[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.
____________________