[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14628-14642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1025, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1030 (to amendment No. 1025), 
     to enhance the inspection requirements for Mexican motor 
     carriers seeking to operate in the United States and to 
     require them to display decals.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The bill 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 debate on amendment No. 1025, 
     the Murray-Shelby substitute amendment.
         Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, 
           Hillary Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, 
           James Jeffords, Daniel Akaka, Bob Graham, Paul 
           Sarbanes, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Barbara Mikulski, Tom Daschle, Richard Shelby.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1025 to H.R. 2299, a bill 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

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

                                NAYS--30

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms

[[Page 14629]]


     Hutchinson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70 and the nays are 
30. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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 Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour postcloture debate to 
the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, pursuant rule XXII, I yield my 1 hour 
to the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield to Senator Stevens.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour to the manager of the 
bill on this side, Senator Shelby.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 1030 to 
the substitute to the bill.


                Amendment No. 1168 to Amendment No. 1030

  (Purpose: To prevent violations of United States commitments under 
                                 NAFTA)

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk, amendment No. 1168. I call up this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senator McCain and ask for its immediate consideration. I ask it be 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1168 to amendment No. 
     1030:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of Act, nothing in 
     this Act shall be applied in a manner that the President 
     finds to be in violation of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement.''

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this pending amendment is about as clear as 
the amendment can be. Basically, what the amendment says is that in 
terms of implementing this restriction on funding, notwithstanding any 
other provision of this section, which consists of 22 restrictions on 
the fulfillment of NAFTA in its transportation clause, that those 
provisions would be binding except to the extent the President finds 
them to be in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  This amendment is very important because it gets down to the heart of 
the issue before us. The issue before us is when the President 
negotiates an agreement with sovereign foreign nations--as he did with 
the NAFTA, the most important trade agreement ever negotiated in the 
history of the Americas, with Mexico and Canada--when the President 
commits the Nation with his signature, as he did in San Antonio, TX, 
when he signed NAFTA, and then when Congress approves that trade 
agreement by an affirmative action of both Houses of Congress and the 
President's signature, whether we are bound by that agreement.
  Having negotiated the agreement and having ratified the agreement, no 
matter how popular it may be, no matter what special interest group it 
might satisfy, we cannot give the word of our President and the 
ratification of our Congress and then come back after the fact and say 
we do not want to live up to our end of the bargain.
  We have invoked cloture, which at some point 30 hours from now will 
bring a vote on the Murray amendment. The Murray amendment has many 
provisions. Many of those provisions violate NAFTA--the agreement that 
we entered into in San Antonio and ratified in the Congress--and, in 
doing so, go back on the word of the United States of America.
  I object to this for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is 
whether one is an individual or whether they are the greatest nation in 
the history of the world, when they commit themselves to something, if 
they do not live up to it they lose their credibility.
  It is an interesting paradox that we are in the Chamber of the Senate 
today going back on the commitment we made under NAFTA at the very 
moment that our President, our Secretary of State, and our trade 
representative are urging our trading partners all over the world to 
live up to agreements they have made with the United States of America.
  All over the world today, parliaments and congresses are meeting. And 
just as it is true outside in the hallway here, there are 
representatives of powerful special interests there that are saying: Do 
not live up to this agreement with the United States because it is 
going to hurt some domestic economic and political interest. They are 
trying to make a decision: Should they live up to the commitment they 
made to the United States or should they go back on their word?
  We are trying to exert moral authority and suasion in saying to them: 
Live up to the commitments you made to the United States. We are living 
up to our part of the agreement. We expect you to live up to your part 
of the agreement.
  The biggest reason I am concerned by the action that we are starting 
to take here is that we are going back on our word, and not just our 
word in general, but our word to a neighbor that shares a 2,000-mile 
border with the United States of America. We are going back on our word 
with a neighbor that has had the equivalent of a political revolution 
and has elected a President who is more favorable toward trade, more 
favorable toward a strong and positive relationship with the United 
States, than any leader in Mexican history.
  We all applaud what President Fox is doing and saying, his 
leadership, his reform. But I ask my colleagues what kind of signal are 
we sending to President Fox and what kind of position are we putting 
him in when we go back on an agreement that we have made with Mexico? 
This was not an agreement that was made by President George W. Bush 
alone; this was not an agreement made by President Clinton alone; this 
was not an agreement that was made by President Bush alone. This was an 
agreement that was made, ratified, and enforced by three Presidents--
two of whom are Republicans and one on whom is a Democrat. It is an 
agreement that was ratified by a Congress that clearly understood that 
we were undertaking obligations in that agreement.
  As some of my colleagues may have seen, there is a Reuters news story 
out this morning that describes Mexico's first response to what we are 
doing in the Senate. The headline on the Reuters news story is: 
``Mexico Warns Retaliation Against U.S. on Truck Ban.'' The article 
goes on to say:

       Mexico warned on Wednesday it would retaliate with trade 
     measures against the United States if the U.S. Senate 
     approves a measure prohibiting Mexican trucks from greater 
     access to American roads.
       ``In the event the Senate approves this and it becomes law, 
     it would leave us no other recourse than to take measures 
     (against the United States),'' Economy Minister Luis Ernesto 
     Derbez told reporters.
       He said one option would be to block imports of high 
     fructose corn syrup from the United States, long a source of 
     trade friction. . . .

  I am concerned about starting a trade war with Mexico.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will when I get through.
  I am not just concerned about starting a trade war with Mexico. I am 
concerned about what we are doing to President Fox when we are taking 
action that violates the treaty we entered into with Mexico. I don't 
know what kind of position we put him in with his own people when the 
most important agreement we have ever entered into with Mexico is being 
abrogated by an action on an appropriations bill in the Senate.
  What I do in the pending amendment is make it clear that in 
implementing the provisions of the Murray amendment, nothing in that 
amendment will

[[Page 14630]]

apply in a manner that the President finds will violate the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. Now, our colleagues who support the 
Murray amendment say the amendment does not violate NAFTA. If the 
amendment does not violate NAFTA, then this amendment will do it no 
violence. But if, in fact, the amendment does violate NAFTA, and I 
believe it is obvious to any objective observer that it does, then this 
amendment will say that those provisions that violate NAFTA will not be 
enforced. That is what the amendment does.
  Let me try to explain further, because this is a very complicated 
issue. What often happens in any great deliberative body is that people 
cloak objectives in very noble garb. What we have before the Senate is 
an amendment that claims to be about safety, when most of the amendment 
is about protectionism and about preventing America from living up to 
the obligation that it made under NAFTA.
  Let me outline what I want to do. First, let me outline what NAFTA 
says, what it commits us to. Then I will draw a clear distinction in 
four or five examples about what violates NAFTA and what does not 
violate NAFTA. Then I will go through the provisions in this bill that 
violates NAFTA. Then I will conclude by reserving the remainder of my 
time and letting other people speak.
  First, in Chapter 12 of the North American Free Trade Agreement as 
signed by the President and approved by Congress, reference is made to 
America's and Mexico's and Canada's obligation on cross-border trade 
and services. Our agreement was not just about goods coming across the 
border, but it was about services coming across the border.
  Obviously, the service we are talking about today is trucking. Here 
are the two obligations to which we agreed in the NAFTA. I will read 
them because it is important people understand exactly what we are 
talking about.
  The first article is called ``National Treaty.'' What it says in 
English, and in Spanish, too, is that when we enter into this 
agreement, we are going to give Mexican companies and Canadian 
companies the same treatment we give to our own nationals. In other 
words, they are going to be treated the same. Hence the term ``national 
treatment.''
  Specifically, it says ``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.'' That is the exact 
language of NAFTA.
  Now, what does that language mean? It says if you are a Mexican 
trucking company, you will face the same requirements, the same 
obligations, the same rules, the same laws, as you would face if you 
were an American trucking company and the same rules, the same laws, 
the same obligations, the same regulations that you would face if you 
were a Canadian trucking company.
  There is another provision which is very similar to the national 
treatment provision, but called the most-favored-nation treatment 
provision. When we entered into this agreement with Canada and Mexico, 
we not only said we were going to treat them as we treat ourselves in 
this cross-border trade and services, but we committed we would treat 
them as well as we treated any other nation.
  That language is as follows: ``Each party shall accord to service 
providers of another party treatment no less favorable than it accords 
in like circumstances to service providers of any other party or of a 
nonparty.''
  In other words, what we committed to Mexico on that day in the mid-
1990s was they could provide services on a competitive basis with 
services provided by American providers and by Canadian providers, and 
that they would be treated the same in like circumstances.
  Now, we did have a proviso, a reservation. That reservation is in 
Annex I. I want to make sure that people understand that reservation in 
no way applies to the bill we are talking about here. The first 
reservation said that within 3 years of the date of the signature of 
the agreement, cross-border truck services to or from border States 
would be allowed to California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. That is 
where trucks are currently operating today. Then, within 3 years there 
would be an agreement concerning cross-border bus service. And finally, 
within 6 years after the agreement went into force--and it went into 
force in 1994--cross-border trucking services would be allowed.
  So that is the agreement we entered into. There is a distinction that 
needs to be drawn to explain the problem with the Murray amendment. The 
distinction is as follows: If circumstances in Mexico are different 
than they are in Canada or the United States, so long as the standards 
we apply are the same, we don't have to enforce them exactly in the 
same way.
  For example, we have had a long association with Canada. As a result 
you can apply on the Internet for a license in Canada to operate a 
truck in the United States. You can pay $300 and you are in business. 
Because we are beginning a new process with Mexico, obviously we have 
to have a more stringent regimentation than that.
  Senator McCain and I have proposed--and it is perfectly within the 
NAFTA agreement's purview--that to begin with, we inspect every single 
Mexican truck; inspect every single Mexican truck, and require that 
they meet every standard American trucks have to meet with regard to 
safety.
  There is no debate here about safety. Everybody is for safety. I will 
just say that Senator McCain and I both have numerous Mexican trucks 
operating in our States today. The chairman and ranking member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Committee have no Mexican trucks 
operating in their States. I would say, since my people are affected 
more today and will be affected more when NAFTA is fully implemented 
than either of the States that are represented by the chairman and 
ranking member, I am obviously at least as concerned about safety as 
they are.
  But there is a difference between safety and protectionism. Here is 
where the difference lies. Under NAFTA, we have every right to set 
standards and every obligation to set safety standards so Mexican 
trucks have to meet the same standards as trucks of the United States. 
Because the situation in Mexico is different, we can have differences 
in how they are implemented. In fact, today we inspect Canadian trucks. 
We inspect about 48 percent of the Canadian trucks that come into the 
United States. We inspect 28 percent of U.S. trucks. In fact, today, 
even though trucks are limited to the border area, we inspect 73 
percent of Mexican trucks. Today we are inspecting Mexican trucks at a 
rate almost three times the rate we are inspecting American trucks, and 
that is eminently reasonable because we are establishing the safety of 
Mexican trucks.
  There is no argument that we should have the right initially to 
inspect every single Mexican truck until we establish the quality of 
those trucks. But here is where the line is drawn. We can inspect them 
differently. We can inspect them initially, as long as there is any 
reason to believe they are different, more intensely. But we cannot 
apply different standards. That is where the Murray amendment runs 
afoul of NAFTA.
  Let me talk about four ways the amendment clearly violates NAFTA. The 
first is a fairly simple measure, but it tells you what is going on in 
this amendment. Today most Canadian trucks are insured by London 
companies such as Lloyd's of London. Today some Canadian trucks are 
insured by Canadian insurance companies, and some by American insurance 
companies. Most American trucks are insured by American insurance 
companies; some are insured by foreign insurance companies. The plain 
truth is, many of the companies we know are located all over the world, 
so the insurance domicile distinction really doesn't mean as much as it 
once did.
  Under NAFTA, we have the right to require that Mexican trucks have 
insurance. I believe with regard to the health and safety of our own 
people we have an obligation to require that they

[[Page 14631]]

have insurance. But we cannot put a requirement on them that is 
different from the requirement we put on ourselves or on Canada. The 
Murray amendment violates that principle by saying Mexican truck 
operators have to carry insurance from companies that are domiciled in 
the United States of America. American companies do not have to have 
insurance from companies domiciled in the United States of America. 
Canadian companies do not have to have insurance from companies 
domiciled in the United States of America. Most of them have insurance 
from companies domiciled in Great Britain. But the Murray amendment 
says Mexican trucks have to be insured by companies domiciled in the 
United States of America.
  That is a clear violation of NAFTA. NAFTA says we have to treat 
Mexico and Canada the way we treat our own providers. We do not require 
our providers to have American insurance, and indeed some of them do 
not. They have insurance from companies domiciled elsewhere. We do not 
require Canadian trucks to have American insurance, and very few of 
them do. They have British insurance, and they have Canadian insurance. 
And we have no right under NAFTA to require Mexican trucks to meet a 
requirement that our trucks and Canadian trucks do not have to meet.
  Second, if a company finds itself unable to operate for some reason--
maybe it has lost business, maybe it is subject to some suspension of a 
license, maybe there is some restriction imposed on it--it has the 
right to lease its trucks. If you are in the trucking business and you 
have these rigs that cost huge amounts of money sitting in your parking 
lot, and for some reason you cannot serve your customer and you cannot 
use this rig, it is a standard business procedure in the United States 
and in Canada to lease those trucks to somebody who can put them to 
use. That obviously is trying to protect your business from going 
broke.
  We would have the right, under NAFTA, to say that Mexican trucks 
cannot be leased under a certain set of circumstances to another 
provider, as long as we did the same thing to our own trucks and to 
Canadian trucks. We have every right in the world to say to a trucking 
company that if they are subject to suspension, restriction, or 
limitations, they cannot lease their trucks. We have the national 
sovereign right, under NAFTA, to do that. But we do not have the right 
to say American companies can lease their trucks, Canadian companies 
can lease their trucks, but Mexican companies cannot lease their trucks 
under exactly the same circumstances. That is a clear violation of 
NAFTA--no ifs, ands or buts about it. You cannot have two different 
standards: One standard applies to the United States and to Canada and 
another standard applies to Mexico.
  Under this amendment, if a Mexican company is found to be in 
violation of this provision, they can be barred from operating in the 
United States. In reading the language, this apparently could be a 
permanent ban. We have the right to ban any trucking company in America 
from having the right to operate if it should have a violation. And if 
we did that, since any big trucking company at any one time certainly 
will have a violation--maybe many violations--we could then we could 
apply it to Canada and Mexico and it would be NAFTA-legal. Of course we 
would all go hungry if we did that. It would be a crazy policy to do 
that, but we could do it.
  But what we cannot do under NAFTA is say: OK, we have a regime of 
penalties for American companies and we apply that regime to Canadian 
companies, but for Mexican companies, we will apply a different regime 
even though we entered into a treaty--signed by the President and 
ratified by Congress--where we said we would treat them exactly as we 
treat ourselves.
  We can't now come along and say that if you are an American trucking 
company or a Canadian trucking company these are your penalties, but if 
you are a Mexican trucking company the only penalty is the death 
penalty--i.e., we are going to put you out of business. That is a clear 
violation of NAFTA. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is a 
clear violation of NAFTA.
  In 1999 we wrote a law that dealt with truck safety: the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. When we wrote that law, we 
asked the Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations for 
its implementation. It turned out that it wasn't easy to do. The 
Clinton administration didn't get it done, and the Bush administration 
hasn't gotten it done yet.
  We could say that until these regulations called for in this law are 
written and implemented, we will not allow any truck to operate in 
America. We could say that. That would not violate NAFTA. We could say 
the Federal Government has not written a regulation and, therefore, we 
are not going to let trucks operate in America. It would not violate 
NAFTA, because we wouldn't let Mexican trucks operate, we wouldn't let 
American trucks operate, and we wouldn't let Canadian trucks operate. 
We could do that. It would be crazy. I suspect people would be marching 
on the Capitol and the Senate would change it very quickly. But we 
could do it. It would not violate NAFTA.
  But that is not what we are doing here. What we are saying here is 
that until the regulations that are called for in this act are written 
and implemented, American and Canadian trucks can operate freely. 
American trucks can roll right up and down the road with the radio 
going full blast, everybody happy. Canadian trucks can operate, come 
across the border, come and go wherever they want to. But until this 
law is implemented, Mexican trucks cannot come into the United States.
  By saying that, we would be violating the national treatment standard 
of NAFTA. NAFTA says if you want to do something--no matter how crazy 
it is--as long as you do it to yourself, you can do it to Mexico and 
you can do it to Canada. But what you cannot do under NAFTA is simply 
say, arbitrarily: I don't want Mexican trucks operating in the United 
States. Until February 29 falls on a Thursday, we are not going to let 
Mexican trucks operate in the United States. That is about as arbitrary 
as the provisions of this amendment. There is no basis for doing that. 
It is arbitrary and it violates NAFTA.
  There are many other things that could be violations. I have outlined 
just four. My amendment very simply does the following: It says that 
the Murray amendment would stand unless its provisions violate NAFTA. 
If they did violate NAFTA and remember that ratified treaties under the 
Constitution, to quote the Constitution, are the ``supreme law of the 
land'' then they would not be enforced. And I have outlined four 
examples of where the Murray amendment violates NAFTA.
  I will conclude and reserve the remainder of my time, and let others 
speak. Here is the principle at issue: We can, should, and must require 
that Mexicans meet the same standard. We don't have to enforce them 
exactly in the same way.
  For an example of something that would not be a violation to begin 
with but might become a violation: the checking of the driver's license 
of every trucker coming into the United States from Mexico. We don't do 
that for people coming in from Canada. We don't do that for every truck 
operating in the United States. We might choose to do that for people 
coming in from Mexico, until we establish the pattern for Mexican 
drivers.
  Interestingly enough, so far our inspections show that the failure 
rate--the number of times that you don't let the driver on the road, 
you take them out of the truck--for American truckdrivers is 9 percent, 
and for Canadian truckdrivers it is 8.4 percent. Interestingly enough, 
only 6 percent of Mexican drivers are found to be in violation.
  The plain truth is that most Mexicans who are driving big rigs are 
college graduates. The truth is, at least so far it appears, is that 
Mexican drivers are safer in terms of meeting our regimentation and 
requirements--if that in fact those requirements measure safety, and 
supposedly that is what they do--than our own drivers. That is data

[[Page 14632]]

based just on trucks operating in our border States.
  We would have every right to initially stop every truck and check 
every driver's license. But once we had established that there is no 
particular problem, then stopping every Mexican truck when we don't do 
it with our own trucks and we don't do it with Canadian trucks after we 
have established the pattern that Mexican drivers are just as qualified 
and licensed as ours would be a violation of NAFTA. Basically, the 
requirements don't have to be the same, but they do have to be 
reasonable in terms of burden relative to the problem.
  I would think if our colleagues want to pass this bill, if they want 
to move this process forward, and if they don't want to violate NAFTA, 
they would simply accept this amendment. This would be a major step 
forward in fixing the problems we have with the bill. I wish they would 
accept it. They should accept it. They say this provision does not 
violate NAFTA, but then if they are right, the adoption of the 
amendment would have no impact on them.
  Why is the amendment important? The amendment is important because we 
made an agreement with our neighbor to the south. We are in the process 
on the floor of the Senate, whether it is our intention or whether it 
is not our intention, of discriminating against Mexico, of saying to 
them that you are not really an equal partner in NAFTA. We said we were 
going to give you these rights, but we have decided we are not going to 
give you the same rights we give to Americans and we are not going to 
give you the same rights we give to Canadians. Quite frankly, I think 
it is outrageous.
  I remind my colleagues that we are not saying you can't have 
different ways of enforcing our safety rules. We are simply saying in 
NAFTA you can't have a different set of rules.
  Senator McCain and I and the President support inspecting every 
Mexican truck and checking the license of every Mexican driver as they 
come across the border. But at some point when the patterns are set and 
we are through this transition period, we are going to have to treat 
them as we treat our own trucking companies when they have proven 
themselves. Why are we going to have to do that? We are going to have 
to do it because that is what NAFTA says.
  I know there is a powerful special interest involved here. I know the 
Teamsters Union does not want Mexican trucks to operate in the United 
States. They are not out saying we don't want trucks operating in the 
United States because we are greedy, we are self-interested, and we do 
not want competition. They are not saying that.

  I don't remember anybody ever coming to my office saying: Protect me 
from competition. I don't want to have to compete. I want to sell at a 
higher price. I want to make more money. I want to have a place in 
Colorado. And I want you to cheat the consumer to protect me. Nobody 
ever came into my office and said that. But they do come into my office 
and say: Protect me from this unfair competition. Protect me from these 
products that are not safe. Protect me from this. Protect me from that.
  What the Teamsters are against is competition. You can argue that we 
ought not to have Mexican trucks in America because we ought not to 
allow competition. But the point is, it is too late. We signed an 
agreement. We ratified the agreement. Now it is time to live up to the 
agreement.
  Under the Murray amendment, we are going back on our agreement. The 
proponents of this amendment can say until they are blue in the face 
that it does not violate NAFTA. But if it does not, accept this 
amendment. But I do not believe they are going to do that, because I 
believe their amendment does violate NAFTA. That is why Mexico is 
talking about retaliation today. That is why the President said that he 
is going to veto this bill.
  In the end, we are going to have to fix this situation. We are going 
to spend weeks now, it looks to me, fooling around with this issue, 
when everybody knows in the end that it is going to have to be worked 
out. But we don't have any recourse now except to do it the way we are 
doing it.
  I am not going to let the President be run over on this. I am not 
going to let Mexico be discriminated against. I do not think this is 
right. I do not think it is fair. And I think it destroys the 
credibility of the United States of America. So I am not going away. We 
have four more cloture votes. I want to say to my colleagues, don't 
feel that you have to vote with me against cloture. Vote for cloture. 
It is obvious that the forces who are against putting NAFTA into effect 
with regard to trucks have the votes. So I am not asking anybody to 
vote with me. But I am just saying that we are going to end up having 
to vote on cloture four times to get this bill to conference.
  It can be fixed very easily. Simply take out the parts of the Murray 
amendment that violate NAFTA. That is what we are going to have to do. 
We can do it now. We obviously are not going to, but we could. We can 
do it next week. We can do it in September. But we are going to do it 
eventually.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1055

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly about amendment No. 1055, which has been filed and is at the 
desk. This is an amendment which I understand will be included in the 
managers' package. I thought it might be useful to make a comment or 
two about it.
  This amendment is necessary in order to clarify congressional intent 
on the highway congestion relief program created under the 1998 TEA-21 
highway authorization bill. Under the ITS, Traffic.com, a Wayne, PA, 
company employing some 150 workers, competed for and won an initial $8 
million contract to create a traffic management system to monitor 
congestion in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The bidders competing for 
this initial contract expected and were led to believe that the winner 
on the first phase of the contract would automatically receive the 
follow-on contract.
  The intent of the TEA-21 ITS provision was to eventually expand this 
program beyond Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and award the next phase of 
the contract to the same team that won the first phase.
  The fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Act contained a 
$50 million earmark to further fund an intelligent transportation 
system, ITS, section 378, Public Law 106-346. This intelligence 
transportation system project was originally conceived under TEA-21 to 
serve as a national, interoperable program that would allow local 
residents and trucking companies to receive up-to-date information on 
traffic patterns and congestion.
  TEA-21 section 5117 (b)(3)(B)(v) set forth that the ITS program 
should utilize an advanced information system designed and monitored by 
an entity with experience with the Department of Transportation in the 
design and monitoring of high-reliability, mission-critical voice and 
data systems.
  It was thought at the time by the draftsmen that this provision would 
cover the $50 million, but there has been a determination by general 
counsel for the Department of Transportation that this language is 
insufficient. We had thought we might correct it with a colloquy, but 
we have been advised that there needs to be a so-called legislative 
fix.
  In that light, I have submitted the amendment, which is No. 1055, 
which has been reviewed by the Department of Transportation. And we 
have been assured, I have been assured that the language in the 
amendment will be satisfactory.
  This is an important matter to my constituents. It is a Wayne, PA, 
company employing some 150 workers.
  I have conferred with Senator Warner, who was a party to the initial

[[Page 14633]]

transaction where, as is the case with many highway projects, the 
arrangements were worked out that the firm winning the first contract 
of $8 million, which was, as I say, Traffic.com, would get the second 
contract. But the legislative draftsmen were not sufficiently precise, 
as I have said. Senator Warner confirmed to me yesterday that was the 
intent at that time, and he is prepared to confirm that.
  The distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, chairman and 
manager of this report, had wanted confirmation from the authorizing 
committee that this was acceptable, as is the practice, if a matter 
like this is included in an appropriations bill. The appropriate 
process is to have the authorizers agree that it may be inserted, not 
to have any jurisdiction taken away.
  I had consulted with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, 
who is the subcommittee chairman, who is on the floor now and hears 
what I am saying, and also with the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Jeffords. They have concurred in this.
  As I say, it is my expectation, having just conferred with the 
chairman, Senator Murray, that it be included in the managers' package. 
I thought it would be useful for the record to have this brief 
explanation as to precisely what happened and what the intent of the 
amendment will be as included in the managers' package.
  As they say at wedding ceremonies, Senator Murray and Senator Reid, 
if you have anything to say, speak now or forever hold your peace.
  I thank the Chair. They used to call that an adoptive admission 
before they were declared unconstitutional, when I was a prosecuting 
attorney.
  I thank Senator Murray, Senator Reid, and my other colleagues.
  I yield the floor and 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise, obviously, in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from Texas. The reason the Senator's amendment 
should be really approved without a single dissenting vote is that the 
amendment says exactly what the proponents of this so-called Murray 
language in the appropriations bill are alleging. They are alleging 
that the language to which we and the administration object is not in 
violation of NAFTA.
  I don't know the number of times--I would be glad to have a scholar 
research the number of times the Senator from Washington has said this 
is not a violation of NAFTA; this is not a violation of NAFTA; this is 
not in violation of NAFTA. So if the language is not in violation of 
NAFTA, then she should have no problem in approving this amendment, 
which says:

       Provided that notwithstanding any other provision in the 
     Act, nothing in this Act shall be applied in a manner that 
     the President finds to be in violation of the North American 
     free trade agreement.

  Mr. President, during the previous two administrations, I supported a 
lot of legislation that gave the President of the United States a great 
deal of leeway in determining foreign policy issues. I did that because 
of my fundamental belief that the President of the United States should 
be the individual who conducts foreign policy, obviously, with the 
advice and consent of the Congress of the United States. So this 
amendment seems to me to be perfectly in keeping with the rhetoric of 
the proponents of the present legislation as it stands.
  I don't quite understand the objections to it, when the allegations 
are that the language in the appropriations bill is perfectly in 
compliance with NAFTA and doesn't violate it.
  I want to mention again, particularly in light of the last vote that 
was taken--and we all know we only got 30 votes on the cloture motion 
and we needed 41--first, I am still confident that, as to the vote 
yesterday and other votes that will be taken, we have sufficient votes 
to sustain a Presidential veto. As we all know, the President has said 
he would regretfully have to exercise that option.
  I also want to point out for the benefit of my colleagues, we have 
just affirmed a very dangerous practice, in my view. That practice--
which in the years I have been here has gradually increased year after 
year after year--is a proclivity to legislate on appropriations bills. 
We now have major policy changes, major legislative initiatives, 
included on appropriations legislation. So when the cloture was voted a 
short time ago, it not only affirmed, unfortunately, the right--or new 
right of appropriators to legislate on appropriations bills, but it 
also can set a very dangerous precedent for the future.
  There may be other amendments on other appropriations bills, which 
individual Senators view is in violation--in this case, of course, in 
violation of a solemn treaty agreement, but it may be in violation and 
affect issues that are important to them.
  Senators who are not members of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senators who are simply members of authorizing committees, have 
suffered under the impression that any major policy changes or 
legislation would originate in their committees of which they are 
members, the authorizing committees. Instead, we now see an 
abrogation--a growing abrogation--and an affirmation of that abrogation 
of the responsibilities of those who are members on the authorizing 
committees--in my view, a grossly unwarranted assumption of authority 
on the part of the Appropriations Committee.
  We all know what the purpose of an Appropriations Committee is, and 
that is to appropriate funds for previously authorized programs. I will 
be glad to read to my colleagues what the charter of the Appropriations 
Committee is. I must say, when I first came here--and I think the 
Senator from Texas who came here a couple years before me would agree--
it was a very unusual circumstance when you would see an appropriations 
bill that had a legislative authorizing impact. We would find the pork 
barrel projects, although they were dramatically less; we would find 
the earmark. But now we have a custom, that is increasing year by year, 
where the Appropriations Committee, in direct violation of their 
charter, are now setting parameters, which in this case affect a solemn 
treaty between three nations.
  Not only does this particular language, which is called, ``not in 
violation of NAFTA,'' clearly authorize on an appropriations bill, but 
it even goes so far as to affect a solemn trade agreement.
  I might add that is not just my view. That happens to be the view of 
the President of the United States and, almost as important, the view 
of the President of Mexico. Already the Mexican Government, in reaction 
to this pending legislation, has threatened sanctions which could reach 
a billion or more dollars against U.S. goods and services. Relations 
between the United States and Mexico, in my view--and coming from a 
border State I think I have some expertise on this subject--have never 
been better.
  We have a new party in power in Mexico, a new leader, and for the 
first time we are seeing border cooperation the likes of which we have 
never seen before, including the apprehension and extradition of drug 
dealers, something we could not only not achieve before, I remember 
back in the 1980s when a U.S. drug agent was kidnapped, tortured, and 
murdered by individuals that at least allegedly could have had 
connections with the Mexican Government. We have come a long way in our 
relations.
  I note the President's first state dinner will be in September in 
honor of President Fox of Mexico. The relationship between our 
President and the President of Mexico is close, it is cooperative, and 
it will act to the great benefit of all Americans, particularly those 
of us who represent border States because we have so many outstanding 
border issues: immigration, drugs, pollution, transportation, among 
others.
  What do we do early in President Fox's administration? According to

[[Page 14634]]

them, we violate a solemn treaty that was consummated years ago by 
previous administrations.
  The provisions of Senator Gramm and I require it, every vehicle 
beyond the commercial zones to be authorized and to display on their 
vehicle a decal of inspection, and the list goes on and on. State 
inspectors that detect violations will enforce such laws and 
regulations, and it goes on and on.
  According to our legislation, we are not giving blanket approval to 
Mexican carriers to come across the border. What we are doing is 
imposing some reasonable restrictions which would then stay in 
compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Let me read from a letter we received from the NAFTA Coalition For 
Safe trucks:

       During its consideration of the bill to provide 
     appropriations for the Department of Transportation for 
     fiscal year 2002, we urge the United States Senate to adopt 
     the McCain-Gramm amendment regarding the treatment of cross 
     border trucking operations under the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement.
       We represent the manufacturers, shippers and the 
     transporters of the goods crossing the border, and want to 
     ensure all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safe, 
     reliable and efficient transportation of those goods between 
     the United States and our trading partner to the South.
       Both the House-passed language and the language included by 
     the Senate Committee on Appropriations violate NAFTA and will 
     result in a ``closed'' border for the foreseeable future. 
     While we commend the Senate Committee for seeking a solution 
     to the outright ban contained in the House Bill, several of 
     the requirements simply cannot be met and are unnecessary to 
     ensure the safe operations of Mexican domiciled trucks when 
     operating in the United States.
       Should the Congress vote to require the United States 
     Government to continue to violate our obligations under 
     NAFTA, Mexico will be free to impose extensive sanctions on 
     U.S.-produced products. This will certainly lead to a loss of 
     jobs for U.S. workers, particularly in manufacturing, which 
     has already seen 785,000 lost jobs since July of 2000.
       We urge support of the McCain-Gramm Amendment, which will 
     allow the United States to honor its commitments while 
     establishing a safe and reliable flow of goods between the 
     United States and our neighbor, trading partner and friend to 
     the South.

  It is signed by the American Trucking Association, National 
Association of Manufacturers, Grocery Manufacturers of America, U.S.-
Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Agricultural Transporters Conference, 
Border Trade Alliance, United States Chamber of Commerce, National 
Foreign Trade Council, the Fertilizer Institute, and TASA Trucking, the 
very people who will be sharing the highways and bridges of America on 
both sides of the border with Mexican transportation carriers.
  What we have done here--and I think it is important to put it in a 
certain perspective because there is a lot of heat of the moment; there 
are conversations about what the Teamsters will or will not do, how 
important it is for Republicans to gain the support of the Teamsters, 
and underlying it all is sort of a concern about really what would 
happen if these Mexican carriers came into the United States.
  As the Senator from Texas pointed out, they are 25 miles inside of 
our border States. We are proud of the relationship we have with our 
Mexican neighbors to the South. We are proud of their friendship. We 
are proud of the progress that they have made, both politically and 
economically. We are proud to call them our neighbors.
  What we have done, intentionally or unintentionally, is adopt 
language in an appropriations bill which was unknown to those of us on 
the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, unknown to the 
authorizing committee on which I am the ranking member. Language was 
adopted which, in the view of the President of the United States, in 
view of the President of Mexico, and I am sure the Canadian Government, 
and I am sure the NAFTA panels that judge these things, is a violation 
of a solemn trade agreement.
  I do not want to waste time reviewing the enormous economic benefit 
that has accrued to all three countries as a result of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. They are phenomenal. When NAFTA was 
adopted in 1996, there was $300 million worth of trade a day between 
the United States and Canada. Today there is a billion dollars a day of 
trade between the United States and Canada.
  The numbers are comparable in the south. We have seen the 
maquiladoras. We have seen the growth of the economy in the northern 
part of Mexico far exceed the rest of Mexico. Why is that? It is 
because of the enormous increase in goods and traffic and services 
between the United States and Mexico.
  We have seen now one of the most successful treaties, from an 
economic standpoint and I argue cultural and other aspects, now being 
undermined or violated by an act of the appropriations subcommittee of 
the Senate, without a hearing.
  We did have a hearing on Mexican trucks in the Commerce Committee. We 
never acted. There was never a bill proposed. There was never any 
legislation proposed for consideration and markup by the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No, it was stuck into an 
appropriations subcommittee bill.
  Here is where we are: The repercussions of this action are 
significant and severe, not only to the people of my State but the 
people of this country.
  We do not grow a lot of corn in Arizona; I wish we grew more, but 
clearly corn is one of the first areas where the Economic Minister of 
Mexico has said they may have to impose sanctions because they are 
entitled to impose sanctions as of this very day.
  We have also just heard that telecommunications equipment might be 
the next target of sanctions enacted by the Mexican Government. Why 
would they do that? With all due respect, because they have significant 
manufacturing capabilities within Mexico of telecommunications 
equipment and it probably would not be too bad for Mexico in the 
shortrun if they were not subject to foreign competition, although we 
all know the unpleasant and unwanted consequences of the lack of 
competition in all products. That is the situation we are in. It is 
very unfortunate.
  The Senator from Texas has an amendment which basically says none of 
the provisions in the appropriations bill would be applied in a manner 
that the President of the United States finds to be in violation of 
NAFTA. Literally, every bill we pass out of this body that has to do 
with foreign policy has a national security provision stating if it is 
in the interests of national security, the President can act if he 
deems so. Basically, that is sort of what this amendment of the Senator 
from Texas is all about.
  I also want to make one other comment about this issue and what we 
have done. The Senator from Texas and I were allowed to propose one 
amendment, which was voted on, and we had many other amendments. 
Obviously, that effort is going to be significantly curtailed because 
of a cloture vote. I view that as unfortunate, too, because if in the 
future Members of the Senate are seeking a number of amendments to be 
considered, and cloture is imposed without them being able to have all 
their amendments considered, then I think we are obviously setting 
another very bad precedent for the conduct of the way we do business in 
the Senate.
  For all of those reasons, I not only intend to slow this legislation, 
but I think we will have to try to see that this issue, no matter how 
it is resolved, resurfaces on several different vehicles in the future. 
I am not sure that there are many other issues before the Senate that 
are this important. We may have to, even after we have exhausted--if we 
do--all of our parliamentary options, exercise others as well.
  I say that not only because of the impact on this issue but the 
impact on the way we do business in the Senate. I was very proud during 
consideration of the campaign finance reform bill that everybody had an 
amendment. Anybody who had an amendment, we considered it; we voted on 
it; and we worked on it for 2 weeks. On the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
we worked on it; we had amendments; everybody was heard from; and 
everybody got their say.
  That is not the case with this legislation. It is not the case with 
this appropriations bill. I regret that. I have been

[[Page 14635]]

here not as long as many but long enough to know when a very dangerous 
trend, a very dangerous precedent has been set, I recognize that. I 
will continue to do what I can to see that every Senator has the right 
to exercise his and her rights as Members of this body to see that 
their issues, their concerns, and particularly those that affect 
international agreements, are fully examined and voted upon and 
discussed and debated.
  I intend, obviously, to talk more on the specifics of what we are 
doing, but I hope my colleagues have no illusions as to what is being 
attempted on an appropriations bill where there is absolutely no place 
for this legislation. Those who are only members of authorizing 
committees, take note, my friends, because you may be next.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. Obviously, the Senator shares with me the fact that we 
represent States that border Mexico, and in that process we both have 
had an opportunity to work with President Fox. Would the Senator agree 
with me that of all the people who have ever been heads of state in 
Mexico, that he is, perhaps, the most pro-American in terms of his 
outlook and willingness to work with us of anyone we have ever dealt 
with?
  Mr. McCAIN. In response, I say to my friend, I don't think we have 
ever seen a friend of this nature in the history of the country of 
Mexico. We all know that there was one-party rule since the 1920s. We 
all know that when one party rules any country for an inordinate length 
of time, there is corruption. This is a breath of fresh air.
  The Senator mentioned we come from border States. Our States are 
going to be affected first by Mexican carriers coming across our 
border. In the State of Washington and on the northern tier, there is 
free access of carriers from Canada. So I kind of wonder about the 
contrast there. The State of Washington has free movement of trucks 
back and forth across their border. Yet Representatives of the State of 
Washington want to restrict flow across our borders with our southern 
neighbor. I find that interesting.
  Mr. GRAMM. Could I ask another question? You obviously know President 
Fox, and know Mexican politics. What kind of position do you think it 
puts President Fox in when he has staked his whole political future on 
a good relationship with the United States, and has committed himself 
to enforcing NAFTA in his own country, when the Senate is in the 
process of adopting a provision on an appropriations bill that clearly 
violates the NAFTA agreement? What kind of position do you think it 
puts him in?
  Mr. McCAIN. The answer, obviously, I say to the Senator from Texas, 
is it must be somewhat embarrassing for him. I think that was very much 
appreciated by President Bush. President Bush has expressed on several 
occasions his concern with what is happening and has taken a very 
personal interest in these proceedings.
  That is another point I emphasize. The relationship between President 
Fox and President Bush is as close and cooperative and good as any in 
the history of this country. I appreciated President Reagan's 
relationship with his southern neighbor as Governor of California. I 
believe the relationship of President Bush and President Fox opens up a 
vista for relations with Mexico the likes of which we have never seen, 
which there has already been manifestations of, by the extradition to 
the United States of drug dealers from Mexico. That would never have 
happened under a previous regime.
  I think President Fox, obviously, could not be very pleased today and 
may have to answer to some of his critics, of which there are many 
since he just unseated a party that had been in power for 60 years.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I am sure there are people who 
wonder why we take this issue so seriously. It seems to me our 
colleagues should be concerned about our relationship with this good 
man who is president of Mexico and our friend, and with the kind of 
position it puts him in, and with the message it sends that somehow we 
treat our neighbors to the north differently than we treat our 
neighbors to the south. It seems to me that socialists and anti-
American politicians in Mexico from the very beginning of our 
relationship with Mexico have preyed on this point: that we don't 
respect Mexico, that we don't respect their people, that we treat them 
differently, that they are our poor neighbors. I conclude with the 
following question. Don't you believe that this amendment, in all of 
its terrible manifestations, plays into exactly the kind of demagoguery 
that has traumatized our relationship with Mexico for all these years?
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I agree with the Senator from Texas. But 
also let me point out that because of this action that is taking place 
right now, the Mexican Government and the President are having to 
respond to domestic discontent with the threat of sanctions, and they 
are judged to be able to enact sanctions because the panel determined 
we are in violation of NAFTA as we speak. Until this legislation was 
pending, there was no word out of Mexico that they would impose these 
sanctions. But in the last day, the last 24 hours, the Mexican 
Government has felt compelled to say they will enact sanctions. Why? 
Because the legislation before us makes permanent the blocking of the 
border to Mexican carriers, which was allowed according--not only 
allowed, but a part, an integral part of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement.
  I mention again to my friend from Texas a letter from the Secretary 
of the Economy, Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista:

       We have been following the legislative process regarding 
     cross border trucking on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This 
     is an issue of extreme importance to Mexico on both legal and 
     economic grounds. From a legal standpoint, Mexico expects 
     non-discriminatory treatment from the U.S. as stipulated 
     under the NAFTA. The integrity of the Agreement is at stake 
     as is the commitment of the U.S. to live up to its 
     international obligations under the NAFTA. I would like to 
     reiterate that Mexico has never sought reduced safety and 
     security standards. Each and every truck company from Mexico 
     ought to be given the opportunity to show it complies fully 
     with U.S. standards at the state and federal levels.
       The economic arguments are clear-cut: Because of NAFTA, 
     Mexico has become the second largest U.S. trading partner 
     with $263 billion of goods now being exchanged yearly. About 
     75% of these goods move by truck. In a few years, Mexico may 
     surpass Canada as the U.S. largest trading partner and 
     market. Compliance with the panel ruling means that products 
     will flow far more smoothly and far less expensively between 
     our nations. Doing so will enable us to take advantage of the 
     only permanent comparative advantage we have: that is our 
     geographic proximity. The winners will be consumers, 
     businesses and workers in the three countries.
       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. In this light, we hope the legislative language 
     will allow the prompt and non-discriminatory opening of the 
     border for international trucking.
       Finally I would like to underline our position, that to the 
     Mexican government the integrity of the NAFTA is of the 
     outmost importance.

  That is from the Secretary of the Economy of the country of Mexico.
  I see my respected friend, the Senator from North Dakota, on the 
floor. I know his views on NAFTA. I do not know if many of the Mexican 
trucks will be getting up to North Dakota. But I do know that the 
Mexican Government right now is deeply concerned about this 
legislation, and if it passes, I can see no other action the Mexican 
Government would take but to enact sanctions. As the Senator pointed 
out, this is a critical stage of our relations with that country.
  I thank the Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for my friend from 
Arizona and, for that matter, for my friend from Texas. I might say my 
colleague from Arizona and I agree on a lot of things and we work 
together on a lot of things. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of 
things with my colleague from Texas. We tend more often

[[Page 14636]]

to come down on opposite sides of the spectrum. But I did want to 
respond a bit to a couple of questions that were raised.
  I just came from the Senate Appropriations Committee. I had to be 
there because we were marking up an appropriations bill. I was on the 
floor earlier intending to ask the Senator from Texas a question, but I 
was not able to be here when he finished his comments. One of the 
things he said I found very interesting.
  Do you know what he said? He said if we do not allow Mexican long-
haul trucks into this country, Mexico is going to take action against 
the United States. Do you know what they are going to do? He was 
quoting a Mexican official. He said they are going to impose sanctions 
or tariffs on high-fructose corn syrup from the United States to 
Mexico.
  Do you know what? They have already done that. They are already in 
violation of NAFTA. An arbitration panel has found Mexico is in 
violation on high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, they have a high grade 
and low grade. Guess what. Mexico imposes the equivalent of 43 percent 
tariff on the low-grade corn syrup and the equivalent of a tariff of 76 
percent on the high-grade corn syrup. So my friend from Texas says 
Mexico is now threatening to do something with respect to high-fructose 
corn syrup when in fact they are already violating international trade 
agreements in terms of the tariffs and the obstructions they put in the 
way of high-fructose corn syrup going from the United States to Mexico.
  God forbid we be upset about that, that Mexico is going to do 
something to us that they are already doing in violation of the trade 
agreement.
  I heard a long discussion by my colleague from Texas saying we may 
not and we must not violate NAFTA. I said yesterday and I will say 
again, there is nothing in any trade agreement, including NAFTA, 
nothing that will ever require us to compromise safety on America's 
roads. There is nothing that makes that requirement of the United 
States.
  I would also say this. If one would allege that what we are about to 
do would be to violate NAFTA on behalf of American road safety and 
complain about that, I wonder then whether someone would complain about 
Mexico, for example, violating trade agreements with respect to the 
obstructions and the tariffs applied to high-fructose corn syrup that 
we now send to Mexico, or that we now try to send to Mexico.
  This cuts both ways. But it only cuts one way when you talk about 
things that really matter; that is, highway safety in this country. The 
United States and Mexico have had a half dozen years to understand the 
consequences of allowing long-haul Mexican trucks into this country. 
They have had a half dozen years to prepare for this. What have they 
done? Nothing. Now we are told in 5 months the United States border 
must be open to Mexican trucks to come into this country for long 
hauls.
  I will say again what I said yesterday. I am sorry if it is 
repetitious to some, but it is important to say it. The anecdotal 
evidence obtained by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, I 
think quite masterfully presented to us in that feature story, is 
compelling. The San Francisco Chronicle sent a reporter to Mexico to 
ride with a long-haul trucker who began that ride in Mexico City and 
went 1,800 miles to Tijuana. That trucker was driving an 18-wheel truck 
that would not have passed inspection in this country, with a crack in 
its windshield among other things. That truck driver drove 3 days, 
1,800 miles, and slept a total of 7 hours; had no logbook, no limits on 
his hours of service, and was never stopped for an inspection along the 
way. Now we are told: By the way, it is our requirement to allow that 
kind of truck to come into this country.
  It is not our requirement. It is not. My colleagues will say: But 
what we are really saying is we want to inspect every truck. There is 
not a ghost of a chance of that happening, and we all know it.
  Let me put up a chart that describes the differences in standards 
between the United States and Mexico. Hours of service: 10 hours of 
consecutive driving, and no more, in this country--10 hours, and no 
more. I am telling you, this reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle 
rode 3 days, 1,800 miles, with that truck driver, and the truck driver 
slept 7 hours in 3 days because there are no limitations on hours of 
service in Mexico. There are no limitations on the driver. These are 
drivers who make, on average, $7 a day, sleep 7 hours in 3 days. Is 
that what you want in your rearview mirror: A truck weighing 80,000 
pounds with 18 wheels coming down the highway, perhaps with no brakes, 
with a driver that has been awake for 21 straight hours? Is that what 
we want in this country? I do not think so. And there is no trade 
agreement ever written--none--that requires this country to compromise 
safety on its roads.
  I know some say: well, no one is suggesting a trade agreement would 
do that. They say they are suggesting a robust area of inspections. Not 
true. There is no requirement being proposed that investigators go into 
Mexico to investigate compliance of the Mexican trucking industry to 
make sure that when someone presents themselves at the border with a 
logbook, they have filled it out one-half hour before they arrived at 
the border. They simply fill out their logbook. They have been driving 
21 straight hours, but they present a logbook saying they have only 
been on the road for 3 hours.
  There is nothing remotely resembling a broad-scale compliance program 
or a broad inspection program at the border that would provide the 
margin of safety this country needs.
  We have, I believe, 27 border entry points. Only two of them are 
staffed during all commercial operating hours. Most of them don't have 
telephone lines to access a driver's license database. Most of them 
don't have parking places where you can park a truck that is pulled out 
of service.
  We asked the inspector general who testified last week: Why do you 
want a parking space if a truck shows up from Mexico that is not safe 
trying to come into this country? Why not just turn it around and send 
it back? He said: Let me give you an example. A truck shows up at the 
border and has no brakes. It happens. Are we going to send an 18-wheel 
truck back with no brakes? No. We have to park it.
  The fact is that we only inspect a small percentage of trucks 
crossing the border. It is not a large percentage as has been alleged. 
We actually inspect a very small percentage of trucks coming into this 
country.
  The proposal for additional investigators and inspectors is far short 
of what is needed to have a broad regimen of inspections. It is just 
far short of what is needed. I just did the math. I asked the Secretary 
of Transportation and the inspector general: Am I not right that you 
are short, and you don't have the people? The inspector general said: 
You are right, we are short of inspectors, because these numbers don't 
add up.
  To those who say let's open the borders and somehow we will inspect 
all of these trucks, I say to them even if you could do that, where are 
the inspectors? They are not being proposed. They have some, but not 
nearly enough.
  What about the compliance reviews of sending someone into Mexico to 
make sure the industry is going to require the kind of compliance that 
is necessary? I mentioned the requirement of logbooks. Mexico requires 
logbooks. They do. But nobody has them. It is just like Mexican laws 
with respect to the environment. They have very stringent laws with 
respect to pollution and the environment. They are not enforced. You 
can have wonderful laws, but if they are not enforced, they are 
irrelevant.
  There is in Mexico a requirement for a standardized logbook. It is 
not enforced. Virtually no trucker in Mexico uses a logbook.
  Alcohol and drug testing in this country, yes; Mexico, no.
  Driver's physical considerations: In this country, a separate medical 
certificate, and an examiner's certificate is renewed every 2 years. In 
Mexico, a

[[Page 14637]]

physical examination is required as part of licensing, But no separate 
medical card is required.
  We have a weight limit of 80,000 pounds in this country. It is 
135,000 pounds in Mexico.
  Hazardous materials: I don't even want to describe the difference 
here. You can only imagine the difference.
  Strict standards, training, and inspection regime in this country; 
there, a lax program, few identified chemicals and substances, and 
fewer licensure requirements.
  Vehicle safety inspections: Here, yes, of course.
  There they are not yet finalized.
  Insurance: Incidentally, the inspector general pointed out that when 
they come across the border, they buy insurance for 1 day.
  Some have questioned why I should care about this issue. One of my 
colleagues said: Senator Dorgan is from North Dakota, Mexican trucks 
probably won't even get to North Dakota.
  But in fact they have already been found to be improperly operating 
in North Dakota. They have been stopped for a range of infractions and 
difficulties.
  There is supposed to be a 20-mile limit for long-haul Mexican trucks 
in this country.
  If someone says it is not going to affect North Dakota, they are 
wrong. It already has. They have already been apprehended on our roads.
  Let me say, with this one question of inspections and all of the 
soothing words about, we will just inspect all those trucks, and there 
is not going to be any problem with the big 18-wheeler coming down the 
highway--let me describe where we are with inspections.
  Out-of-service rates at El Paso, TX, 50 percent but only 24 percent 
at Otay Mesa, CA where they have a full inspection process.
  I could put up 25 border crossings and you would find exactly the 
same thing.
  It is preposterous to allege that in 5 months we are going to have a 
regime of inspections and compliance audits that will provide the 
margin of safety that we expect for our country's highways. It is not 
going to happen. There is not a ghost of a chance of it happening.
  Let me again say that it is true, I voted against NAFTA.
  Before this trade agreement which our trade negotiators negotiated 
with Mexico and Canada, we had a very small trade surplus with Mexico. 
It quickly turned into a very large deficit. Is it a trade agreement 
that works in our interest? I don't think so. We had a reasonably 
modest trade deficit with Canada. It quickly doubled. Is that a trade 
agreement that works in our interests? I don't think so.
  Yes, I voted against the trade agreement. I have from time to time 
suggested that perhaps, just as we do in the Olympics, we require them 
to wear a jersey so they can look down and see a giant ``U.S.A.'' 
printed on this jersey to see whom they are working for, so they 
remember from time to time whom they represent. I am so tired of our 
trade negotiators negotiating agreements that they lose in the first 
week.
  Will Rogers once said that the United States of America has never 
lost a war and never won a conference. Surely he must have been talking 
about our trade negotiators. It takes them just a moment to begin 
negotiating with some country and give away the store. That is the case 
with NAFTA.
  But I say this: There is nothing in that trade agreement--nothing in 
NAFTA--that requires our country to sacrifice safety on America's 
highways--nothing. We have had 6 years, I say to my colleague from 
Texas, for both countries to prepare for Mexican long-haul trucks to 
come into America, and neither country has done anything. Now we are 
told by the President that on January 1 we are going to take the lid 
off this 20-mile limit and Mexican long-haul trucks are coming in.
  My position is this: There is not a ghost of a chance of our having 
the compliance and inspection capability to assure the American people 
that we have safety on our highways. I don't want my family, or yours, 
and I don't want any American family driving down the road looking in a 
rearview mirror and seeing an 18-wheeler coming with 80,000 pounds 
perhaps without brakes, with the driver having driven the rig for 21 
straight hours, in a truck that has not been inspected. I don't want 
that for the American people, and no trade agreement requires that it 
happen.
  To those of us who have come to the floor in the last several days on 
this issue, I say this isn't about trying to be discriminatory against 
anyone. If it were Norway, I would be saying the same thing. Canada has 
a reasonably similar system with trucking. We suspended trucking 
privileges for Canada for a number of years until they came into 
compliance. We restored them.
  With airlines, what we do is very simple. We understand the safety 
issue with airlines. With airlines, we send compliance inspectors to 
airlines all around the world to insist and demand, if airlines want to 
come into our country, they must meet rigid compliance standards. We 
audit them and require them to comply. There are 13 countries in which 
their airlines are not allowed into the United States of America. Why? 
Because we have not deemed it safe to allow those airlines to come in.
  That is the issue here with these long-haul trucks. It is very 
simple. This is not an issue about the Murray-Shelby language versus 
the Gramm-McCain amendment. There are more than two sides; there are 
three.
  I happen to believe we ought to have the House language simply 
prohibiting funding for the issuing of licenses or permits to allow 
long-haul trucks to come in during the next fiscal year. I say no. If 
at the end of the next fiscal year it can be described to us that we 
have a full regime of compliance, investigators, and inspectors at the 
border, and if we set up all of the burdens to show us that this will 
work, then I will be the first to admit it and say I am with you. But 
that is not the case now. It will not be the case in January. In my 
judgment, it will not be the case in a year and a half.
  Until that time, on behalf of the American people, we ought to 
insist--we ought to demand--on behalf of highway safety in this country 
that we take this issue seriously.
  In my judgment, what we ought to do, at some point before this debate 
is over, is take the House language, the Sabo amendment that the House 
passed 2-1, put it on this bill, put it in conference, and keep it 
there; and say to the President: If you want to veto it, that is your 
choice. But if you want to do it, you are wrong. This Congress is going 
to do the right thing. If you want to do the wrong thing, that is up to 
you. But our job is to do the right thing right now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I have a statement in support of Senator 
Dorgan's comments, but Senator Gramm had something he wished to do for 
a minute or two. If I could yield to him and reclaim my time, I would 
appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me yield myself 3 minutes off my time. 
If you would let me know when that time is up, I will stop. And I thank 
Senator Byrd, who came over to speak, for letting me do this.
  Mr. President, when I was a boy and my brothers and I got into 
arguments, my mama would always say: Argue about whether something 
makes sense, but don't argue about facts. So I am not going to get into 
an argument with our dear colleague from North Dakota. But I want to 
reiterate what the facts are.
  When we entered into NAFTA, we had every right in our obligations 
under NAFTA to enforce safety standards in the United States of 
America. Any safety standard that we impose on our own truckers and 
Canadian truckers, we can impose on Mexican truckers. We could inspect 
every single truck coming into the United States from Mexico so long as 
we can show that inspection was needed to assure Mexican compliance 
with American law. But what we cannot do, what NAFTA clearly says is a 
violation, is

[[Page 14638]]

setting one standard for American trucks and Canadian trucks, and then 
another standard for Mexican trucks.
  It is interesting that our colleague decided to talk about Mexican 
truckers, because even though Mexican trucks are operating only in the 
border States now, our experience with inspecting the Mexican drivers 
has been very encouraging. In fact, of all the drivers inspected in 
America last year--where the truck was inspected and the driver was 
tested in terms of their log, their license, and their training--
Canadian truckdrivers failed that test 8.4 percent of the time. 
American truckdrivers failed that test 9 percent of the time. Mexican 
truckdrivers failed that test 6 percent of the time.
  Why is that so important? Because they are operating only in border 
areas. The trucks coming across are not even big 18-wheelers; they are 
small trucks basically carrying produce. The point I want to make is 
that we cannot have two different sets of rules under NAFTA. Many of 
the Mexican drivers that are going to be driving 18-wheelers are 
college graduates. Our experience, thus far, indicates that we are 
going to have many problems, but drivers are not going to be one of 
them. My point is that under NAFTA we can set whatever standards we 
want on Mexican trucks, but they have to be the same standards that we 
set on our own trucks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is what is being violated by the amendment before us.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I do still have the floor, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, by previous order, 
is entitled to be recognized at this time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to give a statement, but if the Senator 
has a response for a minute or two, I do not mind yielding to him.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would be kind enough to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to observe that the Senator from 
Texas said he doesn't think our States are involved because we have a 
20-mile limit. My point is, Mexican truckdrivers have been stopped in 
North Dakota already exceeding the 20-mile limit, so of course we are 
involved. Twenty-four States have found that similar condition.
  No. 2, the Senator from Texas said he didn't want to talk about the 
facts. The facts are that when Mexico alleged they are going to take 
action against our high-fructose corn syrup, does the Senator from 
Texas agree a panel has already ruled against Mexico, and they are now 
unfairly imposing tariffs on high-fructose corn syrup in violation of 
NAFTA? Does the Senator agree with that assertion?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would respond that if you are trying to 
get somebody to live up to their agreement, are you in a stronger 
position if you live up to your end of it, or is your position weakened 
when you stop living up to your end of it?
  If you want to enforce the agreement, then we need to live up to it. 
We need to be like Caesar's wife; we need to be above suspicion.
  Mr. DORGAN. My point is, alleging somehow Mexico will hurt this 
country if we don't allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country, 
with respect to high-fructose corn syrup, and actions they will take--
the facts are stubborn. The Mexicans are already doing that unfairly.
  I am a little tired of saying, ``let's blame America for something we 
might do.'' How about blaming Mexico for something they are doing with 
respect to high-fructose corn syrup that is in violation of NAFTA.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, there are no Hispanic members of the 
Senate or I am sure they would say what I am about to with an equal 
amount of outrage. But since most Hispanics who trace their ancestry to 
Mexico are also part Native of the Americas, I think I can speak for 
them.
  I am very disturbed that any Member of this body, regardless of party 
affiliation, would transform an issue of truck safety into a racial 
issue.
  I take a back seat to no one in this body supporting Hispanics, like 
economic opportunity, race relations, English only, and a host of other 
issues. In fact, I believe I have the largest number of Hispanic staff 
members of any Senator in this body.
  I am as concerned about jobs for Mexican workers as I am for American 
workers. I also know the only way to reduce illegal immigration is by 
stabilizing the Mexican economy. I want to do that. Does that mean I 
have to put my children's lives at risk on American highways? I won't 
do it, nor will I risk any American life in the name of free trade.
  I would remind my colleagues that of the twenty Hispanic Members of 
the House, half of them voted for more restrictive measures than the 
proposed Murray-Shelby language.
  I would strongly suggest that those who are using the race card in 
this debate for personal or political gain, put a lid on it and 
recognize that we have a duty to protect the lives and property of the 
people who sent us here.
  Now that I have that off my chest, let me use a graphic illustration 
of just one--just one--of the reasons why we should be careful in 
allowing free access to our highways. The problems of hours of service, 
age of the trucks, drug testing, and monitoring compliance have been 
discussed by other Senators.
  Since I am a certified CDL driver, let me focus on that facet of this 
problem. This is an enlarged page from a daily driver's log. These logs 
are required by the Federal Government and are reviewed and monitored. 
Mexican drivers have log books, too, but almost no oversight of their 
order. Note this area here on the log book. It is broken down into 
minute by minute sections of a 24-hour day.
  Each working day, American drivers are required to fill out this form 
which enables Federal officials to track exactly what the driver was 
doing. I know of no other job in America, with exception of airline 
pilots, that has such a high degree of scrutiny. That scrutiny is meant 
to ensure safety on our highways. Why is it unfair to ask foreign 
trucks to comply with the same standards?
  Let me now say a few words about the trucks themselves. We know that 
the American fleet averages 3 to 5 years old, while the Mexican fleet 
averages 15 years old. If the average is 15 years old, that means some 
trucks are 30 years old with all the inherent problems of old 
machinery.
  What has not been mentioned is the use of the high-tech equipment 
that is on most new American fleets but rarely on older trucks. Modern 
U.S. trucks have CB radios, weather band radios, cell phones, and GPS 
tracking systems. This not only makes them more efficient but helps 
keep the driver out of trouble. His boss, the carrier, can tell at any 
given moment exactly where he or she is, what speed they are traveling, 
if there are bad road conditions ahead, if there are accidents or 
congestion that would require re-routing, and a host of other pertinent 
facts about both the driver and his vehicle.
  The point is this. Do you think any company which pays as little as 
$7.00 per day to their drivers is going to invest the thousands of 
dollars to equip their trucks with this state-of-the-art efficiency and 
safety equipment? Not likely, particularly when you factor in the 
initial cost of $100,000 for each of those new tractors and for the 
$30,000 for those new trailers in the American fleet.
  It is not always the big things that add up to safer highways. 
Sometimes subtle things are equally important. As an example, no driver 
or company that I know will run retreads on their front tires. There 
may be laws addressing this, but any driver with a lick of sense knows 
that the risk factor for himself and everyone near him goes up if, 
while thundering down the road at speed, pulling 80,000 pounds, a front 
tire blows

[[Page 14639]]

out. They may run recaps on back tires because other tires will 
distribute the load in case of a blow out. But not the front.
  Do Mexican trucks run recaps on front tires? Many do and again I 
would ask, do you think anyone paying his drivers $7.00 per day, will 
buy $400.00 tires for the front wheels when he can buy caps for a 
quarter of the price?
  I stand before this body not just as a concerned Senator but as a 
licensed commercial truck driver. This amendment attempts to provide 
equal and fair standards. For my colleagues who believe this amendment 
violates components of our trade agreements, I challenge them to tell 
the American people they are willing to sacrifice the safety of our 
roads for the economic vitality of our neighbors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my friend from Arizona--we came to the 
House together; we came to the Senate together--stated a number of 
things in the last hour or so. He said, and I have it from the official 
transcript:

       I regret that. And I have been here not as long as many but 
     long enough to know when a very dangerous trend or a very 
     dangerous precedent has been set that I recognize it.

  He further went on to say, again from the transcript:

       Cloture vote. I view that unfortunate, too, because if in 
     the future Members of the Senate are seeking a number of 
     amendments to be considered and cloture is imposed without 
     them being able to have all their amendments considered, then 
     obviously we are setting another, I think, very bad precedent 
     for the conduct of the way we do business in the United 
     States Senate.

  He also said:

       I also want to make another comment about this issue and 
     what we have done here. The Senator from Texas and I were 
     allowed to propose one amendment, one amendment which was 
     voted on, and we had many other amendments. But, obviously, 
     that effort is going to be significantly curtailed.

  My friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, said that a dangerous 
precedent has been set. No amendments could be offered. The senior 
Senator from Texas offered an amendment. It was tabled, defeated.
  Senator Murray and I have begged for people to come and offer 
amendments, literally legislatively begged for people to come and offer 
amendments, day after day. No, there has been no dangerous precedent 
set.
  This is the way the Senate has operated, by the rules. We want to 
move on with other legislation. The Senator from Arizona has refused to 
let us go forward, as has the Senator from Texas, to go forward on a 
Transportation appropriations bill that is vitally important to every 
State in the Union. Senator Shelby and Senator Murray have worked very 
hard on this very important appropriations matter.
  There was no choice but the leadership had to move to invoke cloture. 
What does that mean? It means stop unnecessary, dilatory debate. It was 
done on a bipartisan basis. This is not Democrat versus Republican. 
This is Democrats and Republicans wanting to move on with the business 
of this country; therefore, the business of the Senate.
  We should move forward with this legislation. We are not doing that. 
Because of these dilatory tactics on this matter, we have been unable 
to move forward on other important legislative matters for this 
country.
  Madam President, before we leave for the recess we have to finish the 
Export Administration Act. This is extremely important, and it expires 
August 14. This legislation is the most important aspect of the high-
tech legislative agenda. The high-tech industry, by the way, is 
hurting. Just look at what is happening in the stock market. They need 
help. One of the things we can do to help is to change the rules so 
they can compete with the rest of the world. We don't want these jobs 
to be sent overseas. That is what is happening. We have a handful of 
Senators out of 100 who don't want us to move forward. Holding this up 
is wrong. The Export Administration Act is extremely important.
  Madam President, the food and fiber in this country is produced by 
farmers and ranchers all over America. America is the greatest producer 
of food in the world. But we have another bill that we must take up 
before we leave to help the farmers and ranchers of America. It is 
called the agricultural supplemental bill. We have to do this because 
if we don't, the farmers of this country, by virtue of some budgetary 
provisions that are placed in the law, will lose over $5 billion. This 
is essential to the very survival of many farmers and ranchers in 
America. We can't move forward on that because of the dilatory tactics 
on this issue. No, there is no bad precedent set. We are following the 
precedent established in the Senate to move forward when dilatory 
tactics are being used.
  I repeat, we have stood here and asked for amendments to be offered. 
All day Tuesday we were in quorum calls. All day. Yesterday, almost all 
day. So we need to move forward. We not only need to pass the 
agricultural bill that is so important, which I have referred to, we 
have to finish the conference on that bill before August. We need to 
move expeditiously with the Export Administration Act. Senator Bond and 
Senator Mikulski have spent many days of their lives working on another 
appropriations bill, VA/HUD and Independent Agencies, which is worth 
approximately $50 billion to this country, to keep the institutions of 
Government running. That needs to be finished before the August recess. 
But, no, we are being held up in a filibuster--that is what it is--and 
the Senate, on a bipartisan basis today, said enough is enough.
  I think this is wrong. We need to move forward. When my friend says 
that a dangerous precedent is set, I respectfully disagree. The Senate 
is working as it has for 200 years--in fact, more than that. We are the 
great debating institution. That is what we are called. But there comes 
a time, under our rules, when enough debate is enough, enough stalling 
is enough, enough dilatory tactics is enough. That was confirmed today 
on a bipartisan vote.
  The Senate has done the right thing. We need to move off of this 
legislation and move forward with other important matters to this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if I may have 15 minutes of 
Senator McCain's time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there a time 
limitation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is operating under cloture. Each 
Senator has a maximum of 1 hour.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask to use 15 minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I may even take 5 or 10 more. I think maybe 15 minutes 
is more than I ought to use.
  First, I want my colleagues to know that I am not here as part of any 
dilatory tactics. I wish we could resolve this issue. But I thought 
that at least I ought to add a little bit to the notion of the kind of 
problem we have--that it is serious, which has the potential of very 
serious repercussions; or rather is this a typical problem on the 
Senate floor?
  I came to the Chamber because I suggest there is a sea change 
occurring in this hemisphere between the United States and Mexico. It 
is a great and positive sea change. If we look at our history, it is 
incredible that we have come to the year 2001 and we still have a great 
country on our border with which, for some reason or another, the 
United States has not had a long and abiding friendship with that has 
yielded benefits for both countries.
  We have been the victims of Mexican leadership that blamed America. 
There were a number of their Presidents who, when things didn't go well 
in Mexico, chose to say: It is America's problem. They are so wealthy 
that they ought to take care of things. They are letting all our 
workers go there and get jobs when we need them over here.
  Today, however, sitting right on our border is potentially the 
greatest trading partner we could have in the world. What we need to do 
is what the NAFTA agreement called for and let Mexico grow and prosper, 
so that as neighbors,

[[Page 14640]]

we become gigantic partners in trade. Many of the sore spots between 
our countries will disappear if Mexico has a chance to grow and 
prosper.
  All of a sudden, there is on the horizon, as a result of a very 
different election in Mexico, a new kind of President. There is nobody 
writing about Mexico that says anything different than that. A new kind 
of President was elected in the most democratic election they have ever 
had. We all see him. We all admire him. I understand he was in the city 
of Chicago to have a meeting and to speak with those who might be 
concerned about Mexican problems, and 50,000 people showed up in 
Chicago to hear President Fox speak.
  What has he said? He has said this about America: You are not our 
problem. I am not going to blame America for our economic situation. I 
want to be a friend, neighbor, and partner; and I want the Mexican 
people to have their own jobs. He said: I want them to grow and 
prosper. All I want is fair treatment from the United States.
  Whether people like international agreements or not, we did approve 
and ratify an agreement with Mexico and Canada on this hemisphere 
regarding free trade. That is of the most serious type of agreement.
  I noted that my good friend, Senator Reid, was on the floor 
discussing with Senator Byrd the issue of a great book out there named 
``John Adams,'' who was one of our great Founding Fathers. Would you 
believe that in the first 300 pages out of 600 pages of that book, 
which I am reading now, John Adams used the words ``America thrives on 
free trade.'' Think of this now; that was just after or during the 
Revolutionary War. ``Without free trade America cannot abide in this 
world, but we must sell our abundance in the world.'' John Adams said 
that more than one time.
  Look at how long it took us to get an understanding that, with 
reference to Mexico and our neighbor Canada, we would open our borders 
and get rid of taxes that impose limitations upon free trade and move 
ahead together.
  What else has the President of Mexico said? Believe it or not, he has 
actually said that he does not like the situation where Mexican men and 
women have to come here to find jobs. He does not like the situation 
with illegals coming here and getting jobs--not because he is angry at 
any of his people; he is saying they ought to be robust enough where 
that doesn't have to happen. He is saying: Let's work it out so we 
don't have the border conflicts over immigration that we are having 
today, which lead to big arguments and very serious sores between the 
two nations.
  Right now, that country is growing. In fact, their gross domestic 
product is growing faster than America's. I wish we could turn around 
and reach that soon. So here is a rare opportunity to let this man lead 
Mexico and let the Mexican people become our friends and openly be 
sympathetic to us right now, as they are under his leadership. I can't 
think of anything worse than to turn that relationship around and have 
the Mexican leadership say that we are discriminating and treating them 
unfairly and watch this relationship sink into some kind of condition 
that will not let us, during the term of this new President who gets 
along with them very well, achieve the significant things that we can 
achieve together in this hemisphere. It will take some time.
  I have come to the Chamber to give an example of how far we have 
come.
  First of all, we have traveled a long road on this issue. The House 
of Representatives voted to ban Mexican trucks' access to the United 
States--period--and then put all kinds of limitations, including you 
cannot spend any money to help certify them or the like, which means we 
close the borders. That is essentially what the House amendment means: 
No trucks going back and forth. Everybody knows that would be a very 
serious mistake.
  Some Senators here--minimal in number--had voiced their approval of 
this action of the House. Thankfully, Senator Murray did not. Senator 
Murray, chairman of this subcommittee, did not accept the House 
language, but proceeded to write her own language. She has attempted to 
craft something balanced to meet our obligation under NAFTA, while 
ensuring safety concerns.
  Frankly, this Senator is as concerned as anyone about safety, but I 
do not believe implementing the NAFTA agreement, rather than breaking 
it, is inconsistent with safety, nor that it need be. I believe NAFTA 
can be implemented in such a way that we do no violence to it and we do 
not breach it or break it and still we have significant safety 
advantages over what we have today or what we can expect today. I 
believe that is what we ought to do in due course.
  I suggest that probably there is no part of our transportation system 
that does more good for American trade and American commerce than the 
trucking industry, be it large or small, be it those who are members of 
the Teamsters or independents. The trucking industry in America spends 
a lot of money on making sure trucks are as safe as they can be.
  We are all having trouble getting people to be truckdrivers and 
trained to do the right job. For certain, the wages are pretty good and 
are moving in the right direction. America can be very proud of that.
  We ought to say we want those trucks to have an opportunity to go to 
Mexico, and we want Mexico to move in the direction of having trucks as 
safe as ours and, indeed, adopt safety regulations and certification 
rules together with Mexico, not separate, but together with them which 
will make sure we can say the same things are happening in Mexico with 
reference to their future.
  Now, I come to the point. Senator Murray, as I just said, tried very 
hard to produce an amendment. It is very detailed. We have a 
disagreement about what the amendment does. I still have people telling 
me it violates NAFTA; that is to say, if we were to adopt it and keep 
it in law, there would be a justification for Mexico to say: Since you 
do not abide by NAFTA, we have an opportunity to say we are not going 
to abide by some other things, and take their action against us.
  The Minister of Economy for the Republic of Mexico, with whom I had 
the privilege of meeting 5 months ago, has voiced his concern about the 
language. The President of the United States has voiced his concern 
about the language.
  I believe, after talking to fellow attorneys and those schooled in 
NAFTA, it does violate NAFTA, but I do not want somebody to think by 
saying that, I am accusing anybody of doing anything intentionally 
wrong. Not at all. It is just there are others who say it does not 
violate NAFTA.
  Here we are in the Senate Chamber with a group of Senators, albeit at 
this point smaller in number, saying it does violate NAFTA, and another 
group, larger, saying it does not. I submit, and actually since the two 
people who have the most to do with this are here, I submit that at 
least we ought to adopt an amendment--I am not saying this amendment--
but we ought to adopt an amendment that simply says it is not the 
intention of this legislation to violate NAFTA. It is pretty simple 
language. Do not bulk it up with a whole bunch of things. Just say, 
since both sides seem to say it does not violate NAFTA, why don't we 
adopt an amendment to say it is not the intention of any of these 
amendments that have to do with Mexican-American trucking to violate 
NAFTA.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. REID. If I thought that would move the legislation along, I would 
be happy to speak to the manager and the majority leader.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not the one moving the legislation along, nor am I 
the one trying to stall it. I am stating that I believe there is a 
common ground which at some point we ought to adopt unequivocally, and 
that is that there is no intention to violate NAFTA.
  Mr. REID. If I can ask my friend one more question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. REID. The senior Senator from New Mexico and I have served 
together on the Appropriations Committee since

[[Page 14641]]

I came here. He is certainly someone from whom I have learned a great 
deal. I am fortunate to have been on the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee with the Senator from New Mexico for many years. We have 
been the chairman and ranking member off and on over those time 
periods.
  After Senator Byrd, no one has as much experience as the Senator from 
New Mexico. I say to the Senator, you are a peacemaker. I understand 
that. Legislation is the art of compromise. I say to my friend from New 
Mexico, this is not an issue with which I have been heavily involved, 
but we do know the House has passed a very tough provision. In effect, 
what their provision says is no Mexican trucks coming to the United 
States, whereas the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from 
Washington have come up with a provision that is much softer than the 
House provision.
  My point is, I cannot understand why this matter is not taken to 
conference and worked out there. That is where it is going to be worked 
out anyway, no matter what happens. I ask my friend if he will use his 
experience and the friendship everyone feels for him and the need to 
move this legislation along in an attempt, with his good offices, to 
work out a situation where we can take this to conference and work it 
out there.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes of 
his 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Reid's comments count against my time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yielded for a question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that it not be counted.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I 
consumed be charged against me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself another 5 minutes, so I have 8\1/2\ 
minutes off my hour.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will conclude, hopefully not using the 
time I have allowed for myself. We have gotten to this point without 
anybody understanding how we got here. All of a sudden we are in an 
extreme logjam about something on which fundamentally we do not 
disagree.
  I repeat, there is probably no Senator here who wishes Mexico and 
America to break off their ongoing friendly relationships which move in 
the direction of Mexico growing and prospering and together having a 
great trading relationship.
  I have done the best I can to explain why free trade is important and 
why Canada, America, and Mexico can be important for all free peoples 
and how ludicrous it was we did not have this years ago, but now we 
have it.
  I have concluded there are not very many Senators who want to openly 
defy and break that and cause Mexico to say we can now have 
repercussions on commodities that America is selling to Mexico by 
imposing duties. I don't think anyone wants that. We want the two 
countries to be able to work out, under NAFTA, a set of rules and 
regulations built around safety, fairness, and nondiscrimination toward 
Mexico.
  That is very simple. That is what we ought to try to do. If I were to 
pose that question to Senators, I think there would be agreement. I 
came to the floor merely to suggest there ought to be a way to arrive 
at a conclusion that reaches the fundamentals.
  It is strange that two groups of Senators say they are doing the same 
thing yet the things they are saying we should do are very different. 
For instance, those who favor the Murray amendment language--and I have 
just praised the Senator for her hard work and for how far she has come 
from the House proposal--there is a larger group who would say there is 
no intention to break the law and to break it and violate it in this 
Murray amendment.
  It is interesting, on this side, if there are some people of bad 
faith--and I don't know of any of bad faith--it seems we are at each 
other's throats here. There appear to be relationships that are not 
working for some reason. On our side there are Senators--I am one--who 
think we do violate NAFTA with the amendment and its specificity, and 
it does discriminate against Mexico as compared with Canada, and we are 
not supposed to be doing that.
  If we both--good, solid groups of Senators--think in that manner, 
that it doesn't violate, it does violate, or vice versa, why not find a 
way to not violate NAFTA? I cannot do it, I am not in control of this 
legislation. Why not find a way to unequivocally say we are not 
violating, there is no intention to violate NAFTA, it is not our 
intention, we want NAFTA to be implemented-- language that is 
affirmative about what we are doing?
  Having said that, I have a pending amendment, and I would strike a 
portion of it. It is the amendment of which I am speaking. It says it 
is the intention that we not violate NAFTA in this bill. I cannot bring 
it up now. It is not my intention. Nor do I intend to wait around and 
use that as a dilatory tactic.
  Whatever time I reserved I yield back, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, I hereby yield 1 hour 
for Senator McCain and 1 hour to Senator Gramm.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader has that right.
  Mr. LOTT. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a portion of 
my time on a subject that is not germane to the matter before the 
Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my time 
allotment.
  Mr. President, I have been watching the debate intermittently this 
afternoon on the issue of trucks under the NAFTA agreement. I am really 
amazed that we are having this debate because I don't think there 
should be a question at all that we are going to make the safety of our 
highways the highest priority. I don't think anything in NAFTA says you 
can't. NAFTA does say that we will agree there is parity among Canada, 
the United States, and Mexico. There are ways to implement the 
differences in safety rules through negotiations. But the idea that we 
would give up the right to control the safety of our highways is a 
nonstarter.
  I think we are very close in agreement on what those safety 
requirements should be. I think the administration and the Department 
of Transportation have been sitting at the table with many of us who 
are debating this issue. I think we are very close in substance with 
Senator Gramm, Senator McCain, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby. 
Everyone has been involved in the process. I think we all agree that we 
have the ability for safe highways,

[[Page 14642]]

to assure that we have safety on our highways, and that we are going to 
be evenhanded.
  I really think what we are talking about is process. We are really 
talking about when we come to that determination. Many of us are 
concerned that if we don't talk about exactly what is going to be the 
end result, maybe it is not going to come out that way. But I think we 
have the ability to talk across the aisle.
  I am certainly supportive of the stricter definitions that are in the 
bill. It is certainly better than what the House passed, which 
abrogates the responsibility under NAFTA.
  I do not think we are very far apart. For all the heat that is being 
generated, I think we are very close to the language in the Murray 
amendment with the language the Department of Transportation is 
seeking. I think we are very close to coming to a conclusion. I hope we 
can agree in due time on that final language, or at least a process to 
get there. I think we are talking process, even though it seems there 
is a lot of heat being generated on the issue.
  I am going to call up an amendment at the appropriate time, No. 1133, 
that will assure we have the ability to weigh trucks at a crossing 
where at least 250 trucks a year go across, where there will be 
commercial scales available to weigh trucks.
  One of the differences between Mexico and the United States is weight 
limits. There is also a difference between Canada and the United States 
on this issue.
  This is an important issue because, of course, our highways are 
maintained based on our weight limits. The heavier a truck is, the more 
wear and tear there is on our highways. So we do need to make sure that 
we have a system, once we agree on what the weight limits are going to 
be, to check those weights and assure that everyone is meeting the 
requirements.
  So I am hoping my amendment No. 1133 will be adopted in due course. 
Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of my amendment. We are two Senators 
from border States who understand very much the wear and tear on 
highways. I would also say that the bill that is before us, thanks to 
Senator Murray and Senator Shelby, has enough money to equip these 
stations.
  Another action that the House took was to wipe out the money that 
would allow us to inspect these trucks. The House just went into a hole 
and hid. We cannot do that. The bill before us that has been laid out 
by the appropriations subcommittee does have good regulations. There 
should be some changes in the language, but I think we are close to 
coming to that agreement. And it does have the money for the inspection 
stations. I want to make sure that included in that agreement also are 
weigh stations, if there are going to be any number of trucks that go 
through at any one time.
  We have lived with the 20-mile commercial zone in Texas, which has 
the most border crossings. Texas has 1,200 miles of border of the 
2,000-mile border with Mexico. So we do have the most crossings, of 
course. We have the most highways. We have had a 20-mile commercial 
zone that was established by NAFTA in the interim period while we were 
working on these regulations.
  There have been some problems within these commercial zones. Many 
people who live on the border are very concerned about seeing trucks 
that do not have the clear safety standards that American trucks are 
required to have. Only 2 of the 27 U.S.-Mexico border crossings are 
currently properly equipped with infrastructure and manpower to enforce 
the safety regulations. That is why I have worked so hard with Senator 
Murray and Senator Shelby on the committee to restore the President's 
request for border safety activities.
  This bill does have $103 million dedicated to border safety 
activities. So most certainly, I think we are on the right track to 
making sure that families who are traveling on American highways are 
not going to have to worry about substandard trucks from any other 
country being on that highway.
  We agree that we should have agreements with Mexico and that Mexico 
should be comfortable in that they are not being discriminated against. 
That is not even a question, although it has certainly been a question 
in the Senate debate.
  I hear from my border constituents. I talk to people in El Paso and 
Laredo and McAllen and Harlingen. They are the most concerned of all 
about the trucks they are seeing in this 20-mile commercial zone, where 
we have Mexican trucks that are legal as NAFTA provided in this early 
transition time. It is those people who are complaining the most about 
Mexican trucks that might not meet the same safety standards.
  We have had a lot of debate. It is legitimate debate. But I do not 
think anyone in this Senate Chamber intends to violate NAFTA. I do not 
think anyone in this Senate Chamber intends for us to have unsafe 
trucks on American highways. So if we can all agree on those two 
points, I think it is time for us to come to an agreement on the 
process.
  Let's have strict safety requirements; let's have a process by which 
we can inspect Mexican trucks, where Mexican authorities can inspect 
U.S. trucks that want to go into Mexico, and where we can have a 
certification process that requires that every truck must be inspected; 
but if it is inspected at a site before it crosses the border, and it 
gets a sticker, then we will agree that that truck can go through. But 
we also must have the facilities for those trucks that are not 
inspected and will not have that certification sticker.
  We have to make sure that we provide the money for those inspection 
stations. This bill has the money. I want to make sure that weighing 
stations are as much a part of those border safety inspection 
facilities as are the checks that we would make for brakes, for 
fatigue, for driver qualifications, for good tires, and all of the 
other things that we would expect if we had our families in a car going 
on a freeway. We would hope that we would be safe from encroachment by 
a truck that did not meet the standards that we have come to expect in 
our country.
  So I hope very much that we can come to a reasonable and expedited 
conclusion. I think we are all going for the same goal. I think there 
is no place in this debate for pointing fingers or name-calling. We do 
not need that. We need good standards, good regulations for the safety 
of our trucks, and to treat Mexican trucks and United States trucks in 
a mutually fair way. That is what we are trying to do.
  I want to work with all of the parties involved. I think we have a 
good start in this bill, and I think we will be able to perfect this 
language in conference. I think everyone has shown the willingness to 
do that. I hope we can roll up our sleeves and pass what I think is a 
very good Transportation Appropriations Committee product. I think it 
is a good bill. It certainly adequately funds the major things that we 
need to do. With some changes in the Mexican truck language, which the 
sponsors of the legislation are willing to do, I think we can have a 
bill that the President will be proud to sign. That is my goal.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________