John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If my friend will yield, I am seeking agreement to take up this legislation on which American lives are at stake--not money but safety and lives of Americans. I am seeking an agreement to take that up. If we could get agreement to get that bill up, with relevant amendments, then I will be more than happy to not impede the work of the Senate. I do not know of a higher priority than to take up legislation about a compelling issue that has to do with the lives of the American people. So I hope we could get an agreement to take up that legislation, either now or in the next several days. Then I would certainly remove my objections to proceeding with an appropriations bill. Apparently, that is not the case because there are ``rolling holds'' on this legislation. I think that is really quite remarkable.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Alaska has just objected to us moving forward with legislation which, in the view of any outside expert, has to do with American lives that are endangered on the highways of America due to a flaw in the Bridgestone/Firestone situation and/or Ford automobiles. This is serious business. This is serious business. There has been a series of holds put on this bill. We now object to taking up this legislation in favor of an appropriations bill which has watered down language which is intended--at least in the view of some--to address part of the problem. It does not. Ask any safety expert. It does not. As to the language that has been inserted in the conference bill, I guess we can all thank the advocates of safety for the provision that was in the bill that prevented the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from addressing rollover accidents for a year until a National Academy of Sciences study was completed--again, the special interests. I intend to do whatever I can to see this legislation is brought up before the Senate. I hope those Senators who have a hold on this bill will step forward and identify themselves. This isn't an ordinary piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that has to do with the lives of American citizens and those overseas. I don't know of a more compelling problem. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Department of Transportation appropriations report that contains a substantive amendment to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation was never approved by either the House or Senate Commerce committees and it fails in its attempt to correct indisputable flaws with the safety- related data collection and retention practices of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The language contained in the appropriations report falls short of the mark for many reasons, but for now, I will list only the key shortcomings. First, it fails to require manufacturers to collect and report essential safety-related information that would allow the Secretary to identify potential consumer-safety issues. Second, it fails to increase penalties for violations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. And third, the language does not require NHTSA to upgrade the 30-year-old federal tire-safety standard. Prompted by an August 9, 2000, announcement by Ford Motor Company and Bridgestone/Firestone to recall millions of potentially defective tires, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a September 12th hearing that was attended by the Secretary of Transportation, NHTSA's Acting Administrator, the parties involved in the recall, and several consumer groups. All who testified agreed that systemic changes were needed to make the processes of sharing safety- related information more efficient. In response, on September 15th, joined by my colleagues, Senators Gorton and Specter, I introduced S. 3059, the ``Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect Notification Improvement Act.'' This bill would dramatically amend the current law by ensuring NHTSA's possession of critical information regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that would enable it to make sound safety-related decisions. Following the introduction of S. 3059, the House Commerce Committee began consideration of H.R. 5164, the ``Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act,'' also referred to as ``T.R.E.A.D.'' While the House's bill does not appear to be entirely adequate to correct the current law, it does seek to accomplish similar objectives as S. 3059. Therefore, I was encouraged by the possibility of compromise prior to the conclusion of the 106th Congress. However, due to the limited amount of time remaining prior to the adjournment of this Congress, the differences of the House bill, and the unapproved actions taken by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I offer today a narrower version of S. 3059 that I hope that my colleagues would support. Mr. President, I would like to outline what the new version of the bill would do: Reporting requirements: The bill would direct the Secretary to collect additional safety-related information from manufacturers; specifically, it would mandate that the Secretary require manufacturers to collect and report new information about defects-- including information about foreign recalls, but only to the extent that the information may assist in the identification of potential defects related to motor vehicle safety or failures to meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards. This information would include accidents or incidents, claims data, warranty adjustment data, and other safety-related information. The method, manner and extent of the collection of this data would be determined through rulemaking by the Secretary. Civil penalties: This legislation would increase the Motor Vehicle Safety chapter's maximum civil penalty from $800,000 to $15,000,000, and allow for the assessment of larger civil penalties for intentional and willful acts. Criminal penalties: The Secretary would be authorized to assess criminal penalties for knowingly violating provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which results in death or grievous bodily harm. This provision of the bill has been the subject of much discussion. Let me briefly describe what would be required for a manufacturer to be subject to criminal penalties under this section. The manufacturer, their officers or directors, would have to order, authorize, or ratify the introduction of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment into interstate commerce while knowing that the motor vehicle or equipment violated federal safety standards, that violation created a serious danger of an accident that would result in death or serious injury, and death or such injury occurs. Let me be clear, the standard required under this provision is ``actual knowledge.'' This provision is intended to provide the option of criminal penalties only in instances of conduct that are so egregious as to render civil penalties meaningless. The inclusion of a criminal penalties provision has received support from the Secretary of Transportation, Jacques Nasser, who is the President and CEO of Ford Motor Company, and consumer groups such as Public Citizen. This type of penalty is not novel. Multiple agencies are authorized to assess criminal penalties, including, among others, the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This provision would authorize the Secretary, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney General, to pursue criminal penalties against automobile manufacturers in instances where State governments may not have the resources to enforce their relevant law. Updating safety standards: Finally, this bill would require NHTSA to upgrade the tire-safety standard for the first time in 30 years. Regardless of whether the House or Senate version of the bill is enacted, the need for this legislation was triggered by the possibility that Ford and Bridgstone/Firestone may have had knowledge of a safety- related problem concerning the performance of certain tire models prior to the recall, but refrained from reporting even the possibility of a defect to NHTSA. Notwithstanding whether or not the manufacturers knew of the problem, the situation focused my attention, as well as the attention of my colleagues, to flaws that exist in the reporting processes between manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA. S. 3059 would amend the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act to make it more difficult for manufacturers to knowingly conceal safety-related information from the Secretary of Transportation and increase the penalties for such unlawful conduct. Under current law, manufacturers are not required to report to NHTSA either ``claims data,'' which include personal injury or property damage claims that can be helpful early-warning indicators of potential threats to consumer safety, or overseas actions involving equipment and vehicles sold in the United States. Furthermore, should manufacturers fail to report safety-related information that is required by the Secretary, the maximum civil penalty allowable under the current law is a mere $980,000. To put this in perspective, last year Ford Motor Company spent $2.57 billion on advertising. Other than minor adjustments over the last two years, the maximum civil penalty has not been updated since its enactment, which means, at a minimum, if adjusted for inflation it should be five times that amount in the year 2000. Finally, the current law does not allow for the assessment of criminal penalties for particularly egregious conduct. The absence of criminal penalties coupled with a nominal maximum civil penalty creates an environment where meaningful enforcement is impossible commonplace. This bill would change that practice. Mr. President, thus far, NHTSA has linked more than 100 deaths to the failures of Bridgestone/Firestone tires that are subject to the current recall. Each day it becomes more apparent that these deaths may have been avoided had NHTSA possessed vital safety-related information that the law does not currently require manufacturers to report. The legislation that I have introduced does not accomplish all of the needed reforms, but it is a positive step toward a more efficient exchange of safety-related information between the Secretary and manufacturers. Nevertheless, S. 3059 is being held up partly due to the influence of the automotive industry. The lives of American consumers are being placed at risk. We must act quickly to resolve the flaws in NHTSA's data-collection processes and prevent the recurrence of this crisis. I express my deep disappointment that the ``fix'' is in from the special interests. This bill will be held and will not be passed by the Senate; it will be passed by the House. Guess what. We couldn't do anything. I hope the American people are well informed by the media and by those family members who have lost loved ones and by the public safety advocate who see what is happening here. It is not my proudest moment in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the reason I am objecting to taking up the Department of Transportation appropriations report is that it contains a substantive amendment to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The legislation was never approved by either House or Senate commerce committees and failed in its attempts to correct indisputable faults with safety data collection and retention practices of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Well over 100 Americans have died, and estimates are that as many as 150 in other countries. This is a very serious safety issue in which American lives are at stake. I am simply asking to take up this legislation. I will be glad to have any amendments and time agreements associated with it--anything that we can do to move this legislation along. The House Commerce Committee yesterday passed similar legislation. We are told it will be passed on the floor of the House by next Tuesday. Why we can't take up this bill, which is designed according to consumer organizations, according to the Secretary of Transportation, according to all outside observers and safety experts, to stop or at least take action to reduce the number of American lives that will be lost on the highways of the United States of America is really hard to understand. Let me do the best I can to explain it. What is happening here is the ``fix is in.'' Here is the fix. The House will pass a bill. The Commerce Committee passed a bill, and the House will pass that bill this week. We have a series of holds on this legislation which passed the Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-0 in a bipartisan fashion after getting testimony from experts from all over America, from the Secretary of Transportation, from the Acting Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and others. That bill is now on the calendar. There are holds on the bill. Here is the fix. The House will pass the bill. The Senate will refuse to take up the bill because of holds, and we will then pass--no matter how hard I try to prevent it--the Department of Transportation appropriations safety report that contains simply language concerning what can be done about this issue. I have taken the floor on many, many occasions to talk about the influence of special interests in Washington. The automotive industry is now blocking this legislation. The word is on the street. The ``fix'' is in that the bill will not pass the Senate, or pass the House so House Members can say we did what we needed to do. You know what we are talking about here. We are talking about the lives of American citizens who are in danger as we speak. The special interests will now prevail over safety interests, where lives of Americans are literally at stake. Remarkable. Remarkable commentary. Remarkable. I have a letter and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank you for your response. The fact is, the Senator from New Mexico lodged the objection. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I withhold.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is of interest that the Members on the other side of the aisle have no objection to moving forward with this legislation, this unanimous consent request. Therefore, I intend to continue to propound the unanimous consent request as long as it seems there might be some way to do so. I say to the Senator from New Mexico--and I say this more in sorrow than anger--by objecting, you do take responsibility in not allowing this legislation to go forward, and I regret that deeply. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was told by the majority leader that if Senators had objections, they would come to the floor themselves. That was the word I had from the majority leader, that those who had objections would come themselves. I have his word on that, so I took his word. I think the Senator from New Mexico should know that was the word I was given by the majority leader of the Senate; That they would have to come down and object to this unanimous consent request themselves. So I hope the Senator from New Mexico will withdraw his objection.

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from Ohio and I respect his right to object. I intend to work with the Senator to resolve his concerns either before we move the bill or through the amendment process. As I have said from the beginning, all I am seeking is an opportunity for the Senate to address this matter before we adjourn.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there have been well over 100 deaths. Last weekend, a 10-year-old boy was killed when the driver of a Firestone- equipped Explorer had an accident near Laredo, TX. Authorities said at least one of the tires was shredded. I am not going to repeat every human tragedy that takes place here. But we passed a bill out of the Commerce Committee on a 20-0 vote. The majority leader is a member of that committee. He supported it. All Republican members had an opportunity to amend it, as well as those on the other side of the aisle. I would like to repeat; I have a letter from the Secretary of Transportation. In the last paragraph, he 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 will work with you in any way I can to help shape legislation the Congress can approve and the President can sign into law. Sincerely, Rodney Slater. Mr. President, the Members of the House of Representatives are here to meet with me. They just passed a bill through the House, 42-0, from their committee. They are prepared to take it to the floor of the House on Tuesday, is my understanding from Chairman Tauzin and Congressman Upton. Congressman Upton, by the way, as we all know, is from a State where the vehicles under question are manufactured and one of the reasons he has taken a lead role here. I hope we can get this agreement. I emphasize again my commitment to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Alabama, to work with him on serious concerns that he has about this issue. I assure the Senator from Alabama, again, my respect for him, his experience as former attorney general of his State, and I believe his views and his input will be very important. Also, in this unanimous consent request, there is no time limit and only relevant amendments are in order. It would be fairly easy, the way the Senate works, in the remaining days--because my understanding is now we will not be back until next Wednesday--it would be fairly easy to block this legislation, although I certainly hope that will not be the case. Again, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his consideration of this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order for the majority leader and the Democratic leader to determine the specific time and date for the consideration of S. 3059 and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to use 4 or 5 of those minutes in case someone who might object to the unanimous consent agreement would have time to come to the floor. I would like to say, within about 5 minutes I am going to try to get the unanimous consent agreement again. Mr. President, this is from October 9, 2000, a copy of Newsweek magazine: At first, the death of 14-year-old cheerleader Jessica LeAnn Taylor seemed simply to be a tragic tire failure. While heading for a football game in Mexia, Texas, on a hot October afternoon in 1998, the Ford Explorer in which Taylor was riding flipped after its left rear Firestone tire shredded at 70 miles an hour. Jessica's grieving parents sued Bridgestone/Firestone in March 1999. But over the last two months, as congressional investigators probed the recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, the Taylors became convinced that Ford Motor Co. shares the blame for their daughter's death. So late last month the Taylors sued Ford, too, and when the case goes to trial next spring, the Taylors' lawyer Randy Roberts says he will tell the jury: ``A piece of tire tread never killed anybody. People die when the vehicle rolls over. And the responsibility for the design and occupant protection of that vehicle belongs to Ford.'' Since the safety crisis began, Ford executives have argued the recall was strictly a ``tire issue.'' But as the death toll mounts to 101 lives, [it has exceeded that since then] questions about the stability of the Explorer are shifting the focus onto Ford. The carmaker is facing 80 lawsuits involving Explorers equipped with Firestones that shred at high speeds. Meanwhile, Firestone is consistently trying to blame Ford. ``We could remove every one of our tires from the Explorer, and rollovers and serious accidents will continue,'' Firestone executive John Lampe told a congressional panel.

Mr. McCAIN. I did not imply the Senator had to.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. Will the Senator from New Mexico, for the Record, say which Member or Members are objecting to this legislation?

Mr. McCAIN

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 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.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield to me just for a comment?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alabama leaves the floor, the Senator from Alabama should understand what he is doing. This bill came out 2 weeks ago. This bill came out 2 weeks ago and there are relevant amendments that are in order. The Senator from Alabama is going to bear responsibility for our failure to act. Mr. President, I quote to the Senator from Alabama what the Secretary of Transportation says: More importantly, however, is expeditious action on comprehensive legislation that will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects. I tell the Senator from Alabama, if we don't act expeditiously, we will not address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects. The Senator from Alabama can have all the amendments he wants that are relevant, and he can have all the time he wants that is relevant. By blocking the bill, the Senator from Alabama assumes great responsibility, great responsibility. I hope he has a chance to talk to the relatives of those who have already been killed, and those who are going to be killed if this legislation is killed. Again, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in consultation with the Democrat leader, establish a date certain and a time certain for consideration of S. 3059, and only relevant amendments to the bill be in order. For the benefit of my colleagues, that doesn't mean there is any time limit or any limits on amendments. An objection to this can only be viewed as obstructionism. I say again, expeditious action on comprehensive legislation will strengthen NHTSA's ability to address life-threatening motor vehicle safety defects. I intend to come back to the floor in about 15 minutes and propound this unanimous consent agreement again, if there is an objection.

Mr. McCAIN. It is my request.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I have the reason for the objection?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in consultation with the Democrat leader, establish a date certain and time certain for consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.

Mr. McCAIN. I am doing a unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States' transportation infrastructure is vital to its success as a nation. The ability to regulate and move goods and people safely and efficiently by land, air and sea has defined industrialized countries, nationally and internationally, for centuries. With our economy prospering, there have been significant increases in travel and movement of goods across our country. As a result, it is essential that critical transportation safety and policy programs get proper funding. This Transportation Appropriations conference report takes some appropriate steps in that direction. However, while I agree with the need for increased funding, I do not agree with the need for increased pork. Unfortunately, once again, the appropriations committee has adopted the mantra that increased funding for necessary programs equals increased pork-barrel spending for parochial projects. Mr. President, while I was speaking on the floor Monday, I read aloud from an article in that day's Wall Street Journal about the Congressional scramble to wrap up budget negotiations while at the same time, a frantic chase was underway by members seeking to ensure they could take home plenty of earmarked port barrel projects for their districts and states. Well, that article was like reading a crystal ball. And this enormously bloated transportation bill takes the cake. It illustrates one of the most gluttonous, pork-driven, self-serving spending agendas we've seen yet. Therefore, once again I must rise to object to the immense amount of special projects that have been earmarked in a conference report. Through the appropriations conference, legislators have tacked on millions of dollars in special interest ``projects''. These projects are pure pork tacked on for the benefit of a particular area or community. While some of these projects may not be objectionable on their merits, the process by which they are added is unconscionable. During closed-door conferences, decisions were made to tack on millions of dollars in special projects. Other members were not allowed to participate in, or vote on, the outcome. While democracy is the foundation of our government, the democratic process is shut out of these closed-door proceedings. Members were not even allowed to view the contents of this report until early this morning, even though it has been reported the conference was completed Tuesday morning. No member should be asked to consider a 146 page bill and 236 page report they were given no time to review. I do not think the managers of this legislation, nor, more importantly, the leadership of this chamber, should be at all proud of how this process has been handled. Indeed, this is not the kind of leadership we can expect the American voters to embrace. This earmarking process takes away the discretion of the very Federal agencies created and empowered to disburse federal funding. At the current levels of earmarking, we should just save the American taxpayers billions of dollars and abolish all Federal agencies and let the appropriators dole out money directly without any oversight. This transportation appropriations conference report adds more than $3 billion over the Administration's FY 2001 funding request. According to published reports, and I must rely on them, since neither I nor my staff have been allowed to view the report until moments ago, more than $2 billion of these funds are earmarked for highway and bridge projects. I note $600 million is earmarked for the project to replace the Woodrow Wilson Bridge over the Potomac River between Virginia and Maryland. The project already was given an earmark of $900 million through the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, TEA-21--that is, $900 million in addition to the billions of dollars each state receives in their annual highway funding allocation. To add insult to injury, the additional money is being taken from the budget surplus. Mr. President, mark my word, that project is the next ``Big Dig'' in the making. The estimated costs of the project have already soared from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion--and you can bet those costs will keep going up and up and up. Besides earmarking more than $2 billion in extra funds for highway and bridge projects, of which the Wilson Bridge receives 25 percent of, the conference managers earmarked nearly every other dollar available in the bill. These earmarks reportedly include $102 million for the U.S. 82 bridge over the Mississippi River at Greenville, Mississippi, $100 million for I-49 in Arkansas and almost $20 million for I-69 in Tennessee. Mr. President, there are a lot of roads and bridges that need rehabilitation; I don't understand why Congress is substituting its judgment for the judgment of Federal agencies. In addition, there have been a reported $700 million in transit earmarks for the Chicago Metro and Transit Authority in the home state of the Speaker of the House, for a rapid transit bus project at Dulles International Airport in the home state of the Chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and for the Minneapolis Hiawatha project in the home district of the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee. According to his own press releases, and again, I had to rely on them since I had no real opportunity to view the bill, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation has managed to earmark almost $300 million in transportation funds for his home state. Again that is $300 million in personal projects for his state! Included in this amount is $100 million for the construction of ``Corridor X'', a 97 mile highway through northwest Alabama; $34 million for construction of the Birmingham Northern Beltline; $10 million to construct a Transportation Technology Center at Auburn University; $3 million to the State of Alabama to develop a training program for jobs in the automobile manufacturing field. The conference report also provides $9 million to replace the Whitesburg Bridge in Alabama; $5 million for the Mobile Alabama Maritime Center; $2.5 million to initiate on-campus shuttle bus service at the University of South Alabama; $2 million for the University of Alabama-Birmingham to acquire fuel cell buses; and $2 million to the University of North Alabama to improve transit and pedestrian access. Mr. President, this is taxpayer money used to fund the personal pork projects of the appropriators. And I have never seen the levels of pork that we are reaching. This year, for the first time ever, the appropriators have earmarked $300 million for specific discretionary projects in the FAA airport improvement program. This past year, we fought long and hard with the appropriators and budgeteers to ensure that there was increased funding for airport infrastructure. This was necessary to attempt to keep up with the significant increase in air travel over the past 10 years and the expected increase over the next 10. I congratulate Congress for meeting the agreed upon levels of authorizations. However, now that we have increased funding, the appropriators feel as if they have the necessary knowledge and expertise to determine where $300 million of these monies should go. Mr. President, I realize that as members of Congress, we travel a great deal. However, I don't believe that experience supplies members with the necessary wisdom to replace FAA's judgment on which projects deserve merit and which projects do not. The FAA is tasked with the safety of our aviation system. But Congress won't let it do the job. Now we are saying to--indeed, the bill directs--the FAA to spend this increased funding where Congress wants it to, not where it is needed. Mr. President, this is obscene and untenable. Mr. President, I could go on and on about pork-barrel spending and its effect on the taxpayer, but I will conclude with this thought. We have acted responsibly to increase funding, we are not acting responsibly by denoting where this money should go. I ask unanimous consent that examples of this port barrel spending from the transportation appropriations conference report be entered in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. I also assure the majority leader that if it appears as if there is going to be an avalanche of relevant amendments to which we cannot get time agreements, then I am not interested in tying up the entire Senate on that legislation. But I do believe that it is important that we take it up, obviously. I am grateful the other side doesn't object to the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, set a time and date for consideration of S. 3059, and that only relevant amendments to the bill be in order.

Mr. McCAIN

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.