John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I said on Friday, this is not an ordinary piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that, in the view of the Secretary of Transportation, has to do with saving lives and preventing injuries. Over 100 Americans have died on the highways of America already. After the completion of Senator Roberts' remarks, I will insist that the two Senators come down and object in person. This is too serious a business, I tell the Senator from Nevada, for them to assume a cloak of anonymity. If they want amendments, then I will be more than happy to hear their objections and see what their amendments are. But this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, when lives are at stake, for Senators--at least the Senator from Oklahoma objects and comes down and takes the responsibility for the objection. It is not acceptable for Members on the other side of the aisle to hide behind the Senator from Nevada in their objections.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have one comment in response to my friend. I knew any comment about trial lawyers would not go unnoticed by him. As always, I am very appreciative of his comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I might add, it has to do with saving lives and preventing injuries.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in closing, I appreciate the efforts on the part of the Senator from Nevada. As he said, he and I came to Congress together many years ago, and we are good friends. I want to also, again, pay great praise to Senator Hollings, who has really had to go a long way in compromising in order to see that this legislation is passed. I will be seeking unanimous consent tomorrow morning. I am not exactly sure when, but it will be sometime in the morning when it fits in with the parliamentary procedures. I hope the unanimous consent request can be agreed to. I thank my friend from South Carolina and the Senator from Nevada. I know we will be working assiduously to try to get these objections solved. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Let me just say that I will be here on the floor. If the two Senators who object from the other side of the aisle would like to come down, I would be glad to discuss their concerns. I would be glad to commit to holding hearings, along with Senator Hollings, next year to try to perfect this bill. I know my friend from South Carolina has serious concerns about the safe harbor aspect of this bill. I intend to work with him to tighten it up. I much would have preferred the bill pass through the Senate, let me tell you. We inaugurated a little phrase called ``straight talk'' back when I was seeking another office. I will tell you, in straight talk, what this is all about. This is the trial lawyers against the automotive interests. Trial lawyers do not want it because they do not like the provisions. They want to be able to sue anybody for anything under any circumstances. And the automotive industry wants this thing killed, figuring that the publicity surrounding these accidents and these tragedies that are taking place will die out and they will be able to kill off this legislation next year. Straight talk, Mr. President, that is really what it is all about. It is another compelling argument for campaign finance reform because neither the trial lawyers who want to make this bill untenable for the manufacturers, nor the manufacturers who want to water down this bill so dramatically that it will have no effect, should be the ones who are driving this problem. This legislation is all about saving lives and preventing injuries. So what we are seeing here is that special interests are winning again. I think it is wrong. I don't know how you go back to the American people and say we didn't enact legislation--we could not get together after a unanimous vote in the House--to resolve some concerns over an issue that ``would save lives and prevent injuries.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I deeply regret that the House of Representatives failed yesterday to favorably approve S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. That measure was taken up under suspension of the rules in the House, and therefore, needed two- thirds of the members present and voting to support its passage. The final vote was 232 to 158. As my colleagues know, the Senate has worked long and hard to produce comprehensive pipeline safety legislation. As a result of our bipartisan efforts, we unanimously approved S. 2438 nearly four weeks ago. That measure includes the best provisions from four separate proposals pending in the Senate, including legislation introduced by Senators Murray and Gorton, the measure introduced by Senator Hollings on behalf of the Administration, the bill introduced by Senator Bingaman, and the bill I introduced along with Senators Murray and Gorton. While the final bill may not be the preference of every member, it is a fair and balanced compromise piece of legislation and, to quote Secretary Slater, ``is critical to make much-needed improvements to the pipeline safety program. It provides for stronger enforcement, mandatory testing of all pipelines, community right-to-know information, and additional resources.'' There is one and only one reason the Senate bill fell 28 votes short, preventing it from being on its way to the President at this moment: Partisan Politics. I can understand the hesitation on the part of some to approve a measure that doesn't include every single provision they envision as necessary to address pipeline safety improvements. But the Senate- passed bill is a good bill and would go a long way in promoting safety improvements. Senator Murray said it best on the floor of the Senate just two weeks ago: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' But instead of heeding that advise, the House has neither approved its own version of a pipeline safety bill nor has it approved the Senate's unanimously-passed bill. And now time is simply running out. I do not relish voicing criticism toward the House opponents of S. 2438. But because of their actions, we will most likely fail to make any advancement in pipeline safety this year. And if we are ultimately prevented from enacting pipeline safety legislation in these remaining few days of the session, these and the other members working with them will be even less pleased by the criticisms I will be directing their way if even one more life is lost because of our inaction. Be assured, I will be back on this floor reminding everyone of our missed opportunity to address identified pipeline safety shortcomings due to the actions of these few members. They will be held accountable. Mr. Inslee from the State of Washington testified before the Senate Commerce Committee in May on the need to pass comprehensive legislation, noting that the ``opportunity to pass comprehensive, meaningful legislation may not come again until there is another tragedy''. Sadly, since the time Mr. Inslee made those comments, two other accidents have occurred--claiming a total of 13 more lives. How many more lives are going to be lost before Congress finally passes pipeline safety legislation? It is my understanding Mr. Inslee has urged the Administration, members of his House delegation, and leadership on the House side, not to support the Senate bill. It is also my understanding that he has ignored advice from his own Senate colleague, Senator Murray, on this matter. In doing so, he is dooming the months of effort that a member of his own party, a Senator from his own home state, has put into crafting a bill that will undoubtably improve pipeline safety. His actions may have killed the only chance that pipeline safety legislation will pass this year. And in doing so, he is ensuring that even more lives may be lost--and that the unacceptable status quo will remain. I support passage of the strongest safety bill possible, and I know the House members I have mentioned are fully aware of this fact. The strongest bill possible at this time is the bill we approved in the Senate three weeks ago. Mr. Inslee's and others' claims that their efforts are driven by a desire for a stronger bill sound well and good. But the reality is those efforts only preclude any advancement in pipeline safety from occurring. The actions of these members not only ignore the substantial steps we've made to reach a fair, balanced pro-safety bill, but also could jeopardize the likelihood we'll make any progress on pipeline safety for many years to come. I urge those members obstructing action on pipeline safety legislation to think carefully about the consequences of their obstructionist actions. Each day that passes without enactment of comprehensive pipeline safety legislation places public safety at risk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, be allowed 10 minutes before the HUD-VA appropriations bill is voted on.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 12. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to H.R. 4635, the HUD-VA appropriations bill as under the previous order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will begin consideration of the HUD-VA appropriations bill at 9:30 a.m. There are three amendments in order and up to three stacked rollcall votes will occur at approximately 12:30 p.m. Following the final vote on the HUD-VA bill, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the conference report to accompany the Department of Defense authorization bill. There are approximately 6 hours of debate requested on the conference report. Therefore, Senators should expect votes later in the afternoon in reference to the DOD authorization conference report.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I will not.

Mr. McCAIN. It reads: Dear Senator McCain and Senator Hollings: We are writing in support of your decision to halt the FY 2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill pending Senate action on the Ford/Firestone amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. While we recognize that there are compelling reasons to support the appropriations bill--such as the new rule mandating that drunken driving blood alcohol levels be lowered to .08% nationwide--we feel it is imperative that Congress react with legislation to the Ford/Firestone tragedy before the close of this session. Mr. President, this is signed by the relatives of people who have been killed in accidents because of the Bridgestone/Firestone problem. Can't we listen to the family members of those who have been killed on the highways of America with a fixable problem, at least action that has been recommended unanimously that must be taken to prevent further tragedies on America's highways? This is egregious. I don't think many American citizens would approve of the Senate blocking legislation which is designed to save lives. There may be a couple of controversial aspects of this bill, although it passed out of the Commerce Committee unanimously. There may be a couple of controversial aspects of this bill. Fine, let's have amendments and time agreements. We can dispose of those controversial aspects of it in a matter of a few hours. I eagerly welcome such a thing. The Senator from Alaska has just objected to us taking up this legislation which we could dispose of in a few hours. The lives of American citizens are at stake here.

Mr. McCAIN

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. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Nevada for a statement.

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. 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. McCAIN. Before the Senator from Alaska leaves the floor, I would like to respond.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.

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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I apologize to the Chair. I thought when I left the floor that morning business had expired at 11 a.m. I will await 11:15.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I am still hoping the leadership will agree to take up this bill. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee says he is not in the leadership. I have seen the Senator from Alaska have significant effect on the leadership from time to time. What I am hoping is we can get this issue resolved and move forward with the Transportation appropriations bill.