[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8326-S8334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for his 
remaining 9 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the assistant 
majority leader for his courtesy. I want to conclude by commenting once 
again on the importance of the United States keeping its international 
commitment, a commitment made to Canada and Mexico to allow a free 
trade area to occur on the North American continent. It is in our own 
interest. It is the intelligent thing to do, and historically it will 
see to it that the economies of all three of these countries will 
benefit.
  Here is the first test we have of whether or not the actual 
regulations of NAFTA will be allowed to work in a way that benefits our 
neighbors to the south, even though it discomfits a powerful political 
group in the United States. If we fail that test, we will send a 
message to the Mexicans that says we didn't really mean it; we don't 
think you really should have equal status with the Americans. I can 
think of no more corrosive a message to send to the Mexicans than that 
one. That is why I think we must be as firm as we are trying to be in 
this debate of making it clear that we are going to hang on to this 
issue until it is resolved satisfactorily.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is not often we get an opportunity to 
have someone speak in the Senate who has built a successful business, 
who has been engaged in international commerce, who has negotiated 
contracts for millions of dollars. I would like to take this 
opportunity, since he has a few minutes left, to pose some questions to 
the Senator about the debate before us.
  As the Senator is aware, we entered into a free trade agreement with 
Canada and Mexico in 1994. A Republican President signed the agreement 
in San Antonio, TX--George Bush. The agreement was ratified with the 
vigorous support of a Democrat President, Bill Clinton. We are in the 
process of implementing it under another Republican President. So this 
is an agreement that was supported on a bipartisan basis by three 
Presidents.
  In that agreement, in the section having to do with the question 
before us, we have chapter 12, which is on cross-border trade and 
services. The language of the trade agreement is very simple. I would 
like to read it to you, and I would like to ask you some questions.
  First of all, the language says very simply what America's obligation 
is under what it calls ``national treatment.'' It is very simple. Our 
obligation to Canada, our obligation to Mexico, and their obligation to 
us is the following:

       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.

  First of all, with regard to trucking companies, if you had to 
convert that legal statement of obligation into English, what do you 
think it would say?
  Mr. BENNETT. I say to the Senator from Texas, I think it would say 
that Mexican trucks coming into the United States, Canadian trucks 
coming into the United States, or American trucks going into Mexico 
would all have to comply with the requirements of the States in which 
they were operating, but that in the process of thus complying, they 
would not have to change their procedures to a situation different from 
the procedures that were considered acceptable on both sides.
  This is something that would require the Americans to say we will 
honor the Mexican Government's procedures just as we expect the Mexican 
Government to honor the American Government's procedures.
  Mr. GRAMM. We would treat them the same. Whatever requirement we 
would have, they would have.
  Mr. BENNETT. I say to the Senator, that would be my understanding of 
the part of the treaty which he has read.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me raise some issues in the time we have and see if 
the Senator believes that these issues violate the provision.
  The Murray amendment says that under the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999, which we adopted and which has to do with 
motor safety in America, in general, Canadian trucks can operate in 
America. Let me explain the problem.
  We have not yet implemented this law. Under President Clinton and now 
under President Bush, the difficulty in writing the regulations this 
bill calls for are so substantial that the provisions of this law have 
not yet been implemented.
  Even though they have not yet been implemented, a thousand Canadian 
trucks are operating in the United States under the same regulations 
American trucks are operating. Many thousands of American trucks are 
operating. But under the Murray amendment, until the regulations for 
this law are written and implemented, no Mexican trucks can operate in 
the United States on an interstate commerce basis.
  Would the Senator view that to be equal treatment?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would not, and I say to the Senator from Texas that I 
am familiar with the American legislation to which he refers because I 
have had, as I suppose the Senator from Texas has had, considerable 
complaints from my constituents about the regulations proposed under 
that bill and have contacted the administration, both the previous one 
and the present one, to say: Don't implement all aspects of this bill 
until you look at the specifics of these regulations; some of the 
things you are asking for in this bill would, in my opinion, and in the 
opinion of the constituents who have contacted me, make the American 
highways less safe than they are now.
  To say we must wait until that is done before we allow Mexican trucks

[[Page S8327]]

in, in my view, would not only be a violation of NAFTA, it would be a 
violation of common sense because we are not implementing that for our 
own trucks on the grounds that it would not be good, safe procedure for 
our own trucks.
  Mr. GRAMM. Clearly, we are letting our trucks operate even though 
that law is not implemented; we are letting Canadian trucks operate 
even though it is not implemented, but in singling out Mexican trucks, 
it seems to me that violates the NAFTA agreement. Does the Senator 
agree with that?
  Mr. BENNETT. Without the benefit of a legal education, it seems to me 
that violates the clear language of the NAFTA treaty.
  Mr. GRAMM. In the time we have, let me pose a couple more questions.
  Currently, most American trucks are insured by companies domiciled in 
America, though some are insured by Lloyd's of London, which is 
domiciled in Great Britain. Most Canadian trucks, it is my 
understanding, are insured by Lloyd's of London, which is domiciled in 
Great Britain. Some of them are insured by Canadian insurance companies 
domiciled in Canada. The Murray amendment says that all Mexican trucks 
must have insurance from companies domiciled in America, a requirement 
that does not exist for American trucks, a requirement that does not 
exist for Canadian trucks.
  Does it not seem to the Senator from Utah that is a clear violation 
of the requirement that 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. BENNETT. It certainly would appear to me to be a violation. It 
would seem an interesting anomaly if a Mexican trucking firm had 
insurance with Lloyd's of London and then was denied the right to 
operate on American highways on the grounds----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader 
is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1163 to Amendment No. 1130

  Mr. Daschle. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1163.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1163 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 three days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table 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 to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call 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. 258 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Gramm be recognized for 30 minutes, and at the conclusion of that time, 
Senator Daschle or his designee be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Senator Gramm of Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for allowing me to be recognized.
  Let me also say that we have a fair number of Members on this side 
who want to speak before we have our final cloture vote tonight. 
Whatever we can do to provide time for people to speak would be 
appreciated. Obviously, I understand the majority have their rights in 
terms of those.
  Let me try to explain to my colleagues what this debate is about, at 
least as I see it. Obviously, the greatness of our individual 
personalities and of being human is, as Jefferson once observed, that 
good people with the same facts are prone to disagree.
  I would like to try to outline how I see the issue before us, why it 
is so important to me, why I believe it is important to Senator McCain, 
and why I want to do this so people will understand what this debate is 
about.
  First of all, there is no debate about safety. Senator McCain and I 
have an amendment that requires every Mexican truck to be inspected--
every single one. Under our current procedures, 28 percent of all 
American trucks are inspected at least once during the year. Forty-
eight percent of all Canadian trucks are inspected at least once during 
the year. Currently, 73 percent of all Mexican trucks coming into the 
border States--which is the only place they are allowed to operate--are 
inspected.
  Senator McCain and I believe in establishing our safety standards and 
assuring that Mexican trucks meet every safety standard that every 
American truck and every Canadian truck must meet. We think the logical 
way of doing that, to begin with, until we establish a pattern of 
behavior and until clear records are established is to inspect every 
single truck that comes across the border.
  Under NAFTA, we cannot impose requirements on Mexican trucks that we 
don't impose on our own trucks and that we don't impose on Canadian 
trucks. But we have every right under NAFTA--I believe every obligation 
to our citizens--to assure that Mexican trucks are safe and to be sure 
they meet every safety standard that we set on our own trucks.
  Let me also say that if we raise safety standards on our own trucks--
in some areas I believe that is justified--we then would have every 
right to impose the same standards on Mexican trucks.
  In 1994, the President of the United States, the President of Mexico, 
and the Prime Minister of Canada met in San Antonio to sign the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. It was the most historic trade agreement 
in the history of North America.
  Under President Clinton, and through his leadership and exertion of

[[Page S8328]]

efforts, the Congress ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement 
by adopting enabling legislation which the President signed. We are now 
in the final stages of implementing NAFTA.
  One President signed NAFTA--a Republican President. A Democrat 
President fought for its ratification, and now a Republican is seeking 
to comply with the final procedures of NAFTA that have to do with 
cross-border traded services.
  Our obligation under the treaty is very simple. It says each party 
shall report the service providers of another party treatment no less 
favorable than that it accords in like circumstances to its own 
providers.
  In fact, the little heading ``National Treatment'' really defines 
what we agreed to that day in San Antonio and what we ratified here on 
the floor of the Senate. We agreed that we have every right to have 
every safety standard we want. We can impose any safety standard on any 
Mexican truck and on any Canadian truck so long as we impose it on 
every American truck.

  No one disagrees that we can't have a different safety protocol for 
Mexico as they establish their pattern of behavior. As I said, Senator 
McCain and I have proposed that we initially inspect every Mexican 
truck. But let me explain what is not allowed under the treaty which 
the Murray amendment does.
  Under the Murray amendment, there is a provision that says we adopted 
a bill in 1999, and that bill had to do with highway safety. In fact, 
it was called the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. It in essence 
said Congress was not happy with motor safety in America and we wanted 
changes. We wrote that law in 1999.
  President Clinton found writing the regulations for the laws so 
onerous that those regulations have not yet been written. President 
Bush is trying now to comply with this law.
  We have every right to ask that American law be complied with. But 
the point is this: We haven't written the regulations. The regulations 
are not being enforced, but yet there are thousands of Canadian trucks 
operating in America. There are thousands of American trucks operating 
in America. The Murray amendment says that until we implement this law 
by writing the regulations and enforcing them--something that probably 
cannot be done for 18 months or 2 years--no Mexican trucks will be 
allowed into America.
  Under NAFTA, we can say until this law is implemented, no truck shall 
operate in the United States of America--American, Canadian, or 
Mexican. That would be NAFTA legal, because we would be treating 
Mexican trucks just as we treat American trucks and just as we treat 
Canadian trucks. We would all go hungry tonight. But we could do that.
  What we cannot do under NAFTA is we can't say that American trucks 
can operate even though we have not implemented this law, and Canadian 
trucks can operate even though we have not implemented this law, but 
Mexican trucks can't operate because we haven't implemented this law. 
That is a clear violation of NAFTA; no ifs, ands, buts about it. It is 
no less arbitrary since the law has nothing to do with Mexico or 
Mexican trucks. It is no less arbitrary than saying that no Mexican 
trucks shall come into the United States until a phase of the Moon and 
a phase of the Sun reach a certain level on a certain day that might 
not occur for a million years. That is how arbitrary this is.
  Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Senator Murray, while opposing 
amendments that say things that violate NAFTA don't have to be enforced 
from her amendment, continues to say: My amendment doesn't violate 
NAFTA.
  Let me give you some other examples.
  Most Canadian trucks have British insurance. Most Canadian trucks 
have insurance from Lloyd's of London. Some of them have Dutch 
insurance. Some American trucks have British insurance, Dutch 
insurance, German insurance, and American insurance. As long as that 
company is licensed in America, and as long as it meets certain 
standards, those trucks can operate in the United States. In fact, we 
have Canadian trucks operating today when virtually none of them has 
American insurance. But the Murray amendment says, if you are operating 
Mexican trucks, those Mexican trucks must buy insurance from a company 
that is domiciled in the United States of America.
  We have every right and obligation to require Mexican trucks to have 
good insurance. NAFTA allows us to do that. Logic dictates we do it. 
But we do not have the right to dictate where the company that sells 
the insurance is domiciled unless we are willing to do that to our own 
truckers, which we do not do. Currently, most trucking companies lease 
trucks.
  The untold story of this whole debate is when Mexican truckers start 
operating in interstate commerce, they are not going to be driving 
Mexican trucks. By and large, they are going to be driving American 
trucks because trucking companies do not own many trucks. They lease 
their trucks. The Mexican companies are going to lease the trucks from 
the same companies that American companies lease their trucks.

  Currently, when a company has leased trucks or purchased trucks, if 
something happens and they can't put those trucks on the road--and that 
something can be that they lose business or they are under some kind of 
suspension or restriction or limitation--they lease those trucks out to 
other companies. You can't be in the trucking business by having 
$250,000 rigs sitting in your parking lot.
  Canadian trucking companies lease trucks when they cannot use them. 
American trucking companies lease trucks when they cannot use them. And 
at any time any big trucking company in America or Canada has at least 
one violation--at any time--often many because there are so many 
different things you can be in violation on.
  The Murray amendment says if you are under any kind of limitation, 
and you are a Mexican trucking company, you cannot lease your trucks. 
What that does is not only violate NAFTA--clearly a violation because 
we do not have the same requirement for American trucking companies; we 
do not have the same requirement for Canadian trucking companies--and 
if you cannot use your trucks, if you are under any kind of restriction 
or limitation, then, obviously, you cannot be in the trucking business.
  So what the Murray amendment does is it not only violates NAFTA, it 
writes a procedure that no one could stay profitably in the trucking 
business if they had to meet that requirement.
  In the United States, there are a whole range of penalties you can 
get. You can get a penalty if your blinker light does not work. It may 
look as if it works inside, but it does not work outside. Your right 
mud flap is off. You are hauling too much cargo. Gravel is blowing out 
of the top. There are hundreds--maybe thousands; I don't know, but I 
will say hundreds--of potential violations you can have.
  In America, those violations can mean a warning or a fine of $100; 
some of them that are serious may be more. It may be a warning to the 
company; it may be a consent decree with the company.
  But under the Murray amendment, all that regime stays in place if the 
company is an American company, and it all stays in place if they are a 
Canadian company, but if they are a Mexican company, and they are found 
to be in violation, they get the death penalty; they get banned from 
operating in the United States of America.
  Look, we could write a law that said, if you are in violation on 
anything, you are out of the trucking business in America. That would 
be crazy. The cost of trucking services would skyrocket, but we could 
do it, and it would be legal under NAFTA to do it to Mexican trucks. 
But you cannot have one set of rules for American trucks and another 
set of rules for Mexican trucks or Canadian trucks.
  The amazing thing is that when so many people are talking about this 
debate, they write as if Senator McCain and I want lesser safety 
standards. Senator McCain and I want exactly the same safety standards 
for Mexican trucks that we have for American trucks, only we are 
willing to inspect every single truck until they come into compliance.

[[Page S8329]]

  What we are opposed to is not tougher safety standards; what we are 
opposed to is protectionism, cloaked in the cloak of safety, where 
restrictions are written that, for all practical purposes, guarantee 
that Mexican trucks cannot operate in the United States--clearly in 
violation of NAFTA.

  There are a few newspapers that are getting this debate right. The 
Chicago Tribune says today, in its lead editorial:

       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, and others pushing the Teamster line, instead 
     are prattling on about road safety.

  That is the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune believes this is not 
about safety, that this is about protectionism, cloaked in the garb of 
safety.
  Finally, let me explain to my colleagues why Senator McCain and I 
have us here on this beautiful Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock. Let me 
say to my colleagues that I am not calling these votes. In fact, I 
would be very happy to have no vote until we have the cloture vote 
tonight. The majority leader is calling these votes to try to get 
people to stay here, which is fine. It is his right.
  But why we are doing this is because our Founding Fathers, when they 
wrote the Constitution, and they established the rules of the Senate, 
as it evolved, recognized that there would be those issues where the 
public would be easy to confuse. There would be those issues where 
special interest groups were paying attention, and they would be out 
the door of the Senate Chamber where they have every right to be. They 
would be lobbying. And there would be issues where you could cloak from 
the public what the real issue was.
  Our Founders, in recognizing there would be those issues--and I 
personally believe this is one of them--gave to the individual Senator, 
whose views were not in the majority that day on that issue, the right 
to require that there be full debate, the right to require that those 
who wanted to end the debate get 60 votes. Senator McCain and I are 
using those rights today because we believe it is wrong and rotten for 
America, the greatest country in the history of the world, to be going 
back on a solemn commitment that it made in NAFTA.
  We think it hurts the credibility of our great country, when we are 
calling on people all over the world to live up to the commitments they 
made to us, for us to be going back on commitments we made to our two 
neighbors. We also think it is fundamentally wrong to treat our 
neighbors differently.
  To listen to the debate on the other side, you get the idea we are 
trying to have different standards for Mexico. We want the same 
standards for Mexico, but we do not want provisions that, in essence, 
prevent Mexico from having its rights under NAFTA. That is what this 
issue is about.
  I urge my colleagues--I know we are getting late in the day and I 
know people are pretty well dug in; and I know a lot of commitments 
have been made--but we need to ask ourselves some simple questions: No. 
1, do we want to go on record in the Senate in passing a rider to an 
appropriations bill that clearly violates a solemn treaty commitment 
that we made in negotiating NAFTA? And it was not some President who 
made it. A Republican President signed it. A Democrat President fought 
to ratify it. We ratified it. And now a Republican President is trying 
to implement it. Do we really want to go on record today--on a Friday 
night--for going back on our word to NAFTA?
  No. 2, we have a President in Mexico who is the best friend that 
America has ever had in a President in Mexico. He virtually created a 
political revolution in Mexico when he defeated a party that had ruled 
Mexico for almost all of the 20th century. He is pro-trade and pro-
American. But he does not have a majority in either the House or the 
Senate in Mexico. He had to put together a coalition government where 
his Foreign Minister opposed GATT, opposed NAFTA, and the best his 
Foreign Minister will say with NAFTA is: Well, we agree to it.
  What kind of position are we putting President Fox in when we pass a 
bill that violates our agreement in NAFTA and treats Canadians one way 
and Mexicans another? What kind of signal does that send? And does 
anybody here--since we are all involved in politics, and we understand 
that when you have a vulnerability, your political enemies exploit it--
does anybody doubt that all the ``hate America'' crowds in Mexico--and 
there are a lot of them--does anybody doubt that they are going to use 
this as an issue against President Fox, that we violated our agreement, 
that we are their neighbor but we are not their equal neighbor, that we 
don't treat them that bad but we don't treat them as good as we treat 
the Canadians, that the U.S. Congress said what is good enough for 
Americans and good enough for Canadians is not good enough for 
Mexicans?
  It is not a question of safety. We have every right to force them to 
do everything we do. We have a right to have a more strict regime until 
they prove they are doing it.
  What we do not have a right to do is to have a bunch of things that 
claim to be safety that really say: You can't operate Mexican trucks in 
the United States. That is what this issue is about.
  Obviously, it is frustrating when the word does not get out and 
people don't necessarily understand what the debate is. Tonight we are 
using powers that the Founding Fathers thought Senators ought to have. 
It is up to each individual Senator's conscious as to when they use 
those powers. We have used those powers on this bill.
  It is wrong what we are trying to do. It will hurt America. It will 
hurt Texas. It will hurt the 20 million people I work directly for and 
the 280 million people I try to represent. At least that is my opinion. 
Since that is my opinion and I believe it and believe it strongly, I 
intend to use every power we have.
  We will have a cloture vote tonight. I hope it will be defeated. I am 
prayerfully hopeful that perhaps a few of our Members will have some 
enlightenment or an enlightening experience between now and the 
appointed hour. But we have three more cloture votes after this one, 
and we intend to use our full rights as Senators to see that if we are 
going to abrogate NAFTA, if we are going to slap President Fox in the 
face, if we are going to run over President Bush, we are not going to 
do it without resistance, without strong, committed resistance. That is 
what this debate is about.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate 
today and yesterday. I think we have gone beyond the realm of 
reasonableness.
  This is a debate about safety on American highways. We are voting on 
technical amendments that mean nothing. We are not moving the debate 
forward. A lot of people are being inconvenienced by votes that don't 
mean anything. We could all be here voting on substantive amendments 
until midnight. That is what we are here to do. But to just have 
technical amendments in order to wait it out and see how many people 
will leave is wrong.
  I am very interested in safety on American highways. I think we can 
do it within the terms of NAFTA. We are smart enough to figure that 
out.
  The question is not whether we have safety on American highways or we 
violate NAFTA. It is when we make the agreement. Make no mistake about 
it, that is the debate.
  I ask all of my colleagues to sit down and let's come to a reasonable 
agreement on when we are going to address the merits of this issue. No 
one who has an IQ of 25 believes that changing the effective date on 
this bill every 30 minutes or tabling a motion to change the effective 
date is moving the ball on the substance one bit further.

[[Page S8330]]

  Mr. President, I think it is time for us to act as a Senate; that all 
of the parties who have quite reasonable substantive arguments to make, 
who are very close to an agreement, sit down and determine when that 
agreement will be made so that we can come to a reasonable and 
responsible conclusion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Torricelli). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                coordinated border and corridor program

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished chair 
of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chair knows, 
over the past few years, the State of Michigan has competed for funds 
under the Coordinated Border and Corridor Program of the Transportation 
Equity Act (TEA 21).
  I ask the distinguished chair to give consideration to a particularly 
important project on our U.S.-Canadian border in Michigan. The 
Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project which will provide direct interstate 
access to the Ambassador Bridge and improve overall traffic flow to and 
from our U.S.-Canadian border, needs $10 million this year to keep the 
project on schedule. To date, there has been a total of $30.2 million 
in Federal funds either spent or committed with a State match of $7 
million. Any consideration that the distinguished Chairwoman can 
provide is much appreciated.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join my colleague from Michigan in asking the chair to 
give this important project consideration in conference, especially 
since no Michigan project is funded under this account. The Ambassador 
Bridge in Detroit, MI is a critical project for the State's trade 
infrastructure. It is one of the three busiest border crossings in 
North America, and more trade moves over this bridge than the country 
exports to Japan. It is crucial that we keep traffic moving safely and 
efficiently at this crossing. The Ambassador Bridge Gateway project 
will provide direct interstate access to the bridge, and improve 
overall traffic flow to and from the Ambassador Bridge. This project 
also has a wide range of support from the State, local government, 
metropolitan planning and the business community.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to work with my colleagues in conference 
on this matter and to look at the specific corridor project they are 
recommending.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for the past few days now, we have been 
here on the floor of the Senate debating a very basic question: do we 
trust our trading partners?
  As I see it, this debate is not about truck safety, but, rather, it 
is about whether or not the United States is willing to honor its trade 
agreements and adhere to the principals of NAFTA.
  Over the past several years, as my colleagues are aware, the United 
States has enjoyed one of its longest periods of economic prosperity in 
our history. Vital to this remarkable economic boom has been 
international trade. Trade is the economic lifeblood of the United 
States. Some twelve million American jobs depend directly on exports, 
and countless millions more, indirectly.
  In fact, the growth in American exports over the last ten years has 
been responsible for about one-third of our total economic growth. That 
means jobs for Americans and of particular concern to this Senator, 
jobs for Ohioans.
  The United States is the world's single largest exporter of goods and 
services, accounting for 12 percent of the world's total goods exports 
and 16 percent of the world's total service exports. Goods and services 
exports from the State of Ohio constitute a significant share of 
exports coming from the United States, making the Buckeye State the 8th 
largest exporter in the nation.
  Ohio is a textbook example of why international trade is good for 
America. When I was Governor, I had four goals in the area of economic 
development--agribusiness, science and technology, tourism and 
international trade. We pursued each of these aggressively in order to 
maximize Ohio's business potential, especially in the trade arena.
  Thanks to trade-stimulating agreements, such as the North American 
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), overall Ohio exports have skyrocketed 103 
percent in just the last decade.
  When the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect on January 1, 
1994, it brought together three nations and 380 million people to form 
the world's largest free trade zone, with a collective output of $8 
trillion. We in the State of Ohio were so excited about the potential 
of NAFTA, that in order to take advantage of this trade agreement, Ohio 
opened a trade office in Mexico shortly after NAFTA's passage.
  Thanks to NAFTA, historic trade barriers that once kept American 
goods and services out of the Canadian and Mexican markets either have 
been eliminated or are being phased out. The positive economic effects 
have been astounding:
  From 1993 to 1998, U.S. exports to Canada grew 54 percent and U.S. 
exports to Mexico grew 90 percent.
  Also from 1993 to 1998, Ohio outperformed the nation in the growth of 
exports to America's two NAFTA trading partners. Ohio's exports to 
Canada grew 64 percent and Ohio exports to Mexico grew 101 percent.
  But, in my view, if the Senate enacts the Murray amendment, we will 
be jeopardizing one of the most successful trading partnerships that 
this nation has ever had.
  It is hard to believe that this legislation, which singles-out just 
one nation and holds up one crucial aspect of their trade policy to 
scrutiny, would not violate NAFTA.
  I cannot fathom how supporters of this legislation ignore this fact.
  I am every bit as concerned as any other member of this chamber about 
the safety of tractor trailer trucks. As anyone who has driven through 
my state of Ohio knows, it is a hub of long-haul trucking.
  You can be certain that I do not want my constituents endangered by 
unsafe tractor trailer trucks regardless of their city, state or 
country of origin.
  But we must be cognizant of the fact that, if this amendment is 
enacted, we will be unfairly discriminating against our second largest 
trading partner--Mexico.
  Mexican trucks are already required to comply with our laws governing 
truck safety if they want to operate on our highways. The state and 
federal laws are already in place.
  Is there room for improvements to safety? Of course. But, I also 
believe if these laws were adequately enforced, we would not be having 
this discussion today.
  Do I think we should enforce these laws vigorously? Of course. But, I 
am not calling for this nation to enact restrictive laws that single 
out Mexico.
  However, what the Senate is in the process of doing is raising the 
bar for our Mexican trading partners by requiring an extraordinary 
safety requirement that does not apply to our other NAFTA trading 
partner, Canada, and establishes a whole new regimen that Mexican 
trucks will have to follow that most American trucks do not.
  Make no mistake: Our other trading partners throughout the world are 
watching what the Senate is doing, and our action--should the Murray 
amendment be enacted--could shake their faith in our willingness and 
ability to engage in truly ``fair'' trading practices.
  The stakes are high--higher than I think anyone in this Chamber 
realizes.
  The United States has proudly claimed itself a bastion of open 
markets for more than 200 years. Indeed, we have set the example of 
consistently striving to comply with our trade treaty obligations. But, 
how can we ask and expect other countries to abide by international 
trade rules if the United States flagrantly disregards them itself? If 
we want a rules-based system of international trade to work, so that we 
can have a level playing field across the board on all goods, America 
must lead by example and not pass xenophobic restrictions on our 
neighbors.

[[Page S8331]]

  How can USTR Ambassador Robert Zoellick successfully negotiate vital 
trade agreements to open up new markets for American industry that will 
benefit American workers when the Senate signals that America is 
unwilling to play by the rules? What faith can our partners have? What 
can we demand of them?
  If the Murray amendment is enacted, can you imagine the damage that 
we would bring upon ourselves when we try and negotiate the Free Trade 
of the Americas treaty? Who would trust us?
  I can just imagine President Cordoza of Brazil--who is not too keen 
on the Free Trade of the Americas treaty to begin with--telling all of 
the Central and South American leaders that they shouldn't get into a 
treaty with the U.S.
  He just might say that the U.S. Senate, that ``reasoned, deliberative 
body'' cannot be trusted, and is fanned by the flames of political 
opportunism.
  Think also what the amendment will do to the budding relationship 
between President Bush and President Vicente Fox? They have worked well 
together and I would hate to think that this amendment could set back 
our relationship with the Mexican leader and his nation.
  President Bush is fully aware of what this amendment would mean, and 
I would like to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy on 
this bill:

       The Administration remains strongly opposed to any 
     amendment that would require Mexican motor carrier applicants 
     to undergo safety audits prior to being granted authority to 
     operate beyond commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border, as 
     this would violate the NAFTA agreement and the President's 
     strong commitment to open the U.S.-Mexico border to free and 
     fair trade.

  This amendment defies logic and reason.
  If this amendment is enacted, what the Senate would be doing is re-
opening one of the most significant trade treaties in history by 
legislative fiat.
  Mr. President, but we should not be modifying our international 
agreements via a rider to an appropriations bill. This is no way to run 
our foreign policy, nor our trade policy.
  Senator McCain said the other day that the Commerce Committee, on 
which he is ranking and which has jurisdiction over surface 
transportation, has not considered any legislation on this important 
matter. This is precisely the kind of complex and delicate matter that 
deserves full and balanced consideration before we charge ahead and 
make a decision we most assuredly will regret later.
  And what about my good friend from Texas, Senator Gramm. His state 
has more border crossings from Mexico than any other state represented 
in this chamber. He would have every right in the world to oppose 
trucks from Mexico coming into his state.
  But the Senator from Texas fully understands the importance of 
adhering to our trade agreements and he has spoken eloquently on this 
topic.
  Mr. President, it is of obvious concern to make sure that all trucks 
that operate on American highways do so in compliance with all 
applicable safety standards.
  However, this amendment goes too far in trying to ensure those 
standards, and it is an inappropriate response for the U.S. Senate to 
take.
  I urge this body not to jeopardize the benefits of international 
trade in the haphazard way that this amendment would undertake.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table en bloc; further, that it be in order for the managers to offer a 
managers' amendment, postcloture, which has been agreed upon by the two 
managers and the two leaders, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 
XXII.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the time until 6:25 p.m. today 
be equally divided and controlled and that at 6:25 p.m. the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1025 and 1030) were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
exists on both sides from now until the time for the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten and one-half minutes on each side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, under the agreement of the managers, I 
request the last 3 minutes be reserved for my comments or just before 
the final comments of the managers, whatever the managers desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask unanimous consent?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The understanding of the request is the last 3 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Either the last 3 minutes before 6:25 or the last 3 
minutes before the comments of the managers, either one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Be reserved for?
  Mr. McCAIN. My purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last 3 minutes.
  Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, as most Members of the Senate, I have 
listened to this debate patiently for many hours. I have heard many 
things said that Senators need to consider before this debate comes to 
a close. Mostly I have heard that the United States somehow will be 
violating our treaty obligations with Mexico if we insist upon the 
safety of our citizens on our highways from Mexican trucks. I have 
heard that this Senate would be turning its back on the NAFTA treaty. I 
have heard it not a few times but 5 times or 10 times.
  For the consideration of my colleagues, I will answer it but once, 
because this Government does not violate a treaty obligation and the 
Senate does not violate the law or its obligations. Indeed, it has been 
said before, but in a recent arbitration panel decision looking at the 
NAFTA treaty and our obligations to our citizens and truck safety, it 
has been said:

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

  It is not our intention nor will this law violate our treaty 
obligations. It simply says this: 50 years of efforts to protect 
Americans on our highways are not abandoned. The facts are clear. 
Senator Murray simply wants to know that Mexican trucks entering 
America will be inspected and they will be safe.
  Our intentions are well founded. Mexican truck on average are 15 
years old; Americans' are 4. Mexican trucks weigh 135,000 pounds; 
American trucks, 85,000 pounds. Mexican drivers are 18 years old; 
American, 21. American trucks are documented for hazardous or toxic 
cargo. Until recently, Mexican trucks were not.
  Indeed, the evidence supports what Senator Murray is attempting to 
do. Forty percent of all Mexican trucks now entering the United States 
are failing inspections. This is not an idle problem. One hundred 
thousand Americans a year are being injured, or their children are 
injured, or their neighbors are injured in serious trucking accidents 
in America. We share our neighborhood roads and our interstate highways 
with 18-wheel trucks weighing tens of thousands of pounds.
  For what purpose has this Senate and our State legislatures for all 
these years required special engineering of trucks if we will not 
require it of Mexican trucks? Why do we have weight limitations? Why do 
we implement laws about special training and driving if we are to 
abandon that effort now? Of the 27 border crossings between Mexico and 
the United States, 2 have inspectors 24 hours a day.
  What would the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona do in 
these hours when Mexican trucks without training, without weight 
requirements, and without inspections arrive at America's borders if 
there is no one there to weigh them or inspect them or assure that our 
families are safe? That

[[Page S8332]]

is a difference of what we do today. Senator Murray requires it. The 
Senator from Texas would not.
  The United States has a right to insist under NAFTA that our citizens 
are safe. No, I say to Senator Gramm, we don't have a right; we have an 
obligation recognized by an arbitration panel looking at Mexican law 
and American law and the NAFTA treaty.
  I have never seen it more clear that the Senate has operated within 
its obligations and its rights to our citizens than in recognition of 
this amendment.
  I do not know how long we will have to be here, but I can tell you 
this: If it requires tonight, tomorrow night, next week, next month, 
this Senator will not be responsible for American families losing their 
lives. I will stand for our treaty obligations, but first I will stand 
for our families.
  I commend the Senator from Washington for her tenacity and her 
vision.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, let me read from the Chicago Tribune. The headline is 
``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.
       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.
  We can scream and holler; we can be emotional all we choose to be, 
but this debate has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with 
raw, rotten protectionism. It has to do with violating NAFTA and 
destroying the good word of the United States of America.
  The truth is that Senator McCain and I have offered an amendment that 
would require every Mexican truck to be inspected, that would require 
every Mexican truck to meet the same safety standards that the United 
States of America requires of its own trucks, and that those trucks 
would not be allowed to come into the United States until they had met 
those standards.
  But the Murray amendment is not about safety; it is about 
protectionism. The Murray amendment says because of a 1999 law that we 
passed, that had nothing to do with Mexico--and was not fully 
implemented by the Clinton administration, and has not been implemented 
by the Bush administration--that Canadian trucks can operate in the 
United States, that American trucks can operate in the United States, 
but Mexican trucks cannot.
  So we have not implemented a domestic law and, therefore, we are 
letting Canadian trucks in, we are letting our own trucks operate, but 
we do not let Mexican trucks in. That violates NAFTA. American truck 
companies can lease each other trucks. Nobody objects to that. Senator 
Murray does not object to it. Canadian companies can lease each other 
trucks. But under the Murray amendment, Mexican companies cannot.
  Under the Murray amendment, there is only one penalty for Mexican 
companies, and that is a ban on operating in the United States of 
America, even though we have numerous different penalties for U.S. 
trucks than Mexican trucks.
  Under the Murray amendment, we basically have entirely different 
standards for Mexico than we have for the United States of America and 
that we have for Canada.
  Under the Murray amendment, basically we say: In NAFTA we said we 
were equal partners, but we didn't mean it. We are equal partners with 
Canada, but our Mexican partners are inferior partners that will not be 
treated equally.
  The problem is, NAFTA commits us to equal treatment. This is not 
about safety; this is about protectionism. We are not here tonight 
because Senator McCain and I wanted to be here. We are here tonight 
because the majority party would not negotiate with us to come up with 
a bill that did not violate NAFTA.
  We have offered two amendments. The first amendment said that any 
provision of the Murray amendment that violated NAFTA--a treaty, in the 
words of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land--that violated a 
commitment made by three Presidents and by the Congress would not be 
put into place. That was rejected.
  The Senator from Arizona offered an amendment that said under the 
Murray amendment Mexican nationals and Canadian nationals would be 
treated the same. That was rejected by our colleagues who are in the 
majority party in the Senate.
  So they say the Murray amendment does not violate NAFTA, but when we 
offered an amendment to not enforce the parts of it that do violate 
NAFTA, they rejected it. They say the Murray amendment does not 
discriminate against Mexico and Mexicans, but when we offered an 
amendment forbidding that they be discriminated against relative to 
Canadians, they rejected it.
  The truth is, this is about special interest as compared to the 
public interest. I ask my colleagues--I understand politics; I have 
been in it a long time--is it worth it to destroy the good word of the 
United States of America on an issue such as this on an appropriations 
bill?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture.
  Mr. President, I assume my time has expired. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to Senator 
Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 4 minutes 53 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, seldom in political debate--especially in 
the Senate--do you find a bright line between that which you think is 
thoughtful and that which you think is thoughtless. I think I have seen 
some lines recently.
  Let me describe my reaction to someone who suggests those of us who 
stand up and worry about highway safety in our country are engaged in 
something that is raw, rotten, and protectionist.
  What we are doing is not raw, not rotten, and has nothing to do with 
protectionism. If you use the word ``protection'' in the manner I 
describe our duties in the Senate, let me plead guilty for wanting to 
protect the interests of Americans on American highways. Let me plead 
guilty for wanting to protect those interests. I, of course, would 
never apologize to anyone for standing in the Senate saying this is a 
critically important issue on behalf of those in our country who travel 
our country's highways.
  The question is, Shall we allow Mexican long-haul trucks in beyond 
the 20-mile limit? Senator Murray from Washington has said, the only 
condition under which they can come in beyond that 20-mile limit is 
when they meet the standards that we impose in this country. We have 
compliance reviews and inspections. We do it in a way that protects the 
American interests.
  What are the differences between our standards and the standards in 
Mexico? We have had 6 years, and both countries have understood we have 
come to this intersection, but nothing has been done. I wish my friend 
from Texas would have had the opportunity I had to sit 3 hours in a 
hearing on this subject and listen to the inspector general tell us 
what he found on the U.S.-Mexican border. We know, of course, the 
standards are different.
  In Mexico, there is no hours of service requirement. They can drive 
24 hours a day. One newspaper reporter drove with one guy for 1,800 
miles. In 3 days, the guy slept 7 hours. This is a truckdriver making 
$7 a day, sleeping 7 hours in 3 days, driving a truck that would not 
pass inspection in this country. And we have some in this Senate who 
say: Let's let that truck into this country, or at least let's let that 
truck present itself to an inspection station.
  The inspector general, by the way, says there will not be inspectors 
sufficient at those stations to inspect those vehicles as they come 
into the United States. So to those who say our goal is to inspect all 
these vehicles, I say simply look at the numbers. The fuzzy math that 
the inspector general described for us between the budget requests and 
what actually is going to happen to these inspection stations, tell us 
that those trucks are going to come into this country--and they have 
already been doing it illegally in 26 States, incidentally, including 
the State of North Dakota. We have had Mexican long-haul truckers 
violating that 20-mile limit.

[[Page S8333]]

  My question is this: If you have radically different standards, and 
we do--no hours of service requirement in Mexico; we do here for 10 
hours. No logbooks in Mexico. Yes, they have a law, and they don't 
carry them in their trucks; we have the requirement here. No alcohol 
and drug testing in Mexico; we have it here. Drivers' physical 
considerations, there is a requirement here, really none in Mexico.

  The fact is, it is clear we have radically different standards. What 
we are saying is, we ought not allow long-haul Mexican trucks into this 
country until we can guarantee to the American people that the trucks 
or the drivers are not going to pose a safety hazard to American 
families driving on our roads.
  This is all very simple. It is not raw. It is not rotten. It has 
nothing to do with protectionism. That is just total nonsense. This has 
to do with the question of when and how we will allow Mexican long-haul 
trucks into this country.
  What we are saying is, we will allow that to happen when, and if, we 
have standards--both compliance and reviews and inspections--sufficient 
to tell us that the Mexican trucking industry is meeting the standards 
we have imposed for over 50 to 75 years in this country in our trucking 
industry and for our drivers.
  We have had a lot of talk about a lot of things that have nothing to 
do with the core of this issue. We are told that NAFTA requires us to 
do this. No trade agreement--no trade agreement at any time, under any 
circumstances--ever in this country has required us to sacrifice safety 
on our highways. No trade agreement requires us to sacrifice safety 
with respect to food inspection. No trade agreement requires us to do 
that.
  I have heard for 3 days now that the NAFTA trade agreement somehow 
requires us to allow long-haul Mexican trucking beyond the 20-mile 
limit. That is simply not the case.
  In fact, the strangest argument by my friend from Texas was that if 
we did not do this, the Mexicans say they are going to retaliate on 
corn syrup. The Mexicans are already in violation of NAFTA in corn 
syrup. A GATT panel already decided that. I think what we ought to do 
is protect the Murray language. She has done the right thing, and I 
hope, in the end, we will understand this is about safety for Americans 
on American roads.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers' time has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 4 minutes 2 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first of all, in regard to the allegation of my friend 
from North Dakota, and the description of the regulations and rules in 
the country of Mexico, the fact is, in our substitute amendment it 
calls for the inspection of every single truck that comes into the 
United States from Mexico.
  There is a long list of all the requirements of licensing: Insurance, 
commercial value, safety compliance decals, et cetera, et cetera--a 
long and detailed set of requirements for Mexican trucks to enter the 
United States of America. The difference is, it does not have the same 
cumulative effect that the Murray amendment does, which violates the 
North American Free Trade Agreement.
  I have always enjoyed these billboards that are brought up on the 
floor that say: Does not violate NAFTA. Does not violate NAFTA. 
Unfortunately, for those who allege that, the Governments of the two 
countries that are involved have judged that it does violate NAFTA.
  Perhaps if the election last November had turned out differently, a 
Gore administration might have viewed it not in violation of NAFTA. But 
here is what the President of the United States says: ``Unless changes 
are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisers will 
recommend that the President veto the bill.''
  So everybody is entitled to their opinions. But if you are the 
President of the United States, you are the only one that is entitled 
to veto.
  The Minister of Economics in Mexico:

       We are very concerned after regarding the Murray amendment 
     and the Administration's position regarding it that the 
     legislative outcome may still constitute a violation of the 
     Agreement.
  The elected Governments of the two countries say, indeed, this Murray 
language is in violation of NAFTA. They are the ones who are elected by 
their people to make the determination, not individual Members of this 
body.
  Finally, as we wind up, I apologize for any inconvenience, any 
discomfort, any problems this extended debate has caused any of my 
colleagues. I know many of them had plans and were discomfited. I 
extend my apologies.
  I hasten to add, I have been involved in a number of major issues 
over the years I have been here. There has always been a willingness to 
negotiate and work out problems. That was not the case on this issue. I 
pledge, no matter what the outcome of this vote, I am still eager to 
sit down and work out what I view are differences that can be resolved 
and should be resolved between the Murray language and what we are 
trying to do because I don't think we are that far apart.
  Let's have men and women of good faith and goodwill sit down together 
after this vote so that we can resolve the differences. No one wants a 
Presidential veto of this bill; I agree. There is a lot of pork I don't 
agree with, but there are also a lot of much-needed projects. We don't 
want a Presidential veto. We have demonstrated that we have 34 votes 
and can easily sustain a Presidential veto.
  After this vote, I again promise my colleague from Washington and my 
colleague from Nevada, who have been here constantly, we want to 
negotiate and work out our differences. I am convinced we can.
  I yield the remainder of my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on H.R. 2299, the 
     Transportation Appropriations Act.
         Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, Robert 
           C. Byrd, James M. Jeffords, Daniel K. Akaka, Bob 
           Graham, Paul Sarbanes, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, 
           Thomas R. Carper, Barbara A. Mikulski, and Thomas A. 
           Daschle.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of Senate that debate on H.R. 2299, 
an act making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for 
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  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. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Montana (Mr. 
Burns), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), 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 ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper

[[Page S8334]]


     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). On this vote, the yeas are 57, 
the nays are 27. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote 
by which the motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________