[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S7574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 3819 AND EXECUTIVE CALENDAR NO. 356
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate is about to pass a short-
term highway extension. This 3-week extension will allow the House and
Senate to go to conference on our bipartisan bill and allow that to be
signed into law by November 20.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 3819; that the bill be read a third
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with no
intervening action or debate; that upon disposition of H.R. 3819, the
Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 356; that
the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate;
that following disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action
or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that
any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and
that the President be immediately notified of the President's action
and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object because I
want to make a suggestion.
I ask consent that we modify this matter so that we can pass an
amendment to extend the PTC deadline--the deadline for positive train
control--to make it a 1-year extension to December 31, 2016, and that
that be agreed to. Right now, it is 3 years with a 2-year possible
extension beyond that. I ask that it be changed to 1 year, and that
following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to
a vote on passage of the bill with my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
state to my colleague from California that this is the practice she and
I so often lament when it comes to highway bills, and that is kicking
the can down the road. We know full well that a year from now, we will
be back here doing this again.
This language, which is agreed upon by both the House and the
Senate--Democrats and Republicans of the relevant committees worked
very hard to draft consensus language. That is what we have arrived at
today. We believe it addresses the situation and provides the correct
solution. I think it would be a big mistake to try to modify something
that people have worked so hard to get to, knowing full well we will
never get what the Senator from California wants to do passed through
the House or the Senate.
The House acted yesterday, and acted unanimously. Very rarely do you
get a voice vote out of the House of Representatives. Democrats and
Republicans in the House came together behind a solution that is
incorporated into this base bill.
With that, I object to the request of the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just want to say to my friend I am not
surprised, but I am still quite disappointed because I think it is
horrible precedent to take a provision out of an underlying bill that
we have all worked so hard on and attach it--a 3-year provision, a 3-
to-5-year provision, a delay in this safety measure--on a 3-week
extension.
Why didn't my friend pull out some of the good things in there for
safety, such as the House rental bill, which says you can't lease a car
that has been under recall? He didn't do that. I am not blaming him at
all. I know it was a process. I know that. We didn't pull out the
increased fines on NHTSA for car manufacturers who kill people because
of their negligence.
I feel it is a terrible precedent, but I will not object, and I am
going to explain that later. Having withdrawn my objection, I would ask
that I may have the floor for 15 minutes immediately following the
vote, if that is possible, and I would give 5 minutes of that timeframe
to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's
original request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from California?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________