Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8254-S8259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of the
cloture vote that is upcoming. I also rise to speak on the amendment
that is pending called the Murray-Shelby amendment, which is in
violation of NAFTA.
As a person who believes very much in reducing barriers to trade
between countries--and particularly for the benefit of America because
other countries have much higher barriers than the United States--as we
bring down barriers to trade and other countries, going to our level,
it is obviously going to help the United States have a more level
playing field in order to export our products and to be able to do it
in a way that creates jobs in America. We all know export-related jobs
are jobs that pay 15 percent above the national average.
While we have had a very big expansion in trade as a result of the
North American Free Trade Agreement between the countries of Canada,
the United States, and Mexico, we now have a rider on this bill
providing an opportunity to put in place some restrictions which may in
fact bring retaliatory action on the part of Mexico.
Obviously, when I hear a threat against American agricultural
products as one form of retaliation, it gets my attention, being from
an agricultural State, particularly when we work so hard to get lower
barriers on trade in these international agreements. Quite frankly,
barriers to trade are much greater on agriculture than they are for
manufactured products and for services, because the worldwide tariff on
agricultural products is 45 percent, whereas for most other products
the average is about 10 percent to 12 percent.

U.S. tariffs and obstacles to trade are very low in agriculture
compared to other countries.
As indicated in a letter, which I cosigned, to our colleagues for
them to consider when voting on this provision of the bill, I am as
concerned about safety of trucks from other countries using our
highways. But I also understand that our Department of Transportation
is also concerned about that and is going to put in place very shortly
the very successful California system for inspection of trucks so we
can make sure the trucks and drivers from other countries are using our
highways safely.
But it was suggested yesterday by the Economic Minister of Mexico
that if the Senate approves this provision and it becomes law, as the
Reuters news article of yesterday indicated, ``It would leave us''--
meaning the country of Mexico--``with no other recourse than to take
measures against the United States.'' The Economic Minister of Mexico,
according to this report, said one option would be to block imports of
high-fructose corn syrup from the United States.
This issue has already been one source of friction between our two
countries. Mexico has already been placing prohibitive tariffs on our
sweeteners. The United States won a World Trade Organization decision
against Mexico on this issue. We will be putting in jeopardy the
compliance of that measure if they retaliate.
I don't know why any Member of the Senate from an agricultural
State--a very important industry in their respective States--would want
to vote in support of the Shelby-Murray provision if there were a
chance of retaliation against agricultural products, particularly those
from the Middle West where corn is such an important agricultural
product, and put in jeopardy our exports to China along the lines of
the threat of the Economic Minister of Mexico.
I call upon Members of both parties who understand the importance of
agriculture and understand the importance of our ability to export our
agricultural production. We produce 40 percent more than we consume
domestically, and the profitability of agriculture is very much tied to
exports. Why would they want to do anything that would bring
retaliation against American agriculture, particularly in the Midwest
with products such as corn?
I hope every Member in every state where agriculture is an important
product, where they are concerned about profitability of agriculture,
and where they are particularly concerned about the ability to export
our products, will consider the threat of the Economic Minister of
Mexico and what they might do in retaliation. We ought to abide by the
spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement and reject the
provisions of the appropriations bill that would restrict some of the
international obligations of the United States.
I hope every Member will make sure they see their vote as a vote that
could negatively affect American agriculture, particularly as it
affects corn farmers in America. Why would anybody want to hurt
American agriculture by voting for this provision?
American agriculture has benefited from the North American Free Trade

[[Page S8255]]

Agreement. We are exporting much more agricultural products to Mexico
than we did 7 years ago when this agreement was put in place. We should
respect the spirit of it. International trade is a two-way street. We
cannot expect just to export everything to other countries and not
import as well.

I want to make sure that people understand that this vote could be
potentially negative to American agriculture. I ask them to consider
that.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Lee
Klien, president of the National Corn Growers Association, and Charles
F. Conner, president of the Corn Refiners Association, speaking to
their concern about the Murray-Shelby amendment and asking us to take
into consideration the position of the Mexican Government, that they
might retaliate against American agriculture, particularly American
corn and corn products exported to Mexico.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

July 26, 2001.
Dear Senator Lott: The National Corn Growers Association
and Corn Refiners Association, Inc. urge that the Senate not
permit unrelated trade actions to destroy the $90 million
market for U.S. high fructose corn syrup shipped to Mexico.
The Government of Mexico has clearly stated that if
legislation to restrict access of the Mexican trucking
industry to the U.S. becomes law, they will retaliate by
placing restrictions on U.S. exports of high fructose corn
syrup. These exports have already been dampened by trade
actions of the Mexican government and could be ended entirely
if the Mexican trucking measure passed by the House becomes
law. Exports of high fructose corn syrup to Mexico put over
$35 million in the hands of U.S. corn farmers and provide a
much needed market for U.S. grain.
The U.S. recently won a case in the World Trade
Organization contesting existing Mexican restrictions on high
fructose corn syrup exports. This case, and other
developments, could point to achieving a much larger market
for U.S. agriculture in the years to come. Our groups
strongly support measures and actions to open, not close,
trade between the U.S. and our NAFTA partners.
We urge that you protect this market for U.S. agriculture
and reject unwarranted protection that can damage U.S. trade
and violate the intent of NAFTA.
Sincerely,
Lee Kline,
President, National Corn Growers Associations.
Charles F. Conner,
President, Corn Refiners Association, Inc.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum. And I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum
call be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is left on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Republican side there are 20 minutes 43
seconds; on the Democratic side there are 35 minutes 54 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, in every part of our country Americans are
frustrated by the transportation problems that we face every day. We
sit in traffic on overcrowded roads. We wait through delays in
congested airports. We have rural areas that are trapped in the past
without the roads and the infrastructure they need to survive. We have
many Americans who make their living along our shores, fishing or
boating. They count on the Coast Guard to keep them safe. But today the
Coast Guard does not have the resources to fully protect us. We have
many families who live near oil and gas pipelines. They are afraid that
those aging, untested pipelines could rupture, and with very good
reason, given all the tragedies we have had lately. They want us to
make pipelines safer.
Our transportation problems frustrate us as individuals, and they
frustrate our Nation's economy, slowing down our productivity and
putting the brakes on progress. It is time to help Americans on our
highways, our railways, our airways, and our waterways. We can do so by
passing this transportation appropriations bill.
For months, Senator Shelby and I have worked in a bipartisan way with
virtually every Member of this Senate to meet the transportation needs
in all 50 States. They told us their priorities, and we found a way to
accommodate them. We have come up with a balanced, bipartisan bill that
will make our highways safer, our roads less crowded, and our country
more productive. Now is our chance to put this progress to work for the
people we represent.
Our bill has broad support from both parties. It passed the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee unanimously. It passed the
full Appropriations Committee unanimously. Now it is before the full
Senate ready for a vote, ready to go to work to help Americans who are
fed up with traffic congestion and airport delays.
In a short time, the Senate will vote to move forward on this very
important bill. I hope the Senate will vote to invoke cloture so that
we can begin working on the many solutions across the country that will
improve our lives, our travel, and our productivity.
This vote is about fixing the transportation problems that we face,
and it is about ensuring the safety of our transportation
infrastructure. If you vote for cloture, you are voting to give your
communities the resources they need to escape from crippling traffic
and overcrowded roads.
If you vote for cloture, you are saying that our highways must be
safe and that trucks coming from Mexico must meet our safety standards
if they are going to share our roads. But if you vote against cloture,
you are telling the people in your State that they will have to keep
waiting in traffic and keep wasting time in congestion.
If you vote against cloture, you are voting against the safety
standards in this bill. A ``no'' vote would open up our borders to
trucks that we know are unsafe, without inspections, and without the
safety standards we expect and deserve.

This vote is not about partisanship or protectionism. It is about
productivity and public safety.
I want to highlight how this bill will improve highway travel,
airline safety, pipeline safety, and Coast Guard protection.
First and foremost, this bill will address the chronic traffic
problems facing our communities. In fact, under this bill every State--
every single State--will receive more highway construction funding than
the President requested. And with this bill, every State would receive
more highway construction funding than they would under the levels
assumed in TEA-21.
Our bill improves America's highways. Our bill also includes money to
increase seatbelt use so we can save lives on our roads.
Let's vote for cloture so we can begin sending help to our States.
Secondly, this bill will improve air transportation, and it will make
air travel more safe. This bill provides additional funding to hire 221
more FAA inspectors. The administration's budget did not provide this
funding, but our bill does because it is a national priority.
Let's vote for cloture so we can begin putting these new inspectors
on the job for our safety.
Third, our bill boosts funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety by
more than $11 million above current levels. That means: funding all new
26 positions requested by OPS; $4.7 million for pipeline safety
research and development; $8 million for testing and best safety
practices; and $3.4 million to improve community right-to-know and to
update our national mapping system
Let's vote for cloture so we can begin making America's pipelines
safer before another tragedy claims more innocent lives.
Fourth, this bill will give the Coast Guard the funding it needs to
protect us and our environment. Our subcommittee has held several
hearings on this issue, and we have great respect for the men and women
of our Coast Guard. We want them to be able to do their jobs safely
with the training and support they need.
Our bill will help modernize the maritime 911 system. It will address
serious staffing, training, and equipment shortfalls at search and
rescue stations. And our bill funds the mandatory pay and benefit costs
for our Coast Guard service members.

[[Page S8256]]

Let's vote for cloture so we can begin making our waterways safer.
These examples show how this bill will help address the
transportation problems we all so desperately face at home.
This vote, though, is also about making our highways safe, so I want
to turn to the issue of Mexican trucks. And I want to clear up a few
things.
Some Members have suggested that Senator Shelby and I have refused to
negotiate on this bill. That simply is not the case. As I have said
several times in this Chamber, we are here, we are ready, and we are
listening. And we have had extensive meetings, bringing both sides
together.
On Tuesday, our staffs met until well after midnight. Again
yesterday, Wednesday, our staffs met from midafternoon until 3 a.m.
this morning. We have worked, as well, this morning, meeting one more
time. We have worked with all sides to move this bill forward.
I want to point out something else to those who say we must
compromise, compromise, compromise. The Murray-Shelby bill itself is a
compromise. It is a balanced, moderate compromise between the extreme
positions taken by the administration and the House of Representatives.
On one hand, we have the administration, which took a hands-off
approach to let all Mexican trucks across the border and then inspect
them later, up to a year and a half later. Even though we know these
trucks are much less safe than American or Canadian trucks, the
administration thinks it is fine for us to share the road with them,
without any assurance of their safety.
At the other extreme was the ``strict protectionist'' position of the
House of Representatives. It said no Mexican trucks can cross the
border and that not one penny could be spent to inspect them. Those are
the extreme positions.
The administration said: Let in all the trucks without ensuring our
safety. The House of Representatives said: Don't let any trucks in
because they are not safe.
Senator Shelby and I have worked very hard. We have found a balanced,
bipartisan, commonsense compromise. We listened to the safety experts,
to the Department of Transportation's own inspector general, to the
GAO, and to the industry. We came up with a compromise that will allow
Mexican trucks onto our highways and will ensure that those trucks and
their drivers are safe. With this balanced bill, free trade and highway
safety can move forward side by side.
This bill doesn't punish Mexico, and that is not our intention.
Mexico is an important neighbor, ally, and friend. Mexican drivers are
working hard to put food on their own families' tables, and we want
them to be safe, both for their families and for ours.
NAFTA was passed to strengthen our partnerships and to raise the
standard of living in all three countries. We are continuing to move
towards that goal, and the bipartisan Murray-Shelby compromise will
help us get there.
Right now Mexican trucks are not as safe as they should be. According
to the Department of Transportation inspector general, Mexican trucks
are significantly less safe than American trucks. Last year, nearly two
in five Mexican trucks failed their safety inspections. That compares
with one in four American trucks and one in seven Canadian trucks.
Furthermore, Mexican trucks have been routinely violating the current
restrictions that limit their travel to the 20-mile commercial zone.
The Department of Transportation's own inspector general has found that
52 Mexican trucking firms have already operated illegally in more than
half of the United States.
We have, as Members of the Senate, a responsibility to ensure the
safety of America's highways. The Murray-Shelby compromise allows us to
promote safety without violating NAFTA.
During this debate we have heard from some Senators who say that they
think ensuring the safety of Mexican trucks would violate NAFTA. We
have heard that some White House advisers think ensuring the safety of
Mexican trucks would violate NAFTA. I appreciate all of their opinions,
but with all due respect, there is only one authority, only one
official body that decides what violates NAFTA and what does not. That
organization, established under the NAFTA treaty itself, is the
arbitration board known as the Arbitral Panel. Here is what that
authority said:

The United States may not be required to treat applications
from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as
applications from United States or Canadian firms . . .
U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operations of
trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is United
States, Canadian, or Mexican.

Those are not my words. Those are from the people who decide, the
NAFTA arbitration panel. It is that simple. We can ensure the safety of
Mexican trucks and comply with NAFTA. This bill shows us how with a
commonsense safety measure.
Under our bill, when you are driving on the highway behind a Mexican
truck, you can feel safe. You will know that truck was inspected and
that the company has a good track record. You will know an American
inspector visited their facility and examined their records, just as we
do with Canadian trucking firms. You will know the driver is licensed
and insured and the truck is weighed and is safe for our roads and
bridges. You will know we are keeping track of which drivers are
obeying our laws and which ones are not. You will know drivers who
break our laws won't be on our roads because their licenses will be
revoked.

You will know that the person behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler has
not been driving for 20 or 30 straight hours. You will know that the
truck didn't just cross our border unchecked but crossed where there
were inspectors on duty. That is a real safety program. That will make
me feel comfortable driving my family on our highways.
The administration's plan is just far too weak. Under the
administration's plan, trucking companies would mail in a form saying
they are safe and begin driving on our highways--no inspections for up
to a year and a half. The White House is telling American families that
the safety check is in the mail. I don't know about anybody else, but I
wouldn't bet my family's safety on that.
I want an actual inspector looking at that truck, checking that
driver's record, making sure that truck won't threaten me or my family.
The White House says: Take the trucking company at its word that its
trucks and drivers are safe. Senator Shelby and I say: Trust an
American safety inspector to make sure that truck and driver will be
safe on our roads.
This is a solid compromise. It will allow robust trade while ensuring
the safety of our highways. The people of America need help in the
transportation challenges they face every day on our crowded roads.
This bill provides real help and funds the projects for which our
Members have been asking.
Some Senators apparently would hold every transportation project in
the country hostage until they have weakened the safety standards in
the Murray-Shelby compromise. That is the wrong thing to do. Let's keep
the safety standards in place so that when you are driving down the
highway next to a truck with Mexican license plates, you will know that
truck is safe. Let's vote for safety by voting for cloture on this
bill.
In closing, this vote is about two things: Helping Americans who are
frustrated every day by transportation problems, and ensuring the
safety of our transportation infrastructure. Today I urge my colleagues
to vote for cloture so we can put this good, balanced bill to work for
the American people.
Voting for cloture means we can begin making our roads less crowded,
our airports less congested, our waterways safer, our railroads better,
and our highways safer. Virtually every Member of this Senate has come
up to me and told me about the transportation challenges in their
State. Senator Shelby and I have listened. We have done everything we
can to meet America's priorities.
Those who vote for cloture are voting to begin making progress across
the country in ensuring the safety of our highways. Those who vote
against cloture are voting to keep our roads and our airports crowded
and to expose Americans to new dangers on our highways.
The choice is simple. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture so we
can

[[Page S8257]]

begin putting this good, balanced bill to work for the people we
represent.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally
divided and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I just want to make a few points before
we vote on cloture. It is unfortunate that we are even at this point,
but if cloture is the only way to move forward on the Transportation
appropriations bill, then I urge my colleagues to support cloture.
This isn't a partisan issue--there is no such thing as Republican or
Democrat roads. When the Transportation bill finally passes, I suspect
that we will have all but a handful of Senators supporting the final
bill.
You have to ask yourself who the winners and losers are in the
situation we find ourselves today. I think it is hard to pick the
winners, but clearly the loser in this situation is the administration.
The amount of time that we have had to spend on this bill to this
point--and that we will have to spend to complete action on it--pushes
the appropriations process into an area that is dangerous for the
administration.
The worst thing that can happen for the administration and budget
hawks--I have been accused of being a budget hawk and a budget spender.
I do not know how you do both--is to have appropriations bills back up
against the end of the fiscal year. Unfortunately, the situation in
which we find ourselves in this chamber today makes it much more likely
that the President will be facing an omnibus appropriations bill.
If we have learned any lesson from the past few years, it is this:
spending will increase in an omnibus bill. I know this President is
committed to limiting the growth in government spending but,
unfortunately, the Senate is making his job harder by failing to
expeditiously move these spending measures.
Yesterday, the Department of Transportation, the Office of Management
and Budget, and the White House all told me that Senators Gramm and
McCain do not speak on behalf of the President--that the President
speaks for himself.
So even if we could come to agreement on the Mexican truck safety
provisions, we have no assurance that we have addressed the concerns
that the President has with this measure.
The simple solution is to move this issue to conference. Although, I
respect the rights accorded every Member of this body. I fail to
understand why a small faction in the Senate to desire to tie up the
Senate floor until this bill completely reflects their views.
The Senator from Washington and I have spent a great deal of time
trying to understand and work with those Senators and their staffs to
resolve these issues in the finest traditions of the Senate.
In fact, I remained hopeful that we could come to closure on a
package that we could all support until shortly before noon this
morning. Unfortunately, I believe we are at an impasse and it is time
to let the Senate work its will.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields, time will be charged equally to both sides.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I compliment the managers of this bill.
They have put an enormous amount of time and effort and work into
bringing the bill to the floor, marking it up in committee, and
conducting hearings on it. I believe the Senate is in their debt.
This is a bill that is needed. It has important appropriations in it
for our country and it is a bill that comes to the floor in a situation
in which we are very constrained for time. We have the August recess
fast approaching. We have already reported from the committee seven
appropriations bills in addition to the supplemental appropriations
bill.
The committee will be meeting this afternoon to report two additional
appropriations bills. Thus, we will have nine appropriations bills
reported by the committee, in addition to the supplemental, which has
already been signed into law.
Here we are, with only a week remaining before the August break.
Presumably, we will go home and not tackle this enormous task before we
return. We have all these conferences that have to take place on these
bills. I have talked with the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee just this morning. He agrees with me that we need to move
ahead with these conferences. I have urged we at least get our staffs
to work on the preliminary differences that exist between the two
Houses, especially on my own bill, the Interior appropriations bill. So
the two Houses, through the chairmen, are working together, not just
the chairman. We also include our ranking member, Senator Stevens, and
in the case of my own bill, there is also, of course, Mr. Obey and Mr.
Dicks.
So we have work to do. I hope the Senate will invoke cloture on this
motion. We must get on with our work. It is not my choice that we delay
our work. Every Senator has certain rights. I respect the rights of any
Senator to offer amendments, to debate, speak, even to delay. I have
every respect for that. Those things are within Senate rules.
Again, I commend the managers of the bill. I commend our leader, Mr.
Daschle; our assistant leader, Mr. Reid of Nevada; and I hope Senators
will respond to the demands of the moment, the demands being that we
utilize our time, get on with the work of the Senate, pass this
appropriations bill, and send it to conference.
There are 13 regular bills. Those bills have to be passed before we
go home. They have to be passed to keep the Government running. I don't
want to see an omnibus bill. I am against omnibus appropriations bills;
things are done in a hurry. They are more costly because things are
added which otherwise might not be added, and all too often the
administration is virtually given an open invitation to come into the
conference when there is an omnibus bill and we reach the fiscal
deadline.
We have done very well thus far this year. We have a lot of work to
do and I hope the Senate acts today to save time and act upon this
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the time now
is for the two leaders; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to Senator Murray, I have been
impressed with her in days past. We worked together on a number of
different issues. Her work this week in this appropriations bill has
been exemplary. She has been tenacious. She has been willing to
compromise, as a legislator must do. I think she and Senator Shelby
have done an outstanding job. It will be a real shame, in my
estimation, if we do not have a bipartisan vote this afternoon to
invoke cloture on this very important piece of legislation.

For me and the State of Nevada, this legislation is important.
Transit, airports, highways--this is a bill that is vital to the people
of the State of Nevada.
I want the ability shown by the Senator from Washington spread on the
Record of the Senate. She has been a good, good legislator. I am proud
to work with her, and I think, as far as the traditions of the
Appropriations Committee are concerned, she is right there with the
best.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the last 5 minutes of the debate
time today, as I asked earlier, be reserved for the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8258]]

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator
from Washington for her outstanding work and leadership in bringing us
to this point. She inherited a very difficult and challenging
legislative set of circumstances. She has maneuvered through those
circumstances admirably. I am grateful to her for the leadership and
the direction she has provided the caucus.
Let me say as he walks on to the Senate floor, I am also very
grateful for the outstanding leadership and cooperation provided by the
distinguished ranking member from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. The two have
shown what real bipartisanship on complicated matters can be, and they
personify it. I am grateful to both of them.
I think it is important to say what this issue is not, then say what
it is, and then I think we ought to have a vote. What this issue is not
is any threat to NAFTA, any threat to free trade. There have been
rumors, in the last 48 hours in particular, that somehow the language
presented in this bill would violate NAFTA. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I think Senator Baucus made that point very eloquently
on the floor just recently. I am grateful to him. But this is NAFTA-
compliant. There is nothing about which we will now vote that has
anything to do with violating NAFTA, so let's make that point clear at
the beginning.
Second, there are those, in the last several days, who have somehow
tried to imply that to be in favor of the Murray-Shelby language is to
be anti-Hispanic. That is not only disappointing, it does a disservice
to this debate. That kind of rhetoric ought not be excusable. This is a
bona fide, very thoughtful, deliberate consideration about what ought
to be American policy with regard to safety. No one in this country--no
one--should deny the importance of our relationship with Mexico. No one
should deny in any way, shape, or form the importance of open and free
trade with Mexico as we consider all the important ramifications of
this trade.
But for anyone to say that somehow to be supportive of this makes one
anti-Hispanic, in my view, is a direct confrontation with the prestige
and the extraordinary reputation of the two Senators who are authors of
this bill, along with many other members of the Hispanic caucus and
Members on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle who
want to find a resolution to this matter.
This legislation is simply an effort to deal with a problem that is
growing in importance and concern. We have a safety problem in this
country that has to be addressed. We have standards that are adhered to
by every trucking company, every truckdriver, every State in the
country. All we are saying is, simply, if we are going to have
continued trade with Mexico, if we are going to have Mexican trucks,
let's at least ensure that Mexican trucks meet our safety standards.
That is all the Murray-Shelby language does. It ensures some degree of
confidence that we can address the question of truck safety.
This is not the extraordinary language that was added to the House
bill. This is a recognition that we can find middle ground. I will say
before the vote, and it ought to be emphasized, how grateful I am that
these two Senators in particular spent all the last several days--in
fact, we accommodated them with our floor schedule--to try to find
common ground with those who oppose this language. They were here last
night until 2 o'clock in the morning. I give them credit for making the
effort to try to achieve the common ground we failed to achieve as a
result of these negotiations.
Let there be no mistake: This vote is a vote about truck safety. This
vote is an absolute necessity if we are going to move this
Transportation bill forward. I will have no other choice but to pull
the Transportation appropriations bill and move on to other issues,
given the extraordinary amount of work that has to be done in the brief
time we have between now and the August recess.
Let me end where I began by thanking the distinguished chair and
ranking member and all of those who have demonstrated good, bipartisan
leadership in reaching a solution to this very complex issue.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very concerned about unsafe
Mexican trucks entering the United States and endangering American
motorists. I have no doubts that there will be accidents and lives will
be lost.
I very strongly believe that the U.S. Senate must stand firm and do
everything in our power to make sure trucks are not allowed to travel
throughout the U.S. unless they comply with all U.S. safety rules and
regulations. This includes making sure Mexican drivers hold valid
drivers licenses, retain adequate American insurance, and abide by U.S.
hours of service limits.
Right now on our border, even if a Mexican truck crossing into the
United States is inspected, the safety inspector has no idea how long
the Mexican driver has been driving. I believe we should not let a
driver who has been driving 20 hours into the United States because
doing so would endanger American lives.
I have spoken with the Mexican Ambassador on this issue, and we both
agreed that Mexican trucks should meet all U.S. laws. I don't want to
discriminate against Mexican trucks, but we need to have the proper
procedures in place before these trucks expand their travel throughout
the United States. There are clearly not enough inspections at the
border right now because only 1 or 2 percent of the trucks crossing the
border are given safety inspections.
I believe strongly in this issue, and I raised these concerns with
Senator Murray, the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, and I think she has done an excellent job to include
provisions to address safety while still ensuring the language is NAFTA
compliant.
The Murray-Shelby provisions will keep our highways safe, while
meeting our obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I strongly believe that we must make safety the highest priority and
that is exactly what the Murray-Shelby provisions do.
Last year, more than 5,300 Americans died in accidents involving
commercial trucks. As the Department of Transportation's Inspector
General said last Wednesday, 5,300 fatalities would mean an airline
crash every two weeks.
Now just think about that. If there were a catastrophic
transportation incident every 2 weeks, would we want to do something to
worsen the danger and increase fatalities? I hope we wouldn't, but that
is exactly what we are doing if we allow the Bush Administration to
proceed and open up the entire U.S. highway system to Mexican trucks.
Mexican trucks pose significant safety threats when out on the roads.
U.S. safety inspectors have found that, on average, 36 percent of the
Mexican trucks inspected have significant safety defects. This means
over one-third of all Mexican trucks have serious safety violations,
such as defective breaks, inoperative steering, and bald tires. Truck
drivers might also not have a valid drivers license, lawful insurance,
or logbooks to document how many hours they have been driving without
sleep.
True, U.S. trucks have an ``out-of-service'' rate of over 20 percent,
but the rate for Mexican trucks at 36 percent is still well above the
U.S. average.
More importantly, safety inspectors can only evaluate 1 or 2 percent
of the 4.5 million trucks that cross the U.S.-Mexican border each year.
I believe that until our Nation has the people and the infrastructure
at the border necessary to inspect Mexican trucks sufficiently, they
must be contained in the 20-mile commercial zone where they now
operate.
There are three different approaches to address how to keep our roads
safe:
First, the House has said, ``no matter what, keep the trucks out.''
On June 26 the House passed an unconditional ban on Mexican trucks, and
that is one option.
Second, the administration and Senators working with the
administration

[[Page S8259]]

on this issue have said, ``open the border as soon as possible.'' Now,
they do call for some safety requirements and some enforcement to be in
place, but this is not an issue where we should provide a half-loaf
solution.
And third, there is the option that I support--the option chosen
unanimously by the members of the Appropriations Committee--to put
safety first and not open the border until specific safety requirements
are in place.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $103.2 million not
approved by the House to pay for more resources at the border. The bill
includes $13.9 million for additional safety inspectors, $18 million
for grants to border states, and $71.3 million for facilities along the
U.S.-Mexican border.
Even with the steps being taken, the Department of Transportation's
Inspector General has said that ``additional actions are needed to
reasonably ensure the safety of commercial vehicles and drivers as they
enter at the southern border, operate within the commercial zone, and
traverse the United States.''
To address these concerns, the Appropriations Committee included
comprehensive safety provisions in this bill. Most importantly, Mexican
trucks will stay within the commercial zone and off all other U.S.
highways until they meet the safety standards demanded by American
motorists.
Specifically, under the bipartisan Murray-Shelby provisions, Mexican
carriers will be given full safety reviews before they will be allowed
to operate in the United States and the Department of Transportation
will keep a watchful eye on how they operate once they are found to be
safe carriers through a follow-up safety audit.
In addition, the following steps must be taken by the Department of
Transportation and the 190 Mexican carriers that are awaiting permits
to send their trucks throughout the United States:
The Department of Transportation must:
Certify that all border crossings have complete coverage by trained
inspectors during all operating hours;
Certify all 80 new border inspectors as ``safety specialists'';
Provide adequate facilities to conduct inspections and place unsafe
trucks out of service;
Conduct a sufficient number of inspections to maintain safe roads;
and
Certify that there is an accurate system to verify Mexican drivers
licenses, vehicle registrations, and insurance certificates on the
border.
Mexican carriers must:
Comply with U.S. hours-of-service rules so that U.S. inspectors know
how long a trucker has been driving when they arrive at the border; and
Provide proof of valid insurance granted by a U.S. firm.
It is essential to recognize that the Murray-Shelby provisions don't
open the border until safety standards are met, but the Bush
administration wants to open the border as soon as possible and monitor
safety while trucks are operating throughout the United States.
Should we not err on the side of caution and have our inspectors and
infrastructure in place before Mexican trucks are allowed north?
As I mentioned, I have met with the Mexican Ambassador, Juan Jose
Bremer, on this issue and we both agree that Mexican trucks should meet
U.S. safety standards.
Because--at this stage--Mexican trucks present a greater danger than
other trucks on our roads, we must protect American motorists.
I am encouraged by the steps Mexico has taken to work with the United
States--not just on this issue, but on others as well. Yet, I am a
strong supporter of the provisions authored by Senator Murray because I
believe some more steps need to be taken on both sides to address
safety before Mexican trucks travel throughout the United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________