[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 124 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10061-S10062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3244

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 
a.m. on Wednesday the Senate proceed to the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3244, the trafficking victims conference report and the 
conference report which has just passed the House, and be considered as 
having been read and considered under the following agreement for 
debate only: 2 hours equally divided between Senators Brownback and 
Wellstone, or their designees; 3 hours under the control of the ranking 
member of the Judiciary committee; 1 hour under the control of Senator 
Biden; and 1 hour under the control of Senator Hatch.
  I further ask consent that following the conclusion or yielding back 
of time, Senator Thompson be recognized to make a point of order 
against the conference report that the conference text, section 2001, 
regarding Aimee's law is not in the jurisdiction of the Foreign 
Relations committee and following the ruling by the Chair, Senator 
Thompson would appeal the Chair's ruling and that appeal be limited to 
the following: 1 hour under the control of Senator Thompson.
  I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of 
time, the vote relative to the appeal occur immediately on Wednesday, 
and if the Chair is not overturned, no other action occur and the 
Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report, 
immediately, without any intervening action or debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, sometimes it is work to 
manufacture a time for a vote. I note, so there is not any confusion, 
and notwithstanding the fact that the conference report was sent over 
without people seeing it, I am perfectly happy to have the vote on this 
today. I am perfectly happy to go to a vote today on each of the 
aspects, so there will not be any question on that, and I understand 
that notwithstanding the fact that we can't get any other work done 
around here, the Republican leadership, which is their right, is going 
to take a few days off again, but I want to at least have this debate 
on the day we vote.
  I commend the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Minnesota for 
their work in getting us to this point. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know the Senator from Arizona cares deeply about his 
legislation. He cares deeply about every legislative piece he pushes. I 
have some important legislation pending, too, and I haven't had time to 
debate them.
  The Paul Coverdell Criminal Laboratory for Forensic bill will 
probably save more lives than this bill. However, I think his request 
is not unreasonable. I do believe the bill has problems. As a person 
who prosecuted for over 15 years, I do not believe in a continual 
blurring of the lines between what is criminal liability and civil 
liability.

  We are talking about making crimes out of defective building of an 
automobile. I think we have to be careful about that. It has not gone 
through the Judiciary Committee. I have not had a chance to see it and 
I was very concerned about it. I indicated my concern to others.
  As I have been briefed on this just 5 minutes ago, by my staff--they 
provided a memorandum which I have not had a chance to even read--I was 
prepared to go forward with the Senator's request and not object. 
However, I find that several people expected that I would be objecting 
who also wanted to object, and I felt I was obligated, due to that 
miscommunication, to file an objection.
  Two hours from now I will not object if no one else does. I am 
prepared to debate these problems and see if we can cure these 
problems, but I do not feel it would be a collegial thing for me to do, 
when apparently it was thought that I would object, so that is why I 
object.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield to me just for a comment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Alabama. I will be back in 2 
hours. I want to assure him I understand those concerns, particularly 
on criminal sanctions. No one knows the situation better than the 
Senator from Alabama, who was a former attorney general of his State, 
who has more knowledge on those issues than I do. I want to work with 
the Senator from Alabama on that. That is why relevant

[[Page S10062]]

amendments will be in order. I just hope the Senator from Alabama will 
allow this to move forward when we propound it again.
  Again, I understand very well the concerns he has. That is why the 
unanimous consent agreement calls for simply relevant amendments, with 
no time limit. I think the stark political reality around here, as the 
Senator from Alabama knows, is that we are not coming back in until 
Wednesday. If the Senator from Alabama and others who object just have 
numerous amendments, there is no way we are going to be able to get a 
bill passed and then into conference with the House and move forward. 
So I thank the Senator from Alabama for his consideration. I understand 
his concerns. I look forward very much to working with him.
  I yield and I thank my colleague from Montana for his indulgence.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

                          ____________________