ator Gravel and Senator Domenici. They, as well as all the members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, are knowledgeable and understanding of the provisions contained in S. 1529. Mr. GRAVEL. I assure the chairman of the full committee (Mr. Randolph, who is always eminently fair, that this is our intention. It would be my plan to introduce my statement in the Record, giving a brief explanation of the bill. This way, it will be printed and available to read in the morning. Also, in the morning, after the opening, I will summarize again what is before us for those Members who might want to get a better feel for how they want to approach it. I suggest, Mr. President, if my colleague from New Mexico is in agreement, that I withdraw my unanimous-consent request and we proceed as is normal in this body, that is, that the managers of the bill would be recognized first in the morning. I would be surprised as to the contrary on that. We can give personal assurances and be prepared to back them up with a unanimous-consent request, if so desired, that there be no votes until a time certain. Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GRAVEL. On this issue, I think, we are all concerned about lock and dam 26 and the user charges. I think the Senator from Louisiana is correct, it has been highly talked about. I think we can make our case, vote up or down, see where everybody is, and dispose of it. Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GRAVEL. I am happy to yield. Mr. LONG. It seems to me in the very heated controversies The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Matsunaga). Does the Senator reserve the right to object? Mr. LONG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it seems to me that in the heated controversies that occur, we do ourselves no favor and we do not make the Senate look good to start this bantering and this jockeying to try to see who can get his amendment in first, and who can offer his amendment to the title rather than to the bill, and who can offer and get his amendment in one place or another. We just want to face these things fairly and squarely without anybody seeking any advantage and just see how we want to do business. Do we want to do business this way or do we want to do business in some other way, and let everybody hear the options discussed and then let it be agreed that we will vote on the proposals. Basically, Senator Domenici has one proposal suggested, Senator Stevenson had another, I might have another. But as long as we all agree in the best traditions of the Senate that each person's idea will be accorded the dignity of a vote-I see our distinguished majority leader nodding, that is the kind of fine leadership he always provides this Senate it is not a question of who is right, but what is right, and when we hear the arguments and both sides have done the best they can to explain themselves and marshal their evidence, then we should all be willing to cheerfully accept the verdict of the Senate. I do not know why we cannot do business that way and avoid this foolishness of one side or the other trying to jockey for some kind of advantage. All I want to do is have my side of the argument heard and the Senate to vote on it. I certainly want Senator Domenici or any other Senator to have the same opportunity I have. I would not ask anything for myself that I would not ask for others. I think the distinguished floor manager of the bill, the very able leader, Parliamentarian, and former speaker of the Legislature of the State of Alaska before he came here, likes that approach also. I mean, all this squabbling to offer a substitute, and then a substitute for a substitute, and then to amend the title rather than to amend the bill, and then an amendment and make points of order, it seems to me does the Senate no favor. But we ought to work it out in such a fashion as to offer the Senate the options-do we want to do it this way, that way, or some other way? Then let the Senate decide how it wants to do it. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, do I correctly understand that that is the way the Senator from Louisiana would like to work out this series of amendments? Mr. LONG. Yes. I would like Senators to discuss the matter and agree among themselves on the order in which we will vote. First, I think we should discuss the issue somewhat. Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly. Mr. LONG. So that everybody has made his position clear for the record. In the course of doing that, if someone did not hear it, he might be buttonholed as he came parading through here and have explained what was said in his absence. Let us discuss it enough to know the issues and vote. I think that would serve the Senate. Mr. DOMENICI. The problem I have with my good friend from Louisiana is that there are four of us here participating in this. I do not think the Senator is suggesting that we are going to waive the rules of procedure in the Senate; and even if we were deciding on that this evening, we do not know who else has some interest in this and might come along and change it. The Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Illinois know that there is a pending amendment I have proposed. I think the Senator from Louisiana is saying that after discussion, long or short, he would like the Senate to vote on my amendment, up or down. Is that correct? Mr. LONG. Someone might want to amend the amendment. If they want to do so, they are privileged to have a vote on their amendment, too. Someone might want to move to table. I am not trying to deny anybody his rights. All I am saying is that I think that at the moment we would be best advised simply for no one to claim an advantage over anyone else. If the Senator has an amendment pending, more power to him. I am suggesting that we would do best to discuss our procedure among Senators. I am sure there will be a considerable amount of discussion and plenty of time to do it during the next day. Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I think the suggestion of the Senator from Louisiana is very fine. If we proceed with that kind of approach, we will be able to dispatch this bill with alacrity which will please the majority leader and make a contribution to the tough schedule the Senate has carved out for itself. On that note, I withdraw my objection to the unanimous-consent request. Mr. Domenici obtained the floor. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry, if the Senator will yield to me for that purpose. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Was my request ever ruled on? I heard a lot of reservations to object. Mr. DOMENICI. What was the request? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That the Senate, at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, proceed to the consideration of the pending measure. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request has not yet been ruled upon. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I did not think so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request to recess until 9:30 a.m. has been agreed to. Is there objection to the request of the majority leader? Mr. LONG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the request? Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That the Senate resume consideration of the pending measure at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object—and I will not object-I began this by simply observing that I have a meeting with the President at 10, and I do not want to be prevented from meeting with the President at that time. With the assurances that have been given to me by the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Louisiana, and the Senator from New Mexico that I would not be prejudiced, I will not object. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank Senators for not objecting. I point out that without this request, we would automatically proceed to the consideration of the measure earlier than 10 o'clock tomorrow. I am just trying to render a little assistance to all Members. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I bring to the Senate today S. 1529, the Water Resources Development Act of 1977. Title I of this bill contains construction authorizations for 12 Corps of Engineers projects, and phase I authorizations for 5 more. Title I also provides for studies and modifications of 13 potential and existing projects, deauthorization of 3 projects, and 10 policy changes. Seventeen States, the territory of Guam and the trust territory of the Pacific are directly affected in title I, as well as the Nation as a whole. Title II authorizes $443 million in increased monetary authorizations for 11 river basins. The total cost of the bill is approximately $740 million. Mr. President, there are many in this body who will recall that in the last week of the 94th Congress, the committee brought to the Senate floor the Water Resources Development Act of 1976. That bill contained, in addition to projects and modifications similar to those in this legislation, sections authorize the reconstruction of locks and dam 26 at Alton, Ill., and initiation of a system of waterway user charges. It was evident that the controversy surrounding those two items would cause such a prolonged debate that passage of the entire bill was threatened. The committee therefore moved to strike those two sections. At the same time we promised to address the issues of locks and dam 26 and waterway user charges early in the 95th Congress with a view toward reporting and passing legislation as soon as possible. Mr. President, we have kept our promise. Legislation was introduced, S. 790, which authorized both locks and dam 26 and a system of waterway user charges. This bill was jointly referred to the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Subcommittee on Water Resources held 6 days of hearings in April and May on Locks and Dam 26, user charges, river basin authorizations, and miscellaneous items. In the course of subcommittee markup sessions, it was determined that the two major issues should be separated from the rest of the omnibus bill. This decision was made. in order to insure that the river basin authorizations and other purely public works matters would not be delayed in the Commerce Committee. Both S. 790 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1977, S. 1529, were reported on May 16. Today we are considering S. 1529. AMENDMENT NO. 442 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the spirit of what we have just arrived at here, and in no way attempting to take advantage of anyone, I call up my amendment No. 442. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself and Mr. Anderson, Mr. Gravel, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Proxmire, Mr. Culver, Mr. Clark, Mr. Humphrey, Mr. McClure, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Muskie, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Lugar proposes amendment No. 442. [Text of the amendment may be found at p. 2.] Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having offered my amendment, I have no desire to vote on it quickly. It is the pending amendment; and I am willing to allow the Senate to adjourn shortly, pursuant to the unanimous-consent request made by the distinguished leader. Mr. President, this amendment would basically incorporate into S. 1529 the provisions of S. 790-both the construction of locks and dam 26 and implementation of waterway user charges as reported to the Senate by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am honored that I am joined in sponsoring this amendment by several of my colleagues familiar with the issues. They are Senators Anderson, Chaffe, Clark, Culver, Gravel, Humphrey, Lugar, McClure, McGovern, Muskie, Nelson, Proxmire, Stafford and Wallop. I believe this amendment, as does S. 790, represents a fair resolution to these issues. By offering this amendment now, we intend to give the Senate a chance to vote soon on these important issues involving national transportation policy. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. LONG. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I had written discussing the user charge issue to my colleagues and with my colleagues appear in the Record at this point. I will discuss the matter at greater length tomorrow. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the cosponsors of my amendment be made a part of the record immediately following the letter of the Senator from Louisiana. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1977. DEAR COLLEAGUE: There are several important reasons why waterway user charges should not be linked to the authorization for Lock and Dam 26. For the bulk movement of cargo, water transportation is by far the most efficient. On a ton mile basis, barge lines carry 16 percent of the cargo, and they use only 2 percent of the fuel required by the transportation industry. To shift a substantial segment of the barge traffic to the railroads would entail an enormous waste of fuel at a time when we should be seeking to conserve. We should be doing the opposite. Other arguments for tolls on the waterways will not stand analysis. In many cases it is not made clear who the actual beneficiary is. For example, competition for cargo among barge lines is so severe that revenues per ton mile are minimal, and, if tolls were leveid, the barge lines would be forced to raise freight rates. This means that it is the farmer shipping his grain or the consumer buying coal or other products who is the beneficiary of water navigation rather than the carrier. The charge that a subsidy is enjoyed by water carriers ignores the fact that far greater subsidies have been conferred upon the railroad industry, which is now sekeing to place a toll on its competitors. Railroads have been the recipients of billions of dollars under the 1973 Regional Rail Reorganization Act, relief from passenger losses, last year's rail revitalization legislation, federal railroad retirement contributions, original land grants with all of their valuable mineral deposits, special tax concessions, and so on. To argue that federal assistance to the inland waterways (which from 1824 to 1975 totalled about $4.5 billion) jeopardizes the financial stability of the railroads (for whom last year's rail legislation alone carries a $6 billion plus price tag) is ludicrous. That the Senate understands the absurdity of this kind of reasoning is apparent from the last floor vote taken on user charges: 71 to 17 against user charges on August 2, 1976. In addition to the provisions of subsidies for our inland waterways, we also subsidize airlines and trucks. When a user charge finally was levied on these other two modes, it was placed on the ticket or on the gas pump. It was not imposed as part of a system of toll gates along the entire transportation network. We will soon be considering an energy tax bill that imposes an energy tax on everyone. The entire transportation sector will be subject to this tax by virtue of the enormous quantities of fuel consumed. It is a far better approach to impose that charge on everyone rather than single out one ind of user for discriminatory treatment. Unfortunately, the railroads are continuing their selfish, behind-the-scenes efforts to force up barge rates so they can raise their rates on cargo that railroads are presently carrying. We want to help the railroads modernize, but the answer is not to do it by the kind of cutthroat methods that have brought the railroads to their present predicament. We hope you will join us in rejecting user charges in connection with the construction of Lock and Dam 26. Sincerely Yours, RUSSELL B. LONG, JOHN C. STENNIS, TOM COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, DEAR COLLEAGUE: Today we introduced an amendment that we will present during the debate on S. 1529, the Omnibus Water Resources Bill. This amendment accomplishes three things: |