Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8301-S8324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 2299, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1025, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1030 (to amendment No. 1025),
to enhance the inspection requirements for Mexican motor
carriers seeking to operate in the United States and to
require them to display decals.
Gramm amendment No. 1168 (to amendment No. 1030), to
prevent violations of United States commitments under the
North American Free Trade Agreement.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader has asked I advise
everyone that the Senate will resume consideration of the
Transportation Appropriations Act under postcloture conditions. Cloture
was invoked yesterday by a margin of 70-30.
We hope to be able to work out an agreement on this matter today, if
possible. If we can't, we would have a vote tonight on the matter now
before the Senate dealing with cloture at approximately 8:45. There
will be votes throughout the day on other matters if we are not able to
work something out.
As we announced yesterday, we very much hope we can move to the
agricultural emergency supplemental authorization bill. It is extremely
important that be done prior to the August recess. We also have, as my
friend, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, knows, concern
about moving forward on the Export Administration Act, which also
should be done before our August recess because that law expires in
mid-August. The high-tech industry throughout America has been calling
our offices asking that we do this. With the slowdown of the high-tech
industry, we need to move this legislation.
As I indicated, there will be rollcall votes throughout the day. We
hope we can move forward on other matters, but we understand the Senate
rules and will abide by whatever Senators McCain and Gramm think is
necessary.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is now considering the
Transportation appropriations bill that has now been before the Senate
for a week. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are
extremely important to our Nation's infrastructure. This is a bill that
I have been very proud to work on in a bipartisan way with the ranking
member of my committee, Senator Shelby. I will take a moment this
morning to recognize the tremendous work and help of Senator Shelby and
his staff and our staff. They have spent long nights negotiating this
bill this week, working to a

[[Page S8302]]

point where we could get this bill out and do it in a way that provides
the infrastructure we think is so important, whether it is for our
airports, our railways, whether it is for our roads or waterways.
There are extremely important provisions in this bill for many
Members of the Senate. We have had considerable requests from every
Member of the Senate for important infrastructure improvements in their
State. I am very proud of the work Senator Shelby and I have done. We
have worked extremely hard for the last 5 months to put this bill
together. I think we have done a very good job. We have met and
exceeded every request of this President, unlike the House, and we have
done a good job, I believe, of meeting the transportation requirements
of every Senator who has come to us.
I was pleased yesterday we were able to come to cloture on this
measure on a very strong vote from the Senate of 70-30. I realize there
are some Members of the Senate who think the provisions do not meet
their requirements, but I think we have done a very good job of not
doing what the House did, which was to absolutely prohibit any truck
from coming across the border, and not do what the President has asked,
which was to simply open up the borders and let trucks come through at
will, but to put together a comprehensive piece of legislation which I
believe will clearly mean we will be able to have a bill that is passed
that assures constituents, whether they live in Washington State or
constituents living in border States, when they see a truck with a
Mexican license plate, they will know that truck has been inspected,
that its driver has a good record, that it is safe to be on our
highways, as we now require of Canadian trucks and American trucks.

Can we do better for all trucks on our highways? Absolutely. But it
is clear we need to make sure, as NAFTA provisions go into place and we
do start getting cross-border traffic, we can assure our moms who are
driving kids to school, or our families who travel on vacation, or each
one of us as we drive to work today, that we know our highways are
safe. I believe the provisions we have put into this bill do make sure
that happens.
I understand from the Senator from Nevada we will have a vote
sometime this morning. I will take some time between now and then to
walk through again what the compromise provisions are. I think they are
very solid and give a lot of assurance. It is important we understand
what we are passing out of the Senate.
The DOT plans to issue conditional operating authority to Mexican
truck companies based on a simple mail-in questionnaire. All that
Mexican truck companies will need to do is simply check a box saying
they have complied with U.S. regulations and then their trucks will
start rolling across the border. In fact, under the Department of
Transportation plan, Mexican trucking companies will be allowed to
operate for at least a year and a half before they are subjected to any
comprehensive safety audit by the DOT.
So under the committee provisions that we have written in a
bipartisan manner with the members of Senator Shelby's staff, under the
subcommittee's unanimous vote, and under the full committee's unanimous
vote, no Mexican trucking firm will be allowed to operate beyond the
commercial zone until inspectors have actually performed a compliance
review on that trucking company. This review will look at the
conditions of the truck and the recordkeeping. They are going to
determine whether the company actually has the capacity to comply with
United States safety regulations, and once they have begun operating in
the United States, Mexican trucking firms will undergo a second
compliance review within 18 months. That second review will allow the
Department of Transportation to determine whether the Mexican trucking
firm has, in fact, complied with United States safety standards, and it
will allow them to review accident breakdown rates, their drug and
alcohol testing results, and whether they have been cited frequently
for violations.
The ratification of NAFTA 7 years ago anticipated a period when
trucks from the United States, Canada, and Mexico would have free rein
to service clients across all three countries. This was not really a
change in policy as it pertained to Canada since the United States and
Canada had reciprocal trucking agreements in place long before NAFTA
was ever required. But it did, as we know, require a change when it
came to truck traffic between the United States and Mexico.
Let me say that again. We have had a long-time policy that pertains
to Canada because we have had reciprocal agreements in place for some
time. But with the ratification of NAFTA, and now with the January
deadline coming upon us, we knew we had to take action when it came to
truck traffic between the United States and Mexico.
For several years the opening up of the border between these two
countries was effectively put on hold by the administration because
they had great concern over the absence of reasonable safety standards
for trucks that were operating in Mexico. While Mexican trucks have
been allowed to operate between Mexico and a very defined commercial
zone along the border--20 miles--the safety record of those trucks has
been abysmal. In fact, the Department of Transportation's own inspector
general, the General Accounting Office, and many others have published
a number of reports that have documented the safety hazards that have
been presented by the current crop of Mexican trucks crossing the
border.
At a hearing of the Commerce Committee just last week, the inspector
general came to that committee hearing and testified about instances
where trucks have crossed the border literally with no brakes. Think
about the impact of that, if you are a mom driving your kids to school,
or if you are driving a bus carrying a busload of kids to school, or
driving on vacation, or if you are going to work: A truck that has no
brakes and it has crossed the border because we have lack of
inspectors, we have lack of inspection, and we have the lack of ability
to assure the safety of those Mexican trucks.
Officials with that IG office visited every single border crossing
between the United States and Mexico, and they have documented case
after case of Mexican trucks entering the United States that were
grossly overweight, that had no registration or insurance, and that had
drivers with no licenses. We have an obligation to assure that the
trucks that drive on our roads have registration, have insurance, have
drivers with licenses, and that meet our weight requirements. These are
simple, basic safety measures that we have to reassure every family who
drives in our country.

In fact, according to the Department of Transportation's most recent
figures, Mexican trucks are 50 percent more likely to be ordered off
the road for severe safety deficiencies than United States trucks. And
Mexican trucks are more than 2\1/2\ times more likely to be ordered off
the road than Canadian trucks. Equally troubling to all of us is the
fact that Mexican trucks have been routinely violating the current
restrictions that limit their area of travel to the 20-mile commercial
zones.
Knowing these things, we knew we had an obligation as we passed this
bill in the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to make sure we
put in safety requirements. Knowing that Mexican trucks are 50 percent
more likely to be ordered off the road, we knew we had to put in safety
requirements to assure, as trucks begin to travel beyond that 20-mile
limit, even though as some of our colleagues have pointed out they are
already doing so illegally--but once they are allowed to do that under
the President's order, we need to make sure those trucks are safe
before they come in.
The DOT inspector general found that 52 Mexican trucking firms have
operated improperly in over 26 States outside the four southern border
States. Already, in 26 States of our country, we have these trucks
coming in. That is one reason Senator Shelby, the ranking member of the
Transportation Subcommittee, and I put the money into this bill that
the House had stripped out--$15 million more than the administration
had requested--in order to ensure that we have inspectors in place and
inspection stations and weigh stations, so we can monitor the traffic
crossing our southern border.
An additional 200 trucking firms violated the restrictions to stay
within

[[Page S8303]]

that commercial zone in the border States. We know Mexican trucks have
been found operating illegally as far away from the Mexican border as
New York State in the Northeast and my own State of Washington in the
Northwest. We know the trucks are coming in now illegally to 26 States
from 200 trucking firms. We want to make sure that as it becomes legal
for them to be crossing the border, they are safe; that is a basic
safety requirement, that we have an obligation as Senators to be able
to go home and say to our constituents as the NAFTA provisions take
effect.
Let me just take a moment to remind my colleagues, I supported NAFTA.
I support free trade. I believe this NAFTA provision will raise the
safety and health standards and labor standards for all three countries
as it goes into place. But it will not do that if we lessen the safety
requirements of the United States as it is implemented. That is why
this provision is so critical.
One thing I found shocking was that the inspector general reported on
one case where a Mexican truck was found, on its way to Florida to
deliver furniture, and when that vehicle was pulled over, that driver
had no logbook and no license. As I said, this is not unique; there
have been experiences such as this in half of the States of the
continental United States.
Given that kind of deplorable safety record, the official position of
the U.S. Government since the ratification of NAFTA was that the border
could not be opened to cross-border trucking because of the safety
risks involved.
Why has that changed? Why are we now dealing with this provision on
the floor of the Senate? Two things have basically changed that policy
of restricting those trucks to within that 20-mile border.
First of all, of course, a new administration has come into power and
they have said they want our borders opened.
Second, the Mexican Government successfully brought a case before the
NAFTA arbitration panel. That panel has ruled the U.S. Government must
initiate efforts to open the border to cross-border traffic. So in
order to do that, a frenzy of activity occurred at the Department of
Transportation so the border could be open to cross-border trucking, as
soon as this autumn, they said.
The Department of Transportation has cobbled together a series of
measures that was sort of intended to give us, as United States
citizens, a sense of security, but I really saw it as a false sense of
security as this new influx of Mexican trucks is coming across the
boarder.
Both the House and the Senate Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittees have looked at what the Department of Transportation is
doing very hastily to allow these trucks in, and we determined it was
woefully inadequate.
When the House debated the Transportation appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2002, its concerns about the inadequacy of the Department
of Transportation's safety measures were so grave that it resulted in
an amendment being adopted on the floor of the House that prohibited
the Department of Transportation from granting operating authority to
any Mexico-domiciled trucking company during fiscal year 2002.
That amendment passed by a 2-to-1 margin. It is an amendment that
prohibits the Department of Transportation from granting operating
authority to any Mexican domiciled truck. That amendment passed 2 to 1
by a vote of 285-143. By the time the Transportation bill left the
House, it was in pretty bad shape. Not only did they pass that
amendment 2 to 1 to prohibit any truck from coming across, but they
stripped every penny of the $88 million the administration requested to
improve the truck safety inspection capacity of the United States-
Mexico border.
That bill, I believed, and Senator Shelby believed, and others who
worked with us believed, was simply the approach that went too far by
taking all of the money away so there were no inspectors, no inspection
stations, no weigh stations, and no ability to allow the NAFTA
provisions to go through. We believed that the administration's
position, on the other hand, was also woefully inadequate. Their
position was to allow Mexican trucks to come in, come across our
borders, traverse all our States, and inspect them later. The House has
one extreme and the White House has another extreme.
That is why Senator Shelby and I sat down and worked with members of
the appropriations subcommittee and the full committee. I commend
Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd who have been working diligently with
both of us. They care deeply about the many provisions in this bill,
from the infrastructure improvements that affect all of our highways
and our waterways. The Coast Guard and the FAA have worked with us to
move this bill to a point so we can get it passed in the Senate, get it
to conference, work out the differences between us and the White House,
and move to a point where we can fund the critical infrastructure, as
many of our constituents sit in traffic this morning and listen to this
debate.
What Senator Shelby and I have done is to really write a commonsense
compromise that will inspect all Mexican trucks and then let them in.
Let me say that again. The compromise position between the House at
one extreme and the White House at another is to make sure that all
Mexican trucks are inspected, and then let them in. Just as we require
Americans to pass a driving test before they get a license, the
bipartisan Senate bill requires Mexican trucks to pass an inspection
before they can operate on our roads.
As I said, our bill includes the $103 million. That is $15 million
more than the President's request.
The reason I say that again pointedly is the administration has said
that with the provisions Senator Shelby and I have put into this bill,
they will not have the money to implement it.
I remind the administration that they asked for $15 million less than
we appropriated. We put $103 million into this bill for border truck
safety initiatives. If the Department of Transportation, the OMB, and
the President determine when this bill gets to conference that we do
not have enough money for the truck safety activities and that should
be part of our discussion, they need to request more money in order to
put that in place. We are happy to work with them on that request. But
just to say we have not appropriated enough money and we can't ensure
the safety of trucks coming in, to me, is a woefully inadequate
response.
The bill we have before us establishes a number of enhanced truck
safety requirements that really are intended to ensure that this new
cross-border trucking activity doesn't pose a safety risk to our
families and the people traveling on our highways, whether it is in a
southern border State or a northern border State.

None of us wants to be sitting here several months from now or a year
down the road and have a horrendous accident occur in our States and
find after the fact the truck that was involved in the accident was
never inspected at our border because of lack of inspections, was never
weighed, or that the driver had an invalid operating license or a poor
safety record. None of us wants to face our constituents with that kind
of tragedy.
Senator McCain has been a wonderful help to me in the past. We worked
together on a bill on pipeline safety after a tragedy occurred in my
State where three young people were killed when a pipeline broke. Oil
from that pipeline traveled down along a 1-mile stretch of river in
Bellingham, WA. Three young boys were fishing by that river and playing
by that river. Tragically, one of them lit a match and the entire mile
of that river burst into flames. Three young boys were tragically
killed on that day.
As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain has
been just absolutely wonderful in working with us on that provision and
working to pass a bill out of the Senate. But, unfortunately, it is now
hung up in the House, and it has been for some time. I hope they can
move it forward to ensure that our pipelines are safe. But we did that
after a tragic accident.
I think it is much more effective, much more wise, and the right
thing to do to put the safety requirements in place before we are
reacting to a tragic accident.

[[Page S8304]]

The safety provisions that are included in this Senate bill were
developed based on the recommendations the committee received from the
DOT inspector general, the General Accounting Office, and law
enforcement authorities, including the highway patrols of the States
along the border.
The provisions we put in this bill didn't just come from matching. We
worked very closely, looking at what the DOT inspector general
recommendations were, the GAO, law enforcement authorities, and highway
patrols working along the southern border. We used their
recommendations to draft and put in place what we believe are very
strong safety provisions within the underlying bill.
Once again, I was very pleased that 70 Members of the Senate affirmed
that we do indeed need to have these safety requirements in place and
to move this bill along to final passage so we can put in place the
important infrastructure requirements that this country is demanding
and that our constituents are demanding.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Washington yield
for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Washington please advise Members of
the Senate and those who are following this debate where we are in this
debate on the Transportation appropriations bill?
Mrs. MURRAY. I think it was 2 weeks ago that the Senate
Transportation Subcommittee unanimously passed a Transportation bill.
The Senator from Illinois serves on that committee and has been working
with us. I appreciate his concern. He has a number of projects in
Illinois that I know he wants to have put in place, but he doesn't want
them hung up by a long and protracted debate over another issue in the
Senate. I know the Senator from Illinois, who serves on our
subcommittee, worked well with Members on the other side several weeks
ago. It was a little more than a week ago that it passed out of the
full committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We worked in a
bipartisan way and unanimously voted out the provisions of this bill
that fund the infrastructure needs of all 50 States, which include the
safety provisions we are discussing this morning. We went to this bill
last Friday. I believe it was around 2 in the afternoon.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator from Washington telling us that we have
been debating this bill for a week?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. This bill has been debated in the Senate for an
entire week now. We began debate last Friday morning. I made my opening
remarks. Senator Shelby and I have worked very closely on this bill. He
made his opening remarks. We opened it up for debate. We have one
amendment that is now pending on the bill that Senator Shelby and I put
forward which adds additional safety requirements to the underlying
bill. It is, frankly, supported by every Member of the Senate, and by
the White House, which has been requesting improved safety conditions
as well. That began last Friday.
We asked Members to come to the floor to begin the debate, and we
offered our bill up for amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator, I am trying to recall how many
times we have voted this week on amendments to this bill. I can't
recall more than a handful of times that we have voted.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Senator Shelby and I have been
here. In fact, I got up at 4 o'clock Monday morning to come back from
my home State of Washington to be on the floor Monday afternoon and ask
Senators to bring their amendments forward. We waited. We have had a
few amendments. I believe we have had four or five with which Members
came to the floor and finally offered. We were here Monday evening:
I came back on Tuesday morning, ready and begging and telling
Senators: We are ready to move this bill along. Offer your amendments.
We will vote them up or down. In a week, we have only passed a handful
of amendments that Senators have brought to the floor. I would have
been happy if there were 20 amendments. Send them forward. We will vote
them up or down.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I ask the Senator from
Washington, I believe she believes, as I do, that the nature of this
legislative process in the Senate is, if you have an amendment, you
should have the right to offer it, debate it, and bring it to a vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely. The Senator from Illinois is correct. We are
here. Senators have a right to offer amendments. We are happy to
consider their amendments. In fact, we have had several amendments on
both sides that were adopted by voice vote. We have been waiting in
this Chamber. Our staffs have been working diligently until 2 or 3
o'clock in the morning every night in negotiations with Senators
concerned about the safety provisions, as well as working with Members
who have provisions within the bill. We could have finished this easily
Monday evening with the number of amendments we have.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, on this important issue about
the inspection of Mexican trucks and drivers coming into the United
States, is it not a fact that yesterday we had a procedural vote, known
as a cloture vote, which basically says that at some point the debate
has to end, and we have to come to a vote? Can the Senator from
Washington tell us what the vote was of the Senate to bring this debate
to an end and bring this issue to a vote?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. After sitting here
all Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, it was determined, since
Senators were unwilling to offer amendments and have them voted up or
down, we needed to move along. As the Senator from Illinois knows,
serving on the Appropriations Committee, we have a number of other
appropriations bills that need to pass in order to meet the October 1
deadline. There are many other priorities of Senators.
We decided the best way to move forward was to have a cloture vote,
which then allows us to move along and finish this debate. Seventy of
the 100 Senators said: Yes, it is time to move along; We are done with
offering amendments; We want to get this bill passed; We want the
infrastructure improvements that are in this bill; We support the
safety requirements; Move it out of the Senate so we can get to a
conference and pass this bill.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Washington if she will yield for
one or two more questions, and then I will yield the floor back to the
Senator.
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Is it not true that because we have spent literally a
week with very few, if any, amendments being offered, with very little
debate on the floor, and really just a slowdown of activity, that we
have been unable to consider other important legislation? There is an
Agriculture supplemental appropriations bill, which is an emergency
bill that is needed, that we have been unable to bring to the floor, as
well as the Export Administration Act, which is important for our
economy so we can try to get people back to work and get businesses
moving forward.
All of this is being delayed because we have been unable to even come
to a vote on important questions such as the inspection of Mexican
trucks and drivers. Is that not correct?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. What is
in this bill is extremely important to my constituents. We have some of
the worst traffic in the Nation. I know the Senator from Illinois has
severe traffic problems. We share airport concerns in our home States
for which this bill has improvement funding. We are ready to go to
final passage.
I would just add, I say to the Senator from Illinois, we have a
managers' package ready to go. We could be done in the next half hour,
move this bill out, and go to the Ag bill to which the Senator
referred. I am deeply concerned that we have delayed its passage.
I have apple farmers and tree fruit farmers in central Washington who
are in severe financial straits. They have suffered through a drought
that has hurt their crops. They have suffered through the impact of an
Asian market that has declined tremendously in the last several years.
Many of them are having to sell their farms. To me, it is devastating
to watch these poor families. We have help for them in that Ag

[[Page S8305]]

bill. We have help for them in it, but they will not have that help
until we pass this bill and move it on. And we need to do that, as the
Senator from Illinois knows, before we leave next Friday. We have to
get it to conference.
I ask the Senator from Nevada, am I correct that we need to get the
Ag bill to conference, out of conference, and back to the floor?
Mr. REID. Absolutely.
Mrs. MURRAY. So every minute we delay here means that a family farmer
in Yakima, WA, who is suffering under severe financial distress, is
going to have to sit through an August break--a month-long August
break--not knowing whether or not they are going to get help from the
U.S. Government.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Washington, thanks for yielding
for those questions. I will fight for any Senator's right to offer an
amendment, and also to debate it and bring it to a vote. That is what a
legislative body is all about. What we have seen for the past week is a
slow dance. There are people who just do not want to see the Senate
roll up its sleeves and get down to work.
We have a lot of things to do, such as for farmers, for exporting,
and even for important issues such as the ones in the Transportation
bill.
I salute the Senator from Washington for her patience and her
perseverance and her strength. I hope we can get this job done very
quickly and this bill passed.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senate from Illinois.
I would reiterate, again, that we are ready to go to final passage at
a moment's notice. We could wrap this bill up in the next half hour
quite easily. We have a managers' package. I do not believe there is
any other Senator who has any requests out there. We could pass the
managers' package and move to third reading within a few minutes and
Senators could go home for the weekend.
I know many Senators have called and said: Can we finish? I have a
noon flight I need to catch. I know that planes are leaving and people
have plans for this weekend. I certainly would like them to be able to
go home and see their families. I would like to go home and see my
family, of course, but I am willing to stay here if that is what we
need to do. And I will stay here because what is in this bill is so
critically important to my constituents at home who are now sitting in
traffic at 7:30 in the morning.

Many of them are traveling to work right now, probably sitting in
traffic on the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the I-5 corridor because we have
failed to do our job.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator, who is the
manager of the bill on this side of the aisle, yield for a question?
Mrs. MURRAY. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. I have a brief statement to make. I would like to make that
statement and go on to other issues. The distinguished Senator from
Arizona has been waiting. I would like to make my speech and get back
to my office.
Could the Senator tell me about when I might be able to get the
floor? How much longer will she need?
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we do
this: That the Senator from Arizona have 5 minutes to speak, and that
following the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from West Virginia
have----
Mr. McCAIN. As much time as he might consume.
Mrs. MURRAY. As much time as he may consume.
Mr. GRAMM. We have plenty of time.
Mr. McCAIN. Could we modify that? Could I have 7 minutes?
Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely. That the Senator from Arizona have 7
minutes, and that following that, the Senator from West Virginia be
recognized, and following that I would like to finish my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, other
than to alert those Senators here. I have spoken to Senator Murray. She
has spoken to Senator Shelby. When these remarks are finished, there is
going to be a motion to table on this amendment. I want to make sure
everyone understands that or, otherwise, the Senator from Washington
will move now to table.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I amend my unanimous consent request to
state that following the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from West
Virginia, Senator Shelby would like----
Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask that Senator Shelby have 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you complete yours and then let me speak.
Mrs. MURRAY. And then I will be recognized at that time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I would
like to have an opportunity to speak before the motion to table is put.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time would the Senator like?
Mr. GRAMM. I would like to have the opportunity to speak. I don't
know exactly how long it is going to take. I will not speak for any
extended period of time, but I want to hear what else is said.
Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas for a
specific period of time. If we can't work that out, then I will make
the motion to table.
Mr. McCAIN. I object to the unanimous consent request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, then I will continue my remarks at this
time.
Madam President, in a moment I am going to review the committee's
safety recommendations in detail. But first I want to address the issue
of compliance with NAFTA because it has been an issue that we have been
talking about for some time.
I have heard it alleged in this Chamber that the provision that was
adopted unanimously by the committee is in violation of NAFTA. I want
the Senators in this Chamber to understand that nothing could be
further from the truth.
I voted for NAFTA. I support free trade. My goal in this bill has
always been to ensure that free trade and public safety progress side
by side.
Rather than take my opinion on this issue or that of another Senator,
we have a written decision by an arbitration panel that was charged
with settling this very issue.
That arbitration panel was established under the NAFTA treaty. That
panel's rulings decide what does and does not violate NAFTA.
I have heard many Senators say that provisions violate NAFTA or that
the President should decide what violates NAFTA. In fact, I believe the
amendment that is pending before the Senate says the President should
decide what violates NAFTA. We do not decide that here. The arbitration
panel decides what violates NAFTA. I will read to the Senate a quote
from the findings of the arbitration panel. That quote is printed right
here on this poster. I will take a minute to read it.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Washington yield?
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I would like to propound a unanimous consent request.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks
of the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Arizona, be recognized
for 7 minutes; the Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes; the
Senator from Texas be recognized for up to 10 minutes; that the Senator
from North Dakota be recognized for 10 minutes, Mr. Dorgan; and
following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 5 minutes
for the purpose of offering a motion to table the amendment now
pending.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, with that, let me quickly read this and
remind my colleagues that the arbitration panel has stated that:

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. . . .

In other words, we have the ability within this country to write the
safety provisions that we have written under these provisions to ensure
the safety of the people who travel on our highways. That is the
premise we have made. The amendment that we will be voting on

[[Page S8306]]

shortly says that the President can decide what violates NAFTA and what
does not.
Clearly, the arbitration panel makes that decision. The Senate
effectively, I remind my colleagues, voted on the pending amendment
when we tabled the Gramm-McCain amendment by a vote of 65-35. That
amendment, as the amendment we will vote on shortly, is really a wolf
in sheep's clothing. It is designed to gut the safety provisions in
this bill by allowing the President to waive whatever safety provision
in the bill he does not like.
If the Appropriations Committee thought that the DOT's plans to
address the safety risks posed by Mexican trucks were adequate, we
wouldn't have put the important safety provisions into this bill.
What this amendment does say is, OK, administration, whatever safety
requirements in this bill you don't like, find a White House attorney
who will say it is a violation of NAFTA.
Which provision will they choose to throw away? Will it be the
requirement to verify that a Mexican truck driver's licence has not
been revoked? Will it be the requirement to inspect trucks when they
come across the border? Will it be a requirement to demonstrate that
the Mexican trucks have insurance? Under the amendment we will vote on,
we won't know. It simply says we will allow the President to gut
whatever safety requirement he would like.

I voted for NAFTA. My goal is not to stop free trade. My goal is to
see that free trade and safety progress side by side.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Arizona.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sorry the Senator from Illinois
just left the floor because he seemed to be deeply concerned about the
process. From a Chicago Tribune editorial, headlined ``Honk If You
Smell Cheap Politics,'' I will read a couple of quotes. Quoting from
the Tribune:

It ends with:

President Bush vows to veto this version of the bill, and
quite rightly so. In 1993, the U.S. signed and ratified
NAFTA. The agreement went into effect in 1994. There is no
justification now, more than seven years later, for the U.S.
to try to weasel out of some of its provisions.

I ask unanimous consent that the complete editorial be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2001]

Honk If You Smell Cheap Politics

As political debates go, the one in the Senate against
allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as
dishonest as it gets. The talk is all about safety and
concern about how rattletrap Mexican semis, driven by inept
Mexicans, would plow into Aunt Bea putt-putting to the
grocery store in her Honda Civic, somewhere in Pleasantville,
U.S.A.
Truth is that Teamster truckers don't want competition from
their Mexican counterparts, who now have to transfer their
loads near the border to American-driven trucks, instead of
driving straight through to the final destination. But to
admit that would sound too crass and self-serving, so Sen.
Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and others pushing the Teamster line,
instead are prattling on about road safety.
The Bush administration--with a surprising assist from
Arizona Sen. John McCain--is right to insist that the U.S.
comply with its obligations under the North American Free
Trade Agreement and allow Mexican trucks full access to our
roads, beginning in January.
Under NAFTA, which went into effect in 1994, there was
supposed to be free access to all trucks within Canada, the
U.S. and Mexico by January of last year. That only makes
sense: There is no point in freeing up trade but restricting
the means to move the goods.
But with the 2000 elections looming, President Bill Clinton
caved in to pressure from the Teamsters and delayed
implementation of the free-trucking part of the agreement.
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore got the Teamsters'
endorsement and the Mexican government filed a complaint
against the U.S. for violation of NAFTA rules. Mexico won.
A spokesman for the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and
others in Washington have whispered there may be bits of
racism and discrimination floating around in this soup,
because Canadian trucks and drivers are not subjected to
similar scrutiny and can move about freely anywhere in the
U.S.
It's worthwhile to note, too, that while the U.S. is
banning Mexican trucks, Mexico is returning the favor, so
neither country's trucks are going anywhere. As it stands,
Mexican trucks can come in only 20 miles into the U.S. before
they have to transfer their load.
Safety need not be an issue. An amendment proposed by
McCain and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) incorporates safety
inspection safeguards to be sure drivers and trucks are fit
to travel U.S. roads. It's roughly modeled after California's
safety inspection system along its own border with Mexico.
Presumably, Mexico would inspect the trucks going the other
way.
Those are reasonable measures to protect motorists on both
sides of the border.
But Sen. Murray's amendment sets up a series of
requirements and hurdles so difficult to implement that they
would, in effect, keep the border closed to Mexican trucks
indefinitely.
President Bush vows to veto this version of the bill, and
quite rightly so. In 1993, the U.S. signed and ratified
NAFTA. The agreement went into effect in 1994. There is no
justification now, more than seven years later, for the U.S.
to try to weasel out of some its provisions.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Washington just stated how she had
received requests for Transportation appropriations from every Member
of this body. I hope she will correct the record. She received no
request from my office. She received no request, nor ever will receive
a request from my office, for any transportation pork-barreling of
which this bill is full.
This bill has surpassed the President's total budget request by
nearly $4 billion. This year's bill contains 683 earmarks totaling
$3.148 billion in porkbarrel spending. Last year, there was only $702
million. I congratulate the Appropriations Committee on this.
Always in the contract game of porkbarrel spending, some benefit
substantially more than others. The State of West Virginia, for
instance, will be the proud recipient of $6,599,062 under the National
Scenic Byways Program. Of that money, $619,000 will be directed towards
``Promoting Treasures Within the Mountains II'' program; $8,000 will be
given to Virginia's chapel, and $22,640 will go to fund the SP Turnpike
Walking Tour.
The State of Washington will also benefit substantially from the
National Scenic Byways Program. Under that portion of the bill,
Washington will receive $2,683,767, of which $790,680 will fund the
North Pend Orielle Scenic Byway--Sweet Creek Falls Interpretive Trail
Project; $190,730 will be directed to the Paden Creek Visitor and
Salmon Access, and $88,000 will fund the Oakcreek wildlife Byway
Interpretive Site Project.
The programs go on and on. Let me tell you the real problem here, how
great this problem gets over time: $4,650,000 is carved out of the
Coast Guard portion of this bill to ``test and evaluate a currently
developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United
States and has a top speed of 40 knots. Fortunately, and I am sure,
coincidentally, for the State of Washington, there is only one company
in the country which produces such a vessel, and it just happens to be
Guardian Marine International, located in Edmonds, WA. Not only did the
U.S. Coast Guard not ask for this vessel, they looked at the Guardian
vessel, considered its merits, and concluded that it would not
adequately meet the Coast Guard's needs. Taxpayers of America, look at
the Guardian fast patrol craft which will be yours whether the Coast
Guard wants it or not.
Yesterday, very briefly, my friend from Nevada said that I was
mistaken in my comments about setting a precedent. I think his comments
were well made. I accept them. There has not been the parliamentary
movement as there should have been. I stick to and want to reiterate
and will continue to reiterate my comments that what we are doing on an
appropriations bill is precedent setting. We are changing and

[[Page S8307]]

violating a solemn treaty made between three nations, and we are doing
it on an appropriations bill.
The Senator from Washington just enumerated the wonderful language
for safety that they have on an appropriations bill.
The authorizers, the committees that are given the responsibility and
the duty to authorize, are the ones who should have written this
language. The Appropriations Committee should only be appropriating
money. Instead, in a precedent-setting procedure, they have now decided
to include language which, according to the Governments of two
countries, Mexico and the United States, two freely elected Governments
of both of those countries have deemed in violation of this solemn
treaty.
This language, according to the Mexican Government, according to the
U.S. Government, is in violation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. We are subject, obviously, to significant sanctions but,
more importantly, again, the Senator from West Virginia is on the floor
and he knows the history of this body more than I do. I do not know of
a single other time in the history of this body that a solemn
agreement, a treaty, has been tampered with on an appropriations bill--
in fact, abrogated to a large degree.
There were great debates over the role of the United States in
Vietnam. That was conducted under the aegis of the Foreign Relations
Committee. There were other great debates on other foreign policy
issues. All of them were conducted in this Chamber under the aegis and
responsibility of the Foreign Relations Committee and sometimes the
Armed Services Committee.
I know of no time where the great debates on treaties were conducted
as part of an appropriations bill on Transportation. This debate should
be taking place under the responsibility of the Foreign Relations
Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and
I allege again this is a precedent-setting move which, if it carries--
and I still hope that it does not--I am convinced the President can
muster 34 votes to sustain a veto. This will have very serious
consequences for the way we do business in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I say to my friend from Arizona, who
mentioned the money for scenic byways in West Virginia, all highways in
West Virginia are scenic, all highways. They are all scenic, and the
money in this bill for scenic highways in West Virginia is going to be
yielded in conference with the House.
I take great pride in the fact that all of West Virginia's highways
are scenic, and I thank the Senator from Arizona for bringing to the
attention of the Senate these scenic byways.
There are scenic byways in Arizona also. My wife and I traveled
through Arizona in 1960 on our way to the Democratic Convention in Los
Angeles. We took the southern route, and we came back to Washington on
the northern route. They are beautiful States that we traveled through.
Madam President, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, went
into effect on January 1, 1994. I voted against NAFTA. Now, 6 years
later, the costs associated with NAFTA are becoming increasingly clear.
On February 6, 2001, a NAFTA dispute resolution panel concluded that
the U.S. refusal to approve any applications from Mexican motor
carriers who wanted to provide cross-border trucking services is a
breach of NAFTA. Even though the panel determined that the Mexican
regulatory system for trucks was inadequate, they decided that this was
an insufficient legal basis for the United States to maintain its
moratorium on approving cross-border trucking applications. In other
words, the panel decided that, even though Mexican trucks barreling
down American roads would endanger human health and safety, these
trucks must be allowed to enter.
This panel's decision has shifted the American public's concern about
safety into high gear. The Administration has said that it intends to
lift the toll-gate to Mexican trucks sometime before January 1, 2002.
Instead, we ought to downshift and carefully consider our route on this
issue. Believing that Mexican trucks will suddenly come into compliance
with U.S. trucking safety standards within the next six months is like
believing that a car will keep running without gas.
Mexican trucking is not well regulated. Mexican truck- and driver-
safety standards are nearly nonexistent. Mexican law fails to require
many of the fundamentals of highway safety policy that are required by
U.S. law and regulation, such as enforced hours of service restrictions
for truck drivers or the use of log books. There is no Mexican truck
safety rating system and no comprehensive truck equipment standards.
From the lack of basic requirements, it is apparent that Mexico is
making little investment, and undertaking no regular maintenance, to
ensure that its trucks operate in accordance with fundamental trucking
safety standards. Opening our borders to more Mexican trucks would
allow Mexico to export more than just goods to the United States; it
would export truckloads of danger.
Without Mexican investment to ensure that its motor carriers are
operating safely, the financial burden of ensuring the safety of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating in the United States is
loaded onto the shoulders of the American taxpayer. From 1995 to the
present, the U.S. Department of Transportation has dedicated $22
million to the border States, above normal allocations, for the purpose
of enhancing inspection capabilities. The Senate's fiscal year 2002
Department of Transportation Appropriations bill would appropriate an
additional $103.2 million for increased border inspections of Mexican
trucks. This amount is $15 million above the level included in the
President's request. Of the more than $103 million provided, $13.9
million is provided to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
to hire 80 additional truck safety inspectors, an amount of $18 million
is provided for enhanced Motor Carrier safety grants for the border,
and $71.3 million is provided for the construction and improvement of
Motor Carrier safety inspection facilities along the border between the
United States and Mexico. Have we taken leave of our senses?

In addition to the costs associated with an increased need for
inspection, more Mexican trucks on U.S. roads will compromise safety,
and could result in serious accidents on our highways. During fiscal
year 2000, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports show
federal and state border inspectors performed 46,144 inspections on
Mexican trucks at the border and within the limited commercial zones
where some Mexican trucks are currently allowed to travel. For those
trucks that were inspected, the percentage of trucks taken off the road
for serious safety violations, declined from 44 percent in fiscal year
1997 to 36 percent in fiscal year 2000. Regardless of these
inspections, the fact remains that more than one in three Mexican
trucks is a lemon. And we cannot count on inspections to cull out every
single one of these time bombs and get them off our highways.
In February, I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to urge that the United States
not compromise the safety of America's highways. We cannot, because of
a NAFTA dispute resolution panel decision, subvert U.S. safety
standards that have been put in place to protect travelers on our
Nation's roads. Until the United States and Mexico agree on
comprehensive safety standards, and until the United States is able to
effectively enforce those standards, we must stand on the brakes
against efforts that would compromise current U.S.-imposed safeguards
for Mexican trucks.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, so many issues have been talked about. I
want to begin my short remarks by reading the amendment which is
pending, because we are going to vote on this amendment when a motion
is made to table it. What the amendment does is it accepts everything
in the Murray amendment with the following proviso:

Provided that notwithstanding any other provision of the
act, nothing in this act shall be applied in a manner that
the President finds to be in violation of the North American
Free Trade Agreement.

[[Page S8308]]

In other words, unless something is in violation of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, every provision in the Murray amendment
will stand if this amendment is adopted.
Senator Murray and her supporters say nothing in her provision
violates NAFTA. If nothing in her provision violates NAFTA, then this
amendment will have no effect. This amendment, in essence, shows the
emperor has no clothes. We are having a lot of discussion on how tough
a safety standard we want. Under NAFTA, we can impose any safety
standards we want on Mexican trucks, but we have to impose the same
standards on Canadian trucks and on American trucks. Everyone is in
agreement; we need to have safer trucks. Our own trucks need to be
safer, Canadian trucks need to be safer, and Mexican trucks need to be
safe to come into the country.
What is at issue is not safety but protectionism. What is at issue
is, we had a President, George Bush, in 1994, who signed a solemn
agreement with Mexico and Canada called the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Then under another President, President Bill Clinton, we
ratified this agreement by enacting a bill in Congress that President
Clinton signed. Now, under another Republican President, President
George W. Bush, we have an effort to enforce the agreement we entered
into. Now we have an effort on an appropriations bill to violate the
treaty we negotiated and signed in 1994 and that we ratified under a
Democrat President.
Our colleagues keep talking about safety, but nothing having anything
to do with safety would be stricken by this amendment. This amendment
would strike provisions that violate NAFTA. What are some of those
provisions? Provisions that say Mexican trucks have to carry a
different type of insurance than American trucks and Canadian trucks.
Provisions that say Mexican truckers cannot lease their trucks in the
same way American truckers and Canadian truckers can lease their
trucks; penalty provisions where the penalties are different for
Mexican trucks than they are for American trucks and Canadian trucks;
provisions that say until we promulgate regulations that have to do
with the bill passed in 1999 that Canadian trucks can operate, American
trucks can operate, but Mexican trucks cannot operate. There is no more
logic to that provision in the Murray amendment than there would be in
saying we are not going to live up to a treaty obligation we made until
February the 29th occurs on a Sunday. It is totally and absolutely
arbitrary and totally and absolutely illegal, and it violates an
agreement we entered into and have enforced under three Presidents.
What our amendment does is simply say, take everything in the Murray
amendment and it becomes the law of the land unless it violates NAFTA--
unless it violates an agreement we entered into and Congress ratified.
That is exactly what the amendment does; no more, no less.
If you vote against this amendment, obviously you stand up on the
floor of the Senate and say anything you want to say; it is a free
country. But if you vote against this amendment, you can't say, it
seems to me, that you believe the Murray provision does not violate
NAFTA. If you think it doesn't violate NAFTA, why not vote for this
amendment and settle this issue? Obviously, anybody who votes against
this amendment believes this amendment, despite all the denials of all
the proponents, violates obligations we have in an agreement we entered
with Mexico.
All over the world we are trying to get countries to live up to their
agreements they have with us. What kind of credibility are we going to
have when we go back on a solemn commitment we made to our neighbor to
the south? What kind of credibility are we going to have when we treat
our northern neighbor in one way, have one set of rules for them, but
then we say to our southern neighbor, we have an entirely different set
of rules for you. In fact, we have to implement laws we passed in the
past before you are even going to get an opportunity, in violation of
NAFTA, to ever have a chance to compete.

The plain truth is, as the Chicago Tribune pointed out this morning,
Teamster truckers don't want competition from their Mexican
counterparts. This is not about safety; this is about raw, rotten
protectionism, and it is about a willingness to go back on a solemn
commitment that our Nation made. I believe this is very harmful to
America. I think it undercuts the best ally we have ever had in a
President of Mexico.
I reiterate, this may happen, but it is not going to happen until
every right that every Member of the Senate has is fully exercised.
This is an important issue. Some of our colleagues might wonder; in
fact, people watching this probably wonder, when Senator McCain and I
clearly don't have the votes, why don't we give this thing up? Our
Founding Fathers, in establishing the structure of the Senate,
understood there would be times when there would be issues that were
important to America that were confusing, that people wouldn't
understand, that could be cloaked in other issues. They understood
there would be vital national interests at stake. For those
circumstances, they gave one Member of the Senate the right to have
extraordinary powers. It seems to me that having been blessed to have
the opportunity to serve here, as we all have, when we believe that a
fundamentally important issue to the future of America and, in this
case, our relationship with our neighbor to the south and our
credibility in the world are at stake, any Member has an obligation to
use those rights.
I don't like inconveniencing my colleagues, but let me make it clear,
at 8:42 tonight we will be in a position where cloture can occur on the
bill. I am ready to vote. But I am going to exercise my full rights.
The people of Texas hired me to represent their interest and the
national interest, and Texas and the national interest are both
violated by going back on a treaty we made with Mexico.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Under the previous order, the
Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I walked on the floor, I heard the
words ``raw, rotten protectionism'' used on the floor of the Senate. I
had to smile because that is such an ill described position with
respect to what the Senate is doing. If you were to try to misdescribe
what is going on in the Senate, you could not do it more aggressively
than to use terms such as ``raw, rotten protectionism.'' There is
nothing protectionist about this issue.
This issue is about a trade agreement called NAFTA: a terrible trade
agreement that, in my judgment, sold out the interests of this country;
a trade agreement that turned a very small surplus with the country of
Mexico into a huge deficit; and turned a moderate deficit with Canada
into a large deficit. NAFTA is a trade agreement that has not served
this country's interests, and we are now told, as a part of this trade
agreement, we are required as a country to allow Mexican long-haul
trucks into this country. We are told that if we don't let in Mexican
long-haul trucks, we are somehow guilty of violating the NAFTA trade
pact. According to my colleague from Texas, if we don't allow Mexican
long-haul trucks into America, Mexico intends to retaliate on the
matter of corn syrup.
Sometimes it is a little too confusing. Mexico is already abusing its
trade policies on corn syrup by imposing the equivalent of a tariff
ranging from 43 percent to 76 percent on corn syrup exported from this
country to Mexico. A panel has already ruled against Mexico on the
issue of corn syrup, and, yet, they are now threatening that they may
take action on United States corn syrup if we don't allow Mexican long-
haulers into this country.
Is someone not thinking straight here? The only question, in my
judgment, on this issue is, Is it in the interests of the American
people to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country at this
time? If we allow Mexican trucks to operate unfettered throughout the
United States, will it sacrifice highway safety? Will it jeopardize
people on American highways? The answer to all of these questions is it
will jeopardize safety, it will compromise safety on our highways, and
this is not the time to do this.

Both the United States and Mexico have had 6 years to cogitate about
this--6 years. Really almost nothing

[[Page S8309]]

has been done. We have 27 border crossings where trucks enter the
United States, but a minuscule percent of those trucks are inspected.
Thirty-six percent of the Mexican trucks now coming into this country,
and are now limited to a 20-mile zone, are turned back for serious
safety violations--36 percent. In most cases there are no inspections
at all. There are no facilities to inspect. In only two of the border
locations are there inspection facilities during all commercial hours.
In most cases, there are no parking spaces and there are no phone lines
to verify, for example, commercial driver's license data, and so on.
I have said it before, and I will say it again--I know it is
repetitious, but it is important to do--the San Francisco Chronicle,
God bless them, sent a reporter down to ride with a long-haul trucker.
He filed a report. Here is what he said.
This trucker he rode with traveled 1,800 miles in 3 days, slept 7
hours in 3 days--7 hours in 3 days--and drove a truck with a cracked
windshield that would not have passed U.S. inspection. The situation is
much different in Mexico than in the United States. In Mexico, there
are no standard hours of service in Mexico. There is a logbook
requirement, but it is not enforced so truckers do not have them.
During the Chronicle reporter's ride with the Mexican trucker, there
were no safety inspections along the way.
Now we are told if we do not allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this
country, we are somehow in violation of NAFTA. This is not violating
anything. I am so tired of a ``blame our country first'' on all these
issues. We are not going to violate anything if we decide that highway
safety in this country is important enough to say we will not, under
any circumstances, allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country
until we have a regime of compliance and safety inspections that give
us the assurance, yes, the assurance that Mexican trucks coming into
this country and the drivers are meeting the same rigorous, aggressive
standards we apply to American drivers and American trucks.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. Do you want yourself, your families, your friends, your
neighbors looking in the rearview mirror to see an 80,000-pound vehicle
coming behind you with a driver who has not slept in 24 hours, who has
brakes that may not work, and who has come across the border and has
not been inspected? Is that what you want for yourself or your family?
I do not.
Let me just say again, there is not a ghost of a chance by January 1,
when President Bush wants to allow these trucks in, that the inspectors
necessary to assure the protection of American drivers on America's
roads will be in place. How do I know that? Because the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General testified before the Commerce
Committee and said the administration is short of inspectors. Even the
plan they are proposing will not allow the inspectors to be present to
make sure these trucks coming into our country are safe.
I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota a
question. I voted for NAFTA, but I voted for it with the understanding
that we could impose the same health and safety standards on companies
and countries exporting to the United States that we impose on American
companies; that that would be fair trade. We would be treating
ourselves the same way as we treat others.

I want to make it clear for the record, and I think the Senator from
North Dakota has made this point, all we are trying to establish is
that Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers will be held to the same
standards of safety and competency as American trucks and American
drivers. Is that the case?
Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. Let me just again say that when
the term ``raw rotten protectionism'' is used, it is wrong. There is
nothing about this proposal to require similar standards on Mexican
trucks coming into this country as already exists for the American
trucking industry--there is nothing raw about that, there is nothing
rotten about that, and there is nothing that is protectionist about
that. It represents common sense, something that is too often obscured
in these debates in this country in public policy. It is especially
obscured in trade policy.
Let me just say this to my friend from Illinois. I am aware of not
one trade agreement that this country has negotiated that would require
us as Americans to sacrifice safety on America's roads. There is not
one trade agreement or one word in a trade agreement that requires us
to do that. We should not do that. We will not do that.
When President Bush says on January 1 we are going to remove the 20-
mile limit, and we are going to have Mexican drivers and trucks come
into this country unimpeded, when in fact he has not proposed the
inspectors and compliance officers necessary to make certain this could
be done safely, in my judgment he is saying this trade agreement
requires us to diminish standards on America's roads. I will not accept
that. I do not support that. None of us in this Chamber, in my
judgment, should vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. Please take
other conversations off the Senate floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Texas is attempting to weaken the
provisions in the Murray bill. I happen to think the Murray provisions
are too weak. I would like a stronger provision. I want the House
provision to prevail that simply says during the next fiscal year, no
funds will be used for certifying long-haul Mexican trucks to come into
this country unimpeded beyond the 20-mile limit. As I said, I happen to
think the Murray provision is not strong enough.
The amendment that is before us is to try to weaken the Murray
provision. In my judgment, it makes no sense. I will not use terms such
as ``raw, rotten protectionism'' because they are totally inappropriate
about this decision. This is not about discrimination. It is not about
trade. It is not about protectionism. It is not about anything that is
raw or rotten. It is about whether we are willing to stand up for
standards we have already established in this country for safety on our
road dealing with 18-wheel, 80,000-pound trucks.
Do you want a driver behind you who has just come across the border
who has been awake for 24 straight hours and is driving a truck that is
unsafe, with no brakes? I don't think so. These standards are radically
different in the United States. Ten hours of consecutive driving is all
you can do in the United States. You have to have logbooks. In Mexico,
they have no logbooks.

Alcohol and drug testing: In the United States, yes; in Mexico, no.
The list goes on and on and on.
We are nowhere near having equivalent standards and there is not a
ghost of a chance of that happening on January 1. All of us ought to
recognize it. This is not about trade. It is about safe hours and it is
about common sense. I hope when this vote is taken, common sense will
prevail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican assistant leader.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I have been wanting to
seek recognition, but I understood we were going to a rollcall. I say
to the Senator from Oklahoma that if I can have 5 minutes to speak, I
will not object.
Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection to the Senator speaking. I wish to
speak for 5 minutes. If he wishes to, he can ask consent.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent that the Senator from Oklahoma and myself
each be recognized for 5 minutes to speak.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I may make a
parliamentary inquiry, if we add 10 minutes to the time we have
already, when will the vote take place?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be 11:33.
Mr. REID. Senator Shelby also has time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 15 minutes and then the vote. Is
there objection? Without objection, it

[[Page S8310]]

is so ordered. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I am appreciative of the cooperation of our colleagues
and also of the quality of the debate. I think we have had an
interesting debate. I compliment the participants. I will just make a
couple of comments.
I am reading this amendment and listening to some of the debate
yesterday, and looking at this amendment, it says:

Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of the
Act--

Talking about the Murray amendment that is included in the
Transportation bill--

nothing in this Act shall be applied in a manner that the
President finds to be in violation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement.

I know I heard people say yesterday the Murray amendment, the
underlying legislation that is in the appropriations bill, is compliant
with NAFTA, it is compliant with our treaty, a treaty we have already
signed.
If that is the case, I think the proponents should adopt this
amendment. I wish they would. I would think they would accept it. It
would further clarify that we are going to keep our word in the treaty.
A treaty is making a commitment on behalf of the United States with
other countries. We should keep that.
If we are going to rewrite the treaty on this appropriations bill, we
have a problem. I think we have a couple of problems because clearly
this is legislation on an appropriations bill and we made rules that we
were not going to do that. Now it turns out the rules are only sort of
applicable. In other words, you can legislate--if you are in the
committee and you legislate in committee, it is OK, but you cannot
legislate on the floor.
Maybe we need to probably address that, and we probably will at a
later date. But now I look at the legislation, and I have heard some
people say that the legislation that came out of committee violates
NAFTA. The proponents say no, it doesn't. Here is language that says
nothing in this act should be applied in a manner that the President
finds to be in violation of the NAFTA. This is further clarification
that we are not going to violate NAFTA. That makes sense.
If we are going to rewrite treaties on appropriations bills,
something is wrong. What about the Foreign Relations Committee? What
about the Commerce Committee and committees that have jurisdiction over
NAFTA? What about consulting the NAFTA partners? I have heard they are
upset about the language that is coming out of the committee and that
came out of the House.
I urge the proponents of the Murray amendment to adopt this language.
I think it would further clarify. Maybe it would make a lot of this
problem go away. This might make this bill entirely acceptable on all
parts. This could be the solution.
I have heard people say nothing in the underlying bill violates
NAFTA. Then let's accept this amendment. I believe we could have final
passage on this bill today, and we could move on towards other
legislative agenda items that all of us would like to do, including
some nominations.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
Mr. REID. Is that an offer?
Mr. NICKLES. I would love to see that happen. I do not know if the
other proponents will consult other people; maybe we can make that an
offer. I would love to see that happen.
I think adoption of this language further clarifying that we are not
doing anything to violate NAFTA would help make this bill much more
presentable and much more acceptable--both to the administration and
our trading partners in Mexico and in Canada.
I urge my colleagues not to support a tabling motion. Let's pass this
amendment and this bill. Let's go to conference.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. In response to the question from the distinguished
Democrat floor leader, I believe the adoption of this amendment would
make this debate an honest debate. We would all then agree that it does
not affect NAFTA. I think that would be a major step in working out
this whole thing. With the adoption of this amendment, I think in a
fairly short period of time we could probably work this out in a way
that, A, the Department of Transportation can implement, and, B, the
President of Mexico and the President of the United States are not
embarrassed by us abrogating NAFTA. I think this would be the linchpin
for working something out, if we adopt it.
Mr. NICKLES. Today.
Mr. GRAMM. I think if we decided to, we could solve this problem
within 2 hours. Working with the Department of Transportation, we could
come up with an agreement that the Department of Transportation could
make work. That is the first requirement. And, second, that does not
violate our obligations under NAFTA.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I very much appreciate Senator Gramm's
comments, and also Senator Reid's suggestion. I think this may help us
break this bottleneck. I think too many people are too dug in to kind
of look and say how we can fix this problem which we got into by
legislating on an appropriations bill and possibly rewriting treaties.
That is wrong, at least in this Senator's opinion. This language
clarifies that we are not going to violate the treaty.
Let's pass this amendment and this bill, and let's go to other
legislative agenda items.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first I would like to ask the Senator from
Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee, if she would yield for a
question.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Would she comment on the pending Gramm amendment and the
impact she believes it will have on establishing standards for safety
for Mexican trucks and Mexican truckdrivers?
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for the question. I would be happy
to enter into negotiations to talk about accepting this amendment if it
didn't actually gut the provisions we have before us. This
administration basically says to the President--actually the White
House attorney would designate it--the provision of the underlying bill
violates NAFTA. That is their position, not ours. It is their decision.
They could revoke the Mexican driver's license provision we have, or
the inspection of the trucks across the border and the insurance issue
on Mexican trucks. At their whim, they could say we think that violates
NAFTA.
I think the Members of the Senate have spoken quite loudly, 70-30,
that we believe the provisions in this Senate bill are ones that we
believe will protect drivers in the country. We have already seen what
the DOT protections were. I believe the underlying amendment certainly
as written is not safe for American drivers.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from Washington. If we adopt the
amendment of Senator Gramm of Texas, we are basically saying there are
no standards when it comes to Mexican trucks and when it comes to
Mexican truckdrivers. It is whatever the White House attorneys decide.
That, frankly, is an abdication of the responsibility of the Senate.
I hope all Members will join in voting for this Gramm amendment. I
voted for NAFTA. When I voted for NAFTA, I was told that the United
States would never have to compromise health and safety standards, and,
that if we impose standards of safety on American trucks and
truckdrivers, the same standards will apply to Canadian and Mexican
truckdrivers. If we impose standards of the safety on our trucks, the
same standards will be imposed on Mexico and Canada.
That is what is known as fair trade and fair standards evenly
applied. Senator Gramm and those on the other side of the aisle don't
want fair trade. They want to have it so the Mexicans and Canadians and
others who trade with the United States can establish in the name of
free trade their own standards.
This weekend when you are on the highways across America and you look
in the rearview mirror, if the truck coming up behind you is an
American truck, you can be sure of one thing: It is subject to hours of
service requirements so that the truckdriver doesn't stay in that seat
so long that he is half

[[Page S8311]]

asleep and driving off the road. You know the American truckdriver has
to keep a logbook so we know where he has been and how long he has been
driving. He is subject to inspection. He has been subject to alcohol
and drug testing. He has had a physical. You know the minimum weight
limit for the truck is 80,000 pounds, and so forth. But under the
standards imposed by the Mexican Government, none of these apply. There
are no hours of service requirements. If the truck coming up behind you
on the highway is driven by a Mexican truckdriver, there is no
prohibition or limitation on the hours he can drive the truck. Under
their law, he has to keep a logbook. He ignores it, as most Mexican
truckdrivers do. There is no basic alcohol and drug test, and there is
no requirement for physicals as in the United States.

Let me tell you about an accident. If you get involved in an accident
with a truck driven by an American driver for an American truck
company, they have to have liability insurance between $750,000 and $4
million for that accident. The Mexican truckdriver, about $70,000 worth
of insurance to cover bodily injury as well as physical damage.
When we say the Mexicans are going to have an opportunity to trade in
the United States and we want to strike down trade barriers, we are not
trying to strike down common sense. Common sense says that whether your
family is on the road going to a Virginia vacation, or for business,
when you look in the rearview mirror, or pass a truck, you ought to
know that there is a safety standard applied to everybody who wants to
use American highways.
Senator Murray has put in a reasonable amendment. She established the
same standards for Mexican trucking companies and truckdrivers as the
United States. Those who oppose this amendment don't want that to
happen. The Gramm amendment gives the widest loophole in the world.
Some attorney in the White House can declare that the standards for
insurance, for example, for Mexico are just fine at $70,000. That is
wrong. It is wrong for the American families who expect this Senate to
stand up and protect them when it comes to the use of American
highways.
I favor free trade. I voted for free trade. But I didn't do it with a
blindfold. I did it with the knowledge that we ought to have standards
to protect American companies, American individuals, and American
consumers, and that the same standards should apply to those exporting
to the United States and those producing in the United States. This is
not protectionism. This is commonsense. Vote against the Gramm
amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican assistant leader.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our
colleagues, we will be voting probably within 5 minutes. I believe
there will be a motion to table the Gramm amendment. So just for the
Cloakrooms to alert all colleagues, there will be a rollcall vote in 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the course of the past several days,
we have heard several Senators explain what they believe the North
American Free Trade Agreement does and does not do. I believe this
debate would be better served by reviewing the agreement itself.
Part Seven, Chapter Twenty, of NAFTA establishes the Free Trade
Commission which shall resolve disputes that may arise regarding its
interpretation or application. NAFTA also establishes a dispute
settlement process in the event that the Free Trade Commission is
unable to resolve a matter or if a third party brings forth a cause of
action. Under NAFTA in these cases, the Commission ``shall establish an
arbitral panel.'' Again, I am quoting from the agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the North American Free
Trade Agreement Part Seven: Administrative And Institutional Provision
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

North American Free Trade Agreement

Part Seven: Administrative and Institutional Provisions

Chapter Twenty: Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement
Procedures

Section A--Institutions

Article 2001: The Free Trade Commission

1. The Parties hereby establish the Free Trade Commission,
comprising cabinet-level representatives of the Parties or
their designees.
2. The Commission shall:
(a) supervise the implementation of this Agreement;
(b) oversee its further elaboration;
(c) resolve disputes that may arise regarding its
interpretation or application;
(d) supervise the work of all committees and working groups
established under this Agreement, referred to in Annex
2001.2; and
(e) consider any other matter that may affect the operation
of this Agreement.
3. The Commission may:
(a) establish, and delegate responsibilities to, ad hoc or
standing committees, working groups or expert groups;
(b) seek the advice of non-governmental persons or groups;
and
(c) take such other action in the exercise of its functions
as the Parties may agree.
4. The Commission shall establish its rules and procedures.
All decisions of the Commission shall be taken by consensus,
except as the Commission may otherwise agree.
5. The Commission shall convene at least once a year in
regular session. Regular sessions of the Commission shall be
chaired successively by each Party.

Article 2002: The Secretariat

1. The Commission shall establish and oversee a Secretariat
comprising national Sections.
2. Each Party shall:
(a) establish a permanent office of its Section;
(b) be responsible for
(i) the operation and costs of its Section, and
(ii) the remuneration and payment of expenses of panelists
and members of committees and scientific review boards
established under this Agreement, as set out in Annex 2002.2;
(c) designate an individual to serve as Secretary for its
Section, who shall be responsible for its administration and
management; and
(d) notify the Commission of the location of its Section's
office.
3. The Secretariat shall:
(a) provide assistance to the Commission;
(b) provide administrative assistance to
(i) panels and committees established under Chapter
Nineteen (Review and Dispute Settlement in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Matters), in accordance with the
procedures established pursuant to Article 1908, and
(ii) panels established under this Chapter, in accordance
with procedures established pursuant to Article 2012; and
(c) as the Commission may direct
(i) support the work of other committees and groups
established under this Agreement, and
(ii) otherwise facilitate the operation of this Agreement.

section b--dispute settlement

Article 2003: Cooperation

The Parties shall at all times endeavor to agree on the
interpretation and application of this Agreement, and shall
make every attempt through cooperation and consultations to
arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of any matter
that might affect its operation.

Article 2004: Recourse to Dispute Settlement Procedures

Except for the matters covered in Chapter Nineteen (Review
and Dispute Settlement in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Matters) and as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the
dispute settlement provisions of this Chapter shall apply
with respect to the avoidance or settlement of all disputes
between the Parties regarding the interpretation or
application of this Agreement or wherever a Party considers
that an actual or proposed measure of another Party is or
would be inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement
or cause nullification or impairment in the sense of Annex
2004.

Article 2005: GATT Dispute Settlement

1. Subject to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, disputes regarding any
matter arising under both this Agreement and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any agreement negotiated
thereunder, or any successor agreement (GATT), may be settled
in either forum at the discretion of the complaining Party.
2. Before a Party initiates a dispute settlement proceeding
in the GATT against another Party on grounds that are
substantially equivalent to those available to that Party
under this Agreement, that Party shall notify any third Party
of its intention. If a third Party wishes to have recourse to
dispute settlement procedures under this Agreement regarding
the matter, it shall inform promptly the notifying Party and
those Parties shall consult with a view to agreement on a
single forum. If those Parties cannot agree, the dispute
normally shall be settled under this Agreement.
3. In any dispute referred to in paragraph 1 where the
responding Party claims that its action is subject to Article
104 (Relation to Environmental and Conservation Agreements)
and requests in writing that the matter be considered under
this Agreement, the complaining Party may, in respect of that

[[Page S8312]]

matter, thereafter have recourse to dispute settlement
procedures solely under this Agreement.
4. In any dispute referred to in paragraph 1 that arises
under Section B of Chapter Seven (Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures) or Chapter Nine (Standards-Related Measures):
(a) concerning a measure adopted or maintained by a Party
to protect its human, animal or plant life or health, or to
protect its environment, and
(b) that raises factual issues concerning the environment,
health, safety or conservation, including directly related
scientific matters,

where the responding Party requests in writing that the
matter be considered under this Agreement, the complaining
Party may, in respect of that matter, thereafter have
recourse to dispute settlement procedures solely under this
Agreement.
5. The responding Party shall deliver a copy of a request
made to paragraph 3 or 4 to the other Parties and to its
Section of the Secretariat. Where the complaining Party has
initiated dispute settlement proceedings regarding any matter
subject to paragraph 3 or 4, the responding Party shall
deliver its request no later than 15 days thereafter. On
receipt of such request, the complaining Party shall promptly
withdraw from participation in those proceedings and may
initiate settlement procedures under Article 2007.
6. Once dispute settlement procedures have been initiated
under Article 2007 or dispute settlement proceedings have
been initiated under the GATT, the forum selected shall be
used to the exclusion of the other, unless a Party makes a
request pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4.
7. For purposes of this Article, dispute settlement
proceedings under the GATT are deemed to be initiated by a
Party's request for a panel, such as under Article XXIII:2 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947, or for a
committee investigation, such as under Article 20.1 of the
Customs Valuation Code.
Consultations

Article 2006: Consultations

1. Any Party may request in writing consultations with any
other Party regarding any actual or proposed measure or any
other matter that it considers might affect the operation of
this Agreement.
2. The requesting Party shall deliver the request to the
other Parties and to its Section of the Secretariat.
3. Unless the Commission otherwise provides in its rules
and procedures established under Article 2001(4), a third
Party that considers it has a substantial interest in the
matter shall be entitled to participate in the consultation
on delivery of written notice to the other Parties and to its
Section of the Secretariat.
4. Consultations on matters regarding perishable
agricultural goods shall commence within 15 days of the date
of delivery of the request.
5. The consulting Parties shall make every attempt to
arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of any matter
through consultations under this Article or other
consultative provisions of this Agreement. To this end, the
consulting Parties shall:
(a) provide sufficient information to enable a full
examination of how the actual or proposed measure or other
matter might affect the operation of this Agreement;
(b) treat any confidential or proprietary information
exchanged in the course of consultations on the same basis as
the Party providing the information; and
(c) seek to avoid any resolution that adversely affects the
interests under this Agreement of any other Party.
Initation of Procedures

Article 2007: Commission--Good Offices, Conciliation and Mediation

1. If the consulting Parties fail to resolve a matter
pursuant to Article 2006 within:
(a) 30 days of delivery of a request for consultations,
(b) 45 days of delivery of such request if any other Party
has subsequently requested or has participated in
consultations regarding the same matter,
(c) 15 days of delivery of a request for consultations in
matters regarding perishable agricultural goods, or
(d) such other period as they may agree,

any such Party may request in writing a meeting of the
Commission.
2. A Party may also request in writing a meeting of the
Commission where:
(a) it has initiated dispute settlement proceedings under
the GATT regarding any matter subject to Article 2005(3) or
(4), and has received a request pursuant to Article 2005(5)
for recourse to dispute settlement procedures under this
Chapter; or
(b) consultations have been held pursuant to Article 513
(Working Group on Rules of Origin), Article 723 (Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures Technical Consultations) and Article
914 (Standards-Related Measures Technical Consultations).
3. The requesting Party shall state in the request the
measure or other matter complained of and indicate the
provisions of this Agreement that it considers relevant, and
shall deliver the request to the other Parties and to its
Section of the Secretariat.
4. Unless it decides otherwise, the Commission shall
convene within 10 days of delivery of the request and shall
endeavor to resolve the dispute promptly.
5. The Commission may:
(a) call on such technical advisers or create such working
groups or expert groups as it deems necessary,
(b) have recourse to good offices, conciliation, mediation
or such other dispute resolution procedures, or
(c) make recommendations, as may assist the consulting
Parties to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the
dispute.
6. Unless it decides otherwise, the Commission shall
consolidate two or more proceedings before it pursuant to
this Article regarding the same measure. The Commission may
consolidate two or more proceedings regarding other matters
before it pursuant to this Article that it determines are
appropriate to be considered jointly.
Panel Proceedings

Article 2008: Request for an Arbitral panel

1. If the Commission has convened pursuant to Article
2007(4), and the matter has not been resolved within:
(a) 30 days thereafter,
(b) 30 days after the Commission has convened in respect of
the matter most recently referred to it, where proceedings
have been consolidated pursuant to Article 2007(6), or
(c) such other period as the consulting Parties may agree,

any consulting Party may request in writing the establishment
of an arbitral panel. The requesting Party shall deliver the
request to the other Parties and to its Section of the
Secretariat.
2. On delivery of the request, the Commission shall
establish an arbitral panel.
3. A third Party that considers it has a substantial
interest in the matter shall be entitled to join as a
complaining Party on delivery of written notice of its
intention to participate to the disputing Parties and its
Section of the Secretariat. The notice shall be delivered at
the earliest possible time, and in any event no later than
seven days after the date of delivery of a request by a Party
for the establishment of a panel.
4. If a third Party does not join as a complaining Party in
accordance with paragraph 3, it normally shall refrain
therefore from initiating or continuing.
(a) a dispute settlement procedure under this Agreement, or
(b) a dispute settlement proceeding in the GATT on grounds
that are substantially equivalent to those available to that
Party under this Agreement.

regarding the same matter in the absence of a significant
change in economic or commercial circumstances.
5. Unless otherwise agreed by the disputing Parties, the
panel shall be established and perform its functions in a
manner consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.

Article 2009: Roster

1. The Parties shall establish by January 1, 1994 and
maintain a roster of up to 30 individuals who are willing and
able to serve as panelists. The roster members shall be
appointed by consensus for terms of three years, and may be
reappointed.
2. Roster members shall:
(a) have expertise or experience in law, international
trade, other matters covered by this Agreement or the
resolution of disputes arising under international trade
agreements, and shall be chosen strictly on the basis of
objectivity, reliability and sound judgment;
(b) be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take
instructions from, any Party; and
(c) comply with a code of conduct to be established by the
Commission.

Article 2010: qualifications of Panelists

1. All panelists shall meet the qualifications set out in
Article 2009(2).
2. Individuals may not serve as panelists for a dispute in
which they have participated pursuant to Article 2007(5).

Article 2011: Panel Selection

1. Where there are two disputing Parties, the following
procedures shall apply:
(a) The panel shall comprise five members.
(b) The disputing Parties shall endeavor to agree on the
chair of the panel within 15 days of the delivery of the
request for the establishment of the panel. If the disputing
Parties are unable to agree on the chair within this period,
the disputing Party chosen by lot shall select within five
days as chair an individual who is not a citizen of that
Party.
(c) Within 15 days of selection of the chair, each
disputing Party shall select two panelists who are citizens
of the other disputing Party.
(d) If a disputing Party fails to select its panelists
within such period, such panelists shall be selected by lot
from among the roster members who are citizens of the other
disputing Party.
2. Where there are more than two disputing Parties, the
following procedures shall apply:
(a) The panel shall comprise five members.
(b) The disputing Parties shall endeavor to agree on the
chair of the panel within 15 days of the delivery of the
request for the establishment of the panel. If the disputing
Parties are unable to agree on the chair within this period,
the Party or Parties on the side of the dispute chosen by lot
shall select within 10 days a chair who is not a citizen of
such Party or Parties.
(c) Within 15 days of selection of the chair, the Party
complained against shall select two panelists, one of whom is
a citizen of a complaining Party, and the other of whom is a
citizen of another complaining Party. The complaining Parties
shall select two panelists who are citizens of the Party
complained against.

[[Page S8313]]

(d) If any disputing Party fails to select a panelist
within such period, such panelist shall be selected by lot in
accordance with the citizenship criteria of subparagraph (c).
3. Panelists shall normally be selected from the roster.
Any disputing Party may exercise a peremptory challenge
against any individual not on the roster who is proposed as a
panelist by a disputing Party within 15 days after the
individual has been proposed.
4. If a disputing Party believes that a panelist is in
violation of the code of conduct, the disputing Parties shall
consult and if they agree, the panelist shall be removed and
a new panelist shall be selected in accordance with this
Article.

Article 2012: Rules of Procedure

1. The Commission shall establish by January 1, 1994 Model
Rules of Procedure, in accordance with the following
principles:
(a) the procedures shall assure a right to at least one
hearing before the panel as well as the opportunity to
provide initial and rebuttal written submissions; and
(b) the panel's hearing, deliberations and initial report,
and all written submissions to and communications with the
panel shall be confidential.
2. Unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, the panel
shall conduct its proceedings in accordance with the Model
Rules of Procedure.
3. Unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree within 20
days from the date of the delivery of the request for the
establishment of the panel, the terms of reference shall be:
``To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the
Agreement, the matter referred to the Commission (as set out
in the request for a Commission meeting) and to make
findings, determinations and recommendations as provided in
Article 2016(2).''
4. If a complaining Party wishes to argue that a matter has
nullified or impaired benefits, the terms of reference shall
so indicate.
5. If a disputing Party wishes the panel to make findings
as to the degree of adverse trade effects on any Party of any
measure found not to conform with the obligations of the
Agreement or to have caused nullification or impairment in
the sense of Annex 2004, the terms of reference shall so
indicate.

Article 2013: Third Party Participation

A Party that is not a disputing Party, on delivery of a
written notice to the disputing Parties and to its Section of
the Secretariat, shall be entitled to attend all hearings, to
make written and oral submissions to the panel and to receive
written submissions of the disputing Parties.

Article 2014: Role of Experts

On request of a disputing Party, or on its own initiative,
the panel may seek information and technical advice from any
person or body that it deems appropriate, provided that the
disputing Parties so agree and subject to such terms and
conditions as such Parties may agree.

Article 2015: Scientific Review Boards

1. On request of a disputing Party or, unless the disputing
Parties disapprove, on its own initiative, the panel may
request a written report of a scientific review board on any
factual issue concerning environmental, health, safety or
other scientific matters raised by a disputing Party in a
proceeding, subject to such terms and conditions as such
Parties may agree.
2. The board shall be selected by the panel from among
highly qualified, independent experts in the scientific
matters, after consultations with the disputing Parties and
the scientific bodies set out in the Model Rules of Procedure
established pursuant to Article 2012(1).
3. The participating Parties shall be provided:
(a) advance notice of, and an opportunity to provide
comments to the panel on, the proposed factual issues to be
referred to the board; and
(b) a copy of the board's report and an opportunity to
provide comments on the report to the panel.
4. The panel shall take the board's report and any comments
by the Parties on the report into account in the preparation
of its report.

Article 2016: Initial Report

1. Unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, the panel
shall base its report on the submissions and arguments of the
Parties and on any information before it pursuant to Article
2014 or 2015.
2. Unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, the panel
shall, within 90 days after the last panelist is selected or
such other period as the Model Rules of Procedure established
pursuant to Article 2012(1) may provide, present to the
disputing Parties an initial report containing:
(a) findings of fact, including any findings pursuant to a
request under Article 2012(5);
(b) its determination as to whether the measure at issue is
or would be inconsistent with the obligations of this
Agreement or cause nullification or impairment in the sense
of Annex 2004, or any other determination requested in the
terms of reference; and
(c) its recommendations, if any, for resolution of the
dispute.
3. Panelists may furnish separate opinions on matters not
unanimously agreed.
4. A disputing Party may submit written comments to the
panel on its initial report within 14 days of presentation of
the report.
5. In such an event, and after considering such written
comments, the panel, on its own initiative or on the request
of any disputing Party, may:
(a) request the views of any participating Party;
(b) reconsider its report; and
(c) make any further examination that it considers
appropriate.

Article 2017: Final Report

1. The panel shall present to the disputing Parties a final
report, including any separate opinions on matters not
unanimously agreed, within 30 days of presentation of the
initial report, unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree.
2. No panel may, either in its initial report or its final
report, disclose which panelists are associated with majority
or minority opinions.
3. The disputing Parties shall transmit to the Commission
the final report of the panel, including any report of a
scientific review board established under Article 2015, as
well as any written views that a disputing Party desires to
be appended, on a confidential basis within a reasonable
period of time after it is presented to them.
4. Unless the Commission decides otherwise, the final
report of the panel shall be published 15 days after it is
transmitted to the Commission.
Implementation of Panel Reports

Article 2018: Implementation of Final Report

1. On receipt of the final report of a panel, the disputing
Parties shall agree on the resolution of the dispute, which
normally shall conform with the determinations and
recommendations of the panel, and shall notify their Sections
of the Secretariat of any agreed resolution of any dispute.
2. Wherever possible, the resolution shall be non-
implementation or removal of a measure not conforming with
this Agreement or causing nullification or impairment in the
sense of Annex 2004 or, failing such a resolution,
compensation.

Article 2019: Non-Implementation--Suspension of Benefits

1. If in its final report a panel has determined that a
measure is inconsistent with the obligations of this
Agreement or causes nullification or impairment in the sense
of Annex 2004 and the Party complained against has not
reached agreement with any complaining Party on a mutually
satisfactory resolution pursuant to Article 2018(1) within 30
days of receiving the final report, such complaining Party
may suspend the application to the Party complained against
of benefits of equivalent effect until such time as they have
reached agreement on a resolution of the dispute.
2. In considering what benefits to suspend pursuant to
paragraph 1:
(a) a complaining Party should first seek to suspend
benefits in the same sector or sectors as that affected by
the measure or other matter that the panel has found to be
inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or to
have caused nullification or impairment in the sense of Annex
2004; and
(b) a complaining Party that considers it is not
practicable or effective to suspend benefits in the same
sector or sectors may suspend benefits in other sectors.
3. On the written request of any disputing Party delivered
to the other Parties and its Section of the Secretariat, the
Commission shall establish a panel to determine whether the
level of benefits suspended by a Party pursuant to paragraph
1 is manifestly excessive.
4. The panel proceedings shall be conducted in accordance
with the Model Rules of Procedure. The panel shall present
its determination within 60 days after the last panelist is
selected or such other period as the disputing Parties may
agree.

section C--domestic proceedings and private commercial dispute
settlement

Article 2020: Referrals of Matters from Judicial or Administrative
Proceedings

1. If an issue of interpretation or application of this
Agreement arises in any domestic judicial or administrative
proceeding of a Party that any Party considers would merit
its intervention, or if a court or administrative body
solicits the views of a Party, that Party shall notify the
other Parties and its Section of the Secretariat. The
Commission shall endeavor to agree on an appropriate response
as expeditiously as possible.
2. The Party in whose territory the court or administrative
body is located shall submit any agreed interpretation of the
Commission to the court or administrative body in accordance
with the rules of that forum.
3. If the Commission is unable to agree, any Party may
submit its own views to the court or administrative body in
accordance with the rules of that forum.

Article 2021: Private Rights

No Party may provide for a right of action under its
domestic law against any other Party on the ground that a
measure of another Party is inconsistent with this Agreement.

Article 2022: Alternative Dispute Resolution

1. Each Party shall, to the maximum extent possible,
encourage and facilitate the use of arbitration and other
means of alternative dispute resolution for the settlement of
international commercial disputes between private parties in
the free trade area.
2. To this end, each Party shall provide appropriate
procedures to ensure observance of agreements to arbitrate
and for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in
such disputes.

[[Page S8314]]

3. A Party shall be deemed to be in compliance with
paragraph 2 if it is a party to and is in compliance with the
1958 United National Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or the 1975
InterAmerican Convention on International Commercial
Arbitration.
4. The Commission shall establish an Advisory Committee on
Private Commercial Disputes comprising persons with expertise
or experience in the resolution of private international
commercial disputes. The Committee shall report and provide
recommendations to the Commission on general issues referred
to it by the Commission respecting the availability, use and
effectiveness of arbitration and other procedures for the
resolution of such disputes in the free trade area.

annex 2001.2

Committees and Working Groups

A. Committees
1. Committee on Trade in Goods (Article 316)
2. Committee on Trade in Worn Clothing (Annex 300-B,
Section 9.1)
3. Committee on Agricultural Trade (Article 706)
Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes Regarding
Agricultural Goods (Article 707)
4. Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(Article 722)
5. Committee on Standards-Related Measures (Article 913)
Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (Article 913(5))
Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee (Article 913(5))
Automotive Standards Council (Article 913(5))
Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods
(Article 913(5))
6. Committee on Small Business (Article 1021)
7. Financial Services Committee (Article 1412)
8. Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes
(Article 2022(4))
B. Working Groups
1. Working Group on Rules of Origin (Article 513)
Customs Subgroup (Article 513(6))
2. Working Group on Agricultural Subsidies (Article 705(6))
3. Bilateral Working Group (Mexico United States) (Annex
703.2(A)(25))
4. Bilateral Working Group (Canada (Mexico) (Annex
703.2(b)(13))
5. Working Group on Trade and Competition (Article 1504)
6. Temporary Entry Working Group (Article 1605)
C. Other Committees and Working Groups Established Under this
Agreement

annex 2002.2

Remuneration and Payment of Expenses

1. The Commission shall establish the amounts of
remuneration and expenses that will be paid to the panelists,
committee members and members of scientific review boards.
2. The remuneration of panelists or committee members and
their assistants, members of scientific review boards, their
travel and lodging expenses, and all general expenses of
panels, committees or scientific review boards shall be borne
equally by:
(a) in the case of panels or committees established under
Chapter Nineteen (Review and Dispute Settlement in
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Matters), the involved
Parties, as they are defined in Article 1911; or
(b) in the case of panels and scientific review boards
established under this Chapter, the disputing Parties.
3. Each panelist or committee member shall keep a record
and render a final account of the person's time and expenses,
and the panel, committee or scientific review board shall
keep a record and render a final account of all general
expenses. The Commission shall establish amounts of
remuneration and expenses that will be paid to panelists and
committee members.

annex 2004

Nullification and Impairment

1. If any party considers that any benefit it could
reasonably have expected to accrue to it under any provision
of:
(a) Part Two (Trade in Goods), except for those provisions
of Annex 300-A (Automotive Sector) or Chapter Six (Energy)
relating to investment,
(b) Part Three (Technical Barriers to Trade),
(c) Chapter Twelve (Cross-Border Trade in Services), or
(d) Part Six (Intellectual Property),

is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application
of any measure that is not inconsistent with this Agreement,
the Party may have recourse to dispute settlement under this
Chapter.
2. A Party may not invoke:
(a) paragraph 1(a) or (b), to the extent that the benefit
arises from any crossborder trade in services provision of
Part Two, or
(b) paragraph 1(c) or (d),

with respect to any measure subject to an exception under
Article 2101 (General Exceptions).
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Health
Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); or
any other body that the Parties designate;
Land transportation service means a transportation service
provided by means of motor carrier or rail;
Legitimate objective includes an objective such as:
(a) safety,
(b) protection of human, animal or plant life or health,
the environment or consumers, including matters relating to
quality and identifiability of goods or services, and
(c) sustainable development,

considering, among other things, where appropriate,
fundamental climatic or other geographical factors,
technological or infrastructural factors, or scientific
justification but does not include the protection of domestic
production;
Make compatible means bring different standards-related
measures of the same scope approved by different
standardizing bodies to a level such that they are either
identical, equivalent or have the effect of permitting goods
and services to be used in place of one another or fulfill
the same purpose;
Services means land transportation services and
telecommunications services;
Standard means a document, approved by a recognized body,
that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines
or characteristics for goods or related processes and
production methods, or for services or related operating
methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also
include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols,
packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to
a good, process, or production or operating method;
Standardizing body means a body having recognized
activities in standardization;
Stardards-related measure means a standard, technical
regulation or conformity assessment procedure;
Technical regulation means a document which lays down goods
characteristics or their related processes and production
methods, or services characteristics or their related
operating methods, including the applicable administrative
provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also
include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols,
packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to
a good, process, or production or operating method; and
Telecommunications service means a service provided by
means of the transmission and reception of signals by any
electromagnetic means, but does not mean the cable, broadcast
or other electromagnetic distribution of radio or television
programming to the public generally.
2. Except as they are otherwise defined in this Agreement,
other terms in this Chapter shall be interpreted in
accordance with their ordinary meaning in context and in the
light of the objectives of this Agreement, and where
appropriate by reference to the terms presented in the sixth
edition of the ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1991, General Terms and Their
Definitions Concerning Standardization and Related
Activities.

annex 908.2

Transitional Rules for Conformity Assessment Procedures

1. Except in respect of governmental conformity assessment
bodies, Article 908(2) shall impose no obligation and confer
no right on Mexico until four years after the date of entry
into force of this Agreement.
2. Where a Party charges a reasonable fee, limited in
amount to the approximate cost of the service rendered, to
accredit, approve, license or otherwise recognize a
conformity assessment body in the territory of another Party,
it need not, prior to December 31, 1998 or such earlier date
as the Parties may agree, charge such a fee to a conformity
assessment body in its territory.

annex 913.5.a-1

Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee

1. The Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee,
established under Article 913(5)(a)(i), shall comprise
representatives of each Party.
2. The Subcommittee shall implement the following work
program for making compatible the Parties' relevant
standards-related measures for:
(a) bus and truck operations
(i) no later than one and one-half years after the date of
entry into force of this Agreement, for non-medical
standards-related measures respecting drivers, including
measures relating to the age of and language used by drivers,
(ii) no later than two and one-half years after the date of
entry into force of this Agreement, for medical standards-
related measures respecting drivers,
(iii) no later than three years after the date of entry
into force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures
respecting vehicles, including measures relating to weights
and dimensions, tires, brakes, parts and accessories,
securement of cargo, maintenance and repair, inspections, and
emissions and environmental pollution levels not covered by
the Automotive Standards Council's work program established
under Annex 913.5.a-3,
(iv) no later than three years after the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures
respecting each Party's supervision of motor carriers' safety
compliance, and
(v) no later than three years after the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures
respecting road signs;

[[Page S8315]]

(b) rail operations
(i) no later than one year after the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures
respecting operating personnel that are relevant to cross-
border operations, and
(ii) no later than one year after the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures
respecting locomotives and other rail equipment; and
(c) transportation of dangerous goods, no later than six
years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement,
using as their basis the United Nations Recommendations on
the Transport of Dangerous Goods, or such other standards as
the Parties may agree.
3. The Subcommittee may address other related standards-
related measures as it considers appropriate.

Annex 913.5.a-2

Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee

1. The Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee,
established under Article 913(5)(a)(ii), shall comprise
representatives of each Party.
2. The Subcommittee shall, within six months of the date of
entry into force of this Agreement, develop a work program,
including a timetable, for making compatible, to the greatest
extent practicable, the standards-related measures of the
Parties for authorized equipment as defined in Chapter
Thirteen (Telecommunications).
3. The Subcommittee may address other appropriate
standards-related matters respecting telecommunications
equipment or services and such other matters as it considers
appropriate.
4. The Subcommittee shall take into account relevant work
carried out by the Parties in other forums, and that of non-
governmental standardizing bodies.

Annex 913.5.a-3

Automotive Standards Council

1. The Automotive Standards Council, established under
Article 913.5(a)(iii), shall comprise representatives of each
Party.
2. The purpose of the Council shall be, to the extent
practicable, to facilitate the attainment of compatibility
among, and review the implementation of, national standards-
related measures of the Parties that apply to automotive
goods, and to address other related matters.
3. To facilitate its objectives, the Council may establish
subgroups, consultation procedures and other appropriate
operational mechanisms. On the agreement of the Parties, the
Council may include state and provincial government or
private sector representatives in its subgroups.
4. Any recommendation of the Council shall require
agreement of the Parties. Where the adoption of a law is not
required for a Party, the Council's recommendations shall be
implemented by the Party within a reasonable time in
accordance with the legal and procedural requirements and
international obligations of the Party. Where the adoption of
a law is required for a Party, the Party shall use its best
efforts to secure the adoption of the law and shall implement
any such law within a reasonable time.
5. Recognizing the existing disparity in standards-related
measures of the Parties, the Council shall develop a work
program for making compatible the national standards-related
measures that apply to automotive goods and other related
matters based on the following criteria:
(a) the impact on industry integration;
(b) the extent of the barriers to trade;
(c) the level of trade affected; and
(d) the extent of the disparity.

In developing its work program, the Council may address other
related matters, including emissions from on-road and non-
road mobile sources.
6. Each Party shall take such reasonable measures as may be
available to it to promote the objectives of this Annex with
respect to standards-related measures that are maintained by
state and provincial government authorities and private
sector organizations. The Council shall make every effort to
assist these entities with such activities, especially the
identification of priorities and the establishment of work
schedules.

annex 913.5.a-4

Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods

1. The Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel
Goods, established under Article 913(5)(a)(iv), shall
comprise representatives of each Party.
2. The Subcommittee shall include, and consult with,
technical experts as well as a broadly representative group
from the manufacturing and retailing sectors in the territory
of each Party.
3. The Subcommittee shall develop and pursue a work program
on the harmonization of labeling requirements to facilitate
trade in textile and apparel goods between the Parties
through the adoption of uniform labelling provisions. The
work program should include the following matters:
(a) pictograms and symbols to replace, where possible,
required written information, as well as other methods to
reduce the need for labels on textile and apparel goods in
multiple languages;
(b) care instructions for textile and apparel goods;
(c) fiber content information for textile and apparel
goods;
(d) uniform methods acceptable for the attachment of
required information to textile and apparel goods; and
(e) use in the territory of the other Parties of each
Party's national registration numbers for manufacturers of
importers of textile and apparel goods.

Mr. SHELBY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas that we
have been talking about proposes instead to grant to the President of
the United States the sole and final authority to determine what
violates NAFTA in regard to highway safety. As much as I respect the
office of the President of the United States and particularly this
President, the office of the President is not--and should not be--put
in this position. In addition, it is unnecessary because the
Constitution, as we all know, already gives the President the power to
veto legislation.
I believe it is a slippery slope to pursue the concept that the
President of the United States, or any other administration official,
should determine whether acts of Congress are consistent with treaty
obligations or other laws.
I put my faith in the Founding Fathers and their wisdom to separate
judicial and executive functions. The Senator from Texas, my good
friend, makes some interesting and novel arguments. I would hope that
his enthusiasm for his interpretation of NAFTA would not overwhelm our
collective support for the constitutional separation of the executive
and judicial branches of Government.
The Senator from Texas has argued on several occasions that the
Murray-Shelby provision contains what he alleges are four violations of
NAFTA. While I believe that we should allow the processes set forth in
the NAFTA agreement that I quoted from to determine that, let me assure
the Senator from Texas that if his amendment is adopted there is
without question one violation of NAFTA--because his amendment clearly
creates a new dispute resolution process within the office of the
President that appears to be inconsistent--totally inconsistent--with
NAFTA itself.
Mr. President, we have talked about this issue. I think we know what
is going on. At this point, I move to table the Gramm amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

YEAS--65

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--30

Allard
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--5

Bond
Burns
Enzi
Feinstein
Sessions
The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S8316]]

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1180 to Amendment No. 1030

(Purpose: To require that Mexican nationals be treated the same as
Canadian nationals under provisions of the Act)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to
amendment No. 1030 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1180 to amendment No. 1030:
At the end of the amendment add the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
provision of this Act shall be implemented in a manner that
treats Mexican nationals differently from Canadian nationals.

Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada for a
question.
Mr. REID. I do not think the Senator wants to. I am going to move to
table.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I thank him very much
for recognizing me.
Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says the
Mexican nationals will be treated exactly the same as Canadian
nationals. It has nothing to do with requirements on trucks. It has
nothing to do with requirements. It has nothing to do with how these
individuals residing one to our north and one to our south would be
treated exactly the same way as citizens of their country and trading
partners.
I hope there will be no question that our neighbors to the north and
the south will be treated on an equal and equitable basis.
I want to quote from the report again from the NAFTA dispute
resolution panel.
I remind my colleagues, I believe we have 51 second-degree amendments
on file. After this one is dispensed with, we will have 50 amendments
remaining. They are all important additions. Hopefully, these
modifications can be made to this legislation.
I point out, as we continue to debate this issue again I quote, since
a number of my colleagues are in the Chamber, an editorial in the
Chicago Tribune. I see my colleague from Illinois. The headline is:
``Honk if you smell cheap politics.'' That is the headline. I emphasize
for my colleagues, I am quoting from an editorial. This is not a
reflection of my personal views:

As political debates go, the one in the Senate against
allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as
dishonest as it gets. The talk is all about safety and
concern about how rattletrap Mexican semis, driven by inept
Mexicans, would plow into Aunt Bea putt-putting to the
grocery store in her Honda Civic, somewhere in Pleasantville,
U.S.A.
Truth is that Teamster truckers don't want competition from
their Mexican counterparts, who now have to transfer their
loads near the border to American-driven trucks, instead of
driving straight through to the final destination. But to
admit that would sound too crass and self-serving, so Sen.
Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and others pushing the Teamster line,
instead are prattling on about road safety. . . .
Under NAFTA, which went into effect in 1994, there was
supposed to be free access to all trucks within Canada, the
U.S. and Mexico by January of last year. That only makes
sense: There is no point in freeing up trade but restricting
the means to move the goods.
But with the 2000 elections looming, President Bill Clinton
caved in to pressure from the Teamsters and delayed
implementation of the free-trucking part of the agreement.
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore got the Teamsters'
endorsement and the Mexican government filed a complaint
against the U.S. for violation of NAFTA rules. Mexico won.
A spokesman for the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and
others in Washington have whispered there may be bits of
racism and discrimination floating around in this soup,
because Canadian trucks and drivers are not subjected to
similar scrutiny and can move about freely anywhere in the
U.S.
It's worthwhile to note, too, that while the U.S. is
banning Mexican trucks, Mexico is returning the favor, so
neither country's trucks are going anywhere. As it stands,
Mexican trucks can come in only 20 miles into the U.S. before
they have to transfer their load.
Safety need not be an issue. An amendment proposed by
McCain and Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) incorporates safety
inspection safeguards to be sure drivers and trucks are fit
to travel U.S. roads. It's roughly modeled after California's
safety inspection system along it own border with Mexico.
Presumably, Mexico would inspect the trucks going the other
way.
Those are reasonable measures to protect motorists on both
sides of the border.
But Sen. Murray's amendment sets up a series of
requirements and hurdles so difficult to implement that they
would, in effect, keep the border closed to Mexican trucks
indefinitely.
President Bush vows to veto this version of the bill, and
quite rightly so. In 1993, the U.S. signed and ratified
NAFTA. The agreement went into effect in 1994. There is no
justification now, more than seven years later, for the U.S.
to try to weasel out of some its provisions.

The amendment, which I guess is going to be shortly tabled--I ask
that the amendment be read one more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Objection. I did not hear the request.
Mr. McCAIN. I asked that the amendment be read.
Mr. REID. That is fine.
Mr. McCAIN. I will read it myself. I am more eloquent than the staff
anyway.
Mr. REID. I would love to hear the amendment read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 1180

At the end of the amendment add the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
provision of this Act shall be implemented in a manner that
treats Mexican nationals differently from Canadian nationals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, do I still have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator lost the floor when he had the
clerk read.
Mr. McCAIN. Very good.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond),
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), and the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--34

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms

[[Page S8317]]

Hutchison
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--9

Bond
Burns
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Inhofe
Miller
Sessions
Stevens
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, it seems to me one of the very few
things that has been agreed upon in the civilized world over the last
few years is the benefits of free trade. It is the source of much of
the prosperity we have enjoyed in this country because our advances in
technology have led to increases in productivity. It has put us in a
very competitive position with regard to the world. Trade has been an
integral part of that. It has lifted millions and millions of people
out of poverty.
As we see around the world, the expansion of free market philosophy
sometimes leads to more democratic institutions. Very much of it is
based on these economies opening up. Very much of that has to do with
the benefits of free trade where people make the things that they make
best and do the things they do best, open up their borders, turn their
backs on protectionism, and engage in free trade with other countries.
The most remarkable example of that recently, it seems to me, would
be the country of China. We have seen that country under Deng, starting
back some years ago, opening up that country's economy somewhat, as
many problems we have with them. I will not go into that today. That is
a different subject for another day. But we have some very serious
difficulties with them in terms of nuclear proliferation, for example.
There is a story just today about that in the press that is very
disturbing. We will deal with that at the appropriate time.
But we have to acknowledge that they have lifted millions and
millions of their people out of poverty. They have bought into the
notion that in order for them to prosper economically, in order for
them to feed the 1.3 billion people they have, they are going to have
to open up somewhat economically and they are going to have to engage
in free trade.
We believe in the engagement of free trade with them, even to the
extent of the substantial trade deficit. I think it is about $84
billion in deficit we are now running with them. But it attests to our
commitment that we have for the general proposition of the benefits of
free trade.
A third of the U.S. economic growth during the 1990s came from
exports. Since the cold war, the United States has championed the
values of democracy and free trade. Global free trade advances the
democratic values of consumer choice, workers' rights, transparency,
and the rule of law.
Therefore, it pains me to see us begin to move away from the
principles of free trade and to hold ourselves open for the criticism
that we are violating the agreement into which we entered. The argument
can be made that while the world is moving in one direction, we in some
respects are moving in another. There are more than, I believe, 133
trade agreements around the world. The United States is a party to two
of them. One of the ones that has been beneficial to all parties
concerned has been NAFTA. It has been beneficial to my State of
Tennessee. I think it has been beneficial to the United States in
general.
It pains me to see us move away from our solemn commitment. I think
that is what the Murray provision does. I think that is the primary
reason for the concern expressed by the Senator from Arizona and the
Senator from Texas because their opinion--and apparently the opinion of
the President of the United States--is that provision violates our
commitment under NAFTA; it violates our commitment to free trade. We
are moving in the wrong direction. We are moving in one direction when
the rest of the world seems to finally have been convinced of what we
are supposed to believe in; that is, benefits of free trade.
Trade benefits small businesses. Ninety-seven percent of all
exporters are small businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. Free
trade is an invaluable tool to economic development, oftentimes far
more successful than direct aid. Trade encourages investment, creates
jobs, and promotes a more sustainable form of development. Jobs created
through trade often require higher levels of skills and create a higher
standard of living for workers.
It is to everyone's benefit--and certainly to this country's
benefit--to engage in activities that raise the standard of living
which, in turn, often leads, as I say, to demands for individual rights
in countries where those are so sorely lacking.
The combined effects of the Uruguay Round trade agreements and NAFTA
have increased U.S. national income by $40 to $60 billion a year. Over
85 percent of NAFTA trade is manufactured goods, which grew by over 66
percent between 1993 and 1998.
On the agricultural front, which is important to my State, one of
every three acres of U.S. farmland is planted for export.
So that is what is going on in the world. That is of what we are a
part. That is in what we should be taking a leadership role. So when we
are dealing with the primary trade agreement that we have, and dealing
with our own hemisphere, and our own backyard, and our neighbors to the
north and our neighbors to the south, and we, because of domestic,
political, and economic pressure, willy-nilly do things that might be
pleasing to certain, limited constituency groups but not only violate
the agreement but violate the principles for which we are supposed to
stand, when we do that, we are moving in a wrong and dangerous
direction.
The United States is better off today because of that commitment we
made. I think the United States is better off today because of that
agreement we made. The U.S. economy experienced the longest peacetime
expansion in history. That was not because we sat still. That was not
by accident. All 50 States and the United States territories
participate in NAFTA, and almost all have reaped benefits from more
liberalized trade with both Mexico and Canada.
U.S. trade with NAFTA countries grew faster than the rate of global
trade expansion. Overall, NAFTA has benefited the entire continent of
North America through its promotion of competitiveness and lower prices
for consumers. We all are very much aware of the fact that some folks
have been displaced--some in my own State have been displaced--as we
have gone through the adjustment our economy is having to go through
now.
We all know that as we move from an agricultural economy to an
industrialized economy to a very high-tech economy that we have now--as
we move from one of those areas to another, there are some
displacements, and it is unfortunate. The Government should be helpful
in legitimate respects to make sure that, as far as workers are
concerned, for example, we are mindful of that.
We have passed legislation, some of which workers in my own State
have benefited from, to help make this adjustment come about, knowing
that we have to make this adjustment, that we have to move from certain
areas of our economy into other areas that are more competitive in the
world economy and the world market that we have now.
But overall, from the time NAFTA was signed until last year, the
following things have happened: U.S. gross domestic product grew by
over $2 trillion, unemployment in the United States fell from 7 percent
to 4 percent, real income rose by an average of $2,500 for every
American. Trade between the United States and Mexico has tripled since
1993 to over $250 billion in 2000. Total merchandise trade among the
NAFTA countries was $656 billion in 2000. The United States now trades
more with Canada than with the EU. Total United States trade with
Canada has doubled to $400 billion. Trade with NAFTA countries doubled
from 1993 to 2000, while U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew by
half as much.

So not only is free trade important, but this particular episode in
our Nation's history with regard to free trade is especially important.
The figures bear that out when looking at the American economy.
On another related subject, during the 1994-1995 peso devaluation,
Mexico experienced its worst recession since 1932, with a 7-percent
decrease in GDP. During the same time, U.S. exports fell

[[Page S8318]]

by 8.9 percent, while European and Asian exports fell by 20 to 30
percent.
While in crisis, Mexico raised import tariffs on goods from all of
its trading partners, with the exception of NAFTA members. NAFTA
prevented the United States from experiencing the level of loss felt by
both Asia and Europe.
Trade creates jobs. Over 20 million new jobs were generated by the
U.S. economy during the 1990s. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates
that by 1999 NAFTA had created over 685,000 export-related jobs in the
United States. Over 12 million U.S. jobs now rely on trade in this
country.
Economists estimate that the $70 billion increase in United States
exports to Mexico since NAFTA began created about 1.3 million new jobs.
The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that 6 million U.S. jobs are
dependent on NAFTA-related exports alone. This gives us some indication
of the significance of what we are dealing with.
Again, it pains me to see us move in a direction, not because we
don't have a right to protect ourselves from trucks or anything else--
we can enter into agreements that do that. When we deal with the
agreements to start with, we can enter into those things. We can
implement those agreements in ways that protect us. All that is allowed
under NAFTA. But we cannot have different requirements for our friends
in Mexico than we have for our friends in Canada. That is just not
right, and it is not compliant with NAFTA. With all of these benefits,
I think it is important that we understand what is at stake.
As self-centered as we might want to be--and I hope we are not, but
even if we were, it is to our benefit to have a stable and a growing
and a prosperous neighbor to the south, as well as to the north, for
obvious reasons--for reasons having to do with immigration, for reasons
having to do with the economy. That common border is not going to go
away. Now that we have new leadership in Mexico, we have the
opportunity to make progress in a lot of areas that we have not been
able to for some time.
Surpassing Japan, Mexico is now the United States' second largest
trading partner. Since the agreement's implementation, Mexico's gross
domestic product has increased at an average annual rate of 3.7
percent. I think we have a right--the Nation that came up with the
Marshall plan, the Nation that rebuilt much of Europe and Japan after
World War II--to be proud of that.
Mexico's credit has improved as a result of NAFTA. Mexico has
successfully paid back its loans from the 1995 peso crisis ahead of
schedule. Early this spring, Mexico paid off all of its IMF loans. This
successful recovery prompted major credit analysts to upgrade Mexican
sovereign and corporate debt to investment grade.
Thanks in part to the democratic influence of free trade, NAFTA
played a significant part in making Mexico a more democratic country.
NAFTA helped foster the civil society in economic development that
enabled Mexico to successfully transition to democratic rule after
several years of a one-party system.
Those are some of the benefits of free trade in general. Those are
some of the benefits to one of our trading partners. At this point in
our history, when so much positive is going on in the world in terms of
taking down barriers, in terms of intercourse of commerce and the
flourishing of market principles in places heretofore unknown to them,
we should be leading the world in all of these things. We should not be
a part of only two agreements when the rest of the world is moving on.
That is bad enough.
But now we are doing things, little by little, that are taking us in
one direction while the rest of the world seems to be going in another.
We are now in the midst of debating trade or environmental and labor
standards. We have entered into an agreement with Jordan, and we are
very concerned about their environmental standards. They happen to have
some of the better labor and environmental standards already in that
part of the world. Now, for domestic reasons, we want to impose
nontrade-related requirements on people with whom we want to trade.
They in turn, if we do that, have the right to impose those same things
on us and to take us to court, so to speak, over changes in our own law
potentially.
We don't give our President trade promotion authority. We have heard
the debate on fast track over several years now. The President of the
United States has not had the ability to enter into these agreements,
putting us at a great disadvantage with regard to a large part of the
world.
Again, why are we so reticent? Why are we moving in one direction?
Why are we becoming more closed and raising more barriers at a time
when the rest of the world is doing what we have always said we wanted
them to do in taking down barriers, entering into bilateral and
multilateral agreements?
I don't know why we would want to do that. I don't know why we would
not want to give the President trade promotion authority. I do not know
why we would want to hold ourselves up to the accusation of
protectionism under these circumstances.
Should people of that persuasion succeed in restricting the freedom
of trade, it will be U.S. consumers and workers who will lose out.
Trade barriers will never prevent low-wage or low-skilled worker
displacement. New technologies and improved efficiency will always
displace low-wage and low-skilled workers. I am afraid that is an
economic reality. We need to be convinced, apparently, of the obvious
proposition that if we are really concerned about labor standards and
the environment in some of these other countries, we need to help them
lift their economy up so that they can take care of those matters
themselves.
We are never going to make any permanent improvement because we try
to coerce some small nation, through a trade agreement, to improve
their labor and environmental laws. What we can do is enter into trade
agreements with them that will let them participate in this global
economy and in this prosperity that so many countries and so many
people have enjoyed because of free trade and more open markets and
which, as I said, in many cases leads to more democratic institutions.
We are seeing that play out in Mexico as we speak, moving in the right
direction. It is all a part of the same picture. It is a picture where
free trade has the central role.
When I look at the current debate we are having, it is unfortunate
that it is taking some time. But as I look at it and as we are required
as individual Senators to make decisions as to where we stand, we ought
to think hard about exactly where we stand and where we ought to stand.
All these general principles I have been talking about in terms of the
benefits of free trade and how it has benefited our country and how it
has benefited Canada and Mexico and how this particular free trade
agreement has benefited all of us, all those principles apply to the
issue at hand. That is, are we doing something on an appropriations
bill, almost as an afterthought as it were, that is going to move us
not only contrary to the provisions of the solemn undertaking that we
made with regard to NAFTA but take us contrary to the philosophical
beliefs and longstanding positions that this Nation has had?

My understanding is that we can make changes or we can have
requirements to implement the provisions under these agreements. We are
free to do that with regard to Canadian trucks or Mexican trucks or
anything else. We can implement this agreement in ways that will
protect us, but we cannot change the agreement. We can't change the
requirements, and we cannot give different treatment to Mexicans than
we do Canadians.
We just voted down an amendment that said simply that we need to
treat Canadians and Mexicans alike because we are all three in the same
agreement. That was voted down. How anybody could vote against that, I
have a hard time understanding.
We are getting down to some very core philosophies and beliefs. I am
wondering what people will think about the United States of America in
terms of a future trading partner when we cannot even reach a consensus
on something such as that, which is not only the right thing to do, the
clearly nondiscriminatory right thing to do, but it is the only thing
to do to be in compliance with the agreement.
I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.
Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to yield.

[[Page S8319]]

Mr. GRAMM. The Senator is a distinguished lawyer. I am not a lawyer,
much less being a distinguished one. But I wanted to read to the
Senator the language of NAFTA--it is very short--and ask the Senator if
he would give to us his interpretation of what it means and what kind
of parameters it sets.
This is in the section of the North American Free Trade Agreement
that the President signed in 1994 and then we ratified. A Republican
signed it. A Democrat led the ratification, and now we have a
Republican President. We are in the third administration committed to
this agreement that we entered into.
In the area we are discussing, cross-border trade and services, we
have simple language as to what we committed to. I ask the Senator to
just give us a description of what he, as a lawyer, a former U.S.
attorney, sees this as meaning.
The heading on it is ``National Treatment.'' This is what we
committed to, pure and simple:

Each party shall accord to service providers of another
party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in
like circumstances to its own service providers.

That is what we committed to. That is called national treatment.
Would the Senator give us sort of a legal and commonsense definition
of what that is and what that means?
Mr. THOMPSON. Well, to me it means that we have to treat them and
their people the way we treat ourselves and our people. That is a
fundamental of trade and trade agreements, and something that is
fundamental to this particular agreement. It has to do with the concept
of equality and comity. It doesn't matter that one country is richer
than another or has more population than another. It puts countries,
from the standpoint of the agreement, from the standpoint of trade, on
a basis of equal trading partners. We will treat you the way we treat
our own people.
I must say, if we violate that and we treat them worse than our own
people or worse than another trading partner or partner to the same
agreement, such as Canada, then obviously they are going to
reciprocate. And they are going to treat our people--in this case, our
truckers--seemingly, however they feel they are entitled in
reciprocation of us violating the agreement.

Mr. GRAMM. If I may, I will follow up by again, calling on the
Senator's knowledge of the law and experience with it. Let me give the
Senator some examples of provisions in the Murray amendment. In light
of this provision that President Bush signed and we ratified with the
support of President Clinton and which we are now trying to enforce
under the new President Bush, I wanted to get your reading as to
whether these provisions would violate the agreement that we made.
Currently, Canadian trucks are almost all insured by companies from
Great Britain; Lloyd's of London, I think, is the largest insurer of
Mexican trucks.
Mr. THOMPSON. You mean Canadian.
Mr. GRAMM. Yes, Canadian. Some are insured by Canadian companies;
some are insured by American companies. Most American trucks are
insured by American companies, but not all American trucks. Lloyd's of
London, as I understand it, insures some trucks. Quite frankly, it is
very difficult to tell with a modern company where it is domiciled.
The Murray amendment says that Mexican trucks, unlike Canadian trucks
and American trucks, have to have insurance bought from companies that
are domiciled in the United States. Now, American trucking companies
are required to have insurance. Mexican trucking companies are required
to have insurance. The insurance has to meet certain standards.
Canadian trucking companies are required to have insurance. But the
Murray amendment says, unlike American trucking companies and unlike
Canadian trucking companies, Mexican trucking companies have to buy
insurance from companies domiciled in the United States of America.
In light of the language I just read, would the Senator see that as
about as clear a violation of NAFTA as you could have?
Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would. I would wonder how we would view it if
Canadians passed a law saying that American trucks had to buy insurance
from companies that were domiciled in Mexico. I can't imagine anything
that would be more contrary to the spirit I just described a minute
ago. My understanding is--and the Senator can correct me if I am
wrong--we can implement the agreement in several different ways. We are
not bound; we can even do it different ways with regard to different
trading partners, as long as it is an implementation under the
circumstances that are presented in order to protect ourselves in ways
we think are appropriate and reasonable. But we can't change the
requirements of the agreement.
That seems to me to be a flatout change of the requirements--basic
requirements of the agreement, and it goes contrary to the spirit and
the letter of the law with regard to that agreement. Under the
agreement, you simply can't treat different trading partners in
different ways or change the terms or the requirements of the
agreement.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask this. Under the Murray amendment, there is a
provision that says while American trucks are obviously operating all
over our country, and Canadian trucks are operating--about a thousand
of them--and they are operating under current law, because of a bill we
passed in 1999 called the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act--and I
want to read you a short part of this which is relevant. Basically,
what this bill finds is that the Department of Transportation is
failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadlines for completing
rulemaking proceedings on motor carrier safety and in some significant
safety rulemaking proceedings, including driver hour of service
regulations; extensive periods have elapsed without progress toward
resolution and implementation. Congress finds that too few motor
carriers undergo compliance reviews, and the Department's database and
information systems require substantial improvement to enhance the
Department's ability to target inspection and enforcement resources.

Finding these things, Congress, in 1999, passed a bill mandating that
the Department of Transportation promulgate rules related to truck
safety nationwide to apply to all trucks operating in America. Under
President Clinton and now under President Bush, those rules, which
turned out to be time consuming and complicated, have not been
implemented. Canadian trucks are still operating even though these
rules have not been implemented. American trucks are, obviously,
operating even though these rules have not been implemented, or else we
would not be eating lunch today.
But the Murray amendment said that because we have not promulgated
these rules, until they are promulgated and until this bill is
implemented, even though it applies to all trucking in America--until
this happens, Canadian trucks would not be allowed into the United
States of America. Now I ask, is that any less arbitrary a
discriminatory provision than saying they would not be allowed until a
full Moon occurred on a day where the Sun was in eclipse?
Mr. THOMPSON. I would say this would be worse than the hypothetical
you mentioned about the Moon or the Sun because the situation you
described there is within our discretion. The Sun and the Moon aren't,
but, basically, as I understand what you read there, we are setting up
a condition and basically saying we are going to discriminate until we
comply with a condition that we have set up for ourselves. Quite
frankly, it seems to be--and you might want to reread that original
language you asked me about. It seems to me----
Mr. GRAMM. I will. It says--and this is the national treatment
standard, and maybe I should pose this as a question. Is the Senator
aware that the language in the national treatment standard says this?
And this is a commitment we made to Canada and Mexico when the
President signed this agreement in 1994 and the agreement that we
committed ourselves to when we ratified it. The language is simple:

Each party shall accord the service providers of another
party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in
like circumstances to its own service providers.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it seems to me that the situation you referred to
a moment ago is pretty directly contrary to that provision you just
read.
(Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)

[[Page S8320]]

Mr. GRAMM. Let me pose just two more questions. Under the Murray
amendment, a Mexican trucking company--let me start, if I may, by
stating what the policy is today. As you are probably aware, most
trucking companies do not own trucks; they lease trucks. The
interesting thing about this whole debate is that we are debating as if
Mexico is going to go out to some junkyard somewhere and put together a
truck and drive it to Detroit. The reality is that they are going to
rent the truck from Detroit just as American companies do. But we have
this vast system where companies lease to each other because the last
thing on Earth they want as a trucking company is to have a quarter-of-
a-million-dollar rig sitting in their parking lot.
So if an American company has some restriction put on it, it is
subject to some suspension or to some restriction or some limitation.
And there is not a big trucking company in America that at one time or
another has not been subject to one of these things.
In the United States and in Canada today, if a company is subject to
some limitation so they cannot use the truck, then they lease it to
somebody else. The Murray amendment says if a Mexican company is
subject to some suspension, restriction, or limitation, the Mexican
company cannot lease a truck to anyone else.
In light of the fact we committed that each party shall accord to
service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than
that which it accords, in like circumstances, to its own providers,
does the Senator believe one can possibly justify, under NAFTA,
allowing Canadian truck operators to lease their trucks and American
truck operators to lease their trucks when they are under some
restriction or limitation but not allow Mexican trucking companies to
lease their trucks under exactly the same circumstances? Would the
Senator not see that as a flagrant violation of NAFTA?
Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, there is no such requirement for
Canadian trucks? There is no such requirement?
Mr. GRAMM. No, no such requirement.
Mr. THOMPSON. There is no such requirement imposed on trucks in the
United States?
Mr. GRAMM. No such requirement.
Mr. THOMPSON. There is a requirement on Mexico, and Mexico alone,
Mexican companies; is that what the Senator is saying?
Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
Mr. THOMPSON. That is, by definition, discriminatory and seemingly
clearly contrary to the agreement. That is an interesting provision in
and of itself. I am wondering whether or not an entire Mexican company
is restricted, even if there is a problem, say, with just one or two
trucks.
Mr. GRAMM. If they are subject to some limitation, they will be
unable to lease their trucks to another user, say, in the United States
or Canada.
Mr. THOMPSON. I do not know what that limitation would be, but
obviously that is very broad.
I guess what is going through my mind is whether or not, even if we
could under the agreement enter into such an arrangement, that would be
a wise or fair thing to do because there is not a trucking company in
the world that does not have some violations every once in awhile.
It cannot be prevented. There is too much stuff going on, and having
been a truckdriver a little bit myself, I am very much aware that, try
as one might, one has to have a lot of rules and regulations and a lot
of difficulties facing them.
Obviously, nobody wants any renegades doing business anywhere, but to
say any limitations ever placed on a company when they are doing
business with regard to, say, maybe even one truck at one location,
that in effect bans them for the rest of the Nation with regard to any
other trucks, maybe even other trucks leased from another company, I do
not see the wisdom in that, quite frankly. Regardless whether it is a
good idea or not, it seems to be clearly discriminatory.
Mr. GRAMM. If I could pose the following question: Does it seem to
the Senator that it might not only be discriminatory but pernicious in
the following sense, that obviously this amendment was written by
somebody who knew something about the trucking business?
Mr. THOMPSON. Sure.
Mr. GRAMM. I wonder if it does not strike the Senator as possible
that the supporters of this amendment would recognize--and I am not
talking about any Member of the Senate; I am talking about interest
groups in the country--would recognize one of the ways of assuring no
Mexican trucking company could ever compete with any American trucking
company and Mexican drivers could never compete with American drivers
would be to say that if one has any limitation imposed on them, they
have to have their fleet sitting out on their tarmac. It seems to me
that is more than unfair or a violation of NAFTA. That is a provision I
believe one could argue is simply aimed at saying we are not going to
allow Mexican trucks to operate, period.
Mr. THOMPSON. I say to the Senator, that is sad but true. It has a
great deal to do with competition, or the desire for lack of
competition, and when I say I do not see the wisdom in it, I guess I do
not see the wisdom in such a provision unless I am a competing trucker
who wants to look for any opportunity to make sure they have less
competition. Unfortunately, that is what free trade is all about--
competition.
When we entered into NAFTA, we committed ourselves to free and open
competition. So I hope we do not get into a situation where we try to
hang on technicalities or other provisions that are not only contrary
to the agreement but are designed to limit competition.
I do not think we have a thing in the world to be afraid of. On the
one hand, the implication seems to be that these are all terrible
trucks and they do not know how to operate them. On the other hand, we
are afraid of that kind of competition. It does not seem to make a
whole lot of sense to me.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask the Senator about the final provision of the
Murray bill. I could go on and on, but I am trying to make a point by a
pattern. As the Senator knows from having been in the truckdriving
business for awhile, there are various kinds of penalties one can get.
One can get a parking ticket. They can get a speeding ticket. They can
get a violation they are overloaded. They can get a violation for
something blowing off their truck. They can get a violation if their
mud flaps have gotten torn off. They can get a violation because of
their tires. They can get a violation because their blinker does not
work. It may look as if it is working inside, but it is not working
outside.

Mr. THOMPSON. They have not had enough rest.
Mr. GRAMM. They have not had enough rest.
As a result, recognizing not all of these violations are equal, in
the United States we have a list of penalties one can get, which might
be a $50 fine, a $100 fine, and for serious things they might take
someone out of their truck. They might not let one drive for a month.
They might penalize the company. They might fix that kind of a problem
by entering into an agreement with the company.
In America and in Canada today, we have a variety of penalties. In
the Murray provision, if one is in violation of any of these
requirements, one can be forever banned from operating trucks in the
United States of America. Does that sound as if it is complying with
NAFTA?
Mr. THOMPSON. For American trucks?
Mr. GRAMM. No, it is not for American trucks. It is not for Canadian
trucks. It is for Mexican trucks. In other words, there is one regime
of penalties for American trucks and Canadian trucks, but there is
another regime for Canadian trucks, and the regime is focused on the
death penalty.
Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator mean Mexican trucks?
Mr. GRAMM. I am sorry. I am focused south from Texas, but in the
Chamber maybe it is obvious from the votes we are focused more north
from here.
In any case, A, does the Senator see that as a violation; and, B,
does the Senator see that again as one of these things which goes
beyond a violation, where the objective is basically to prevent
competition, more than just discriminate against Mexico but to create
these artificial barriers which they cannot overcome?

[[Page S8321]]

Mr. THOMPSON. I think clearly so.
I have a broader concern in this, and that is, what is the signal
that is being received from Mexico and from Mexicans who watch this and
listen to this debate and see all of these provisions which are clearly
discriminatory, that we do not treat Canada this way, but we are
treating Mexico this way. What kind of signal is that?

We have a lot of highball rhetoric on the Senate floor about matters
of discrimination, and worse, but I am wondering, in a situation such
as this when it comes down to dollars or when it comes down to domestic
interest groups that get involved in it, to try to pressure the United
States to violate agreements we have entered into, what kind of signal
that sends. And I wonder what President Fox, who has come in as a
breath of fresh air, who has instituted components of democracy that
they have not had, has reached out and is trying to get his arms around
a tough economic situation in a complex culture and heritage, and has a
good relationship with our President--I wonder what he must be thinking
as he looks at all this. I don't think it is good.
Mr. GRAMM. Could I pose a question on that? With practical
experience, I can only speak within my own lifetime, but in my lifetime
we have never had a President of Mexico who was as committed in dealing
with Mexico's problems and problems we have between the two countries
or who was as remotely pro-American as President Fox.
This is a President who does not have a majority in his own Congress.
In fact, he was elected President defeating the PRI, which is the old
established party, but he does not have a majority in either the House
or the Senate. He has numerous critics, and he has a coalition
government where his Foreign Minister opposed NAFTA when NAFTA was
adopted. He is a person who has, in essence, gotten way out on a limb
in saying we can be a partner with the United States of America.
Something that means more than that in Mexico is, we can be an equal
partner with America.
How do you think it affects him in his political situation where,
because he didn't have a majority in the Congress in either house, and
he had been elected in almost a revolutionary election, he felt
compelled to put together a coalition government where his Foreign
Minister opposed NAFTA and who now will simply say, it is an agreement
we entered into? That is as far as he will go.
What kind of position do you think it puts him in when we are no
longer talking about idle speculation? I went through four different
areas where, based on your legal background, you clearly concluded that
there is no question, not even a gray area, that there are four--at
least those are the only ones we went to--outright violations of NAFTA
in the Murray amendment. No question about that, he said.
In what kind of position do you think it puts President Fox in when
the United States Senate adopts provisions that violate the commitment
we made to Mexico when we entered into NAFTA, we said Mexico was an
equal partner with Canada and the United States, but they are not
quite?
Mr. THOMPSON. I imagine his political opponents would see this as an
opportunity to question his effectiveness and his relationship to this
country.
It is coming at a time when he made certain commitments to work with
us on problems that are very important to us. He has made commitments
with regard to the illegal immigration problem knowing, as I believe
most of us do, that before we can ultimately deal with that problem, we
are going to have to have some progress in terms of the Mexican
economy.
We can't beggar our neighbor and get by with it in this world today.
We especially can't with that common border we have of 1,200 miles. We
cannot solve that problem without a better Mexican economy. NAFTA is at
the heart of that. He has to be looking at all of that and seeing us
move away from that.
I say his political opponents have to be looking at that and seeing
an excellent opportunity to do harm to NAFTA and the principles of
NAFTA and to do harm to a new, fresh face on the scene who, as you say,
is the best friend we have had down there in a long time, and who is
trying to do the right thing.
For all those reasons, it is extremely unfortunate we are moving in
that direction.
How much time remains on my hour?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes thirty seconds.
Mr. THOMPSON. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the
floor.

Amendment No. 1165 to Amendment No. 1030

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Is it not true that the rules of cloture provide an
amendment does not need to be read?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. MURRAY. I call up amendment No. 1165.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask the amendment be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will withhold.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order is for the clerk to report the
amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 1165.

The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Provided,
That this provision shall be effective five days after the
date of enactment of this Act.''.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. GRAMM. There is not a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the moment there is not a sufficient
second.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll and the following Senators
entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

[Quorum No. 3. Leg.]

Bennett
Daschle
Dayton
Gramm
McCain
Murray
Nickles
Reid
Thompson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are nine Senators present. A quorum is
not present. The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators.
The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the
presence of absent Senators. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 28, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy

[[Page S8322]]

Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Stabenow
Thompson
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--28

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Gramm
Hagel
Helms
Hutchison
Kyl
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--12

Bond
Burns
Dodd
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Inhofe
Miller
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Stevens
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
The Senator from Washington.

Vote On Amendment No. 1165

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion
to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Miller), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), would vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond),
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns), would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]

YEAS--88

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--12

Bond
Burns
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Inhofe
Jeffords
Miller
Roberts
Sessions
Stevens
Thomas
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators,
there will be another vote. There will be a number of additional votes,
five or six votes between now and 8 o'clock tonight. There will be
another vote immediately.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be recognized for
30 minutes and that I be recognized immediately following the
completion of his statement immediately following the next vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1164 to Amendment No. 1030

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1164.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 1164 to amendment No. 1030.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for an effective date)

At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Provided,
That this provision shall be effective four days after the
date of enactment of this Act.''.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``aye.''
Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Thomas) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and
voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

YEAS--88

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--12

Bond
Burns
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Inhofe
Miller
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Stevens
Thomas
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the request of Senator Lott pursuant
to rule XXII, I yield his remaining hour to Senator Gramm of Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator from
Utah, 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 that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
courtesy and accommodation. I appreciate the opportunity to speak at
this time. I have been told by a number of my colleagues they
appreciate the fact that I

[[Page S8323]]

have the opportunity to speak because it gives them a half hour so they
can go back to their offices and do something worthwhile. Some of them,
as they said that, promised to read my remarks in the Record. I am very
grateful for that indication.
Mr. President, I hold the seat from the State of Utah that was held
for 30 years by Reed Smoot. Senator Smoot rose to be the chairman of
the Finance Committee and was one of the leading powers of this body.
He did many wonderful things. He was an outstanding Senator in almost
every way. However, he had the misfortune of being branded in history
because of his authorship of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which stands in
American economic history as something of a symbol of the isolationist-
protectionist point of view. I have said to Senator Smoot's relatives,
who are my constituents, with a smile on my face, that I have to do my
best as a militant free-trader to remove the stigma of protectionist
from this particular seat. I can say that all of Senator Smoot's
relatives are equally as excited about free trade as I am, and they
have indicated that they approve of that.
I rise to talk in that vein because I think much of the debate that
has gone on here would be debate that might go all the way back to Reed
Smoot. There is a protectionist strain in our attitude towards trade in
this country, and it is showing itself in this debate--a position that
says, well, yes, we believe in free trade, but we can't quite trust our
trading partners to do the right thing when free trade begins. Yes, we
believe in allowing Mexican goods and services to enter the country,
but we don't quite trust the Mexicans themselves to take the
responsibility of providing those services. This is particularly
focused now on the issue of Mexican drivers at the wheels of Mexican
trucks.
I am very interested that in this debate we are being told again and
again that this bill does not violate NAFTA; that this is an issue
about safety rather than an issue about NAFTA; this is not
protectionist; this is not isolationist; this is not an obstruction of
free trade; this is just about safety.
Of course, if you frame the question about safety, what Senator wants
to rise on this floor and be against safe trucks? What Senator wants to
rise on this floor and say, I am in favor of massive highway accidents
caused by unsafe drivers? Nobody wants to take that posture. Yet that
is why the attempts have been made to frame the debate in that
fashion--so that it will ultimately end up a 100-to-nothing vote in
favor of safety. If we were to ask the Senate to vote solely on the
issue of safety, it would be a 100-to-nothing vote.
I would vote in favor of safety. Everybody is in favor of safety.
However, the key vote I think came when the Senator from Texas offered
a very short, one-sentence amendment that would have said nothing in
this bill violates NAFTA. That amendment was voted down. Once again,
nothing in this bill violates NAFTA, says the amendment. And the
amendment gets voted down. How do we interpret that decision? We have
to interpret that decision as saying that something in the bill absent
that amendment does violate NAFTA. Otherwise, the amendment would have
been adopted 100 to nothing because we say we are in favor of safety.
We should say we are in favor of NAFTA.

I can understand those who are opposed to NAFTA voting against that
amendment. But NAFTA passed this body by a very wide margin. It was
bipartisan. It was supported across the aisle. NAFTA ran into some
trouble in the House but not in the Senate. NAFTA has always been
strongly supported here. Why didn't an amendment that says nothing in
this bill shall be allowed to violate NAFTA pass with the same wide
margin? It must be that there is something in this bill that violates
NAFTA and people do not want to get that exposed. They don't want to
have the basis for a lawsuit and someone coming forward and saying
because of the Gramm amendment that says nothing in this bill can
violate NAFTA, this provision of the bill has to go, or that provision
of the bill is in conflict and has to be removed.
I think there is a prima facie case here, by virtue of the vote that
has been cast, that this bill violates NAFTA. That is the position of
the administration. The administration is not antisafety. The
administration is anxious for proper inspection. Indeed, the Mexican
Ambassador and other Mexican officials have said they are in favor of
proper inspection and they don't want unsafe trucks rolling on the
roads in America any more than we do.
Stop and think about it. Would it be in the Mexicans' self-interest
to send dangerous trucks into the United States to cause accidents in
the United States? Would that be a wise foreign policy move for the
Mexicans as they try to build their friendship with the United States?
It is obviously in their self-interest to see to it that the trucks
that come across the border are safe. The Mexicans are not stupid. They
would not do something so obviously foolish as to send unsafe trucks
here.
So what are we talking about? We are talking about pressures within
the American political system that want NAFTA to fail. We are talking
about special interest groups inside the American political
circumstance that want to keep Mexican influences out of America for
their own purposes. These are people who were unable to defeat NAFTA in
the first place. So they decide they will defeat NAFTA, or the
implementation of NAFTA in the second place, by adopting regulations in
the name of something that everybody agrees with, such as safety, that
will produce the effect of destroying NAFTA and preventing NAFTA from
taking place. We know how powerful some of those influences are within
the American political circumstance.
We have seen how some people around the world are reacting to the new
reality of a borderless economy. Some people use the phrase
``globalization.'' I prefer to describe what is happening in the world
as the creation of a borderless economy.
We see how money moves around the world now quite literally with the
speed of light. The old days when money was transferred in attache
cases handcuffed to the wrists of couriers who went in and out of
airports are over. You can transfer money by sitting down at a PC that
is connected to the Internet, pushing a few buttons and a few key
strokes, and it is done, so that international investors pay no
attention to artificial geographic borders. They move money. They move
contracts. They move goods around the world literally with the speed of
light.
Now, that upsets people. That upset some people in Seattle. They
wanted to stop it, and they turned to looting, rioting, and civil
disobedience in an attempt to stop it. From my view, that was a very
difficult and unfortunate thing that happened in Seattle. The then-
President of the United States was a little less convinced it was an
unfortunate thing and said: Maybe we ought to listen to these people.
Maybe there is something to which we ought to pay attention.
It got worse. Now it has escalated to the point, in Genoa, where one
of the demonstrators has been killed--killed because of his attempt to
see to it that we go back to the days when there were firm walls around
countries, when the borders meant protectionism, where we go back to
the attitude that produced the Smoot-Hawley tariff sponsored by the
Senator in whose seat I now sit.
I do not mean to blame Senator Smoot because Senator Smoot was simply
responding to the conventional wisdom of his day that said: If you keep
all economic activity within your own borders, you will be better off.
Senator Smoot, however well intentioned, was wrong.
I remember one historian who said the Smoot-Hawley tariff, contrary
to conventional wisdom, did not cause the Great Depression; it merely
guaranteed that it would be worldwide because we had reached a point in
human history where one must trade with somebody other than one's own
tribe.
There was a time when all trade took place in the same valley, among
members of the same family, the tribe descending from a single
patriarch. All of the trade took place there. Then they discovered they
could do better if they started to trade with other tribes, but they
stayed close to home. That mentality stayed with us. That mentality was
behind the Smoot-Hawley tariff. That mentality is comfortable. That
mentality makes us feel secure. It does not involve any threatening
risk of dealing with strangers. It makes you

[[Page S8324]]

feel really good when you are determined to trade only within your own
tribe, but if you are going to increase your wealth, you are going to
have to start trading with another tribe, and that means that
artificial borders have to start coming down.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff demonstrated the foolishness of trying to
keep trade entirely within the borders of a single country. But there
are those, whether they are at Seattle or Genoa or, frankly, some on
the floor of the Senate, who still want to do that, who still want to
say: We will not trade outside our borders.
They fail to stop the treaties that say we will trade outside our
borders, so they are saying: All right, if we cannot stop the treaty,
we can at least stop the implementation of the treaty by adopting
regulations that make it impossible for the treaty to work.
The fact is, in the United States we produce more than Americans can
consume. That comes as a great surprise to many husbands and wives who
think their spouses can consume all there is to consume, but it is
true. We produce more than Americans can consume. We produce more food
than Americans can eat. No matter how fat Americans seem to get in all
of the obesity studies, we still cannot eat all the food we produce. We
have to sell this food to somebody other than Americans, and that means
we have to deal with the borderless economy. As we have taken steps to
do that, we have entered into these free trade agreements.
We have to allow other people to come into our country with their
goods and their food if we are going to send our goods and our food
into their country. It is just that fundamental. I wish I could sit
down with the demonstrators at Seattle and Genoa and elsewhere and
explain that to them because, as nearly as I can tell, they do not
understand that it is in their best interests to allow the borderless
economy to grow, just as Senator Smoot did not understand, in his well-
intentioned attempt to help the economy of the United States, that his
protectionist stance was against his own best interests.

We found that out in the United States. We paid an enormous price for
the protectionist attitudes that dominated this Chamber and both
parties in the 1930s. Understand that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was not
jammed down the throats of a recalcitrant Democratic Party by a
dominant Republican Party. It was adopted as proper policy all across
the country: Let's not trade outside our own borders. Let's protect
what we have here and not expose it to the risk that foreigners might,
in some way, profit at our loss.
As I say, the Smoot-Hawley tariff guaranteed that the Great
Depression would go worldwide. We are smarter than that. We have
treaties that are better than that. Frankly, I believe if Reed Smoot
were still in this Chamber, he would endorse that; he would say: Learn
from the mistakes of the past and move forward. He was that kind of a
forward-thinking individual. But there are those, with regulations in
this bill, who say: No. Since we couldn't defeat NAFTA, we will have to
stop NAFTA another way.
The administration has made its position very clear. They intend to
live up to the requirements of the treaty that has been signed. They
intend to see to it that the United States discharges its
responsibilities. They have said the language in this bill does not do
that. And the President, if absolutely forced to do it--which he does
not want to do--if absolutely forced to, has said he will veto this
bill and send it back to us to rewrite.
I know of no one on either side of the aisle who wants that to
happen. I know of no one who wants to have a veto. So under those
circumstances, why aren't we getting this worked out? Why aren't we
saying: All right, the President said he would veto it. The Mexicans
have said they believe it violates NAFTA. Let's sit down and see if we
can't work this out.
We cannot be that far away. I understand meetings have gone on all
night trying to work it out: Nope, we can't do it. We won't budge. I am
told: Well, go ahead, vote for this. It will be fixed in conference. In
my opinion, that is a dangerous thing to try to do. I hope that is what
happens. That is what many of the senior members of the Appropriations
Committee have told me: Go ahead, vote for it. Let it go through
without a protest. We will fix it in conference. I hope they are
correct, but I want to make it clear that as the bill gets to
conference the process is going to be watched. There are people who are
going to pay attention to what goes on.
If indeed, by the parliamentary power of the majority, this gets to
conference in its present language, let's not have it go to conference
without any protest; let's not have it go to conference without any
notification of the fact that in the minds of many of us, who are free
trade supporters, this bill is a modern-day regulatory reincarnation of
Smoot-Hawley.
I do not mean to overemphasize that. It is not going to cause a
worldwide depression. It is not going to do the damage that Smoot-
Hawley did. But it is crafted in the same view that says: A special
interest group in the United States, that has power in the political
process in the Senate, that is opposed to implementation of NAFTA, can,
by getting Senators to stand absolutely firm on language that clearly
violates NAFTA, have the effect of preventing NAFTA from going into
effect on this issue.
So I hope everyone will understand the posture that I am taking.
This bill, in my view, clearly violates NAFTA. The vote that was
taken against the Gramm amendment signals that people understand that
it violates NAFTA or the Gramm amendment would have been adopted
overwhelmingly.
I congratulate President Bush for saying, as the Executive Officer of
this Government, charged by the Constitution with carrying out foreign
policy: I will defend the foreign policy posture taken by the signers
of NAFTA, and I will veto this bill, if necessary.
My being on the floor today is simply to plead with all of those who
are in charge of the process of the bill and the language of the bill,
to understand that they have an obligation, as this moves towards
conference, to see to it that the effect of the Gramm amendment that
was defeated takes place; that the bill is amended in conference in
such a way that it does not violate NAFTA and that we do not go back on
our international commitments; that we do not return to the days of my
predecessor, Senator Smoot, and export protectionism around the world.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield. Might I inquire of the time I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining.

____________________