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.
“DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOMINATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S1834-S1835 on March 13, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOMINATIONS
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss briefly the qualifications of two individuals who have been nominated for essential positions within the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Jeffrey Shane has been nominated to be the Associate Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation, and Emil Frankel has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Transportation Policy.
Last December, the Commerce Committee held a hearing to consider both these nominees and reported them out unanimously on December 19, 2001. We are approaching 3 months since they received committee approval. I think it is time for this Chamber to act on these two qualified nominees.
These are very important positions. One is Associate Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation and the other is the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
There is very little doubt, with all of the issues surrounding post-
September 11 and our transportation security requirements, the situations at our airports, et cetera, that we should be putting qualified men and women who have been nominated without objection into those offices. They are important positions. The confirmations of Mr. Shane and Mr. Frankel have been placed in limbo due to an unrelated legislative matter.
As Associate Deputy Secretary, Mr. Shane would be in charge of the Office of Intermodalism at DOT. Secretary Mineta proposed a reorganization plan concerning DOT's policy functions. It would ultimately broaden Mr. Shane's responsibilities.
Under the proposal, the Deputy Secretary positions would be retitled
``Undersecretary of Policy'' and would manage all aspects of transportation policy development within the Department of Transportation. In addition, the Office of Intermodalism, the Office of Aviation and International Affairs, and the Office of Transportation Policy would report to the Under Secretary under this reorganization.
While this reorganization plan must be considered separately from the nomination, at this point it is important that Mr. Shane be permitted to carry out his duties as soon as possible. He has extensive experience and expertise that would be invaluable to the Department. He has also served in several prominent positions at DOT and the State Department and has been confirmed on several occasions by the Senate.
I believe Mr. Shane is one of the most widely respected individuals in the transportation community, particularly with respect to aviation issues. I have not always agreed with Mr. Shane in the past, but I have always respected his capability and his judgment. We should consider ourselves fortunate that such a qualified and distinguished individual wants to return to public service when he could continue a much more financially rewarding life in the private sector. It is inexcusable that his and Mr. Frankel's nominations have languished for nearly 3 months.
As Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Mr. Frankel would be the chief domestic policy officer at the Department of Transportation. In that position, he would be responsible for the analysis, development, communication, and review of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues.
If there is anyone in this body who has not been to an airport recently, I have to tell them, we certainly need all the help we can get right now. On my last trip back from Phoenix, I spent an hour and a half standing in line in order to get through security, which is warranted, certainly, in these times. But we also need to modernize that system as soon as possible.
Since September 11, the Department of Transportation has been under tremendous strain dealing with critical aspects of interstate transportation as it relates to national security. The Department needs all the help it can get as it struggles with the new wartime reality. It is our obligation to give the Department of Transportation every reasonable resource at this time.
I am dismayed we continue to deny the Department the benefit of these nominees' public service. Our inaction sets a miserable example for others who might consider devoting part of their lives to public service.
If someone has a substantive problem with either of these nominees, I want to hear about it. But as far as I am aware, their nominations are not controversial in any substantive way. I am unaware of any legitimate reason for not acting on these nominations today.
I am informed that at least one Member of this body is holding these nominees because that Member believes he can best advance the cause of one mode of transportation security--in this case, Amtrak--by holding up their confirmations. I believe this is most unfortunate and, in fact, a big mistake.
I support Senate passage of rail security legislation. In fact, I introduced the first rail security measure last year that would help address Amtrak safety and security funding needs. On October 10, I introduced S. 1528, the Rail Transportation Safety and Security Act, along with Senator Gordon Smith. I am also lead cosponsor of S. 1550, the Rail Security Act of 2001, introduced by Senator Hollings and myself on October 15, 2001.
S. 1550 would authorize $515 million for security and $989 million for addressing the tunnel life safety needs in the Northeast. It was reported unanimously by the Commerce Committee on October 17 and is awaiting full action by the Senate.
I urge the majority leader to schedule floor time for us to consider S. 1550. I understand a number of Members are interested in offering additional security-related amendments to that measure. I would also support allowing it to pass by unanimous consent if such agreement could be reached. It is an important bill not just for Amtrak but for addressing all rail security, both passenger and freight.
But to hold these two nominees hostage to somehow better position the passage of Amtrak security legislation is not the best approach. After all, these positions are largely about security. We are holding up nominees who are good and qualified people because they are being held hostage to some other piece of legislation. That is wrong.
What is going to happen if we do not move with these nominees? They will withdraw their candidacy. And this also sends a very disturbing message to others who are willing to serve this country. Usually when we find people who are willing to serve in positions of responsibility, they make a financial sacrifice. It is just because we do not compete salary-wise with the private sector. And that is entirely appropriate.
But if these men and women are presented with situations like this, where two perfectly qualified nominees are prevented from being confirmed by the Senate and have to wait months after being unanimously reported out by the committee of oversight, and not even given a hearing on the floor of the Senate on their nomination, then, obviously, we are going to have more and more difficulty in getting qualified men and women to serve.
I have been around here since 1987. I have never put a hold on a nomination. I have opposed nominees, and I have opposed them on the floor and forced votes on their nomination, but it is not correct to hold these two good and decent Americans hostage for some other agenda item.
So, Madam President, I intend to come back to the floor later this afternoon, since there are those who have put a hold on it, and ask unanimous consent that these nominees be confirmed or, if need be, have a rollcall vote.
I think it is time we move forward with these nominations, as I have discussed at some length.
Let's not do this to these people. They are not responsible for any failure or perceived lack of consideration of any Senator. They are not even in the job. Let's give them a chance to serve the country.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________
