[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14835-14859]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2002

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

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

  Pending:

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.


                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader has asked I advise 
everyone that the Senate will resume consideration of the 
Transportation Appropriations Act under postcloture conditions. Cloture 
was invoked yesterday by a margin of 70-30.
  We hope to be able to work out an agreement on this matter today, if 
possible. If we can't, we would have a vote tonight on the matter now 
before the Senate dealing with cloture at approximately 8:45. There 
will be votes throughout the day on other matters if we are not able to 
work something out.
  As we announced yesterday, we very much hope we can move to the 
agricultural emergency supplemental authorization bill. It is extremely 
important that be done prior to the August recess. We also have, as my 
friend, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, knows, concern 
about moving forward on the Export Administration Act, which also 
should be done before our August recess because that law expires in 
mid-August. The high-tech industry throughout America has been calling 
our offices asking that we do this. With the slowdown of the high-tech 
industry, we need to move this legislation.
  As I indicated, there will be rollcall votes throughout the day. We 
hope we can move forward on other matters, but we understand the Senate 
rules and will abide by whatever Senators McCain and Gramm think is 
necessary.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is now considering the 
Transportation appropriations bill that has now been before the Senate 
for a week. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are 
extremely important to our Nation's infrastructure. This is a bill that 
I have been very proud to work on in a bipartisan way with the ranking 
member of my committee, Senator Shelby. I will take a moment this 
morning to recognize the tremendous work and help of Senator Shelby and 
his staff and our staff. They have spent long nights negotiating this 
bill this week, working to a point where we could get this bill out and 
do it in a way that provides the infrastructure we think is so 
important, whether it is for our airports, our railways, whether it is 
for our roads or waterways.
  There are extremely important provisions in this bill for many 
Members of the Senate. We have had considerable requests from every 
Member of the Senate for important infrastructure improvements in their 
State. I am very proud of the work Senator Shelby and I have done. We 
have worked extremely hard for the last 5 months to put this bill 
together. I think we have done a very good job. We have met and 
exceeded every request of this President, unlike the House, and we have 
done a good job, I believe, of meeting the transportation requirements 
of every Senator who has come to us.
  I was pleased yesterday we were able to come to cloture on this 
measure on a very strong vote from the Senate of 70-30. I realize there 
are some Members of the Senate who think the provisions do not meet 
their requirements, but I think we have done a very good job of not 
doing what the House did, which was to absolutely prohibit any truck 
from coming across the border, and not do what the President has asked, 
which was to simply open up the borders and let trucks come through at 
will, but to put together a comprehensive piece of legislation which I 
believe will clearly mean we will be able to have a bill that is passed 
that assures constituents, whether they live in Washington State or 
constituents living in border States, when they see a truck with a 
Mexican license plate, they will know that truck has been inspected, 
that its driver has a good record, that it is safe to be on our 
highways, as we now require of Canadian trucks and American trucks.
  Can we do better for all trucks on our highways? Absolutely. But it 
is clear we need to make sure, as NAFTA provisions go into place and we 
do start getting cross-border traffic, we can assure our moms who are 
driving kids to

[[Page 14836]]

school, or our families who travel on vacation, or each one of us as we 
drive to work today, that we know our highways are safe. I believe the 
provisions we have put into this bill do make sure that happens.
  I understand from the Senator from Nevada we will have a vote 
sometime this morning. I will take some time between now and then to 
walk through again what the compromise provisions are. I think they are 
very solid and give a lot of assurance. It is important we understand 
what we are passing out of the Senate.
  The DOT plans to issue conditional operating authority to Mexican 
truck companies based on a simple mail-in questionnaire. All that 
Mexican truck companies will need to do is simply check a box saying 
they have complied with U.S. regulations and then their trucks will 
start rolling across the border. In fact, under the Department of 
Transportation plan, Mexican trucking companies will be allowed to 
operate for at least a year and a half before they are subjected to any 
comprehensive safety audit by the DOT.
  So under the committee provisions that we have written in a 
bipartisan manner with the members of Senator Shelby's staff, under the 
subcommittee's unanimous vote, and under the full committee's unanimous 
vote, no Mexican trucking firm will be allowed to operate beyond the 
commercial zone until inspectors have actually performed a compliance 
review on that trucking company. This review will look at the 
conditions of the truck and the recordkeeping. They are going to 
determine whether the company actually has the capacity to comply with 
United States safety regulations, and once they have begun operating in 
the United States, Mexican trucking firms will undergo a second 
compliance review within 18 months. That second review will allow the 
Department of Transportation to determine whether the Mexican trucking 
firm has, in fact, complied with United States safety standards, and it 
will allow them to review accident breakdown rates, their drug and 
alcohol testing results, and whether they have been cited frequently 
for violations.
  The ratification of NAFTA 7 years ago anticipated a period when 
trucks from the United States, Canada, and Mexico would have free rein 
to service clients across all three countries. This was not really a 
change in policy as it pertained to Canada since the United States and 
Canada had reciprocal trucking agreements in place long before NAFTA 
was ever required. But it did, as we know, require a change when it 
came to truck traffic between the United States and Mexico.
  Let me say that again. We have had a long-time policy that pertains 
to Canada because we have had reciprocal agreements in place for some 
time. But with the ratification of NAFTA, and now with the January 
deadline coming upon us, we knew we had to take action when it came to 
truck traffic between the United States and Mexico.
  For several years the opening up of the border between these two 
countries was effectively put on hold by the administration because 
they had great concern over the absence of reasonable safety standards 
for trucks that were operating in Mexico. While Mexican trucks have 
been allowed to operate between Mexico and a very defined commercial 
zone along the border--20 miles--the safety record of those trucks has 
been abysmal. In fact, the Department of Transportation's own inspector 
general, the General Accounting Office, and many others have published 
a number of reports that have documented the safety hazards that have 
been presented by the current crop of Mexican trucks crossing the 
border.
  At a hearing of the Commerce Committee just last week, the inspector 
general came to that committee hearing and testified about instances 
where trucks have crossed the border literally with no brakes. Think 
about the impact of that, if you are a mom driving your kids to school, 
or if you are driving a bus carrying a busload of kids to school, or 
driving on vacation, or if you are going to work: A truck that has no 
brakes and it has crossed the border because we have lack of 
inspectors, we have lack of inspection, and we have the lack of ability 
to assure the safety of those Mexican trucks.
  Officials with that IG office visited every single border crossing 
between the United States and Mexico, and they have documented case 
after case of Mexican trucks entering the United States that were 
grossly overweight, that had no registration or insurance, and that had 
drivers with no licenses. We have an obligation to assure that the 
trucks that drive on our roads have registration, have insurance, have 
drivers with licenses, and that meet our weight requirements. These are 
simple, basic safety measures that we have to reassure every family who 
drives in our country.
  In fact, according to the Department of Transportation's most recent 
figures, Mexican trucks are 50 percent more likely to be ordered off 
the road for severe safety deficiencies than United States trucks. And 
Mexican trucks are more than 2\1/2\ times more likely to be ordered off 
the road than Canadian trucks. Equally troubling to all of us is the 
fact that Mexican trucks have been routinely violating the current 
restrictions that limit their area of travel to the 20-mile commercial 
zones.
  Knowing these things, we knew we had an obligation as we passed this 
bill in the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to make sure we 
put in safety requirements. Knowing that Mexican trucks are 50 percent 
more likely to be ordered off the road, we knew we had to put in safety 
requirements to assure, as trucks begin to travel beyond that 20-mile 
limit, even though as some of our colleagues have pointed out they are 
already doing so illegally--but once they are allowed to do that under 
the President's order, we need to make sure those trucks are safe 
before they come in.
  The DOT inspector general found that 52 Mexican trucking firms have 
operated improperly in over 26 States outside the four southern border 
States. Already, in 26 States of our country, we have these trucks 
coming in. That is one reason Senator Shelby, the ranking member of the 
Transportation Subcommittee, and I put the money into this bill that 
the House had stripped out--$15 million more than the administration 
had requested--in order to ensure that we have inspectors in place and 
inspection stations and weigh stations, so we can monitor the traffic 
crossing our southern border.
  An additional 200 trucking firms violated the restrictions to stay 
within that commercial zone in the border States. We know Mexican 
trucks have been found operating illegally as far away from the Mexican 
border as New York State in the Northeast and my own State of 
Washington in the Northwest. We know the trucks are coming in now 
illegally to 26 States from 200 trucking firms. We want to make sure 
that as it becomes legal for them to be crossing the border, they are 
safe; that is a basic safety requirement, that we have an obligation as 
Senators to be able to go home and say to our constituents as the NAFTA 
provisions take effect.
  Let me just take a moment to remind my colleagues, I supported NAFTA. 
I support free trade. I believe this NAFTA provision will raise the 
safety and health standards and labor standards for all three countries 
as it goes into place. But it will not do that if we lessen the safety 
requirements of the United States as it is implemented. That is why 
this provision is so critical.
  One thing I found shocking was that the inspector general reported on 
one case where a Mexican truck was found, on its way to Florida to 
deliver furniture, and when that vehicle was pulled over, that driver 
had no logbook and no license. As I said, this is not unique; there 
have been experiences such as this in half of the States of the 
continental United States.
  Given that kind of deplorable safety record, the official position of 
the U.S. Government since the ratification of NAFTA was that the border 
could not be opened to cross-border trucking because of the safety 
risks involved.
  Why has that changed? Why are we now dealing with this provision on 
the

[[Page 14837]]

floor of the Senate? Two things have basically changed that policy of 
restricting those trucks to within that 20-mile border.
  First of all, of course, a new administration has come into power and 
they have said they want our borders opened.
  Second, the Mexican Government successfully brought a case before the 
NAFTA arbitration panel. That panel has ruled the U.S. Government must 
initiate efforts to open the border to cross-border traffic. So in 
order to do that, a frenzy of activity occurred at the Department of 
Transportation so the border could be open to cross-border trucking, as 
soon as this autumn, they said.
  The Department of Transportation has cobbled together a series of 
measures that was sort of intended to give us, as United States 
citizens, a sense of security, but I really saw it as a false sense of 
security as this new influx of Mexican trucks is coming across the 
boarder.
  Both the House and the Senate Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittees have looked at what the Department of Transportation is 
doing very hastily to allow these trucks in, and we determined it was 
woefully inadequate.
  When the House debated the Transportation appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2002, its concerns about the inadequacy of the Department 
of Transportation's safety measures were so grave that it resulted in 
an amendment being adopted on the floor of the House that prohibited 
the Department of Transportation from granting operating authority to 
any Mexico-domiciled trucking company during fiscal year 2002.
  That amendment passed by a 2-to-1 margin. It is an amendment that 
prohibits the Department of Transportation from granting operating 
authority to any Mexican domiciled truck. That amendment passed 2 to 1 
by a vote of 285-143. By the time the Transportation bill left the 
House, it was in pretty bad shape. Not only did they pass that 
amendment 2 to 1 to prohibit any truck from coming across, but they 
stripped every penny of the $88 million the administration requested to 
improve the truck safety inspection capacity of the United States-
Mexico border.
  That bill, I believed, and Senator Shelby believed, and others who 
worked with us believed, was simply the approach that went too far by 
taking all of the money away so there were no inspectors, no inspection 
stations, no weigh stations, and no ability to allow the NAFTA 
provisions to go through. We believed that the administration's 
position, on the other hand, was also woefully inadequate. Their 
position was to allow Mexican trucks to come in, come across our 
borders, traverse all our States, and inspect them later. The House has 
one extreme and the White House has another extreme.
  That is why Senator Shelby and I sat down and worked with members of 
the appropriations subcommittee and the full committee. I commend 
Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd who have been working diligently with 
both of us. They care deeply about the many provisions in this bill, 
from the infrastructure improvements that affect all of our highways 
and our waterways. The Coast Guard and the FAA have worked with us to 
move this bill to a point so we can get it passed in the Senate, get it 
to conference, work out the differences between us and the White House, 
and move to a point where we can fund the critical infrastructure, as 
many of our constituents sit in traffic this morning and listen to this 
debate.
  What Senator Shelby and I have done is to really write a commonsense 
compromise that will inspect all Mexican trucks and then let them in.
  Let me say that again. The compromise position between the House at 
one extreme and the White House at another is to make sure that all 
Mexican trucks are inspected, and then let them in. Just as we require 
Americans to pass a driving test before they get a license, the 
bipartisan Senate bill requires Mexican trucks to pass an inspection 
before they can operate on our roads.
  As I said, our bill includes the $103 million. That is $15 million 
more than the President's request.
  The reason I say that again pointedly is the administration has said 
that with the provisions Senator Shelby and I have put into this bill, 
they will not have the money to implement it.
  I remind the administration that they asked for $15 million less than 
we appropriated. We put $103 million into this bill for border truck 
safety initiatives. If the Department of Transportation, the OMB, and 
the President determine when this bill gets to conference that we do 
not have enough money for the truck safety activities and that should 
be part of our discussion, they need to request more money in order to 
put that in place. We are happy to work with them on that request. But 
just to say we have not appropriated enough money and we can't ensure 
the safety of trucks coming in, to me, is a woefully inadequate 
response.
  The bill we have before us establishes a number of enhanced truck 
safety requirements that really are intended to ensure that this new 
cross-border trucking activity doesn't pose a safety risk to our 
families and the people traveling on our highways, whether it is in a 
southern border State or a northern border State.
  None of us wants to be sitting here several months from now or a year 
down the road and have a horrendous accident occur in our States and 
find after the fact the truck that was involved in the accident was 
never inspected at our border because of lack of inspections, was never 
weighed, or that the driver had an invalid operating license or a poor 
safety record. None of us wants to face our constituents with that kind 
of tragedy.
  Senator McCain has been a wonderful help to me in the past. We worked 
together on a bill on pipeline safety after a tragedy occurred in my 
State where three young people were killed when a pipeline broke. Oil 
from that pipeline traveled down along a 1-mile stretch of river in 
Bellingham, WA. Three young boys were fishing by that river and playing 
by that river. Tragically, one of them lit a match and the entire mile 
of that river burst into flames. Three young boys were tragically 
killed on that day.
  As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain has 
been just absolutely wonderful in working with us on that provision and 
working to pass a bill out of the Senate. But, unfortunately, it is now 
hung up in the House, and it has been for some time. I hope they can 
move it forward to ensure that our pipelines are safe. But we did that 
after a tragic accident.
  I think it is much more effective, much more wise, and the right 
thing to do to put the safety requirements in place before we are 
reacting to a tragic accident.
  The safety provisions that are included in this Senate bill were 
developed based on the recommendations the committee received from the 
DOT inspector general, the General Accounting Office, and law 
enforcement authorities, including the highway patrols of the States 
along the border.
  The provisions we put in this bill didn't just come from matching. We 
worked very closely, looking at what the DOT inspector general 
recommendations were, the GAO, law enforcement authorities, and highway 
patrols working along the southern border. We used their 
recommendations to draft and put in place what we believe are very 
strong safety provisions within the underlying bill.
  Once again, I was very pleased that 70 Members of the Senate affirmed 
that we do indeed need to have these safety requirements in place and 
to move this bill along to final passage so we can put in place the 
important infrastructure requirements that this country is demanding 
and that our constituents are demanding.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Washington yield 
for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Washington please advise Members of 
the Senate and those who are following

[[Page 14838]]

this debate where we are in this debate on the Transportation 
appropriations bill?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I think it was 2 weeks ago that the Senate 
Transportation Subcommittee unanimously passed a Transportation bill. 
The Senator from Illinois serves on that committee and has been working 
with us. I appreciate his concern. He has a number of projects in 
Illinois that I know he wants to have put in place, but he doesn't want 
them hung up by a long and protracted debate over another issue in the 
Senate. I know the Senator from Illinois, who serves on our 
subcommittee, worked well with Members on the other side several weeks 
ago. It was a little more than a week ago that it passed out of the 
full committee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We worked in a 
bipartisan way and unanimously voted out the provisions of this bill 
that fund the infrastructure needs of all 50 States, which include the 
safety provisions we are discussing this morning. We went to this bill 
last Friday. I believe it was around 2 in the afternoon.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator from Washington telling us that we have 
been debating this bill for a week?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. This bill has been debated in the Senate for an 
entire week now. We began debate last Friday morning. I made my opening 
remarks. Senator Shelby and I have worked very closely on this bill. He 
made his opening remarks. We opened it up for debate. We have one 
amendment that is now pending on the bill that Senator Shelby and I put 
forward which adds additional safety requirements to the underlying 
bill. It is, frankly, supported by every Member of the Senate, and by 
the White House, which has been requesting improved safety conditions 
as well. That began last Friday.
  We asked Members to come to the floor to begin the debate, and we 
offered our bill up for amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator, I am trying to recall how many 
times we have voted this week on amendments to this bill. I can't 
recall more than a handful of times that we have voted.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Senator Shelby and I have been 
here. In fact, I got up at 4 o'clock Monday morning to come back from 
my home State of Washington to be on the floor Monday afternoon and ask 
Senators to bring their amendments forward. We waited. We have had a 
few amendments. I believe we have had four or five with which Members 
came to the floor and finally offered. We were here Monday evening:
  I came back on Tuesday morning, ready and begging and telling 
Senators: We are ready to move this bill along. Offer your amendments. 
We will vote them up or down. In a week, we have only passed a handful 
of amendments that Senators have brought to the floor. I would have 
been happy if there were 20 amendments. Send them forward. We will vote 
them up or down.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I ask the Senator from 
Washington, I believe she believes, as I do, that the nature of this 
legislative process in the Senate is, if you have an amendment, you 
should have the right to offer it, debate it, and bring it to a vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely. The Senator from Illinois is correct. We are 
here. Senators have a right to offer amendments. We are happy to 
consider their amendments. In fact, we have had several amendments on 
both sides that were adopted by voice vote. We have been waiting in 
this Chamber. Our staffs have been working diligently until 2 or 3 
o'clock in the morning every night in negotiations with Senators 
concerned about the safety provisions, as well as working with Members 
who have provisions within the bill. We could have finished this easily 
Monday evening with the number of amendments we have.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, on this important issue about 
the inspection of Mexican trucks and drivers coming into the United 
States, is it not a fact that yesterday we had a procedural vote, known 
as a cloture vote, which basically says that at some point the debate 
has to end, and we have to come to a vote? Can the Senator from 
Washington tell us what the vote was of the Senate to bring this debate 
to an end and bring this issue to a vote?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct. After sitting here 
all Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, it was determined, since 
Senators were unwilling to offer amendments and have them voted up or 
down, we needed to move along. As the Senator from Illinois knows, 
serving on the Appropriations Committee, we have a number of other 
appropriations bills that need to pass in order to meet the October 1 
deadline. There are many other priorities of Senators.
  We decided the best way to move forward was to have a cloture vote, 
which then allows us to move along and finish this debate. Seventy of 
the 100 Senators said: Yes, it is time to move along; We are done with 
offering amendments; We want to get this bill passed; We want the 
infrastructure improvements that are in this bill; We support the 
safety requirements; Move it out of the Senate so we can get to a 
conference and pass this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Washington if she will yield for 
one or two more questions, and then I will yield the floor back to the 
Senator.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is it not true that because we have spent literally a 
week with very few, if any, amendments being offered, with very little 
debate on the floor, and really just a slowdown of activity, that we 
have been unable to consider other important legislation? There is an 
Agriculture supplemental appropriations bill, which is an emergency 
bill that is needed, that we have been unable to bring to the floor, as 
well as the Export Administration Act, which is important for our 
economy so we can try to get people back to work and get businesses 
moving forward.
  All of this is being delayed because we have been unable to even come 
to a vote on important questions such as the inspection of Mexican 
trucks and drivers. Is that not correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct. What is 
in this bill is extremely important to my constituents. We have some of 
the worst traffic in the Nation. I know the Senator from Illinois has 
severe traffic problems. We share airport concerns in our home States 
for which this bill has improvement funding. We are ready to go to 
final passage.
  I would just add, I say to the Senator from Illinois, we have a 
managers' package ready to go. We could be done in the next half hour, 
move this bill out, and go to the Ag bill to which the Senator 
referred. I am deeply concerned that we have delayed its passage.
  I have apple farmers and tree fruit farmers in central Washington who 
are in severe financial straits. They have suffered through a drought 
that has hurt their crops. They have suffered through the impact of an 
Asian market that has declined tremendously in the last several years. 
Many of them are having to sell their farms. To me, it is devastating 
to watch these poor families. We have help for them in that Ag bill. We 
have help for them in it, but they will not have that help until we 
pass this bill and move it on. And we need to do that, as the Senator 
from Illinois knows, before we leave next Friday. We have to get it to 
conference.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada, am I correct that we need to get the 
Ag bill to conference, out of conference, and back to the floor?
  Mr. REID. Absolutely.
  Mrs. MURRAY. So every minute we delay here means that a family farmer 
in Yakima, WA, who is suffering under severe financial distress, is 
going to have to sit through an August break--a month-long August 
break--not knowing whether or not they are going to get help from the 
U.S. Government.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Washington, thanks for yielding 
for those questions. I will fight for any Senator's right to offer an 
amendment, and also to debate it and bring it to a vote. That is what a 
legislative body is all about. What we have seen for the past week is a 
slow dance. There are

[[Page 14839]]

people who just do not want to see the Senate roll up its sleeves and 
get down to work.
  We have a lot of things to do, such as for farmers, for exporting, 
and even for important issues such as the ones in the Transportation 
bill.
  I salute the Senator from Washington for her patience and her 
perseverance and her strength. I hope we can get this job done very 
quickly and this bill passed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senate from Illinois.
  I would reiterate, again, that we are ready to go to final passage at 
a moment's notice. We could wrap this bill up in the next half hour 
quite easily. We have a managers' package. I do not believe there is 
any other Senator who has any requests out there. We could pass the 
managers' package and move to third reading within a few minutes and 
Senators could go home for the weekend.
  I know many Senators have called and said: Can we finish? I have a 
noon flight I need to catch. I know that planes are leaving and people 
have plans for this weekend. I certainly would like them to be able to 
go home and see their families. I would like to go home and see my 
family, of course, but I am willing to stay here if that is what we 
need to do. And I will stay here because what is in this bill is so 
critically important to my constituents at home who are now sitting in 
traffic at 7:30 in the morning.
  Many of them are traveling to work right now, probably sitting in 
traffic on the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the I-5 corridor because we have 
failed to do our job.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator, who is the 
manager of the bill on this side of the aisle, yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I have a brief statement to make. I would like to make that 
statement and go on to other issues. The distinguished Senator from 
Arizona has been waiting. I would like to make my speech and get back 
to my office.
  Could the Senator tell me about when I might be able to get the 
floor? How much longer will she need?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we do 
this: That the Senator from Arizona have 5 minutes to speak, and that 
following the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from West Virginia 
have----
  Mr. McCAIN. As much time as he might consume.
  Mrs. MURRAY. As much time as he may consume.
  Mr. GRAMM. We have plenty of time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could we modify that? Could I have 7 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Absolutely. That the Senator from Arizona have 7 
minutes, and that following that, the Senator from West Virginia be 
recognized, and following that I would like to finish my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, other 
than to alert those Senators here. I have spoken to Senator Murray. She 
has spoken to Senator Shelby. When these remarks are finished, there is 
going to be a motion to table on this amendment. I want to make sure 
everyone understands that or, otherwise, the Senator from Washington 
will move now to table.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I amend my unanimous consent request to 
state that following the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Shelby would like----
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask that Senator Shelby have 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you complete yours and then let me speak.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And then I will be recognized at that time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I would 
like to have an opportunity to speak before the motion to table is put.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would like to have the opportunity to speak. I don't 
know exactly how long it is going to take. I will not speak for any 
extended period of time, but I want to hear what else is said.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas for a 
specific period of time. If we can't work that out, then I will make 
the motion to table.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, then I will continue my remarks at this 
time.
  Madam President, in a moment I am going to review the committee's 
safety recommendations in detail. But first I want to address the issue 
of compliance with NAFTA because it has been an issue that we have been 
talking about for some time.
  I have heard it alleged in this Chamber that the provision that was 
adopted unanimously by the committee is in violation of NAFTA. I want 
the Senators in this Chamber to understand that nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  I voted for NAFTA. I support free trade. My goal in this bill has 
always been to ensure that free trade and public safety progress side 
by side.
  Rather than take my opinion on this issue or that of another Senator, 
we have a written decision by an arbitration panel that was charged 
with settling this very issue.
  That arbitration panel was established under the NAFTA treaty. That 
panel's rulings decide what does and does not violate NAFTA.
  I have heard many Senators say that provisions violate NAFTA or that 
the President should decide what violates NAFTA. In fact, I believe the 
amendment that is pending before the Senate says the President should 
decide what violates NAFTA. We do not decide that here. The arbitration 
panel decides what violates NAFTA. I will read to the Senate a quote 
from the findings of the arbitration panel. That quote is printed right 
here on this poster. I will take a minute to read it.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Washington yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I would like to propound a unanimous consent request.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks 
of the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Arizona, be recognized 
for 7 minutes; the Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes; the 
Senator from Texas be recognized for up to 10 minutes; that the Senator 
from North Dakota be recognized for 10 minutes, Mr. Dorgan; and 
following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 5 minutes 
for the purpose of offering a motion to table the amendment now 
pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, with that, let me quickly read this and 
remind my colleagues that the arbitration panel has stated that:

       The United States may not be required to treat applications 
     from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as 
     applications from United States or Canadian firms. . . .

  In other words, we have the ability within this country to write the 
safety provisions that we have written under these provisions to ensure 
the safety of the people who travel on our highways. That is the 
premise we have made. The amendment that we will be voting on shortly 
says that the President can decide what violates NAFTA and what does 
not.
  Clearly, the arbitration panel makes that decision. The Senate 
effectively, I remind my colleagues, voted on the pending amendment 
when we tabled the Gramm-McCain amendment by a vote of 65-35. That 
amendment, as the amendment we will vote on shortly, is really a wolf 
in sheep's clothing. It is designed to gut the safety provisions in 
this bill by allowing the President to waive whatever safety provision 
in the bill he does not like.

[[Page 14840]]

  If the Appropriations Committee thought that the DOT's plans to 
address the safety risks posed by Mexican trucks were adequate, we 
wouldn't have put the important safety provisions into this bill.
  What this amendment does say is, OK, administration, whatever safety 
requirements in this bill you don't like, find a White House attorney 
who will say it is a violation of NAFTA.
  Which provision will they choose to throw away? Will it be the 
requirement to verify that a Mexican truck driver's licence has not 
been revoked? Will it be the requirement to inspect trucks when they 
come across the border? Will it be a requirement to demonstrate that 
the Mexican trucks have insurance? Under the amendment we will vote on, 
we won't know. It simply says we will allow the President to gut 
whatever safety requirement he would like.
  I voted for NAFTA. My goal is not to stop free trade. My goal is to 
see that free trade and safety progress side by side.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sorry the Senator from Illinois 
just left the floor because he seemed to be deeply concerned about the 
process. From a Chicago Tribune editorial, headlined ``Honk If You 
Smell Cheap Politics,'' I will read a couple of quotes. Quoting from 
the Tribune:

       As political debates go, the one in the Senate against 
     allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as 
     dishonest as it gets. The talk is all about safety and 
     concern about how rattletrap Mexican semis, driven by inept 
     Mexicans, would plow into Aunt Bee putt-putting to the 
     grocery store in her Honda Civic somewhere in Pleasantville, 
     U.S.A.
       Truth is that Teamster truckers don't want competition from 
     their Mexican counterparts, who now have to transfer their 
     loads near the border to American-driven trucks, instead of 
     driving straight through to the final destination. But to 
     admit that would sound too crass and self-serving, so Sen. 
     Patty Murray, and others pushing the Teamster line, instead 
     are prattling on about road safety.

  It ends with:

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

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

               [From the Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2001]

                    Honk If You Smell Cheap Politics

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

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

[[Page 14841]]

  The authorizers, the committees that are given the responsibility and 
the duty to authorize, are the ones who should have written this 
language. The Appropriations Committee should only be appropriating 
money. Instead, in a precedent-setting procedure, they have now decided 
to include language which, according to the Governments of two 
countries, Mexico and the United States, two freely elected Governments 
of both of those countries have deemed in violation of this solemn 
treaty.
  This language, according to the Mexican Government, according to the 
U.S. Government, is in violation of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. We are subject, obviously, to significant sanctions but, 
more importantly, again, the Senator from West Virginia is on the floor 
and he knows the history of this body more than I do. I do not know of 
a single other time in the history of this body that a solemn 
agreement, a treaty, has been tampered with on an appropriations bill--
in fact, abrogated to a large degree.
  There were great debates over the role of the United States in 
Vietnam. That was conducted under the aegis of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. There were other great debates on other foreign policy 
issues. All of them were conducted in this Chamber under the aegis and 
responsibility of the Foreign Relations Committee and sometimes the 
Armed Services Committee.
  I know of no time where the great debates on treaties were conducted 
as part of an appropriations bill on Transportation. This debate should 
be taking place under the responsibility of the Foreign Relations 
Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and 
I allege again this is a precedent-setting move which, if it carries--
and I still hope that it does not--I am convinced the President can 
muster 34 votes to sustain a veto. This will have very serious 
consequences for the way we do business in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I say to my friend from Arizona, who 
mentioned the money for scenic byways in West Virginia, all highways in 
West Virginia are scenic, all highways. They are all scenic, and the 
money in this bill for scenic highways in West Virginia is going to be 
yielded in conference with the House.
  I take great pride in the fact that all of West Virginia's highways 
are scenic, and I thank the Senator from Arizona for bringing to the 
attention of the Senate these scenic byways.
  There are scenic byways in Arizona also. My wife and I traveled 
through Arizona in 1960 on our way to the Democratic Convention in Los 
Angeles. We took the southern route, and we came back to Washington on 
the northern route. They are beautiful States that we traveled through.
  Madam President, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, went 
into effect on January 1, 1994. I voted against NAFTA. Now, 6 years 
later, the costs associated with NAFTA are becoming increasingly clear.
  On February 6, 2001, a NAFTA dispute resolution panel concluded that 
the U.S. refusal to approve any applications from Mexican motor 
carriers who wanted to provide cross-border trucking services is a 
breach of NAFTA. Even though the panel determined that the Mexican 
regulatory system for trucks was inadequate, they decided that this was 
an insufficient legal basis for the United States to maintain its 
moratorium on approving cross-border trucking applications. In other 
words, the panel decided that, even though Mexican trucks barreling 
down American roads would endanger human health and safety, these 
trucks must be allowed to enter.
  This panel's decision has shifted the American public's concern about 
safety into high gear. The Administration has said that it intends to 
lift the toll-gate to Mexican trucks sometime before January 1, 2002. 
Instead, we ought to downshift and carefully consider our route on this 
issue. Believing that Mexican trucks will suddenly come into compliance 
with U.S. trucking safety standards within the next six months is like 
believing that a car will keep running without gas.
  Mexican trucking is not well regulated. Mexican truck- and driver-
safety standards are nearly nonexistent. Mexican law fails to require 
many of the fundamentals of highway safety policy that are required by 
U.S. law and regulation, such as enforced hours of service restrictions 
for truck drivers or the use of log books. There is no Mexican truck 
safety rating system and no comprehensive truck equipment standards. 
From the lack of basic requirements, it is apparent that Mexico is 
making little investment, and undertaking no regular maintenance, to 
ensure that its trucks operate in accordance with fundamental trucking 
safety standards. Opening our borders to more Mexican trucks would 
allow Mexico to export more than just goods to the United States; it 
would export truckloads of danger.
  Without Mexican investment to ensure that its motor carriers are 
operating safely, the financial burden of ensuring the safety of 
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating in the United States is 
loaded onto the shoulders of the American taxpayer. From 1995 to the 
present, the U.S. Department of Transportation has dedicated $22 
million to the border States, above normal allocations, for the purpose 
of enhancing inspection capabilities. The Senate's fiscal year 2002 
Department of Transportation Appropriations bill would appropriate an 
additional $103.2 million for increased border inspections of Mexican 
trucks. This amount is $15 million above the level included in the 
President's request. Of the more than $103 million provided, $13.9 
million is provided to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
to hire 80 additional truck safety inspectors, an amount of $18 million 
is provided for enhanced Motor Carrier safety grants for the border, 
and $71.3 million is provided for the construction and improvement of 
Motor Carrier safety inspection facilities along the border between the 
United States and Mexico. Have we taken leave of our senses?
  In addition to the costs associated with an increased need for 
inspection, more Mexican trucks on U.S. roads will compromise safety, 
and could result in serious accidents on our highways. During fiscal 
year 2000, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports show 
federal and state border inspectors performed 46,144 inspections on 
Mexican trucks at the border and within the limited commercial zones 
where some Mexican trucks are currently allowed to travel. For those 
trucks that were inspected, the percentage of trucks taken off the road 
for serious safety violations, declined from 44 percent in fiscal year 
1997 to 36 percent in fiscal year 2000. Regardless of these 
inspections, the fact remains that more than one in three Mexican 
trucks is a lemon. And we cannot count on inspections to cull out every 
single one of these time bombs and get them off our highways.
  In February, I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and 
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to urge that the United States 
not compromise the safety of America's highways. We cannot, because of 
a NAFTA dispute resolution panel decision, subvert U.S. safety 
standards that have been put in place to protect travelers on our 
Nation's roads. Until the United States and Mexico agree on 
comprehensive safety standards, and until the United States is able to 
effectively enforce those standards, we must stand on the brakes 
against efforts that would compromise current U.S.-imposed safeguards 
for Mexican trucks.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, so many issues have been talked about. I 
want to begin my short remarks by reading the amendment which is 
pending, because we are going to vote on this amendment when a motion 
is made to table it. What the amendment does is it accepts everything 
in the Murray amendment with the following proviso:

       Provided that notwithstanding any other provision of the 
     act, nothing in this act shall

[[Page 14842]]

     be applied in a manner that the President finds to be in 
     violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

  In other words, unless something is in violation of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, every provision in the Murray amendment 
will stand if this amendment is adopted.
  Senator Murray and her supporters say nothing in her provision 
violates NAFTA. If nothing in her provision violates NAFTA, then this 
amendment will have no effect. This amendment, in essence, shows the 
emperor has no clothes. We are having a lot of discussion on how tough 
a safety standard we want. Under NAFTA, we can impose any safety 
standards we want on Mexican trucks, but we have to impose the same 
standards on Canadian trucks and on American trucks. Everyone is in 
agreement; we need to have safer trucks. Our own trucks need to be 
safer, Canadian trucks need to be safer, and Mexican trucks need to be 
safe to come into the country.
  What is at issue is not safety but protectionism. What is at issue 
is, we had a President, George Bush, in 1994, who signed a solemn 
agreement with Mexico and Canada called the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Then under another President, President Bill Clinton, we 
ratified this agreement by enacting a bill in Congress that President 
Clinton signed. Now, under another Republican President, President 
George W. Bush, we have an effort to enforce the agreement we entered 
into. Now we have an effort on an appropriations bill to violate the 
treaty we negotiated and signed in 1994 and that we ratified under a 
Democrat President.
  Our colleagues keep talking about safety, but nothing having anything 
to do with safety would be stricken by this amendment. This amendment 
would strike provisions that violate NAFTA. What are some of those 
provisions? Provisions that say Mexican trucks have to carry a 
different type of insurance than American trucks and Canadian trucks. 
Provisions that say Mexican truckers cannot lease their trucks in the 
same way American truckers and Canadian truckers can lease their 
trucks; penalty provisions where the penalties are different for 
Mexican trucks than they are for American trucks and Canadian trucks; 
provisions that say until we promulgate regulations that have to do 
with the bill passed in 1999 that Canadian trucks can operate, American 
trucks can operate, but Mexican trucks cannot operate. There is no more 
logic to that provision in the Murray amendment than there would be in 
saying we are not going to live up to a treaty obligation we made until 
February the 29th occurs on a Sunday. It is totally and absolutely 
arbitrary and totally and absolutely illegal, and it violates an 
agreement we entered into and have enforced under three Presidents.
  What our amendment does is simply say, take everything in the Murray 
amendment and it becomes the law of the land unless it violates NAFTA--
unless it violates an agreement we entered into and Congress ratified. 
That is exactly what the amendment does; no more, no less.
  If you vote against this amendment, obviously you stand up on the 
floor of the Senate and say anything you want to say; it is a free 
country. But if you vote against this amendment, you can't say, it 
seems to me, that you believe the Murray provision does not violate 
NAFTA. If you think it doesn't violate NAFTA, why not vote for this 
amendment and settle this issue? Obviously, anybody who votes against 
this amendment believes this amendment, despite all the denials of all 
the proponents, violates obligations we have in an agreement we entered 
with Mexico.
  All over the world we are trying to get countries to live up to their 
agreements they have with us. What kind of credibility are we going to 
have when we go back on a solemn commitment we made to our neighbor to 
the south? What kind of credibility are we going to have when we treat 
our northern neighbor in one way, have one set of rules for them, but 
then we say to our southern neighbor, we have an entirely different set 
of rules for you. In fact, we have to implement laws we passed in the 
past before you are even going to get an opportunity, in violation of 
NAFTA, to ever have a chance to compete.
  The plain truth is, as the Chicago Tribune pointed out this morning, 
Teamster truckers don't want competition from their Mexican 
counterparts. This is not about safety; this is about raw, rotten 
protectionism, and it is about a willingness to go back on a solemn 
commitment that our Nation made. I believe this is very harmful to 
America. I think it undercuts the best ally we have ever had in a 
President of Mexico.
  I reiterate, this may happen, but it is not going to happen until 
every right that every Member of the Senate has is fully exercised. 
This is an important issue. Some of our colleagues might wonder; in 
fact, people watching this probably wonder, when Senator McCain and I 
clearly don't have the votes, why don't we give this thing up? Our 
Founding Fathers, in establishing the structure of the Senate, 
understood there would be times when there would be issues that were 
important to America that were confusing, that people wouldn't 
understand, that could be cloaked in other issues. They understood 
there would be vital national interests at stake. For those 
circumstances, they gave one Member of the Senate the right to have 
extraordinary powers. It seems to me that having been blessed to have 
the opportunity to serve here, as we all have, when we believe that a 
fundamentally important issue to the future of America and, in this 
case, our relationship with our neighbor to the south and our 
credibility in the world are at stake, any Member has an obligation to 
use those rights.
  I don't like inconveniencing my colleagues, but let me make it clear, 
at 8:42 tonight we will be in a position where cloture can occur on the 
bill. I am ready to vote. But I am going to exercise my full rights. 
The people of Texas hired me to represent their interest and the 
national interest, and Texas and the national interest are both 
violated by going back on a treaty we made with Mexico.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I walked on the floor, I heard the 
words ``raw, rotten protectionism'' used on the floor of the Senate. I 
had to smile because that is such an ill described position with 
respect to what the Senate is doing. If you were to try to misdescribe 
what is going on in the Senate, you could not do it more aggressively 
than to use terms such as ``raw, rotten protectionism.'' There is 
nothing protectionist about this issue.
  This issue is about a trade agreement called NAFTA: a terrible trade 
agreement that, in my judgment, sold out the interests of this country; 
a trade agreement that turned a very small surplus with the country of 
Mexico into a huge deficit; and turned a moderate deficit with Canada 
into a large deficit. NAFTA is a trade agreement that has not served 
this country's interests, and we are now told, as a part of this trade 
agreement, we are required as a country to allow Mexican long-haul 
trucks into this country. We are told that if we don't let in Mexican 
long-haul trucks, we are somehow guilty of violating the NAFTA trade 
pact. According to my colleague from Texas, if we don't allow Mexican 
long-haul trucks into America, Mexico intends to retaliate on the 
matter of corn syrup.
  Sometimes it is a little too confusing. Mexico is already abusing its 
trade policies on corn syrup by imposing the equivalent of a tariff 
ranging from 43 percent to 76 percent on corn syrup exported from this 
country to Mexico. A panel has already ruled against Mexico on the 
issue of corn syrup, and, yet, they are now threatening that they may 
take action on United States corn syrup if we don't allow Mexican long-
haulers into this country.
  Is someone not thinking straight here? The only question, in my 
judgment, on this issue is, Is it in the interests of the American 
people to allow

[[Page 14843]]

Mexican long-haul trucks into this country at this time? If we allow 
Mexican trucks to operate unfettered throughout the United States, will 
it sacrifice highway safety? Will it jeopardize people on American 
highways? The answer to all of these questions is it will jeopardize 
safety, it will compromise safety on our highways, and this is not the 
time to do this.
  Both the United States and Mexico have had 6 years to cogitate about 
this--6 years. Really almost nothing has been done. We have 27 border 
crossings where trucks enter the United States, but a minuscule percent 
of those trucks are inspected. Thirty-six percent of the Mexican trucks 
now coming into this country, and are now limited to a 20-mile zone, 
are turned back for serious safety violations--36 percent. In most 
cases there are no inspections at all. There are no facilities to 
inspect. In only two of the border locations are there inspection 
facilities during all commercial hours. In most cases, there are no 
parking spaces and there are no phone lines to verify, for example, 
commercial driver's license data, and so on.
  I have said it before, and I will say it again--I know it is 
repetitious, but it is important to do--the San Francisco Chronicle, 
God bless them, sent a reporter down to ride with a long-haul trucker. 
He filed a report. Here is what he said.
  This trucker he rode with traveled 1,800 miles in 3 days, slept 7 
hours in 3 days--7 hours in 3 days--and drove a truck with a cracked 
windshield that would not have passed U.S. inspection. The situation is 
much different in Mexico than in the United States. In Mexico, there 
are no standard hours of service in Mexico. There is a logbook 
requirement, but it is not enforced so truckers do not have them. 
During the Chronicle reporter's ride with the Mexican trucker, there 
were no safety inspections along the way.
  Now we are told if we do not allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this 
country, we are somehow in violation of NAFTA. This is not violating 
anything. I am so tired of a ``blame our country first'' on all these 
issues. We are not going to violate anything if we decide that highway 
safety in this country is important enough to say we will not, under 
any circumstances, allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country 
until we have a regime of compliance and safety inspections that give 
us the assurance, yes, the assurance that Mexican trucks coming into 
this country and the drivers are meeting the same rigorous, aggressive 
standards we apply to American drivers and American trucks.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Do you want yourself, your families, your friends, your 
neighbors looking in the rearview mirror to see an 80,000-pound vehicle 
coming behind you with a driver who has not slept in 24 hours, who has 
brakes that may not work, and who has come across the border and has 
not been inspected? Is that what you want for yourself or your family? 
I do not.
  Let me just say again, there is not a ghost of a chance by January 1, 
when President Bush wants to allow these trucks in, that the inspectors 
necessary to assure the protection of American drivers on America's 
roads will be in place. How do I know that? Because the Department of 
Transportation's Inspector General testified before the Commerce 
Committee and said the administration is short of inspectors. Even the 
plan they are proposing will not allow the inspectors to be present to 
make sure these trucks coming into our country are safe.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota a 
question. I voted for NAFTA, but I voted for it with the understanding 
that we could impose the same health and safety standards on companies 
and countries exporting to the United States that we impose on American 
companies; that that would be fair trade. We would be treating 
ourselves the same way as we treat others.
  I want to make it clear for the record, and I think the Senator from 
North Dakota has made this point, all we are trying to establish is 
that Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers will be held to the same 
standards of safety and competency as American trucks and American 
drivers. Is that the case?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. Let me just again say that when 
the term ``raw rotten protectionism'' is used, it is wrong. There is 
nothing about this proposal to require similar standards on Mexican 
trucks coming into this country as already exists for the American 
trucking industry--there is nothing raw about that, there is nothing 
rotten about that, and there is nothing that is protectionist about 
that. It represents common sense, something that is too often obscured 
in these debates in this country in public policy. It is especially 
obscured in trade policy.
  Let me just say this to my friend from Illinois. I am aware of not 
one trade agreement that this country has negotiated that would require 
us as Americans to sacrifice safety on America's roads. There is not 
one trade agreement or one word in a trade agreement that requires us 
to do that. We should not do that. We will not do that.
  When President Bush says on January 1 we are going to remove the 20-
mile limit, and we are going to have Mexican drivers and trucks come 
into this country unimpeded, when in fact he has not proposed the 
inspectors and compliance officers necessary to make certain this could 
be done safely, in my judgment he is saying this trade agreement 
requires us to diminish standards on America's roads. I will not accept 
that. I do not support that. None of us in this Chamber, in my 
judgment, should vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend. Please take 
other conversations off the Senate floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Texas is attempting to weaken the 
provisions in the Murray bill. I happen to think the Murray provisions 
are too weak. I would like a stronger provision. I want the House 
provision to prevail that simply says during the next fiscal year, no 
funds will be used for certifying long-haul Mexican trucks to come into 
this country unimpeded beyond the 20-mile limit. As I said, I happen to 
think the Murray provision is not strong enough.
  The amendment that is before us is to try to weaken the Murray 
provision. In my judgment, it makes no sense. I will not use terms such 
as ``raw, rotten protectionism'' because they are totally inappropriate 
about this decision. This is not about discrimination. It is not about 
trade. It is not about protectionism. It is not about anything that is 
raw or rotten. It is about whether we are willing to stand up for 
standards we have already established in this country for safety on our 
road dealing with 18-wheel, 80,000-pound trucks.
  Do you want a driver behind you who has just come across the border 
who has been awake for 24 straight hours and is driving a truck that is 
unsafe, with no brakes? I don't think so. These standards are radically 
different in the United States. Ten hours of consecutive driving is all 
you can do in the United States. You have to have logbooks. In Mexico, 
they have no logbooks.
  Alcohol and drug testing: In the United States, yes; in Mexico, no.
  The list goes on and on and on.
  We are nowhere near having equivalent standards and there is not a 
ghost of a chance of that happening on January 1. All of us ought to 
recognize it. This is not about trade. It is about safe hours and it is 
about common sense. I hope when this vote is taken, common sense will 
prevail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican assistant leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I have been wanting to 
seek recognition, but I understood we were going to a rollcall. I say 
to the Senator

[[Page 14844]]

from Oklahoma that if I can have 5 minutes to speak, I will not object.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection to the Senator speaking. I wish to 
speak for 5 minutes. If he wishes to, he can ask consent.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent that the Senator from Oklahoma and myself 
each be recognized for 5 minutes to speak.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I may make a 
parliamentary inquiry, if we add 10 minutes to the time we have 
already, when will the vote take place?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be 11:33.
  Mr. REID. Senator Shelby also has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 15 minutes and then the vote. Is 
there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am appreciative of the cooperation of our colleagues 
and also of the quality of the debate. I think we have had an 
interesting debate. I compliment the participants. I will just make a 
couple of comments.
  I am reading this amendment and listening to some of the debate 
yesterday, and looking at this amendment, it says:

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

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

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

  I know I heard people say yesterday the Murray amendment, the 
underlying legislation that is in the appropriations bill, is compliant 
with NAFTA, it is compliant with our treaty, a treaty we have already 
signed.
  If that is the case, I think the proponents should adopt this 
amendment. I wish they would. I would think they would accept it. It 
would further clarify that we are going to keep our word in the treaty. 
A treaty is making a commitment on behalf of the United States with 
other countries. We should keep that.
  If we are going to rewrite the treaty on this appropriations bill, we 
have a problem. I think we have a couple of problems because clearly 
this is legislation on an appropriations bill and we made rules that we 
were not going to do that. Now it turns out the rules are only sort of 
applicable. In other words, you can legislate--if you are in the 
committee and you legislate in committee, it is OK, but you cannot 
legislate on the floor.
  Maybe we need to probably address that, and we probably will at a 
later date. But now I look at the legislation, and I have heard some 
people say that the legislation that came out of committee violates 
NAFTA. The proponents say no, it doesn't. Here is language that says 
nothing in this act should be applied in a manner that the President 
finds to be in violation of the NAFTA. This is further clarification 
that we are not going to violate NAFTA. That makes sense.
  If we are going to rewrite treaties on appropriations bills, 
something is wrong. What about the Foreign Relations Committee? What 
about the Commerce Committee and committees that have jurisdiction over 
NAFTA? What about consulting the NAFTA partners? I have heard they are 
upset about the language that is coming out of the committee and that 
came out of the House.
  I urge the proponents of the Murray amendment to adopt this language. 
I think it would further clarify. Maybe it would make a lot of this 
problem go away. This might make this bill entirely acceptable on all 
parts. This could be the solution.
  I have heard people say nothing in the underlying bill violates 
NAFTA. Then let's accept this amendment. I believe we could have final 
passage on this bill today, and we could move on towards other 
legislative agenda items that all of us would like to do, including 
some nominations.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Is that an offer?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would love to see that happen. I do not know if the 
other proponents will consult other people; maybe we can make that an 
offer. I would love to see that happen.
  I think adoption of this language further clarifying that we are not 
doing anything to violate NAFTA would help make this bill much more 
presentable and much more acceptable--both to the administration and 
our trading partners in Mexico and in Canada.
  I urge my colleagues not to support a tabling motion. Let's pass this 
amendment and this bill. Let's go to conference.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. In response to the question from the distinguished 
Democrat floor leader, I believe the adoption of this amendment would 
make this debate an honest debate. We would all then agree that it does 
not affect NAFTA. I think that would be a major step in working out 
this whole thing. With the adoption of this amendment, I think in a 
fairly short period of time we could probably work this out in a way 
that, A, the Department of Transportation can implement, and, B, the 
President of Mexico and the President of the United States are not 
embarrassed by us abrogating NAFTA. I think this would be the linchpin 
for working something out, if we adopt it.
  Mr. NICKLES. Today.
  Mr. GRAMM. I think if we decided to, we could solve this problem 
within 2 hours. Working with the Department of Transportation, we could 
come up with an agreement that the Department of Transportation could 
make work. That is the first requirement. And, second, that does not 
violate our obligations under NAFTA.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I very much appreciate Senator Gramm's 
comments, and also Senator Reid's suggestion. I think this may help us 
break this bottleneck. I think too many people are too dug in to kind 
of look and say how we can fix this problem which we got into by 
legislating on an appropriations bill and possibly rewriting treaties. 
That is wrong, at least in this Senator's opinion. This language 
clarifies that we are not going to violate the treaty.
  Let's pass this amendment and this bill, and let's go to other 
legislative agenda items.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first I would like to ask the Senator from 
Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee, if she would yield for a 
question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would she comment on the pending Gramm amendment and the 
impact she believes it will have on establishing standards for safety 
for Mexican trucks and Mexican truckdrivers?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for the question. I would be happy 
to enter into negotiations to talk about accepting this amendment if it 
didn't actually gut the provisions we have before us. This 
administration basically says to the President--actually the White 
House attorney would designate it--the provision of the underlying bill 
violates NAFTA. That is their position, not ours. It is their decision. 
They could revoke the Mexican driver's license provision we have, or 
the inspection of the trucks across the border and the insurance issue 
on Mexican trucks. At their whim, they could say we think that violates 
NAFTA.
  I think the Members of the Senate have spoken quite loudly, 70-30, 
that we believe the provisions in this Senate bill are ones that we 
believe will protect drivers in the country. We have already seen what 
the DOT protections were. I believe the underlying amendment certainly 
as written is not safe for American drivers.
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from Washington. If we adopt the 
amendment of Senator Gramm of Texas, we are basically saying there are 
no standards when it comes to Mexican trucks and when it comes to

[[Page 14845]]

Mexican truckdrivers. It is whatever the White House attorneys decide. 
That, frankly, is an abdication of the responsibility of the Senate.
  I hope all Members will join in voting for this Gramm amendment. I 
voted for NAFTA. When I voted for NAFTA, I was told that the United 
States would never have to compromise health and safety standards, and, 
that if we impose standards of safety on American trucks and 
truckdrivers, the same standards will apply to Canadian and Mexican 
truckdrivers. If we impose standards of the safety on our trucks, the 
same standards will be imposed on Mexico and Canada.
  That is what is known as fair trade and fair standards evenly 
applied. Senator Gramm and those on the other side of the aisle don't 
want fair trade. They want to have it so the Mexicans and Canadians and 
others who trade with the United States can establish in the name of 
free trade their own standards.
  This weekend when you are on the highways across America and you look 
in the rearview mirror, if the truck coming up behind you is an 
American truck, you can be sure of one thing: It is subject to hours of 
service requirements so that the truckdriver doesn't stay in that seat 
so long that he is half asleep and driving off the road. You know the 
American truckdriver has to keep a logbook so we know where he has been 
and how long he has been driving. He is subject to inspection. He has 
been subject to alcohol and drug testing. He has had a physical. You 
know the minimum weight limit for the truck is 80,000 pounds, and so 
forth. But under the standards imposed by the Mexican Government, none 
of these apply. There are no hours of service requirements. If the 
truck coming up behind you on the highway is driven by a Mexican 
truckdriver, there is no prohibition or limitation on the hours he can 
drive the truck. Under their law, he has to keep a logbook. He ignores 
it, as most Mexican truckdrivers do. There is no basic alcohol and drug 
test, and there is no requirement for physicals as in the United 
States.
  Let me tell you about an accident. If you get involved in an accident 
with a truck driven by an American driver for an American truck 
company, they have to have liability insurance between $750,000 and $4 
million for that accident. The Mexican truckdriver, about $70,000 worth 
of insurance to cover bodily injury as well as physical damage.
  When we say the Mexicans are going to have an opportunity to trade in 
the United States and we want to strike down trade barriers, we are not 
trying to strike down common sense. Common sense says that whether your 
family is on the road going to a Virginia vacation, or for business, 
when you look in the rearview mirror, or pass a truck, you ought to 
know that there is a safety standard applied to everybody who wants to 
use American highways.
  Senator Murray has put in a reasonable amendment. She established the 
same standards for Mexican trucking companies and truckdrivers as the 
United States. Those who oppose this amendment don't want that to 
happen. The Gramm amendment gives the widest loophole in the world. 
Some attorney in the White House can declare that the standards for 
insurance, for example, for Mexico are just fine at $70,000. That is 
wrong. It is wrong for the American families who expect this Senate to 
stand up and protect them when it comes to the use of American 
highways.
  I favor free trade. I voted for free trade. But I didn't do it with a 
blindfold. I did it with the knowledge that we ought to have standards 
to protect American companies, American individuals, and American 
consumers, and that the same standards should apply to those exporting 
to the United States and those producing in the United States. This is 
not protectionism. This is commonsense. Vote against the Gramm 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican assistant leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our 
colleagues, we will be voting probably within 5 minutes. I believe 
there will be a motion to table the Gramm amendment. So just for the 
Cloakrooms to alert all colleagues, there will be a rollcall vote in 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the course of the past several days, 
we have heard several Senators explain what they believe the North 
American Free Trade Agreement does and does not do. I believe this 
debate would be better served by reviewing the agreement itself.
  Part Seven, Chapter Twenty, of NAFTA establishes the Free Trade 
Commission which shall resolve disputes that may arise regarding its 
interpretation or application. NAFTA also establishes a dispute 
settlement process in the event that the Free Trade Commission is 
unable to resolve a matter or if a third party brings forth a cause of 
action. Under NAFTA in these cases, the Commission ``shall establish an 
arbitral panel.'' Again, I am quoting from the agreement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the North American Free 
Trade Agreement Part Seven: Administrative And Institutional Provision 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  North American Free Trade Agreement

        Part Seven: Administrative and Institutional Provisions

   Chapter Twenty: Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement 
                               Procedures


                        Section A--Institutions

                Article 2001: The Free Trade Commission

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

                     Article 2002: The Secretariat

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


                     section b--dispute settlement

                       Article 2003: Cooperation

       The Parties shall at all times endeavor to agree on the 
     interpretation and application of this Agreement, and shall 
     make every attempt through cooperation and consultations to 
     arrive at a mutually satisfactory

[[Page 14846]]

     resolution of any matter that might affect its operation.

        Article 2004: Recourse to Dispute Settlement Procedures

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

                 Article 2005: GATT Dispute Settlement

       1. Subject to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, disputes regarding any 
     matter arising under both this Agreement and the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any agreement negotiated 
     thereunder, or any successor agreement (GATT), may be settled 
     in either forum at the discretion of the complaining Party.
       2. Before a Party initiates a dispute settlement proceeding 
     in the GATT against another Party on grounds that are 
     substantially equivalent to those available to that Party 
     under this Agreement, that Party shall notify any third Party 
     of its intention. If a third Party wishes to have recourse to 
     dispute settlement procedures under this Agreement regarding 
     the matter, it shall inform promptly the notifying Party and 
     those Parties shall consult with a view to agreement on a 
     single forum. If those Parties cannot agree, the dispute 
     normally shall be settled under this Agreement.
       3. In any dispute referred to in paragraph 1 where the 
     responding Party claims that its action is subject to Article 
     104 (Relation to Environmental and Conservation Agreements) 
     and requests in writing that the matter be considered under 
     this Agreement, the complaining Party may, in respect of that 
     matter, thereafter have recourse to dispute settlement 
     procedures solely under this Agreement.
       4. In any dispute referred to in paragraph 1 that arises 
     under Section B of Chapter Seven (Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
     Measures) or Chapter Nine (Standards-Related Measures):
       (a) concerning a measure adopted or maintained by a Party 
     to protect its human, animal or plant life or health, or to 
     protect its environment, and
       (b) that raises factual issues concerning the environment, 
     health, safety or conservation, including directly related 
     scientific matters,

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

                      Article 2006: Consultations

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

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

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

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

              Article 2008: Request for an Arbitral panel

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

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

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

                          Article 2009: Roster

       1. The Parties shall establish by January 1, 1994 and 
     maintain a roster of up to 30 individuals who are willing and 
     able to serve as panelists. The roster members shall be 
     appointed by consensus for terms of three years, and may be 
     reappointed.
       2. Roster members shall:
       (a) have expertise or experience in law, international 
     trade, other matters covered

[[Page 14847]]

     by this Agreement or the resolution of disputes arising under 
     international trade agreements, and shall be chosen strictly 
     on the basis of objectivity, reliability and sound judgment;
       (b) be independent of, and not be affiliated with or take 
     instructions from, any Party; and
       (c) comply with a code of conduct to be established by the 
     Commission.

               Article 2010: qualifications of Panelists

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

                     Article 2011: Panel Selection

       1. Where there are two disputing Parties, the following 
     procedures shall apply:
       (a) The panel shall comprise five members.
       (b) The disputing Parties shall endeavor to agree on the 
     chair of the panel within 15 days of the delivery of the 
     request for the establishment of the panel. If the disputing 
     Parties are unable to agree on the chair within this period, 
     the disputing Party chosen by lot shall select within five 
     days as chair an individual who is not a citizen of that 
     Party.
       (c) Within 15 days of selection of the chair, each 
     disputing Party shall select two panelists who are citizens 
     of the other disputing Party.
       (d) If a disputing Party fails to select its panelists 
     within such period, such panelists shall be selected by lot 
     from among the roster members who are citizens of the other 
     disputing Party.
       2. Where there are more than two disputing Parties, the 
     following procedures shall apply:
       (a) The panel shall comprise five members.
       (b) The disputing Parties shall endeavor to agree on the 
     chair of the panel within 15 days of the delivery of the 
     request for the establishment of the panel. If the disputing 
     Parties are unable to agree on the chair within this period, 
     the Party or Parties on the side of the dispute chosen by lot 
     shall select within 10 days a chair who is not a citizen of 
     such Party or Parties.
       (c) Within 15 days of selection of the chair, the Party 
     complained against shall select two panelists, one of whom is 
     a citizen of a complaining Party, and the other of whom is a 
     citizen of another complaining Party. The complaining Parties 
     shall select two panelists who are citizens of the Party 
     complained against.
       (d) If any disputing Party fails to select a panelist 
     within such period, such panelist shall be selected by lot in 
     accordance with the citizenship criteria of subparagraph (c).
       3. Panelists shall normally be selected from the roster. 
     Any disputing Party may exercise a peremptory challenge 
     against any individual not on the roster who is proposed as a 
     panelist by a disputing Party within 15 days after the 
     individual has been proposed.
       4. If a disputing Party believes that a panelist is in 
     violation of the code of conduct, the disputing Parties shall 
     consult and if they agree, the panelist shall be removed and 
     a new panelist shall be selected in accordance with this 
     Article.

                    Article 2012: Rules of Procedure

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

                Article 2013: Third Party Participation

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

                     Article 2014: Role of Experts

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

                 Article 2015: Scientific Review Boards

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

                      Article 2016: Initial Report

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

                       Article 2017: Final Report

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

              Article 2018: Implementation of Final Report

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

        Article 2019: Non-Implementation--Suspension of Benefits

       1. If in its final report a panel has determined that a 
     measure is inconsistent with the obligations of this 
     Agreement or causes nullification or impairment in the sense 
     of Annex 2004 and the Party complained against has not 
     reached agreement with any complaining Party on a mutually 
     satisfactory resolution pursuant to Article 2018(1) within 30 
     days of receiving the final report, such complaining Party 
     may suspend the application to the Party complained against 
     of benefits of equivalent effect until such time as they have 
     reached agreement on a resolution of the dispute.
       2. In considering what benefits to suspend pursuant to 
     paragraph 1:

[[Page 14848]]

       (a) a complaining Party should first seek to suspend 
     benefits in the same sector or sectors as that affected by 
     the measure or other matter that the panel has found to be 
     inconsistent with the obligations of this Agreement or to 
     have caused nullification or impairment in the sense of Annex 
     2004; and
       (b) a complaining Party that considers it is not 
     practicable or effective to suspend benefits in the same 
     sector or sectors may suspend benefits in other sectors.
       3. On the written request of any disputing Party delivered 
     to the other Parties and its Section of the Secretariat, the 
     Commission shall establish a panel to determine whether the 
     level of benefits suspended by a Party pursuant to paragraph 
     1 is manifestly excessive.
       4. The panel proceedings shall be conducted in accordance 
     with the Model Rules of Procedure. The panel shall present 
     its determination within 60 days after the last panelist is 
     selected or such other period as the disputing Parties may 
     agree.


    section C--domestic proceedings and private commercial dispute 
                               settlement

  Article 2020: Referrals of Matters from Judicial or Administrative 
                              Proceedings

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

                      Article 2021: Private Rights

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

              Article 2022: Alternative Dispute Resolution

       1. Each Party shall, to the maximum extent possible, 
     encourage and facilitate the use of arbitration and other 
     means of alternative dispute resolution for the settlement of 
     international commercial disputes between private parties in 
     the free trade area.
       2. To this end, each Party shall provide appropriate 
     procedures to ensure observance of agreements to arbitrate 
     and for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in 
     such disputes.
       3. A Party shall be deemed to be in compliance with 
     paragraph 2 if it is a party to and is in compliance with the 
     1958 United National Convention on the Recognition and 
     Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or the 1975 
     InterAmerican Convention on International Commercial 
     Arbitration.
       4. The Commission shall establish an Advisory Committee on 
     Private Commercial Disputes comprising persons with expertise 
     or experience in the resolution of private international 
     commercial disputes. The Committee shall report and provide 
     recommendations to the Commission on general issues referred 
     to it by the Commission respecting the availability, use and 
     effectiveness of arbitration and other procedures for the 
     resolution of such disputes in the free trade area.


                              annex 2001.2

                     Committees and Working Groups

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


                              annex 2002.2

                  Remuneration and Payment of Expenses

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


                               annex 2004

                      Nullification and Impairment

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

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

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

     considering, among other things, where appropriate, 
     fundamental climatic or other geographical factors, 
     technological or infrastructural factors, or scientific 
     justification but does not include the protection of domestic 
     production;
       Make compatible means bring different standards-related 
     measures of the same scope approved by different 
     standardizing bodies to a level such that they are either 
     identical, equivalent or have the effect of permitting goods 
     and services to be used in place of one another or fulfill 
     the same purpose;
       Services means land transportation services and 
     telecommunications services;
       Standard means a document, approved by a recognized body, 
     that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines 
     or characteristics for goods or related processes and 
     production methods, or for services or related operating 
     methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also 
     include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, 
     packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to 
     a good, process, or production or operating method;
       Standardizing body means a body having recognized 
     activities in standardization;
       Stardards-related measure means a standard, technical 
     regulation or conformity assessment procedure;
       Technical regulation means a document which lays down goods 
     characteristics or their related processes and production 
     methods, or services characteristics or their related 
     operating methods, including the applicable administrative 
     provisions, with which compliance is mandatory. It may also 
     include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, 
     packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to 
     a good, process, or production or operating method; and
       Telecommunications service means a service provided by 
     means of the transmission

[[Page 14849]]

     and reception of signals by any electromagnetic means, but 
     does not mean the cable, broadcast or other electromagnetic 
     distribution of radio or television programming to the public 
     generally.
       2. Except as they are otherwise defined in this Agreement, 
     other terms in this Chapter shall be interpreted in 
     accordance with their ordinary meaning in context and in the 
     light of the objectives of this Agreement, and where 
     appropriate by reference to the terms presented in the sixth 
     edition of the ISO/IEC Guide 2: 1991, General Terms and Their 
     Definitions Concerning Standardization and Related 
     Activities.


                              annex 908.2

        Transitional Rules for Conformity Assessment Procedures

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


                            annex 913.5.a-1

               Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee

       1. The Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee, 
     established under Article 913(5)(a)(i), shall comprise 
     representatives of each Party.
       2. The Subcommittee shall implement the following work 
     program for making compatible the Parties' relevant 
     standards-related measures for:
       (a) bus and truck operations
       (i) no later than one and one-half years after the date of 
     entry into force of this Agreement, for non-medical 
     standards-related measures respecting drivers, including 
     measures relating to the age of and language used by drivers,
       (ii) no later than two and one-half years after the date of 
     entry into force of this Agreement, for medical standards-
     related measures respecting drivers,
       (iii) no later than three years after the date of entry 
     into force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures 
     respecting vehicles, including measures relating to weights 
     and dimensions, tires, brakes, parts and accessories, 
     securement of cargo, maintenance and repair, inspections, and 
     emissions and environmental pollution levels not covered by 
     the Automotive Standards Council's work program established 
     under Annex 913.5.a-3,
       (iv) no later than three years after the date of entry into 
     force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures 
     respecting each Party's supervision of motor carriers' safety 
     compliance, and
       (v) no later than three years after the date of entry into 
     force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures 
     respecting road signs;
       (b) rail operations
       (i) no later than one year after the date of entry into 
     force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures 
     respecting operating personnel that are relevant to cross-
     border operations, and
       (ii) no later than one year after the date of entry into 
     force of this Agreement, for standards-related measures 
     respecting locomotives and other rail equipment; and
       (c) transportation of dangerous goods, no later than six 
     years after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, 
     using as their basis the United Nations Recommendations on 
     the Transport of Dangerous Goods, or such other standards as 
     the Parties may agree.
       3. The Subcommittee may address other related standards-
     related measures as it considers appropriate.


                            Annex 913.5.a-2

               Telecommunications Standards Subcommittee

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


                            Annex 913.5.a-3

                      Automotive Standards Council

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

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


                            annex 913.5.a-4

         Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods

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

  Mr. SHELBY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas that we 
have been talking about proposes instead to grant to the President of 
the United States the sole and final authority to determine what 
violates NAFTA in regard to highway safety. As much as I respect the 
office of the President of the United States and particularly this 
President, the office of the President is not--and should not be--put 
in this position. In addition, it is unnecessary because the 
Constitution, as we all know, already gives the President the power to 
veto legislation.
  I believe it is a slippery slope to pursue the concept that the 
President of the United States, or any other administration official, 
should determine whether acts of Congress are consistent with treaty 
obligations or other laws.
  I put my faith in the Founding Fathers and their wisdom to separate 
judicial and executive functions. The Senator from Texas, my good 
friend, makes some interesting and novel arguments. I would hope that 
his enthusiasm for his interpretation of NAFTA would not overwhelm our 
collective support for the constitutional separation of the executive 
and judicial branches of Government.
  The Senator from Texas has argued on several occasions that the 
Murray-Shelby provision contains what he alleges are four violations of 
NAFTA. While I believe that we should allow the processes set forth in 
the NAFTA

[[Page 14850]]

agreement that I quoted from to determine that, let me assure the 
Senator from Texas that if his amendment is adopted there is without 
question one violation of NAFTA--because his amendment clearly creates 
a new dispute resolution process within the office of the President 
that appears to be inconsistent--totally inconsistent--with NAFTA 
itself.
  Mr. President, we have talked about this issue. I think we know what 
is going on. At this point, I move to table the Gramm amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Feinstein) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), 
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Enzi), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

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

                                NAYS--30

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

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


                Amendment No. 1180 to Amendment No. 1030

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

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

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

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

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

  The amendment, which I guess is going to be shortly tabled--I ask 
that the amendment be read one more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Objection. I did not hear the request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I asked that the amendment be read.

[[Page 14851]]


  Mr. REID. That is fine.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will read it myself. I am more eloquent than the staff 
anyway.
  Mr. REID. I would love to hear the amendment read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1180

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--34

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Burns
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Inhofe
     Miller
     Sessions
     Stevens
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, it seems to me one of the very few 
things that has been agreed upon in the civilized world over the last 
few years is the benefits of free trade. It is the source of much of 
the prosperity we have enjoyed in this country because our advances in 
technology have led to increases in productivity. It has put us in a 
very competitive position with regard to the world. Trade has been an 
integral part of that. It has lifted millions and millions of people 
out of poverty.
  As we see around the world, the expansion of free market philosophy 
sometimes leads to more democratic institutions. Very much of it is 
based on these economies opening up. Very much of that has to do with 
the benefits of free trade where people make the things that they make 
best and do the things they do best, open up their borders, turn their 
backs on protectionism, and engage in free trade with other countries.
  The most remarkable example of that recently, it seems to me, would 
be the country of China. We have seen that country under Deng, starting 
back some years ago, opening up that country's economy somewhat, as 
many problems we have with them. I will not go into that today. That is 
a different subject for another day. But we have some very serious 
difficulties with them in terms of nuclear proliferation, for example. 
There is a story just today about that in the press that is very 
disturbing. We will deal with that at the appropriate time.
  But we have to acknowledge that they have lifted millions and 
millions of their people out of poverty. They have bought into the 
notion that in order for them to prosper economically, in order for 
them to feed the 1.3 billion people they have, they are going to have 
to open up somewhat economically and they are going to have to engage 
in free trade.
  We believe in the engagement of free trade with them, even to the 
extent of the substantial trade deficit. I think it is about $84 
billion in deficit we are now running with them. But it attests to our 
commitment that we have for the general proposition of the benefits of 
free trade.
  A third of the U.S. economic growth during the 1990s came from 
exports. Since the cold war, the United States has championed the 
values of democracy and free trade. Global free trade advances the 
democratic values of consumer choice, workers' rights, transparency, 
and the rule of law.
  Therefore, it pains me to see us begin to move away from the 
principles of free trade and to hold ourselves open for the criticism 
that we are violating the agreement into which we entered. The argument 
can be made that while the world is moving in one direction, we in some 
respects are moving in another. There are more than, I believe, 133 
trade agreements around the world. The United States is a party to two 
of them. One of the ones that has been beneficial to all parties 
concerned has been NAFTA. It has been beneficial to my State of 
Tennessee. I think it has been beneficial to the United States in 
general.
  It pains me to see us move away from our solemn commitment. I think 
that is what the Murray provision does. I think that is the primary 
reason for the concern expressed by the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Texas because their opinion--and apparently the opinion of 
the President of the United States--is that provision violates our 
commitment under NAFTA; it violates our commitment to free trade. We 
are moving in the wrong direction. We are moving in one direction when 
the rest of the world seems to finally have been convinced of what we 
are supposed to believe in; that is, benefits of free trade.
  Trade benefits small businesses. Ninety-seven percent of all 
exporters are small businesses that employ fewer than 500 people. Free 
trade is an invaluable tool to economic development, oftentimes far 
more successful than direct aid. Trade encourages investment, creates 
jobs, and promotes a more sustainable form of development. Jobs created 
through trade often require higher levels of skills and create a higher 
standard of living for workers.
  It is to everyone's benefit--and certainly to this country's 
benefit--to engage in activities that raise the standard of living 
which, in turn, often leads, as I say, to demands for individual rights 
in countries where those are so sorely lacking.
  The combined effects of the Uruguay Round trade agreements and NAFTA 
have increased U.S. national income by $40 to $60 billion a year. Over 
85 percent of NAFTA trade is manufactured goods, which grew by over 66 
percent between 1993 and 1998.
  On the agricultural front, which is important to my State, one of 
every

[[Page 14852]]

three acres of U.S. farmland is planted for export.
  So that is what is going on in the world. That is of what we are a 
part. That is in what we should be taking a leadership role. So when we 
are dealing with the primary trade agreement that we have, and dealing 
with our own hemisphere, and our own backyard, and our neighbors to the 
north and our neighbors to the south, and we, because of domestic, 
political, and economic pressure, willy-nilly do things that might be 
pleasing to certain, limited constituency groups but not only violate 
the agreement but violate the principles for which we are supposed to 
stand, when we do that, we are moving in a wrong and dangerous 
direction.
  The United States is better off today because of that commitment we 
made. I think the United States is better off today because of that 
agreement we made. The U.S. economy experienced the longest peacetime 
expansion in history. That was not because we sat still. That was not 
by accident. All 50 States and the United States territories 
participate in NAFTA, and almost all have reaped benefits from more 
liberalized trade with both Mexico and Canada.
  U.S. trade with NAFTA countries grew faster than the rate of global 
trade expansion. Overall, NAFTA has benefited the entire continent of 
North America through its promotion of competitiveness and lower prices 
for consumers. We all are very much aware of the fact that some folks 
have been displaced--some in my own State have been displaced--as we 
have gone through the adjustment our economy is having to go through 
now.
  We all know that as we move from an agricultural economy to an 
industrialized economy to a very high-tech economy that we have now--as 
we move from one of those areas to another, there are some 
displacements, and it is unfortunate. The Government should be helpful 
in legitimate respects to make sure that, as far as workers are 
concerned, for example, we are mindful of that.
  We have passed legislation, some of which workers in my own State 
have benefited from, to help make this adjustment come about, knowing 
that we have to make this adjustment, that we have to move from certain 
areas of our economy into other areas that are more competitive in the 
world economy and the world market that we have now.
  But overall, from the time NAFTA was signed until last year, the 
following things have happened: U.S. gross domestic product grew by 
over $2 trillion, unemployment in the United States fell from 7 percent 
to 4 percent, real income rose by an average of $2,500 for every 
American. Trade between the United States and Mexico has tripled since 
1993 to over $250 billion in 2000. Total merchandise trade among the 
NAFTA countries was $656 billion in 2000. The United States now trades 
more with Canada than with the EU. Total United States trade with 
Canada has doubled to $400 billion. Trade with NAFTA countries doubled 
from 1993 to 2000, while U.S. trade with the rest of the world grew by 
half as much.
  So not only is free trade important, but this particular episode in 
our Nation's history with regard to free trade is especially important. 
The figures bear that out when looking at the American economy.
  On another related subject, during the 1994-1995 peso devaluation, 
Mexico experienced its worst recession since 1932, with a 7-percent 
decrease in GDP. During the same time, U.S. exports fell by 8.9 
percent, while European and Asian exports fell by 20 to 30 percent.
  While in crisis, Mexico raised import tariffs on goods from all of 
its trading partners, with the exception of NAFTA members. NAFTA 
prevented the United States from experiencing the level of loss felt by 
both Asia and Europe.
  Trade creates jobs. Over 20 million new jobs were generated by the 
U.S. economy during the 1990s. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates 
that by 1999 NAFTA had created over 685,000 export-related jobs in the 
United States. Over 12 million U.S. jobs now rely on trade in this 
country.
  Economists estimate that the $70 billion increase in United States 
exports to Mexico since NAFTA began created about 1.3 million new jobs. 
The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that 6 million U.S. jobs are 
dependent on NAFTA-related exports alone. This gives us some indication 
of the significance of what we are dealing with.
  Again, it pains me to see us move in a direction, not because we 
don't have a right to protect ourselves from trucks or anything else--
we can enter into agreements that do that. When we deal with the 
agreements to start with, we can enter into those things. We can 
implement those agreements in ways that protect us. All that is allowed 
under NAFTA. But we cannot have different requirements for our friends 
in Mexico than we have for our friends in Canada. That is just not 
right, and it is not compliant with NAFTA. With all of these benefits, 
I think it is important that we understand what is at stake.
  As self-centered as we might want to be--and I hope we are not, but 
even if we were, it is to our benefit to have a stable and a growing 
and a prosperous neighbor to the south, as well as to the north, for 
obvious reasons--for reasons having to do with immigration, for reasons 
having to do with the economy. That common border is not going to go 
away. Now that we have new leadership in Mexico, we have the 
opportunity to make progress in a lot of areas that we have not been 
able to for some time.
  Surpassing Japan, Mexico is now the United States' second largest 
trading partner. Since the agreement's implementation, Mexico's gross 
domestic product has increased at an average annual rate of 3.7 
percent. I think we have a right--the Nation that came up with the 
Marshall plan, the Nation that rebuilt much of Europe and Japan after 
World War II--to be proud of that.
  Mexico's credit has improved as a result of NAFTA. Mexico has 
successfully paid back its loans from the 1995 peso crisis ahead of 
schedule. Early this spring, Mexico paid off all of its IMF loans. This 
successful recovery prompted major credit analysts to upgrade Mexican 
sovereign and corporate debt to investment grade.
  Thanks in part to the democratic influence of free trade, NAFTA 
played a significant part in making Mexico a more democratic country. 
NAFTA helped foster the civil society in economic development that 
enabled Mexico to successfully transition to democratic rule after 
several years of a one-party system.
  Those are some of the benefits of free trade in general. Those are 
some of the benefits to one of our trading partners. At this point in 
our history, when so much positive is going on in the world in terms of 
taking down barriers, in terms of intercourse of commerce and the 
flourishing of market principles in places heretofore unknown to them, 
we should be leading the world in all of these things. We should not be 
a part of only two agreements when the rest of the world is moving on. 
That is bad enough.
  But now we are doing things, little by little, that are taking us in 
one direction while the rest of the world seems to be going in another. 
We are now in the midst of debating trade or environmental and labor 
standards. We have entered into an agreement with Jordan, and we are 
very concerned about their environmental standards. They happen to have 
some of the better labor and environmental standards already in that 
part of the world. Now, for domestic reasons, we want to impose 
nontrade-related requirements on people with whom we want to trade. 
They in turn, if we do that, have the right to impose those same things 
on us and to take us to court, so to speak, over changes in our own law 
potentially.
  We don't give our President trade promotion authority. We have heard 
the debate on fast track over several years now. The President of the 
United States has not had the ability to enter into these agreements, 
putting us at a great disadvantage with regard to a large part of the 
world.
  Again, why are we so reticent? Why are we moving in one direction? 
Why are we becoming more closed and raising more barriers at a time 
when the rest of the world is doing what we have always said we wanted 
them to do in taking down barriers, entering into bilateral and 
multilateral agreements?

[[Page 14853]]

  I don't know why we would want to do that. I don't know why we would 
not want to give the President trade promotion authority. I do not know 
why we would want to hold ourselves up to the accusation of 
protectionism under these circumstances.
  Should people of that persuasion succeed in restricting the freedom 
of trade, it will be U.S. consumers and workers who will lose out. 
Trade barriers will never prevent low-wage or low-skilled worker 
displacement. New technologies and improved efficiency will always 
displace low-wage and low-skilled workers. I am afraid that is an 
economic reality. We need to be convinced, apparently, of the obvious 
proposition that if we are really concerned about labor standards and 
the environment in some of these other countries, we need to help them 
lift their economy up so that they can take care of those matters 
themselves.
  We are never going to make any permanent improvement because we try 
to coerce some small nation, through a trade agreement, to improve 
their labor and environmental laws. What we can do is enter into trade 
agreements with them that will let them participate in this global 
economy and in this prosperity that so many countries and so many 
people have enjoyed because of free trade and more open markets and 
which, as I said, in many cases leads to more democratic institutions. 
We are seeing that play out in Mexico as we speak, moving in the right 
direction. It is all a part of the same picture. It is a picture where 
free trade has the central role.
  When I look at the current debate we are having, it is unfortunate 
that it is taking some time. But as I look at it and as we are required 
as individual Senators to make decisions as to where we stand, we ought 
to think hard about exactly where we stand and where we ought to stand. 
All these general principles I have been talking about in terms of the 
benefits of free trade and how it has benefited our country and how it 
has benefited Canada and Mexico and how this particular free trade 
agreement has benefited all of us, all those principles apply to the 
issue at hand. That is, are we doing something on an appropriations 
bill, almost as an afterthought as it were, that is going to move us 
not only contrary to the provisions of the solemn undertaking that we 
made with regard to NAFTA but take us contrary to the philosophical 
beliefs and longstanding positions that this Nation has had?
  My understanding is that we can make changes or we can have 
requirements to implement the provisions under these agreements. We are 
free to do that with regard to Canadian trucks or Mexican trucks or 
anything else. We can implement this agreement in ways that will 
protect us, but we cannot change the agreement. We can't change the 
requirements, and we cannot give different treatment to Mexicans than 
we do Canadians.
  We just voted down an amendment that said simply that we need to 
treat Canadians and Mexicans alike because we are all three in the same 
agreement. That was voted down. How anybody could vote against that, I 
have a hard time understanding.
  We are getting down to some very core philosophies and beliefs. I am 
wondering what people will think about the United States of America in 
terms of a future trading partner when we cannot even reach a consensus 
on something such as that, which is not only the right thing to do, the 
clearly nondiscriminatory right thing to do, but it is the only thing 
to do to be in compliance with the agreement.
  I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. The Senator is a distinguished lawyer. I am not a lawyer, 
much less being a distinguished one. But I wanted to read to the 
Senator the language of NAFTA--it is very short--and ask the Senator if 
he would give to us his interpretation of what it means and what kind 
of parameters it sets.
  This is in the section of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
that the President signed in 1994 and then we ratified. A Republican 
signed it. A Democrat led the ratification, and now we have a 
Republican President. We are in the third administration committed to 
this agreement that we entered into.
  In the area we are discussing, cross-border trade and services, we 
have simple language as to what we committed to. I ask the Senator to 
just give us a description of what he, as a lawyer, a former U.S. 
attorney, sees this as meaning.
  The heading on it is ``National Treatment.'' This is what we 
committed to, pure and simple:

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

  That is what we committed to. That is called national treatment.
  Would the Senator give us sort of a legal and commonsense definition 
of what that is and what that means?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Well, to me it means that we have to treat them and 
their people the way we treat ourselves and our people. That is a 
fundamental of trade and trade agreements, and something that is 
fundamental to this particular agreement. It has to do with the concept 
of equality and comity. It doesn't matter that one country is richer 
than another or has more population than another. It puts countries, 
from the standpoint of the agreement, from the standpoint of trade, on 
a basis of equal trading partners. We will treat you the way we treat 
our own people.
  I must say, if we violate that and we treat them worse than our own 
people or worse than another trading partner or partner to the same 
agreement, such as Canada, then obviously they are going to 
reciprocate. And they are going to treat our people--in this case, our 
truckers--seemingly, however they feel they are entitled in 
reciprocation of us violating the agreement.
  Mr. GRAMM. If I may, I will follow up by again, calling on the 
Senator's knowledge of the law and experience with it. Let me give the 
Senator some examples of provisions in the Murray amendment. In light 
of this provision that President Bush signed and we ratified with the 
support of President Clinton and which we are now trying to enforce 
under the new President Bush, I wanted to get your reading as to 
whether these provisions would violate the agreement that we made. 
Currently, Canadian trucks are almost all insured by companies from 
Great Britain; Lloyd's of London, I think, is the largest insurer of 
Mexican trucks.
  Mr. THOMPSON. You mean Canadian.
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes, Canadian. Some are insured by Canadian companies; 
some are insured by American companies. Most American trucks are 
insured by American companies, but not all American trucks. Lloyd's of 
London, as I understand it, insures some trucks. Quite frankly, it is 
very difficult to tell with a modern company where it is domiciled.
  The Murray amendment says that Mexican trucks, unlike Canadian trucks 
and American trucks, have to have insurance bought from companies that 
are domiciled in the United States. Now, American trucking companies 
are required to have insurance. Mexican trucking companies are required 
to have insurance. The insurance has to meet certain standards. 
Canadian trucking companies are required to have insurance. But the 
Murray amendment says, unlike American trucking companies and unlike 
Canadian trucking companies, Mexican trucking companies have to buy 
insurance from companies domiciled in the United States of America.
  In light of the language I just read, would the Senator see that as 
about as clear a violation of NAFTA as you could have?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would. I would wonder how we would view it if 
Canadians passed a law saying that American trucks had to buy insurance 
from companies that were domiciled in Mexico. I can't imagine anything 
that would be more contrary to the spirit I just described a minute 
ago. My understanding is--and the Senator can correct me if I am 
wrong--we can implement the agreement in several different ways. We are 
not bound; we can

[[Page 14854]]

even do it different ways with regard to different trading partners, as 
long as it is an implementation under the circumstances that are 
presented in order to protect ourselves in ways we think are 
appropriate and reasonable. But we can't change the requirements of the 
agreement.
  That seems to me to be a flatout change of the requirements--basic 
requirements of the agreement, and it goes contrary to the spirit and 
the letter of the law with regard to that agreement. Under the 
agreement, you simply can't treat different trading partners in 
different ways or change the terms or the requirements of the 
agreement.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask this. Under the Murray amendment, there is a 
provision that says while American trucks are obviously operating all 
over our country, and Canadian trucks are operating--about a thousand 
of them--and they are operating under current law, because of a bill we 
passed in 1999 called the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act--and I 
want to read you a short part of this which is relevant. Basically, 
what this bill finds is that the Department of Transportation is 
failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadlines for completing 
rulemaking proceedings on motor carrier safety and in some significant 
safety rulemaking proceedings, including driver hour of service 
regulations; extensive periods have elapsed without progress toward 
resolution and implementation. Congress finds that too few motor 
carriers undergo compliance reviews, and the Department's database and 
information systems require substantial improvement to enhance the 
Department's ability to target inspection and enforcement resources.
  Finding these things, Congress, in 1999, passed a bill mandating that 
the Department of Transportation promulgate rules related to truck 
safety nationwide to apply to all trucks operating in America. Under 
President Clinton and now under President Bush, those rules, which 
turned out to be time consuming and complicated, have not been 
implemented. Canadian trucks are still operating even though these 
rules have not been implemented. American trucks are, obviously, 
operating even though these rules have not been implemented, or else we 
would not be eating lunch today.
  But the Murray amendment said that because we have not promulgated 
these rules, until they are promulgated and until this bill is 
implemented, even though it applies to all trucking in America--until 
this happens, Canadian trucks would not be allowed into the United 
States of America. Now I ask, is that any less arbitrary a 
discriminatory provision than saying they would not be allowed until a 
full Moon occurred on a day where the Sun was in eclipse?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I would say this would be worse than the hypothetical 
you mentioned about the Moon or the Sun because the situation you 
described there is within our discretion. The Sun and the Moon aren't, 
but, basically, as I understand what you read there, we are setting up 
a condition and basically saying we are going to discriminate until we 
comply with a condition that we have set up for ourselves. Quite 
frankly, it seems to be--and you might want to reread that original 
language you asked me about. It seems to me----
  Mr. GRAMM. I will. It says--and this is the national treatment 
standard, and maybe I should pose this as a question. Is the Senator 
aware that the language in the national treatment standard says this? 
And this is a commitment we made to Canada and Mexico when the 
President signed this agreement in 1994 and the agreement that we 
committed ourselves to when we ratified it. The language is simple:

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

  Mr. THOMPSON. Well, it seems to me that the situation you referred to 
a moment ago is pretty directly contrary to that provision you just 
read.
  (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me pose just two more questions. Under the Murray 
amendment, a Mexican trucking company--let me start, if I may, by 
stating what the policy is today. As you are probably aware, most 
trucking companies do not own trucks; they lease trucks. The 
interesting thing about this whole debate is that we are debating as if 
Mexico is going to go out to some junkyard somewhere and put together a 
truck and drive it to Detroit. The reality is that they are going to 
rent the truck from Detroit just as American companies do. But we have 
this vast system where companies lease to each other because the last 
thing on Earth they want as a trucking company is to have a quarter-of-
a-million-dollar rig sitting in their parking lot.
  So if an American company has some restriction put on it, it is 
subject to some suspension or to some restriction or some limitation. 
And there is not a big trucking company in America that at one time or 
another has not been subject to one of these things.
  In the United States and in Canada today, if a company is subject to 
some limitation so they cannot use the truck, then they lease it to 
somebody else. The Murray amendment says if a Mexican company is 
subject to some suspension, restriction, or limitation, the Mexican 
company cannot lease a truck to anyone else.
  In light of the fact we committed that each party shall accord to 
service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than 
that which it accords, in like circumstances, to its own providers, 
does the Senator believe one can possibly justify, under NAFTA, 
allowing Canadian truck operators to lease their trucks and American 
truck operators to lease their trucks when they are under some 
restriction or limitation but not allow Mexican trucking companies to 
lease their trucks under exactly the same circumstances? Would the 
Senator not see that as a flagrant violation of NAFTA?
  Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, there is no such requirement for 
Canadian trucks? There is no such requirement?
  Mr. GRAMM. No, no such requirement.
  Mr. THOMPSON. There is no such requirement imposed on trucks in the 
United States?
  Mr. GRAMM. No such requirement.
  Mr. THOMPSON. There is a requirement on Mexico, and Mexico alone, 
Mexican companies; is that what the Senator is saying?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
  Mr. THOMPSON. That is, by definition, discriminatory and seemingly 
clearly contrary to the agreement. That is an interesting provision in 
and of itself. I am wondering whether or not an entire Mexican company 
is restricted, even if there is a problem, say, with just one or two 
trucks.
  Mr. GRAMM. If they are subject to some limitation, they will be 
unable to lease their trucks to another user, say, in the United States 
or Canada.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I do not know what that limitation would be, but 
obviously that is very broad.
  I guess what is going through my mind is whether or not, even if we 
could under the agreement enter into such an arrangement, that would be 
a wise or fair thing to do because there is not a trucking company in 
the world that does not have some violations every once in awhile.
  It cannot be prevented. There is too much stuff going on, and having 
been a truckdriver a little bit myself, I am very much aware that, try 
as one might, one has to have a lot of rules and regulations and a lot 
of difficulties facing them.
  Obviously, nobody wants any renegades doing business anywhere, but to 
say any limitations ever placed on a company when they are doing 
business with regard to, say, maybe even one truck at one location, 
that in effect bans them for the rest of the Nation with regard to any 
other trucks, maybe even other trucks leased from another company, I do 
not see the wisdom in that, quite frankly. Regardless whether it is a 
good idea or not, it seems to be clearly discriminatory.
  Mr. GRAMM. If I could pose the following question: Does it seem to 
the Senator that it might not only be discriminatory but pernicious in 
the following sense, that obviously this

[[Page 14855]]

amendment was written by somebody who knew something about the trucking 
business?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Sure.
  Mr. GRAMM. I wonder if it does not strike the Senator as possible 
that the supporters of this amendment would recognize--and I am not 
talking about any Member of the Senate; I am talking about interest 
groups in the country--would recognize one of the ways of assuring no 
Mexican trucking company could ever compete with any American trucking 
company and Mexican drivers could never compete with American drivers 
would be to say that if one has any limitation imposed on them, they 
have to have their fleet sitting out on their tarmac. It seems to me 
that is more than unfair or a violation of NAFTA. That is a provision I 
believe one could argue is simply aimed at saying we are not going to 
allow Mexican trucks to operate, period.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I say to the Senator, that is sad but true. It has a 
great deal to do with competition, or the desire for lack of 
competition, and when I say I do not see the wisdom in it, I guess I do 
not see the wisdom in such a provision unless I am a competing trucker 
who wants to look for any opportunity to make sure they have less 
competition. Unfortunately, that is what free trade is all about--
competition.
  When we entered into NAFTA, we committed ourselves to free and open 
competition. So I hope we do not get into a situation where we try to 
hang on technicalities or other provisions that are not only contrary 
to the agreement but are designed to limit competition.
  I do not think we have a thing in the world to be afraid of. On the 
one hand, the implication seems to be that these are all terrible 
trucks and they do not know how to operate them. On the other hand, we 
are afraid of that kind of competition. It does not seem to make a 
whole lot of sense to me.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask the Senator about the final provision of the 
Murray bill. I could go on and on, but I am trying to make a point by a 
pattern. As the Senator knows from having been in the truckdriving 
business for awhile, there are various kinds of penalties one can get. 
One can get a parking ticket. They can get a speeding ticket. They can 
get a violation they are overloaded. They can get a violation for 
something blowing off their truck. They can get a violation if their 
mud flaps have gotten torn off. They can get a violation because of 
their tires. They can get a violation because their blinker does not 
work. It may look as if it is working inside, but it is not working 
outside.
  Mr. THOMPSON. They have not had enough rest.
  Mr. GRAMM. They have not had enough rest.
  As a result, recognizing not all of these violations are equal, in 
the United States we have a list of penalties one can get, which might 
be a $50 fine, a $100 fine, and for serious things they might take 
someone out of their truck. They might not let one drive for a month. 
They might penalize the company. They might fix that kind of a problem 
by entering into an agreement with the company.
  In America and in Canada today, we have a variety of penalties. In 
the Murray provision, if one is in violation of any of these 
requirements, one can be forever banned from operating trucks in the 
United States of America. Does that sound as if it is complying with 
NAFTA?
  Mr. THOMPSON. For American trucks?
  Mr. GRAMM. No, it is not for American trucks. It is not for Canadian 
trucks. It is for Mexican trucks. In other words, there is one regime 
of penalties for American trucks and Canadian trucks, but there is 
another regime for Canadian trucks, and the regime is focused on the 
death penalty.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator mean Mexican trucks?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am sorry. I am focused south from Texas, but in the 
Chamber maybe it is obvious from the votes we are focused more north 
from here.
  In any case, A, does the Senator see that as a violation; and, B, 
does the Senator see that again as one of these things which goes 
beyond a violation, where the objective is basically to prevent 
competition, more than just discriminate against Mexico but to create 
these artificial barriers which they cannot overcome?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I think clearly so.
  I have a broader concern in this, and that is, what is the signal 
that is being received from Mexico and from Mexicans who watch this and 
listen to this debate and see all of these provisions which are clearly 
discriminatory, that we do not treat Canada this way, but we are 
treating Mexico this way. What kind of signal is that?
  We have a lot of highball rhetoric on the Senate floor about matters 
of discrimination, and worse, but I am wondering, in a situation such 
as this when it comes down to dollars or when it comes down to domestic 
interest groups that get involved in it, to try to pressure the United 
States to violate agreements we have entered into, what kind of signal 
that sends. And I wonder what President Fox, who has come in as a 
breath of fresh air, who has instituted components of democracy that 
they have not had, has reached out and is trying to get his arms around 
a tough economic situation in a complex culture and heritage, and has a 
good relationship with our President--I wonder what he must be thinking 
as he looks at all this. I don't think it is good.
  Mr. GRAMM. Could I pose a question on that? With practical 
experience, I can only speak within my own lifetime, but in my lifetime 
we have never had a President of Mexico who was as committed in dealing 
with Mexico's problems and problems we have between the two countries 
or who was as remotely pro-American as President Fox.
  This is a President who does not have a majority in his own Congress. 
In fact, he was elected President defeating the PRI, which is the old 
established party, but he does not have a majority in either the House 
or the Senate. He has numerous critics, and he has a coalition 
government where his Foreign Minister opposed NAFTA when NAFTA was 
adopted. He is a person who has, in essence, gotten way out on a limb 
in saying we can be a partner with the United States of America. 
Something that means more than that in Mexico is, we can be an equal 
partner with America.
  How do you think it affects him in his political situation where, 
because he didn't have a majority in the Congress in either house, and 
he had been elected in almost a revolutionary election, he felt 
compelled to put together a coalition government where his Foreign 
Minister opposed NAFTA and who now will simply say, it is an agreement 
we entered into? That is as far as he will go.
  What kind of position do you think it puts him in when we are no 
longer talking about idle speculation? I went through four different 
areas where, based on your legal background, you clearly concluded that 
there is no question, not even a gray area, that there are four--at 
least those are the only ones we went to--outright violations of NAFTA 
in the Murray amendment. No question about that, he said.
  In what kind of position do you think it puts President Fox in when 
the United States Senate adopts provisions that violate the commitment 
we made to Mexico when we entered into NAFTA, we said Mexico was an 
equal partner with Canada and the United States, but they are not 
quite?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I imagine his political opponents would see this as an 
opportunity to question his effectiveness and his relationship to this 
country.
  It is coming at a time when he made certain commitments to work with 
us on problems that are very important to us. He has made commitments 
with regard to the illegal immigration problem knowing, as I believe 
most of us do, that before we can ultimately deal with that problem, we 
are going to have to have some progress in terms of the Mexican 
economy.
  We can't beggar our neighbor and get by with it in this world today. 
We especially can't with that common border we have of 1,200 miles. We 
cannot solve that problem without a better Mexican economy. NAFTA is at 
the heart of

[[Page 14856]]

that. He has to be looking at all of that and seeing us move away from 
that.
  I say his political opponents have to be looking at that and seeing 
an excellent opportunity to do harm to NAFTA and the principles of 
NAFTA and to do harm to a new, fresh face on the scene who, as you say, 
is the best friend we have had down there in a long time, and who is 
trying to do the right thing.
  For all those reasons, it is extremely unfortunate we are moving in 
that direction.
  How much time remains on my hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes thirty seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the 
floor.


                Amendment No. 1165 to Amendment No. 1030

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

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

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

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

                          [Quorum No. 3. Leg.]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

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


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1165

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bond
     Burns
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Miller
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 14857]]

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


                Amendment No. 1164 to Amendment No. 1030

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

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

  The amendment is as follows:

              (Purpose: To provide for an effective date)

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bond
     Burns
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Inhofe
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the request of Senator Lott pursuant 
to rule XXII, I yield his remaining hour to Senator Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator from 
Utah, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
courtesy and accommodation. I appreciate the opportunity to speak at 
this time. I have been told by a number of my colleagues they 
appreciate the fact that I have the opportunity to speak because it 
gives them a half hour so they can go back to their offices and do 
something worthwhile. Some of them, as they said that, promised to read 
my remarks in the Record. I am very grateful for that indication.
  Mr. President, I hold the seat from the State of Utah that was held 
for 30 years by Reed Smoot. Senator Smoot rose to be the chairman of 
the Finance Committee and was one of the leading powers of this body. 
He did many wonderful things. He was an outstanding Senator in almost 
every way. However, he had the misfortune of being branded in history 
because of his authorship of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which stands in 
American economic history as something of a symbol of the isolationist-
protectionist point of view. I have said to Senator Smoot's relatives, 
who are my constituents, with a smile on my face, that I have to do my 
best as a militant free-trader to remove the stigma of protectionist 
from this particular seat. I can say that all of Senator Smoot's 
relatives are equally as excited about free trade as I am, and they 
have indicated that they approve of that.
  I rise to talk in that vein because I think much of the debate that 
has gone on here would be debate that might go all the way back to Reed 
Smoot. There is a protectionist strain in our attitude towards trade in 
this country, and it is showing itself in this debate--a position that 
says, well, yes, we believe in free trade, but we can't quite trust our 
trading partners to do the right thing when free trade begins. Yes, we 
believe in allowing Mexican goods and services to enter the country, 
but we don't quite trust the Mexicans themselves to take the 
responsibility of providing those services. This is particularly 
focused now on the issue of Mexican drivers at the wheels of Mexican 
trucks.
  I am very interested that in this debate we are being told again and 
again that this bill does not violate NAFTA; that this is an issue 
about safety rather than an issue about NAFTA; this is not 
protectionist; this is not isolationist; this is not an obstruction of 
free trade; this is just about safety.
  Of course, if you frame the question about safety, what Senator wants 
to rise on this floor and be against safe trucks? What Senator wants to 
rise on this floor and say, I am in favor of massive highway accidents 
caused by unsafe drivers? Nobody wants to take that posture. Yet that 
is why the attempts have been made to frame the debate in that 
fashion--so that it will ultimately end up a 100-to-nothing vote in 
favor of safety. If we were to ask the Senate to vote solely on the 
issue of safety, it would be a 100-to-nothing vote.
  I would vote in favor of safety. Everybody is in favor of safety. 
However, the key vote I think came when the Senator from Texas offered 
a very short, one-sentence amendment that would have said nothing in 
this bill violates NAFTA. That amendment was voted down. Once again, 
nothing in this bill violates NAFTA, says the amendment. And the 
amendment gets voted down. How do we interpret that decision? We have 
to interpret that decision as saying that something in the bill absent 
that amendment does violate NAFTA. Otherwise, the amendment would have 
been adopted 100 to nothing because we say we are in favor of safety. 
We should say we are in favor of NAFTA.

[[Page 14858]]

  I can understand those who are opposed to NAFTA voting against that 
amendment. But NAFTA passed this body by a very wide margin. It was 
bipartisan. It was supported across the aisle. NAFTA ran into some 
trouble in the House but not in the Senate. NAFTA has always been 
strongly supported here. Why didn't an amendment that says nothing in 
this bill shall be allowed to violate NAFTA pass with the same wide 
margin? It must be that there is something in this bill that violates 
NAFTA and people do not want to get that exposed. They don't want to 
have the basis for a lawsuit and someone coming forward and saying 
because of the Gramm amendment that says nothing in this bill can 
violate NAFTA, this provision of the bill has to go, or that provision 
of the bill is in conflict and has to be removed.
  I think there is a prima facie case here, by virtue of the vote that 
has been cast, that this bill violates NAFTA. That is the position of 
the administration. The administration is not antisafety. The 
administration is anxious for proper inspection. Indeed, the Mexican 
Ambassador and other Mexican officials have said they are in favor of 
proper inspection and they don't want unsafe trucks rolling on the 
roads in America any more than we do.
  Stop and think about it. Would it be in the Mexicans' self-interest 
to send dangerous trucks into the United States to cause accidents in 
the United States? Would that be a wise foreign policy move for the 
Mexicans as they try to build their friendship with the United States? 
It is obviously in their self-interest to see to it that the trucks 
that come across the border are safe. The Mexicans are not stupid. They 
would not do something so obviously foolish as to send unsafe trucks 
here.
  So what are we talking about? We are talking about pressures within 
the American political system that want NAFTA to fail. We are talking 
about special interest groups inside the American political 
circumstance that want to keep Mexican influences out of America for 
their own purposes. These are people who were unable to defeat NAFTA in 
the first place. So they decide they will defeat NAFTA, or the 
implementation of NAFTA in the second place, by adopting regulations in 
the name of something that everybody agrees with, such as safety, that 
will produce the effect of destroying NAFTA and preventing NAFTA from 
taking place. We know how powerful some of those influences are within 
the American political circumstance.
  We have seen how some people around the world are reacting to the new 
reality of a borderless economy. Some people use the phrase 
``globalization.'' I prefer to describe what is happening in the world 
as the creation of a borderless economy.
  We see how money moves around the world now quite literally with the 
speed of light. The old days when money was transferred in attache 
cases handcuffed to the wrists of couriers who went in and out of 
airports are over. You can transfer money by sitting down at a PC that 
is connected to the Internet, pushing a few buttons and a few key 
strokes, and it is done, so that international investors pay no 
attention to artificial geographic borders. They move money. They move 
contracts. They move goods around the world literally with the speed of 
light.
  Now, that upsets people. That upset some people in Seattle. They 
wanted to stop it, and they turned to looting, rioting, and civil 
disobedience in an attempt to stop it. From my view, that was a very 
difficult and unfortunate thing that happened in Seattle. The then-
President of the United States was a little less convinced it was an 
unfortunate thing and said: Maybe we ought to listen to these people. 
Maybe there is something to which we ought to pay attention.
  It got worse. Now it has escalated to the point, in Genoa, where one 
of the demonstrators has been killed--killed because of his attempt to 
see to it that we go back to the days when there were firm walls around 
countries, when the borders meant protectionism, where we go back to 
the attitude that produced the Smoot-Hawley tariff sponsored by the 
Senator in whose seat I now sit.
  I do not mean to blame Senator Smoot because Senator Smoot was simply 
responding to the conventional wisdom of his day that said: If you keep 
all economic activity within your own borders, you will be better off. 
Senator Smoot, however well intentioned, was wrong.
  I remember one historian who said the Smoot-Hawley tariff, contrary 
to conventional wisdom, did not cause the Great Depression; it merely 
guaranteed that it would be worldwide because we had reached a point in 
human history where one must trade with somebody other than one's own 
tribe.
  There was a time when all trade took place in the same valley, among 
members of the same family, the tribe descending from a single 
patriarch. All of the trade took place there. Then they discovered they 
could do better if they started to trade with other tribes, but they 
stayed close to home. That mentality stayed with us. That mentality was 
behind the Smoot-Hawley tariff. That mentality is comfortable. That 
mentality makes us feel secure. It does not involve any threatening 
risk of dealing with strangers. It makes you feel really good when you 
are determined to trade only within your own tribe, but if you are 
going to increase your wealth, you are going to have to start trading 
with another tribe, and that means that artificial borders have to 
start coming down.
  The Smoot-Hawley tariff demonstrated the foolishness of trying to 
keep trade entirely within the borders of a single country. But there 
are those, whether they are at Seattle or Genoa or, frankly, some on 
the floor of the Senate, who still want to do that, who still want to 
say: We will not trade outside our borders.
  They fail to stop the treaties that say we will trade outside our 
borders, so they are saying: All right, if we cannot stop the treaty, 
we can at least stop the implementation of the treaty by adopting 
regulations that make it impossible for the treaty to work.
  The fact is, in the United States we produce more than Americans can 
consume. That comes as a great surprise to many husbands and wives who 
think their spouses can consume all there is to consume, but it is 
true. We produce more than Americans can consume. We produce more food 
than Americans can eat. No matter how fat Americans seem to get in all 
of the obesity studies, we still cannot eat all the food we produce. We 
have to sell this food to somebody other than Americans, and that means 
we have to deal with the borderless economy. As we have taken steps to 
do that, we have entered into these free trade agreements.
  We have to allow other people to come into our country with their 
goods and their food if we are going to send our goods and our food 
into their country. It is just that fundamental. I wish I could sit 
down with the demonstrators at Seattle and Genoa and elsewhere and 
explain that to them because, as nearly as I can tell, they do not 
understand that it is in their best interests to allow the borderless 
economy to grow, just as Senator Smoot did not understand, in his well-
intentioned attempt to help the economy of the United States, that his 
protectionist stance was against his own best interests.
  We found that out in the United States. We paid an enormous price for 
the protectionist attitudes that dominated this Chamber and both 
parties in the 1930s. Understand that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was not 
jammed down the throats of a recalcitrant Democratic Party by a 
dominant Republican Party. It was adopted as proper policy all across 
the country: Let's not trade outside our own borders. Let's protect 
what we have here and not expose it to the risk that foreigners might, 
in some way, profit at our loss.
  As I say, the Smoot-Hawley tariff guaranteed that the Great 
Depression would go worldwide. We are smarter than that. We have 
treaties that are better than that. Frankly, I believe if Reed Smoot 
were still in this Chamber, he would endorse that; he would say: Learn 
from the mistakes of the past and move forward. He was that kind of a 
forward-thinking individual. But there are those, with regulations in 
this bill, who say: No. Since we couldn't defeat NAFTA, we will have to 
stop NAFTA another way.

[[Page 14859]]

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

                          ____________________