[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 28 (Wednesday, March 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1834-S1835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                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.

[[Page S1835]]

  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.

                          ____________________