of gas and was no longer worth keeping, we tried to give it away to charities and schools so they might use it for learning. And many times they turned us down because the cost of maintenance would have been far higher than the value of the asset that we were going to transfer to them. When I went for my first visit to FAA in 1982 or 1983, I was shocked to see the equipment that we could not give away still being worked on and being used to operate the FAA system. I point out to my friend from Michigan that there is one distinct difference. Leadership at the FAA turns over at an alarming rate. With every new Administrator comes changes in priorities and management structure. This almost constant disruption of the procurement process is something that is almost unique to the FAA. That is one of the things that I hope we will be looking at. If the Senator wants to use the Defense Department as a shining example, then lets look at it. Toilet seats at $600 and a couple of hundred bucks for a pair of pliers. If that is the shining example of the way we ought to do procurement, then I pity those that follow that example. I do not want to get into a long debate here. I simply want to support the chairman's comments. We were pushed into this, almost forced into it, to put a big enough pebble in some committee's shoe to say, ``Take care of this thing. If all you are going to do is gripe and complain about it, then we are going to do something about it.'' Though it was late at night, we succeeded in getting some significant attention focused on this issue. I respect the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Ohio, and our colleague from Arizona and his response. This is not simply a group of people sitting on their chairs and not doing anything to make the FAA's air traffic control system work. The FAA has handled an expanded volume with an incredibly good record on safety and maintenance. Though the service sometimes is late, the fact of the matter is we have the best aviation system by far. However, we would like for it to function a heck of a lot better. And that is the purpose of these parts of the bill. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.