[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21234-21236]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 21235]]

     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 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

[[Page 21236]]

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 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.

                          ____________________