Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10048-S10050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

[[Page S10049]]

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

[[Page S10050]]

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.

____________________