The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 3059” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S10048-S10050 on Oct. 6, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 3059
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come back to try to resolve this issue. Before I ask for another unanimous consent agreement with some different language, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of Transportation.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Transportation,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2000.Hon. John McCain,Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my views regarding the penalty structure for Department of Transportation regulatory agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I expressed these views in testimony on the Firestone tire recall before the full committee on September 12, 2000.
The Administration supports a three-tiered approach to the enforcement of health and safety statutes: (1) administrative penalties; (2) judicially enforced civil penalties; and (3) in the case of egregious circumstances, criminal penalties for those who knowingly and willfully violate the law. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Congress to properly structure this approach.
Most important, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects. I will work with you in any way I can to help shape legislation that the Congress can approve and the President can sign into law.
Sincerely,
Rodney E. Slater.
Mr. McCAIN. I will read a portion of the letter:
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my views regarding the penalty structure for Department of Transportation regulatory agencies such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I expressed these views in testimony on the Firestone tire recall before the full committee on September 12, 2000.
and the last paragraph:
Most important, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects. I will work with you in any way I can to help shape legislation that the Congress can approve and the President can sign into law.
I repeat for my colleagues what the Secretary of Transportation says:
Most important, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects.
This legislation passed through the committee with the help of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a member of that committee, a valued member of that committee. This legislation passed through the Commerce Committee with the support of the majority leader of the Senate, a valued member of that committee.
Although I don't agree with the Transportation appropriations bill, I am not interested in blocking it. I am interested in trying to get action on this legislation before Congress adjourns.
I ask the Senator from Alaska if it would be acceptable if I modified the unanimous consent agreement to say that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democrat leader, would set a specific time and date for this legislation to be considered, and only relevant amendments to the bill be in order of S. 3059.
It seems to me we could then achieve the goal of having a time and date where we could address this issue, we could move forward with the important appropriations bill, which understandably the Senator from Alaska has as his highest priority, which is also understandable given the fact that he is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
I ask the Senator from Alaska if he would consider--and I will ask now--I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democrat leader, could set a specific time and date for the consideration to S. 3059 and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that there is a process underway right now to see if it is possible to get such an agreement that the Senator from Arizona mentioned.
I have inquired, since the last exchange we had on the floor--and I am a person who has voted for this bill in committee, but the problem is there are objections on both sides of the aisle, I am informed, to a unanimous consent agreement which would be necessary to carry out the Senator's current unanimous consent agreement.
The difficulty is, there are some Members who are not members of the committee, our Commerce Committee, who have not had time to study that. They have informed the staff on both sides of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, as I understand, that there are reservations. I cannot call them holds because they have not seen the bill yet; that is, as I understand it, the bill will come over from the House. It will be the House bill we would consider. It is just a very difficult position for me to be in, but as a representative of the leadership in this matter right now, I am constrained to say I am forced to object to the bill I support. I do object to that request.
I urge the Senator from Arizona to be part of this process of trying to clear that bill. I will join him. I have been trying to work on that since our last exchange, to see if we can clear bringing up that bill. But there are reservations on both sides of the aisle to that bill, and I am constrained to be in the position, and I am in the position, to say: I object to the request of the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Several Senators addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield so I can make a statement?
Mr. McCAIN. Before the Senator from Alaska leaves the floor, I would like to respond.
Mr. REID. I wanted to respond before he leaves also. I will just take a brief moment.
I say to my friend from Alaska, we are not objecting to this request.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, you are. We had a statement you are objecting.
Mr. McCAIN. Claiming the floor, it is clear on that side of the aisle there is no objection to this unanimous consent request.
I don't understand the comment of the Senator from Alaska about nobody has read the bill and no one understands the bill. We passed it 2 weeks ago out of the committee, No. 1. No. 2, this is not a low visibility issue. No. 3, we want to pass this bill through the Senate. The House will be passing the bill and we will go through the normal procedures.
I want to say again to the Senator from Alaska, on an issue of this importance--he said Members on both sides have reservations or objections; clearly, it is on this side of the aisle--come down with relevant amendments. We can reach time agreements and go through the normal process. But to block consideration at any time between now and when we leave is a clear message, I say in all due respect to the Senator from Alaska, that there is an intention to block consideration of the passage of this bill.
I can understand the objection of the Senator from Alaska to me holding up the consideration of the Transportation appropriations bill. I can fully understand that. I cannot understand why the leadership would not agree to taking up this bill with relevant amendments sometime between now and when we go out.
So, with all due respect to the Senator from Alaska, I don't get it. I do not understand why, when there is no objection on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. STEVENS. No, no; if the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I will state categorically I am informed there is an objection on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respectfully say there is no objection on this side of the aisle.
Mr. McCAIN. With all due respect to the Senator from Alaska, you have to respect the statement of the leader of the other side of the aisle.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona made a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Nevada for a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona made a request, a unanimous consent request, to move forward with relevant amendments. We have no objection.
Mr. McCAIN. I think it is abundantly clear, I say to the Senator from Alaska, there is no objection to moving forward on that side of the aisle. The problem is on this side of the aisle.
Why in the world can't we come to an agreement, when the Secretary of Transportation says:
Most important, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects.
We are talking about a life-threatening situation here.
So all I can say is it is clear the problem seems to be on this side of the aisle. I am asking the Senator from Alaska, who represents the leadership, to agree to this unanimous consent request, which I think is eminently reasonable. So I guess, Mr. President, I will ask again, if I could get the attention of the Senator from Alaska, since it is clear there is no objection to this unanimous consent request from the other side of the aisle--and I am not trying to impede the progress of the Transportation appropriations bill. We are only trying to get addressed the issue that there are life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects--if we at least could have some agreement. If there are objections to the legislation, then those objections, it seems to me, could be articulated in the form of relevant amendments.
So, again, I don't understand the explanation of the Senator from Alaska. The bill was passed 2 weeks ago. This is a very high visibility issue. We would take it up and pass it. The House is going to pass this legislation next Tuesday, according to all news reports. We could pass it, go to conference, and get this legislation to the President of the United States unless it is blocked on this side of the aisle--on this side of the aisle. This is a bill that passed 20-0 with the support of the majority leader, with the support of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. THOMAS. This passed 2 weeks ago, Senator. Why hasn't it come up before this and not at the very end?
Mr. McCAIN. I have been urging it, I respond to my colleague. Since the day after we passed it, I have been begging the leadership every day to bring up this bill for consideration. This has been blocked.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Wyoming because we have been trying to do everything we can to bring this bill up. That is why--because I have been stymied in these efforts--I had to come to the floor this morning to try to force some action on it since there was no response from our leadership, on this side, because of holds on the bill and objections to it.
I again ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, establish a specific time and date for consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving my right to object, I ask the Senator through the Chair a question. Is that a unanimous consent agreement that involves bringing the bill before the Senate without the ability of any Member of the Senate to object at that time to its consideration?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. As I understand it, the Senator is saying he would like to have the Senate agree that the two leaders can bring a bill before the Senate for consideration that has not yet been passed by the House, and no Member would be able to object to consideration at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond quickly to the Senator from Alaska? This is not a House bill; this is a Senate bill I am asking to have considered on the floor of the Senate as we regularly do with legislation in the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. I apologize, Mr. President. From the prior conversation, I understood the House had brought its bill out of committee. I understood we were going to await that bill.
In any event, I want to say it again, as one who has voted for the bill, I am in the position of representing the leader.
Mr. President, I sought to become leader of the Senate once. I lost by two votes. I understand what it means not to be leader, but I also understand what it means to be leader. The leader has asked me to object on his behalf, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I just say again, and I want to clarify for the benefit of the Senator from Alaska, this is a Senate bill. It was passed through the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-0. Yesterday, the House, by a vote of 42-0, passed through their committee similar legislation, although not the same legislation. They announced they would be passing their legislation next Tuesday.
What I am seeking is for us to be able to pass the Senate bill and go to conference, as is normal.
I should not do this, but I want to make another commitment to the Senator from Alaska because of the time constraints, and that is, if there are 50 relevant amendments filed and it looks as if the bill is going to be filibustered to death and we are not going to be able to pass it, then I will ask that the legislation be withdrawn at that time because I understand the time constraints under which the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is operating.
All I am asking is it be brought up with relevant amendments, as it will be passed by the House next Tuesday, and conferees will be appointed, as is normal, and we will go to conference and report out legislation hopefully that can be passed before we go out of session.
I say again to the Senator from Alaska, one, we passed it 2 weeks ago; two, the House has acted in their committee, and they will be passing the bill next Tuesday. Right now we have no assurance of any kind that we can in any way take up this bill at any time. So when the Senator from Alaska objects on behalf of the leadership to consideration at any time that would be in keeping with the majority leader's schedule, then it is clear the effect is to kill the legislation, and we are talking about, as the Secretary of Transportation says, ``Most important, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects.''
I ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee if he will do the following: If we can just go into a quorum call for 10 minutes and see if the leadership will allow this unanimous consent request to move forward. I am not interested in embarrassing the leadership. In fact, I am interested in not embarrassing the leadership because if there is no objection on the other side of the aisle and there is an objection on this side of the aisle to taking up the legislation at any time, that is really not good. That is not a good thing to happen. I speak as a Member on this side of the aisle. 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. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business to speak about Yugoslavia for up to 10 minutes. If that causes problems for anyone, I will withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to assure everyone, if the conference report comes over, I will immediately cease and desist so we can proceed with the regular business of the Senate.
____________________
