[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15283-15305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 
o'clock having arrived, the motion to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider and the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on H.R. 
2299 are agreed to.
  The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on H.R. 2299, the 
     Transportation Appropriations Act:

         Pat Murray, Ron Wyden, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, Charles Schumer, Jack Reed, Robert C. 
           Byrd, Jim Jeffords, Daniel K. Akaka, Bob Graham, Paul 
           Sarbanes, Carl Levin, John D. Rockefeller IV, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Barbara Mikulski, and Tom Daschle.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on H.R. 2299, an act making appropriations for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are 
0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate has now, by a vote of 100-0, 
moved forward to a time where we can finally go to final passage on the 
Transportation appropriations bill. I hope that occurs sooner rather 
than later. All of us have constituents who are waiting in traffic for 
us to make sure we do the right thing for the infrastructure of this 
country.
  As I have said before, Senator Shelby and I have worked very hard 
together. I commend him and his staff, and our staff, for the many 
hours they have worked to get to the point where we have a bill that 
represents the important needs of our country--whether it is our 
airports, our waterways, our highways, our infrastructure. I think we 
have done a good job with that.
  There have been a lot of remarks over the last several weeks 
regarding the Mexico truck provision. I want to submit for the Record a 
letter from members of the Hispanic caucus in the House.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 31, 2001.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on 
         Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Murray and Shelby: We are writing to express 
     our disbelief over comments we have read implying that the 
     truck safety measures that you have included in the 
     Transportation Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002 are 
     somehow ``anti-Hispanic'' or ``anti-Mexican.'' As you know, 
     when the Transportation Appropriations Bill passed the House, 
     an amendment was adopted that prohibited any Mexican trucks 
     from being granted authority to operate in the United States 
     during Fiscal Year 2002. In a seemingly less extreme 
     approach, the Senate version of the bill, as drafted by your 
     subcommittee, includes several provisions intended to address 
     obvious safety concerns regarding Mexican trucks that have 
     been voiced by impartial and knowledgeable observes such as 
     the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General.
       The issue of safety on our highways is not an ``Hispanic 
     issue.'' All Americans are equally at risk from unsafe 
     conditions on our

[[Page 15284]]

     highways for all Americans and we share that goal.
           Sincerely,
         Ed Pastor, Grace F. Napolitano, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 
           Hilda L. Solis, Solomon P. Ortiz, Silvestre Reyes, Luis 
           V. Gutierrez, Joe Baca, Nydia M. Velazquez, Ruben 
           Hinojosa, Ciro D. Rodriguez.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I think those words speak for themselves. I am happy to 
submit it for the Record and to assure our colleagues we are working 
for the safety of all Americans.
  I have a number of points to which, if this debate continues, I will 
be speaking this afternoon. But I truly hope that now we can move on 
and put this bill into place so that we can move to conference, and to 
make sure we have done the right thing in terms of the infrastructure 
in our country that is so important to all of our constituents.
  I thank the President and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to quickly respond to the 
Senator from Washington. The Senator from Texas and I, and others, may 
not use too many hours on this issue, but I want to assure the Senator 
from Washington we are not moving on. We are not moving on. We have the 
opportunity to have three more cloture votes on this issue. We intend 
to fight every single one of those when we return in September.
  So to put the mind of the Senator from Washington at ease, we are not 
moving on. We may have a vote for final passage. We are not moving on. 
We are not moving on until we have exhausted every last remedy because 
there is a great deal at stake. There is a huge amount at stake: Not 
only the fact, according to the Presidents of both nations, that this 
language represents a violation of a solemn treaty entered into by 
three nations, but it also sets a terrible precedent.
  Are we going to have appropriations bills that violate treaties in 
the view of the executives of both nations? The proponents of this 
legislation can say it does not violate NAFTA until they are blue in 
the face. That is fine with me. But none of those Members was elected 
President of the United States. We have one President. That President 
and his advisers have said this language is in violation of a solemn 
treaty entered into by three nations. That treaty is being violated, 
and he will veto the bill. And I say, with supreme confidence, that we 
can muster 34 votes to sustain a Presidential veto.
  The Senator from Washington and the proponents of this bill should 
understand that because the President has made it perfectly clear that 
he will veto this bill, the responsibility then for the veto will rest 
with the proponents of this bill who refuse to seriously negotiate on 
this bill. They have refused to sit down and have meaningful 
negotiations. They have said it, and they have alleged it, but they 
have not done it.
  I have not been around here as long as the Senator from Texas or 
other Senators, but I have been around here long enough to know serious 
negotiations when I see them, and unserious negotiations when I see 
them. Negotiations have not been serious. As I have said before, I have 
negotiated a whole lot of very difficult issues, ranging from a line-
item veto, to a Patients' Bill of Rights, to campaign finance reform, 
with people who were serious about negotiating. I know serious 
negotiations when I see them. They are not present on this issue.
  So without serious negotiations, without removing the unacceptable 
provisions of this legislation, the President of the United States will 
veto the bill. The responsibility will be for those who have refused to 
reach an accommodation not with just the Senator from Texas and me but 
with the administration.
  I might add, those who say they are voting for this bill to move it 
along, even though they agree with our opposition, well, thanks, but, 
in all candor, the way you stop legislation around here is by voting 
against it.
  So, Mr. President, this is a serious issue. I have never, since I 
entered this body in 1987, impeded the legislative process. I have 
certainly voted against and spoken against a lot of the measures with 
which I disagreed. I have never used parliamentary procedures to hold 
up legislation, and I hope I never will again, because I think it is an 
extreme measure to do so.
  I know we have important issues to address. But when we are talking 
about legislation on an appropriations bill, with never a hearing, 
never a markup in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation--oh, there were hearings; there was a hearing on Mexican 
trucks. We could mark up a bill in the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee tomorrow--tomorrow--and bring it to the floor 
of this Senate. Then it would be done in the appropriate fashion. I do 
not know if the chairman of the Commerce Committee was consulted on 
this particular language in the appropriations bill; I know I was not; 
and I know no Member on my side of the aisle was consulted when this 
language was inserted by people who have not given a proper airing of 
this issue and have clearly not taken into consideration the views of 
the President of Mexico and the President of the United States.
  So I repeat, we will not move on. We intend to do whatever is 
necessary to try to bring about a set of negotiations in which we know 
the administration would be eager to join, so that we could reach 
removal of basically four issues that remain that are of difference. 
There are only four issues, but they are significant differences.
  We have received clear written notification from the administration 
that if either the provisions of this bill or the House-passed measure 
regarding cross-border trucking are sent to the President, we can 
expect the bill to be vetoed. I quote from the Statement of 
Administrative Policy transmitted to the Senate on July 19:

       The Senate committee has adopted provisions that could 
     cause the United States to violate our commitments under 
     NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the 
     President's senior advisors will recommend that the President 
     veto the bill.

  There have been some beneficial effects of Senator Gramm's and my 
activities on this issue because it has gotten the attention of 
editorial writers around the country. I would like to quote from some 
of those editorial writers from different newspapers around the country 
for the benefit of the President. I quote from an editorial in the 
Atlanta Constitution, a July 31 editorial, headlined ``Open U.S. Roads 
to Mexican Trucks.''

       Can you imagine a world in which Mexican 18-wheelers were 
     allowed to roam freely across U.S. highways--maybe properly 
     inspected, maybe not, with drivers maybe properly trained and 
     licensed, maybe not?
       A lot of folks seem unable to grasp what they believe would 
     be a frightening vision, but they really don't have to look 
     very far to get a reliable glimpse of what it would be like. 
     All they have to do is look less than 20 years into the past, 
     when Mexican trucks were permitted free access to America's 
     roads as a matter of course. That practice ended only when 
     Ronald Reagan changed the policy in a dispute over access for 
     U.S. trucks to Mexico's roads.
       The old right of access was supposed to have been restored 
     as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and 
     President Bush has been pushing to do just that. But now he's 
     having to fight the Teamsters' Union, the Democrats in 
     Congress who habitually do labor's bidding, and even a few 
     members of his own party who don't seem to have bothered to 
     examine the issue.
       The truckers' union, of course, is interested only in job 
     protectionism. Under current rules, Mexican trucks can carry 
     goods into border states, but only for a maximum of 20 miles; 
     then, cargo must be loaded onto American trucks, driven by 
     American drivers, most of whom--what a coincidence--happen to 
     be members of the Teamsters. They have disguised their self-
     interest, however, in a provocative pitch for public safety, 
     painting a picture of U.S. highways plagued by decrepit, 
     faulty vehicles driven by unskilled and careless Mexican 
     cowboys.
       There is probably as much prejudice as protectionism in 
     this image; actual statistics do show that Mexican trucks 
     crossing the border fail inspections at higher rates than 
     American vehicles, but the difference has been steadily 
     narrowing. In 1995, 54 percent of the Mexican trucks failed, 
     but that figure has fallen to 36 percent; besides, the 
     Teamster-driven vehicles are no paragons--the failure rate 
     for U.S. trucks is a surprising 24 percent. (Canadian trucks 
     fail at a rate of only 17 percent; maybe we should ban U.S. 
     trucks and only allow those from north of the border.)

[[Page 15285]]

       It should be noted that the Mexican trucks failing the 
     tests are untypical of that country's fleet. Border crossings 
     can take hours, so companies use older, less tidy vehicles 
     for the short runs for cargo transfers. Trucks that would be 
     used for long-distance hauling within the United States are 
     much newer, some more modern than those used by American 
     firms. (Authorities sometimes catch Mexican trucks that went 
     illegally outside the 20-mile border area; of those, just 19 
     percent failed inspections, which is a better record than 
     U.S. trucks can boast.)
       Continuing to restrict access is a mistake, especially 
     because it would be a continuing violation of U.S. 
     obligations under NAFTA, a trade agreement that has brought 
     unparalleled economic benefits to all three of its member 
     countries. The Bush administration plans to spend $144 
     million for new state and federal inspection stations and 
     personnel, and for checking the safety records and practices 
     of Mexican carriers. That should be enough to allay the 
     concerns of anyone who is truly concerned about safety on the 
     highways--especially since it will create a much more 
     dependable system than the one that existed for all the 
     decades when Mexican trucks did roam freely on our roads.
       Republicans in Congress should do a little more homework, 
     and the Democrats should start trying to be something other 
     than toadys for labor unions. This is a battle for self-
     interest, not for safety, and it's time for it to be over.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Washington Post 
editorials and a San Diego Union-Tribune editorial be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 29, 2001]

                            NAFTA in Trouble

       On Thursday U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick gave 
     a stirring speech about the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement (NAFTA), which seven years ago created the world's 
     largest free trade area. He noted that U.S. exports to the 
     two NAFTA partners--Mexico and Canada--support 2.9 million 
     American jobs, up from 2 million at the time of the 
     agreement, and that such jobs pay wages that are 13 percent 
     to 18 percent higher than the average in this country. Trade 
     with Mexico alone has tripled. Mexico now buys more from the 
     United States than from Britain, France, Germany and Italy 
     combined.
       Unfortunately, Mr. Zoellick's fine speech was not the only 
     NAFTA news last Thursday, for the Senate was simultaneously 
     debating the treaty. A large majority of senators--Thursday's 
     procedural vote went 70 to 30--appears to believe that 
     NAFTA's provisions on trucking across the Mexico border need 
     not be implemented promptly. As a result, Mexico's government 
     is likely to retaliate with $1 billion or more in trade 
     sanctions. The great forward momentum of the U.S.-Mexican 
     economic relationship may start to be unraveled.
       Under NAFTA, Mexican trucks in the United States must abide 
     by U.S. regulations: If they are too dangerous or dirty, they 
     can be pulled off the road. But NAFTA's opponents want to 
     keep Mexican trucks out--period. For the past seven years, 
     the United States has bowed to protectionists by refusing to 
     process Mexican applications for trucking licenses, a 
     practice that NAFTA's dispute-settlement panel has condemned. 
     Now the Bush administration wants to end this obstructionism, 
     but Congress is getting in the way. The House has passed a 
     transportation spending bill that would bar the 
     administration from processing Mexican applications. The 
     Senate is adopting the subtler approach of allowing Mexican 
     trucks in--but only on various burdensome conditions that 
     will have the effect of delaying the opening of the border by 
     a year or more.
       The sponsors of the Senate measure, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) 
     and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), say these conditions are 
     reasonable because Mexican trucks fail U.S. safety standards 
     50 percent more often than American ones. But this claim is 
     based on questionable numbers, and the right response to high 
     Mexican failure rates is to apply existing U.S. trucking 
     regulations rigorously. The Senate measure goes beyond 
     legitimate rigor and blurs into imposing discriminatory 
     regulations on Mexican carriers. President Bush says he will 
     veto legislation unless such discrimination is removed from 
     it. That is the right course.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 31, 2001]

 Ban on Mexican Trucks Called ``Isolationist'' Sign; White House Turns 
                           Tables on Critics

                   (By Dana Milbank and Helen Dewar)

       White House officials, borrowing one of their critics' main 
     lines of attack, charged yesterday that those who opposed 
     President Bush's free-trade positions were ``isolationist'' 
     and ``unilateralist.''
       The immediate issue in question was a Democratic proposal 
     before the Senate to block Mexican trucks from U.S. roads. 
     The proposal, which critics say includes 22 separate safety 
     provisions that together would have the effect of barring 
     Mexican trucks for two to three years, is included in a 
     transportation funding bill for next year. The House has 
     already passed a ban on Mexican trucks.
       Bush ``thinks that the action taken by the United States 
     Senate is unilateralist,'' White House press secretary Ari 
     Fleischer said yesterday. He called the issue one of the 
     ``troubling signs of isolationism on the Hill.''
       The argument, echoed by others in the administration, 
     signaled a new defense of Bush's policies that goes beyond 
     the narrow issue of what inspections would be required of 
     Mexican trucks entering the United States. Democrats and 
     other critics of the administration have argued that Bush is 
     pursuing a ``unilateralist'' foreign policy by rejecting 
     international efforts to limit global warming, small arms, 
     biological weapons and tax havens, and by promoting a 
     missile-defense proposal.
       Bush advisers have decided to turn the tables on critics by 
     painting the Democrats as isolationists in other areas. In a 
     speech Thursday, U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick 
     used a similar argument to promote the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement in general, warning against ``economic 
     isolationists and false purveyors of fright and retreat.''
       In addition to Mexican trucks and NAFTA, White House 
     officials indicated they would make the ``isolationist'' 
     charge against Democrats over objections to giving Bush 
     broader trade negotiating authority and over their delay in 
     confirming Bush's choice for United Nations ambassador. 
     Consideration of the nominee, John D. Negroponte, has been 
     held up by criticism of his work as ambassador to Honduras in 
     the 1980s.
       ``There's a series of issues Congress is taking up now 
     where it has to chose between an isolationist response and 
     whether America can compete and win in the world, and 
     Congress is leaning in the direction of isolation,'' 
     Fleischer said.
       In the debate over Mexican trucks, the White House and its 
     allies also tried to reverse an argument about racial 
     insensitivity often used by Democrats. Last week, Senate 
     Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) criticized Democrats for 
     ``an anti-Mexican, anti-Hispanic, anti-NAFTA attitude.''
       White House officials declined to join Lott in that 
     argument, saying only that the opposition to Mexican trucks 
     in the United States is ``unfair to Mexico'' because it would 
     single out that nation rather than impose a single standard 
     for the United States, Canada and Mexico. ``This is an issue 
     where the Democrats have to be careful or they're going to 
     cede the Hispanic vote to Republicans in 2002,'' a senior GOP 
     official said yesterday.
       The Senate Democrats' proposal to impose strict safety 
     standards on Mexican trucks remained stalled yesterday by GOP 
     delaying tactics aimed at forcing a compromise acceptable to 
     the White House. Supporters of the Democrats' proposal, which 
     Bush has threatened to veto as an infringement on NAFTA, got 
     more than enough votes to cut off one filibuster against it 
     last week, virtually assuring its passage at some point. But 
     the proposal, opposed by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Phil 
     Gramm (R-Tex.), faces more procedural hurdles before it can 
     be passed.
       Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) yesterday 
     reiterated his determination to win passage of the measure 
     before the start of Congress's month-long summer recess this 
     weekend. Lott held out some hope that a House-Senate 
     conference might approve language satisfactory to Bush. If 
     not, he said, Bush will veto the bill and Congress will 
     sustain the veto.
       As the Senate marked time on the issue, Enrique Ramirez 
     Jackson, president of the Mexican Senate, met separately with 
     Lott and Daschle on issues affecting the two countries and 
     expressed Mexico's hopes that its trucks will be given full 
     access to the United States, according to Senate aides.
                                  ____


           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, July 30, 2001]

                          Fight for Free Trade

       Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S. trucks 
     are supposed to have unrestricted access to Mexico, and 
     Mexican trucks are supposed to have unrestricted access to 
     the United States. But for six years the powerful Teamsters 
     union has succeeded in keeping Mexican trucks off American 
     roads--in plain violation of NAFTA.
       Now, it falls to President Bush to stand up once and for 
     all to the Teamsters' political muscle and defend the vital 
     principle of free cross-border trade. Bush should not 
     hesitate to veto a $60 billion transportation spending bill 
     that is the vehicle for the domestic trucking lobby's efforts 
     to block Mexican truckers' access to American highways.
       Based on pre-NAFTA rules, which still are being enforced, 
     Mexican trucks are permitted to operate only within a 20-mile 
     zone north of the border. Beyond the border zone, their 
     cargoes must be transferred to American trucks for shipment 
     elsewhere in the United States or Canada. This is a costly 
     and time-consuming process that drives up prices for American 
     consumers.
       Last year, when provisions of NAFTA required that Mexican 
     trucks be allowed to travel freely throughout the United 
     States, the Teamsters persuaded the Clinton White House to 
     suspend the requirement, on

[[Page 15286]]

     grounds that Mexican trucks were unsafe. At the time, Vice 
     President Al Gore was courting the Teamsters' backing for his 
     presidential campaign. When Mexico rightly challenged the 
     Clinton administration's politically motivated action, a 
     NAFTA arbitration panel ruled that the U.S. ban on Mexican 
     trucks violated the trade agreement.
       To its credit, the Bush administration announced earlier 
     this year it would honor American obligations under NAFTA and 
     lift the restrictions on Mexican trucks. That touched off a 
     fierce lobbying drive by the Teamsters on Capitol Hill to 
     overturn the president's decision.
       In response, the House voted to retain the ban on Mexican 
     trucks, while the Senate approved a milder version that would 
     impose much tougher safety standards on Mexican trucks than 
     exist for Canadian trucks, thereby making it more difficult 
     for Mexican trucks to enter the United States. (Because many 
     of its 1.4 million members are Canadians, the Teamsters union 
     has not sought to curb access by Canadian commercial vehicles 
     to American roads).
       The Teamsters and their allies contend Mexican rigs are 
     unsafe, but the union's real motivation is to thwart 
     competition from Mexican truckers. When the House voted on 
     the ban, it even refused to appropriate the money President 
     Bush had sought to strengthen border inspection stations and 
     keep out unsafe vehicles.
       The White House is right on this issue.
       President Bush should stand his ground and veto the 
     transportation measure if the onerous trucking provisions are 
     not removed. The simple way to deal with potentially unsafe 
     Mexican trucks is through robust inspections that turn back 
     unsafe vehicles--not through legislative subterfuge that is 
     little more than thinly disguised protectionism.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the papers I am quoting from--the New York 
Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Constitution, Cleveland Plain Dealer--
are not renowned rightwing conservative periodicals.
  This is from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of July 30, 2001:

       The Democrat-controlled Senate, with the help of enough 
     Republicans to block a filibuster, decided last week that 
     equal protection under the law doesn't apply to Mexico under 
     NAFTA.
       Beneath a veneer of safety concerns, the Senate refused to 
     eliminate the trade barriers that keep Mexican trucking 
     companies from carrying freight beyond a 20-mile border zone, 
     no matter that among their fleets are some of the most 
     modern, best-equipped trucks on any nation's roads.
       It's a witches' brew of protectionist politics disguised as 
     precaution, fueled by the demands of organized labor, that 
     gives off a stench of old-fashioned ethnic prejudice. What's 
     more, it invites a trade war of retaliation, should Mexico 
     decide to close its borders to U.S.-driven imports. Combined 
     with an even harsher House-passed version incorporated in the 
     Department of Transportation appropriations bill, it invites 
     a veto by President George W. Bush.
       No one supporting Mexico's rights under the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement ever has argued that American roads 
     should be opened to unsafe vehicles. But in the years since 
     NAFTA was passed, Mexico has made giant strides to improve 
     its fleets. Some of its largest trucking companies now have 
     rigs whose quality surpasses those of American companies.
       But safety is little more than a straw dog in this fight. 
     What this is about is the $140 billion in goods shipped to 
     the United States from Mexico each year, and the Teamsters 
     Union's desire that its members keep control of that 
     lucrative trade.
       Labor--which documents gathered in a four-year Federal 
     Elections Commission Probe show has had veto power over 
     Democratic Party positions for years--has never accepted the 
     benefits of expanded hemispheric trade. It has been adamant 
     in its opposition to allowing Mexican trucks, no matter how 
     modern the equipment or well-trained the drivers, access to 
     U.S. highways. It was this opposition that kept President 
     Bill Clinton from implementing the agreement, and it is this 
     opposition that yet drives labor's handservants, who now 
     control the Senate.
       This position should be an embarrassment to a party that 
     makes a show of its concerns for the poor and downtrodden. It 
     is a setback to U.S.-Mexican relations, and an insult to 
     Mexico's good and earnest efforts to improve relations with 
     its northern neighbor. It is an abrogation of our treaty 
     responsibilities, and it must not be allowed to stand.

  I repeat, that is from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
  Quoting from the New York Times from July 30, the Monday edition, 
titled ``Teamsters May Stall Bush Goals for Mexican Trucks and Trade,'' 
an article by Philip Shenon:

       A lobbying campaign led by the Teamsters union to keep 
     Mexican trucks off American roads is on the verge of handing 
     organized labor a major legislative victory over President 
     Bush, endangering one of his most cherished foreign policy 
     goals and reminding the White House of the political muscle 
     still flexed here by labor unions.
       If the Teamsters prevail, it could undermine the 
     president's hopes of improved trade and diplomatic ties with 
     Mexico, which has demanded the opening of the border to 
     Mexican trucks under terms of the eight-year-old North 
     American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Bush had hoped to comply 
     by next year.
       Nafta and its liberalized trade rules have long been a 
     target of the Teamsters, which has 1.4 million members, many 
     of them truck drivers.

  Mr. President, it is a very interesting article. I won't take the 
time to read it all. It basically points out the facts, which are that 
this is not really about safety; this is about the Teamsters Union and 
labor flexing their muscles. I will repeat, as I have over and over 
again, the Senator from Texas and I have put detailed, comprehensive 
safety requirements into our legislation which would clearly protect 
every American from any unsafe Mexican truck entering into the United 
States of America because it requires every Mexican truck to be 
inspected. But, obviously, that is not good enough for the Teamsters or 
for those who support the legislation that is presently in the 
Transportation appropriations legislation.
  I want to say a few words about the underlying bill. It is 
interesting. So far this year, spending levels, including this bill, 
have 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 were 753 earmarks, 
totaling $702 million. There has been a dramatic increase in the number 
of earmarks and porkbarrel spending.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, the number of 
unrequested projects inserted into spending bills approved by Congress 
rose from 1,724 in 1993 to 3,476 in 2000 and, ultimately, to 6,454 in 
the current fiscal year.
  Our colleagues in the House of Representatives requested close to 
19,000 earmarks this year, at a cost of $279 billion if all were 
approved. This year's overindulgence of earmarks is so egregious that 
Mitch Daniels, Director of OMB, wrote a letter to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee imploring them to cut the excessive earmarks 
included in the House-passed appropriations bills when they got to the 
Senate.
  As always, some benefit substantially more than others. I have 
mentioned the State of West Virginia, which will be the proud recipient 
of $6,599,062 under the National Scenic Byways Program. I have also 
mentioned the State of Washington, which benefits 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, et cetera, et cetera.
  I am sure these are worthy projects. Why in the world weren't they 
authorized? Why was there not a hearing? Why were they inserted in 
legislation which gave no consideration to other projects and programs 
that other States have? Every State deserves the right to compete for 
Federal dollars under programs such as the National Scenic Byways 
Program, not just States that are fortunate to have representation in 
the congressional Appropriations committees.
  I can't let this opportunity go by again without mentioning the 
$4.650 million that 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. Mr. President, translation. That is ``French'' for a 
porkbarrel project for the State of Washington. It is the only place 
where this vessel can be tested and evaluated in the United States, and 
it has a top speed of 40 knots. Guess where. 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 it would not meet the Coast 
Guard's needs.
  What is wrong with that? Well, we have severe personnel problems with 
recruitment and retention in the Coast

[[Page 15287]]

Guard today. We need to spend this money not on an 85-foot patrol craft 
that the Coast Guard doesn't want or need; we need to spend it on the 
men and women in the Coast Guard, improve their housing, improve their 
living conditions. We need to provide them with the pay and benefits 
they need and deserve.
  What are we doing spending $4.650 million on a project that will be 
useless? This will be a one-of-a-kind vessel. It will sit by itself, 
and it will have huge maintenance and upkeep costs because it will be 
one of a kind, instead of giving the Air Force the craft they need.
  I guess the Senate Appropriations Committee has a better 
understanding than the Coast Guard of what equipment will and won't 
work best. Maybe we are all wasting our time. Perhaps we should abolish 
the Department of Transportation and allow our appropriators to act as 
our new transportation specialists.
  I will mention one thing that was in Congress Daily this morning:

       Nussle Warns of Possible Fiscal Year 2001 Spending Cuts.
       House Budget Chairman Nussle warned Tuesday that if budget 
     forecasts continue to worsen, Congress might have to take 
     drastic steps, including trimming Federal spending, to 
     preserve surpluses for debt reduction. ``Spending may have to 
     be curtailed after CBO releases the midsession review,'' 
     Nussle said. ``If we want to pay off more debt, we need to 
     reduce spending.''

  What is this appropriations bill doing? Increasing spending. What did 
the others do? Already we have increased spending in the appropriations 
bills we have passed by some $4 billion. It is a dangerous course of 
action we are engaged in. This continued earmark porkbarrel spending is 
going to exact a very heavy price. This bill is replete with them. This 
bill, in my view, is typical of the kind of product for which we may 
pay a very heavy price in the future, where we may have to make cuts in 
really needed programs, including those that are for those who are in 
need in our society and our Nation.
  So I want to assure my colleagues that, contrary to what may have 
been contemplated here, yes, we will have a vote on final passage of 
the bill. Then there will be three votes after that concerning the 
appointment of conferees that are key and are debatable and will 
require cloture motions as well. So, clearly, we will have stretched 
this issue out into the month of September, at least.
  I remind my colleagues that our President is welcoming the President 
of Mexico to the United States in September. In fact, I am told that 
the first official state dinner hosted by President Bush will be in 
honor of President Fox. I think that is a very appropriate and very 
important and significant occasion because of the importance of our 
relations with Mexico. I hope we will not be continuing on a course of 
violating a solemn treaty between our two nations while the President 
of Mexico is present and being honored in the United States of America.
  I thank my colleague from Texas for his steadfast efforts in this 
endeavor. I think he may join me again this year in being voted ``Miss 
Congeniality.'' Perhaps we will share the honor. The fact is that we 
believe passionately that this kind of activity --legislative activity 
on an appropriations bill--is absolutely, totally inappropriate, and 
the impact and implications of passage of such legislation through the 
Congress of the United States not only is very bad for our relations 
with one country, but if this body gets into the business on 
appropriations bills of amending treaties and making solemn treaties 
illegal and unconstitutional, and violates them, then of course that 
kind of precedent is very bad for all of the institutions of this great 
democracy of ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have a number of editorials which 
support the position the majority of Senators have taken in terms of 
the commonsense safety approaches written in the underlying 
Transportation bill.
  Let me begin by quoting from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial 
board from this morning:

       Mexican trucks are welcome in this country so long as they 
     make the same safety criteria required of all the vehicles 
     that travel here. Senator Patty Murray has taken just the 
     right approach to this sensitive and contentious issue. The 
     Bush administration, which unwisely has threatened to veto 
     the transportation bill over this matter, contends that under 
     terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexican 
     trucks should be allowed to travel freely beyond the 20-mile 
     commercial zone at the southern border to which they are now 
     restricted.
       The House of Representatives disagrees. It voted to keep 
     the trucks limited to where they now are, permitted to travel 
     when delivering Mexican goods to U.S. markets. Murray, who 
     heads the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
     Transportation, wrote the transportation bill that rightly 
     requires Mexican trucks to have safety inspections and to be 
     insured by a carrier licensed to do business in the United 
     States before they can travel in this country. These are 
     simple, commonsense requirements.

  From the Roanoke Times & World News:

       Among other things, certainly the inspections indicate an 
     element of protectionism but of the public safety, not the 
     spirit of free trade. By a large bipartisan majority, 19 
     Republicans joined all 50 Democrats and one independent. The 
     Senate voted Thursday to end a filibuster to kill the tougher 
     standards. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott charged that the 
     initiative was anti-Mexican and anti-Hispanic and suggested 
     that Mexican trucks should be inspected according to the same 
     standards as Canadian trucks. Lott commits aggravated 
     silliness.
       A recent study by the Inspector General of the 
     Transportation Department found that nearly two in five 
     Mexican trucks failed basic safety inspections compared with 
     one in four U.S. trucks and one in seven Canadian trucks. In 
     addition, Mexican truckers are often overworked and their 
     fatigue could pose a danger to American drivers.
       As for violating the free trade spirit of NAFTA, the treaty 
     already contains provisions allowing legitimate safety 
     regulations. Given the clear evidence presented by the 
     Transportation Department, Congress would be remiss by 
     opening U.S. borders to trucks known to be unsafe.

  From the Press Democrat in Santa Rosa, CA:

       With Mexican trucks failing border inspections nearly two 
     in five times, safety is a far more important concern. The 
     dismal record is an indication that a well-funded border 
     inspection program is critical. The Senate proposal, which 
     requires around-the-clock border inspections, is a balanced 
     measure that will allow trucking while still keeping roads 
     relatively safe. But with one in four American trucks failing 
     safety tests, do not take your eyes off the rear view mirror 
     any time soon.

  From the Sarasota Herald Tribune:

       Public safety, not politics, money, free trade or 
     international relations, should be the priority as American 
     leaders debate whether to allow tractor trailers from Mexico 
     to deliver goods in the United States.

  From the Deseret News:

       A Senate bill would apply a simple solution. It would 
     require the Mexican truckers to obtain U.S. insurance and to 
     pass safety inspections before crossing the border. Then the 
     trucks would be free to travel where they would like within 
     the United States and presumably to Canada. These are 
     sensible requirements that ultimately could save lives. The 
     only objection the President can offer is that Congress does 
     not hold Canadian truckers to the same standards, but 
     Congress does not need to do so. Canada already holds its 
     truckers to standards more rigid than those in the United 
     States.

  They go on to say:

       The only way to end the problem of illegal immigration is 
     to help Mexico's economy grow to the point where leaving the 
     country no longer is necessary for survival and prosperity. 
     But this cannot be done at the peril of highway safety in the 
     United States. Despite the threats of a veto, Congress needs 
     to pass tough standards on all trucks that come from south of 
     the border.

  From the Providence Journal:

       Kudos to the Senate for voting 70-30 for strict safety 
     standards for Mexican trucks on U.S. roads. The government 
     has the duty to ensure that foreign truckers follow the same 
     rules that American ones do. Statistics show trucks from 
     Mexico with more lenient safety standards than the United 
     States are 50 percent more likely to fail U.S. inspections 
     than ours. A race to the bottom is intolerable.

  From the Seattle Times Editorial Board:

       Suggesting inspections will inhibit free trade is more than 
     a bit disingenuous, given that current law keeps Mexican 
     trucks within a 20-mile zone along the U.S. border. Earlier 
     this summer, the House of Representatives passed a harsh 
     measure to block any

[[Page 15288]]

     Mexican trucks from venturing beyond that zone. Opening U.S. 
     highways to Mexico's trucking industry is in the full spirit 
     of NAFTA, as long as the trucks are safe and insured. This is 
     hardly onerous. Indeed, Canadian trucks and truckers have a 
     better inspection record than U.S. trucks. Do not take too 
     much of the Teamsters Union's backing the safety measure as 
     if to suggest it was a topic with heavy labor influence. Only 
     a fraction of U.S. drivers are represented by organized 
     labor. This fight is fundamentally about highway safety. 
     Creating a haven of lesser standards south of the border 
     might invite the U.S. trucking industry to essentially reflag 
     their fleets where regulations are lax.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all of the editorials 
to which I have referred, as well as a press release from the AAA of 
Texas chapter, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 1, 2001]

             Impose U.S. Safety Standards on Mexican Trucks

       Mexican trucks are welcome in this country--so long as they 
     meet the same safety criteria required of all other vehicles 
     that travel here.
       Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has taken just the right 
     approach to this sensitive and contentious issue, which 
     threatens to derail the transportation bill and some $140 
     million in much-needed funding earmarked by Murray for this 
     state.
       The Bush administration, which unwisely has threatened to 
     veto the transportation bill over this matter, contends that 
     under terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
     Mexican trucks should be allowed to travel freely beyond the 
     20-mile commercial zone at the southern border to which they 
     are now restricted.
       The House of Representatives disagrees; it voted to keep 
     the trucks limited to where they now are permitted to travel 
     when delivering Mexican goods to U.S. markets.
       Murray, who heads the Senate appropriations subcommittee on 
     transportation, wrote the transportation bill that rightly 
     requires Mexican trucks to have safety inspections and to be 
     insured by a carrier licensed to do business in the United 
     States before they can travel in this country.
       These are simply common-sense requirements. However, care 
     must be taken in implementation to avoid having them become a 
     bogus trade barrier.
       Murray contends Mexican trucks are less safe than U.S. 
     trucks. She says a recent study by the inspector general of 
     the Department of Transportation found that nearly two in 
     five Mexican trucks failed basic safety inspections compared 
     with one in four American trucks and one in seven Canadian 
     trucks. Since Canadian trucks appear safer than American 
     ones, there seems no rationale for imposing additional 
     requirements on them.
       But President Bush, rightly has at the top of his 
     international agenda improving relations with Mexico, says it 
     would be too expensive and time-consuming to require the 
     Mexican trucks to meet U.S. safety and insurance standards. 
     However, introducing unsafe trucks on U.S. highways is 
     unlikely to improve relations between our two countries; 
     quite the opposite.
       Mexico, meanwhile, has raised the possibility that it might 
     restrict the import of American agricultural goods in 
     retaliation. That's non-productive. A better course is to 
     assure Mexican trucks meet international safety standards.
       Murray, who also chairs the Democratic Senate Campaign 
     Committee, happens to be on the same page in this dispute as 
     the all-powerful Teamsters union, which ardently opposes the 
     entrance of Mexican trucks and their low-paid, often 
     overworked, non-unionized drivers. The Teamsters clearly have 
     a self-interest in putting the brakes on the entrance of 
     Mexican trucks.
       Murray's business, however, is the public interest, not 
     that of the Teamsters. We believe that in insisting that 
     Mexican trucks comply with U.S. laws, she's property 
     discharging that larger duty.
       As a NAFTA arbitration panel acknowledged last February, 
     the United States is ``responsible for the safe operation of 
     trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is U.S., 
     Canadian or Mexican.''
                                  ____


          [From the Roanoke Times & World News, July 28, 2001]

             Require Mexican Trucks To Meet the Safety Test

       As frequent drivers of Interstate 81 can attest, sharing 
     the road with high-balling semi-trailer trucks intensifies 
     anxiety about highway safety, even with the assumption those 
     behemoths meet safety-inspection standards.
       The same assumption cannot be applied to Mexican trucks, 
     about 40 percent of which fail U.S. standards, so the U.S. 
     Senate's hesitation this week to allow free entry of big 
     commercial Mexican vehicles onto U.S. highways in January is 
     both understandable and prudent.
       President Bush, the Senate's Republican leadership and the 
     Mexican government have opposed an amendment to the pending 
     $60 billion Senate transportation spending bill that would 
     require much stricter safety inspections before allowing the 
     Mexican trucks to venture freely onto U.S. highways. 
     Opponents contend that such a restriction violates the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement.
       Certainly, the inspections indicate an element of 
     protectionism--but of the public safety, not the spirit of 
     free trade. By a large bipartisan majority--19 Republicans 
     joined all 50 Democrats and one independent--the Senate voted 
     Thursday to end a filibuster to kill the tougher standards.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., charged that 
     the initiative was ``anti-Mexican'' and ``anti-Hispanic,'' 
     and suggested that Mexican trucks should be inspected 
     according to the same standards as Canadian trucks.
       Lott commits aggravated silliness. A recent study by the 
     inspector general of the Transportation Department found that 
     nearly two in five Mexican trucks failed basic safety 
     inspections, compared with one in four U.S. trucks and one in 
     seven Canadian trucks. In addition, Mexican truckers are 
     often overworked, and their fatigue could pose a danger to 
     American drivers.
       As for violating the free-trade spirit of NAFTA, the treaty 
     already contains provisions allowing legitimate safety 
     regulations. Given the clear evidence presented by the 
     Transportation Department, Congress would be remiss by 
     opening U.S. borders to trucks known to be unsafe.
       President Bush has threatened to veto the entire 
     transportation spending bill if Congress fails to remove the 
     tougher inspection standards. Some alarm has been expressed 
     by farming states and agriculture lobbyists after Mexican 
     officials threatened to consider restrictions on U.S. 
     agricultural imports if the bill becomes law.
       Congress should be more concerned about the lives of 
     Americans driving on U.S. highways.
                                  ____


          [From the Press Democrat Santa Rosa, July 30, 2001]

 Mexican Trucks Senate Proposal Allows Free Trade While Ensuring Safer 
                                 Roads

       In February an arbitration panel determined that the 
     Clinton administration policy limiting Mexican trucks to a 
     20-mile border zone violated the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement.
       Since that ruling, Congress, President Bush and the 
     Teamsters union have been fighting over how to regulate 18-
     wheelers originating from Mexico.
       The Teamsters union opposes opening the border to Mexican 
     truckers because it fears losing union jobs. In other words, 
     having lost the free trade battle in 1993, it is now trying 
     to unravel NAFTA piece-by-piece. It seems the Teamsters' time 
     would be better spent improving U.S. truckers' 
     competitiveness.
       With Mexican trucks failing border inspections nearly two 
     in five times, safety is a far more important concern. The 
     dismal record is an indication that a well-funded, border 
     inspection program is critical.
       The Senate proposal, which requires around the clock border 
     inspections, is a balanced measure that will allow trucking 
     while still keeping roads--relatively--safe. But with one in 
     four American trucks failing safety tests, don't take your 
     eyes off the rearview mirror anytime soon.
                                  ____


           [From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 31, 2001]

No Substitute for Safety Trade Pact Doesn't Preclude High Standards for 
                                 Trucks

       Public safety--not politics, money, free trade or 
     international relations--should be the priority as American 
     leaders debate whether to allow tractor-trailers from Mexico 
     to deliver goods in the United States.
       President Bush wants to enable Mexican trucks to begin 
     making long-haul deliveries on U.S. highways in January as 
     part of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico 
     and Canada. Currently, big trucks from Mexico are limited to 
     a 20-mile zone near the border.
       In recent days, a bipartisan group in the Senate has pushed 
     for a stricter U.S. inspection program for Mexican trucks. 
     They cite statistics indicating that trucks from Mexico are 
     almost 50 percent more likely to fail inspections than U.S. 
     trucks.
       But Bush and his allies on this issue, including Sen. John 
     McCain, R-Ariz., contend that the safety fears are overblown 
     and that the proposed standards are tougher than those in 
     place for Canadian trucks. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., takes 
     the rhetoric further and accuses Democrats of being ``anti-
     Mexican'' and ``anti-Hispanic.''
       The cries of discrimination make for great TV sound bites, 
     but if there is evidence that inspections are less rigorous 
     in Mexico, why shouldn't the United States do more to ensure 
     that Mexican vehicles are safe before they enter U.S. roads?
       Tractor-trailers are already a significant safety concern 
     in this country. In recent years, federal safety officials 
     have documented a steady increase in the number of

[[Page 15289]]

     deaths caused by accidents involving big trucks. Let's not 
     add to the carnage in the name of free trade, or politics.
                                  ____


                 [From the Deseret News, July 31, 2001]

                       All Trucks Need Standards

       As usual in Washington, the debate over whether to apply 
     tough standards to Mexican trucks that cross the border has 
     to do with a lot more than the simple issue at hand. For the 
     Bush administration, it has to do with the Hispanic vote, of 
     which he obtained only 35 percent last year. For the 
     Democrats, it has to do with organized labor, which would 
     love to drive into Mexico but doesn't want to lose any jobs 
     by allowing the Mexicans to drive here.
       Those are the currents running swiftly beneath the surface. 
     On the top, however, the debate is centering on the only 
     thing that really ought to matter--safety.
       Organized labor lost its fight to keep Mexican businesses 
     out eight years ago when Congress passed the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement. Bush's support among Hispanics, and his 
     relationship with Mexican President Vicente Fox (who has 
     threatened trade retaliation against the United States) have 
     to be dealt with in a different arena. This is a question of 
     keeping unsafe vehicles off the highway.
       Current rules allow Mexican trucks to travel no further 
     than 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) over the border--just far 
     enough to unload their cargo onto American trucks. Border 
     inspectors there have found that more than one-third of 
     Mexican trucks fail to meet the safety standards required of 
     American trucks.
       A Senate bill would apply a simply solution. It would 
     require the Mexican truckers to obtain U.S. insurance and to 
     pass safety inspections before crossing the border. Then the 
     trucks would be free to travel where they would like within 
     the United States and, presumably, to Canada. These are 
     sensible requirements that ultimately could save lives. The 
     only objection the president can offer is that Congress 
     doesn't hold Canadian truckers to the same standards.
       But Congress doesn't need to do so. Canada already holds 
     its truckers to standards more rigid than those in the United 
     States.
       In many ways, this is an example of the types of conflicts 
     that will occasionally arise when attempting free trade with 
     a nation whose economy is struggling to stand on its own. 
     Mexico has made great strides in recent years, eliminating 
     much of the corruption that used to plague its one-party 
     government. The United States should reward those efforts 
     with increased trade. The only way to end the problem of 
     illegal immigration is to help Mexico's economy grow to the 
     point where leaving the country no longer is necessary for 
     survival and prosperity.
       But this can't be done at the peril of highway safety in 
     the United States. Despite the threats of a veto, Congress 
     needs to pass tough standards on all trucks that come from 
     south of the border.
                                  ____


              [From the Providence Journal, July 29, 2001]

                           Divers Ruminations

       Kudos to the Senate for voting, 70 to 30, for strict safety 
     standards for Mexican trucks on U.S. roads. The government 
     has the duty to ensure that foreign truckers follow the same 
     rules that American ones do. Statistics show trucks from 
     Mexico, with more lenient safety standards than the United 
     States's, are 50 percent more likely to fail U.S. inspections 
     than are ours. (Mexican trucks' emissions problems are bad, 
     too.) A race to the bottom is intolerable.
       Meanwhile, President Bush is commendably backing off from 
     an idea floated to give a blanket amnesty to illegal Mexican 
     immigrants but not necessarily for illegal immigrants from 
     other nations. We are leery of any blanket amnesty because it 
     would tend to encourage lawbreaking. But basic fairness 
     requires that a plan to ``regularize'' illegals, not single 
     out one nationality.
       Rumor has it that stars usually bound for the likes of the 
     Hamptons have discovered the pastoral and coastal beauties of 
     Westport and South Dartmouth, and are eyeing real estate 
     there. The names bruited so far include Harrison Ford, Paul 
     McCartney, Dennis Quiad and David Duchovny. Will the glitz, 
     and soaring prices, that have soured Long Island's south 
     shore infect Buzzards Bay towns, too? Better for us if celebs 
     use assumed names if they buy land.
       To protect its right to regulate land use, North Kingstown 
     commendably keeps battling developer/nightclub owner Michael 
     Kent. Mr. Kent is infamous for chopping down the trees and 
     painting the stumps blue and red on a parcel that the town 
     said he couldn't build on. Now he dumps manure and says he 
     might keep ostriches there, as he puts up signs calling his 
     spread ``Plum Beach Park.'' Enough!
                                  ____


                [From the Seattle Times, July 30, 2001]

                      Free Trade and Safe Highways

       Washington Sen. Patty Murray led a strong, appropriate 
     effort to require tougher safety standards for Mexican trucks 
     entering the United States.
       The White House and Republican leadership waged a phony war 
     against this highway-safety measure with claims it undermined 
     the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement and relations 
     with our neighbor.
       Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., stooped so low 
     as to suggest the effort was anti-Mexican. Poppycock. This is 
     about improving standards for Mexican trucks that are 50 
     percent more likely to fail U.S. inspections than American 
     vehicles.
       Nineteen Republicans joined Senate Democrats to knock down 
     parliamentary attempts to tie up the requirements for regular 
     U.S. inspections of Mexican trucks and drivers, on-site 
     audits of Mexican trucking firms, and more scales and 
     inspectors at 27 U.S. border stations.
       Suggesting inspections will inhibit free trade is more than 
     a bit disingenuous given that current law keeps Mexican 
     trucks within a 20-mile zone along the U.S. border. Earlier 
     this summer, the House of Representatives passed a harsh 
     measure to block any Mexican trucks from venturing beyond 
     that zone.
       Opening U.S. highways to Mexico's trucking industry is in 
     the full spirit of NAFTA, as long as the trucks are safe and 
     insured. This is hardly onerous. Indeed, Canadian trucks and 
     truckers have a better inspection record than U.S. trucks.
       Don't make too much of the Teamsters Union backing the 
     safety measure, as if to suggest it was a topic with heavy 
     labor influence. Only a fraction of U.S. drivers are 
     represented by organized labor. This fight is fundamentally 
     about highway safety.
       Creating a haven of lesser standards south of the border 
     might invite the U.S. trucking industry to essentially re-
     flag their fleets where regulations are lax.
       At the same time, Congress must not create a system of 
     rules and standards that are thinly veiled trade barriers. 
     Murray and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., transportation 
     committee allies on this effort, are not headed in that 
     direction.
       The White House wants to make sure NAFTA is supported and 
     that Mexico is nurtured as a friend, ally and trading 
     partner. But the Bush administration's garbled, inconsistent 
     response on truck safety only confused matters.
       Opening America's roads to Mexican trucks and truckers is 
     in the best spirit of free trade. Expecting those rigs to be 
     adequately maintained and insured is a modest price to pay 
     for access to the world's most-prosperous consumer market.
                                  ____


          [From the Roanoke Times & World News, July 28, 2001]

             Require Mexican Trucks To Meet the Safety Test

       As frequent drivers of Interstate 81 can attest, sharing 
     the road with high-balling semi-trailer trucks intensifies 
     anxiety about highway safety, even with the assumption those 
     behemoths meet safety-inspection standards.
       The same assumption cannot be applied to Mexican trucks, 
     about 40 percent of which fail U.S. standards, so the U.S. 
     Senate's hesitation this week to allow free entry of big 
     commercial Mexican vehicles onto U.S. highways in January is 
     both understandable and prudent.
       President Bush, the Senate's Republican leadership and the 
     Mexican government have opposed an amendment to the pending 
     $60 billion Senate transportation spending bill that would 
     require much stricter safety inspections before allowing the 
     Mexican trucks to venture freely onto U.S. highways. 
     Opponents contend that such a restriction violates the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement.
       Certainly, the inspections indicate an element of 
     protectionism--but of the public safety, not the spirit of 
     free trade. By a large bipartisan majority--19 Republicans 
     joined all 50 Democrats and one independent--the Senate voted 
     Thursday to end a filibuster to kill the tougher standards.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., charged that 
     the initiative was ``anti-Mexican'' and ``anti-Hispanic,'' 
     and suggested that Mexican trucks should be inspected 
     according to the same standards as Canadian trucks.
       Lott commits aggravated silliness. A recent study by the 
     inspector general of the Transportation Department found that 
     nearly two in five Mexican trucks failed basic safety 
     inspections, compared with one in four U.S. trucks and one in 
     seven Canadian trucks. In addition, Mexican truckers are 
     often overworked, and their fatigue could pose a danger to 
     American drivers.
       As for violating the free-trade spirit of NAFTA, the treaty 
     already contains provisions allowing legitimate safety 
     regulations. Given the clear evidence presented by the 
     Transportation Department, Congress would be remiss by 
     opening U.S. borders to trucks known to be unsafe.
       President Bush has threatened to veto the entire 
     transportation spending bill if Congress fails to remove the 
     tougher inspection standards. Some alarm has been expressed 
     by farming states and agriculture lobbyists after Mexican 
     officials threatened to consider restrictions on U.S. 
     agricultural imports if the bill becomes law.
       Congress should be more concerned about the lives of 
     Americans driving on U.S. highways.

[[Page 15290]]

     
                                  ____
          [Press release from the ``Triple A'' Texas Chapter]

  Truck Safety Inspections Must Drive Plan To Open Border; AAA Texas 
             Calls on Congress To Put Motorist Safety First

       (News/Assignment Editors & Government/Automotive Writers)

       Houston--(Business Wire)--July 25, 2001.--AAA Texas is 
     urging Congress to significantly increase the safety 
     inspections of Mexico-origination trucks before allowing them 
     unrestricted access to roads in Texas and the rest of the 
     U.S. as provided under the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement (NAFTA).
       Currently, trucks based in Mexico are allowed to travel up 
     to 20 miles inside the U.S. border. Under the 
     administration's proposal, Mexico-origination trucks would be 
     allowed unrestricted access for up to 18 months before audits 
     and safety inspections of the owner's facilities, drivers and 
     their practices would be conducted. With more than 1,200 
     miles of border, more than 70 percent of the truck traffic 
     from Mexico will travel on Texas roads.
       ``Texas motorists are concerned about the safety of these 
     trucks and their drivers,'' said Public and Government 
     Affairs Manager Anne O'Ryan. ``Until recently, Mexico had few 
     safety or enforcement standards for the vehicles or the 
     drivers.'' Department of Public Safety officials estimate 
     that half of the short-haul trucks from Mexico don't meet 
     U.S. safety standards. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
     reports that more than 35 percent of trucks from Mexico were 
     taken out of service for safety violations in 2000. That 
     compares to 24 percent for U.S. trucks and 17 percent for 
     trucks from Canada.
       The U.S. Senate is debating a proposal that would require 
     Mexico-origination trucks to meet the same U.S. safety 
     standards as trucks from Canada. Many of AAA's suggestions 
     are being considered in the proposal.
       AAA has offered the following safety recommendations:
       On-site safety audits at the company facility, prior to 
     authorizing their trucks to cross the border;
       Significant improvements in safety inspections at the 
     border including enforcement of U.S. weight limits;
       Adequate resources for enforcement throughout the U.S.;
       Adequate and verifiable insurance on each vehicle;
       Shared tracking of the company's truck and driver safety 
     records between U.S. and Mexican authorities; and
       Enforcement of safety laws, including limiting the number 
     of continuous hours spent driving.
       ``The safety of the motoring public should not be risked in 
     the rush to meet an apparently arbitrary deadline,'' said 
     O'Ryan. The Senate proposal is being debated this week for 
     inclusion in the Department of Transportation Appropriations 
     bill.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I will read this press release to my colleagues. It is 
dated July 25. It says:

       AAA of Texas is urging Congress to significantly increase 
     the safety inspections of Mexico-origination trucks before 
     allowing them unrestricted access to roads in Texas and the 
     rest of the U.S. as provided under the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement. Currently, trucks based in Mexico are 
     allowed to travel up to 20 miles inside the U.S. border. 
     Under the administration's proposal, Mexico-origination 
     trucks would be allowed unrestricted access for up to 18 
     months before audits and safety inspections of the owner's 
     facilities, drivers and their practices would be conducted.
       With more than 1,200 miles of border, more than 70 percent 
     of the truck traffic in Mexico will travel on Texas roads. 
     Texas motorists are concerned about the safety of these 
     trucks and their drivers, said Public and Government Affairs 
     Manager Anne O'Ryan.
       Until recently, Mexico had few safety or enforcement 
     standards for the vehicles or for the drivers. Department of 
     Public Safety Officials estimate that half of the short-haul 
     trucks from Mexico do not meet U.S. safety standards.
       The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that more 
     than 35 percent of trucks from Mexico were taken out of 
     service for safety violations in 2000. That compares to 24 
     percent for U.S. trucks and 17 percent for trucks from 
     Canada. The U.S. Senate is debating a proposal that would 
     require Mexico origination trucks to meet the same U.S. 
     safety standards as trucks from Canada. Many of AAA's 
     suggestions are being considered in the proposal.
       AAA has offered the following safety recommendations: On-
     site safety audits at the company facility prior to 
     authorizing their trucks to cross the border; significant 
     improvements in safety inspections at the border, including 
     enforcement of U.S. weight limits; adequate resources for 
     enforcement throughout the United States; adequate and 
     verifiable insurance on each vehicle; shared tracking of the 
     company's truck and driver safety records between U.S. and 
     Mexican authorities; enforcement of safety laws, including 
     limiting the number of continuous hours spent driving.

  I quote from O'Ryan:

       The safety of the motoring public should not be risked in 
     the rush to meet an apparently arbitrary deadline. The Senate 
     proposal is being debated this week for inclusion in the 
     Department of Transportation appropriations bill.

  These are not my words. They are not the words of Senator Shelby. 
They are not the words of any Senator. They are the words of the AAA of 
Texas chapter.
  Our opponents have clearly lost the safety debate and, unfortunately, 
instead of allowing us to move forward with a balanced bipartisan 
compromise, they have used many parliamentary tactics to slow down this 
process in hopes of extracting some concessions.
  Their approach, I believe, is unfortunate and unsuccessful. I am not 
here to respond in kind. Their attacks have done a disservice to this 
important debate on the highway safety issue. I want my colleagues to 
recognize these insults have been unnecessary and have delayed putting 
this bill to work for the American people. Opponents held hostage a $60 
billion bill that funds transportation solutions in every State because 
they want to lower safety standards for Mexican trucks.
  We can improve free trade and ensure our own safety at the same time. 
This bill is a balanced and bipartisan compromise. I will turn to some 
of the specific provisions that have the other side so concerned. They 
are simple and they make sense. They do not violate NAFTA. Most 
importantly, they will help keep Americans safe on the highways.
  Here is what our bill requires: Mexican trucks only be allowed to 
cross the border at stations where there are inspectors on duty; our 
bill requires the Department of Transportation's inspector general to 
certify border inspection officers are fully trained as safety 
specialists capable of conducting compliance reviews; further, the 
administration cannot raid the safety personnel who are working at 
other areas today just to staff the southern border; that the 
Department of Transportation perform a compliance review of Mexican 
trucking firms and that these take place onsite at each firm's 
facilities; that Mexican truckers comply with pertinent hours of 
service rules; that the United States and Mexican Governments work out 
a system where United States law enforcement officials can verify the 
status and validity of licenses, vehicle registration, operating 
authority, and proper insurance; that all State inspectors, funded in 
part or in whole with Federal funds, check for violations of Federal 
regulations; that all violations of Federal law detected by State 
inspectors will either be enforced by State inspectors or forwarded to 
Federal authorities for enforcement action; that the Department of 
Transportation's inspector general certify there is adequate capacity 
to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful truck inspections to 
maintain safety; that proper systems be put in place to ensure 
compliance with United States weight limits; that an adequate system be 
established to allow access to data related to the safety record of 
Mexican trucking firms and drivers; and finally, that the Department of 
Transportation enact rules on the following points: To ensure that 
motor carriers are knowledgeable about United States safety standards; 
to improve training and provide certification of motor carrier safety 
auditors; to ensure that foreign motor carriers be prohibited from 
leasing their vehicles to another carrier to transport products to the 
United States while the firm is subjected to a suspension, restriction, 
or limitation on rights to operate in the United States; and that the 
United States permanently disqualify foreign motor carriers that have 
been found to have operated illegally in the United States.
  These are commonsense standards which the President is opposing. 
These simple, reasonable standards are what those on the other side 
have used to stall this bill. Senator Shelby and I have spent hours, 
which have turned into days, and now weeks, trying to find 
accommodation with the opponents of this provision. Safety opponents 
seem most upset by the onsite inspection and the insurance 
requirements, but the truth is these are the

[[Page 15291]]

same standards we currently follow with Mexico in areas such as food 
safety.
  Let's start with the requirement that American inspectors review the 
records and conduct onsite inspections in Mexico. Safety opponents want 
us to believe this is somehow an invasion of Mexico's sovereignty, but 
there is nothing uncommon about this provision. The trucking records 
and the facilities are in Mexico. That is where our inspectors need to 
go if they are going to check. Onsite safety inspections are common in 
other industries.
  In my home State of Washington, we grow the best apples in the world. 
I know the Presiding Officer may disagree, but I believe we do. They 
include varieties such as the Red Delicious, the Gala, the Johnny Gold, 
and the Fuji. We grow these apples in my home State of Washington, and 
we export them all over the world, including Mexico. Before Mexico will 
allow the growers in my State to send those apples to Mexican 
consumers, those apples have to be inspected. Who inspects them? 
Mexican inspectors. Where are these apples inspected? Onsite, in 
Washington State. In fact, American apple growers foot the bill for 
Mexican inspectors to evaluate our fruit in my home State of 
Washington.
  It is not just Washington State. Mexican inspectors are in 
California, inspecting fruit, checking for pests in crops such as 
mangoes and avocados.
  Today on food safety issues, Mexican inspectors are in the United 
States conducting onsite investigations in our orchards and on our 
farms. To the other side, that is OK. But for some reason, when we want 
our safety inspectors to conduct onsite inspections at Mexican trucking 
facilities, it is an attack on Mexican sovereignty. On food safety 
issues, inspectors are in both countries with the full support of both 
Governments.
  Why should traffic safety be any different? How can we argue that we 
should protect our agricultural interests and neglect the very real 
safety concerns on America's roadways? How can we protect the food 
destined for America's children yet leave them vulnerable to unsafe 
trucks on our roadways?
  I turn now to a second issue. Safety opponents do not like the 
insurance portion of this bill which requires Mexican trucks to carry 
adequate insurance with an insurer that is licensed to operate in the 
United States. Our safety opponents have been on the floor saying that 
is discriminatory. The truth is, Canadian trucks have to follow the 
same rule today. And even more significantly, Mexico requires the same 
thing of American drivers today. That is right. I invite my colleagues 
to go to the Web page of the State of Texas Department of Insurance. 
You will find a special message from the Texas Insurance Commissioner, 
stating:

       If you plan to drive to Mexico, your preparations should 
     include making sure you have car insurance that will protect 
     you if you have an accident south of the border. Don't count 
     on your Texas auto policy for protection.

  It goes on:

       Mexico does not recognize auto viability policies issued by 
     U.S. insurance companies. It is important, therefore, to buy 
     liability coverage from authorized Mexican casualty insurance 
     companies before driving any distance in Mexico.

  Madam President, that applies to trucks, as well. Let me repeat what 
the State of Texas Insurance Commissioner is warning American drivers:

       Mexico does not recognize auto liability policies issued by 
     U.S. insurance companies. It is, therefore, important to buy 
     liability coverage from authorized Mexican casualty insurance 
     companies before driving any distance in Mexico.

  Why is it OK for American drivers to be required to get Mexican 
insurance to drive to Mexico but discriminatory for Mexican drivers to 
be required to get American insurance when they drive in the United 
States? The truth is, there is no difference.
  On yet another point, the opponents of safety standards lose because 
what they oppose is already part of our relationship with Mexico and 
they cannot have it both ways. We have nothing against Mexican truck 
drivers. Like American truck drivers, they are just trying to earn a 
living and put food on their family's table. We welcome them to the 
United States. We want their trucks to be able to share our roads. But 
we want them to be safe, first, both for our well-being and for their 
well-being.
  Unfortunately, today Mexican trucks are not as safe as American 
trucks. In fact, there is not even a system in place to check the 
safety of Mexican drivers. We want to enable Mexico to meet our safety 
standards, which are the same safety standards Canadian drivers must 
meet every day.
  Right now, Mexican standards are not up to American standards. For 
example, Mexico has a far less rigid safety regime in place than Canada 
or the United States. Mexico has no experience with laws restricting 
the amount of time a driver may spend behind the wheel. The United 
States and Canada do. Mexico has no experience with logbook 
requirements as a way to enforce hours of service regulations. The 
United States and Canada do.
  Mexico has no requirement for the periodic inspection of their 
equipment for safety purposes. The United States and Canada do.
  Mexico does not have a fully operational roadside inspection regime 
to ensure compliance with driver and equipment safety standards. The 
United States and Canada do.
  Mexico does not have adequate data regarding Mexican firms or drivers 
to guarantee against forged documentation as we do with domestic and 
Canadian firms.
  All of this means that when a Mexican truck crosses the border into 
the United States, we will have virtually no assurance that those 
trucks meet U.S. highway safety standards. The proof is in the record. 
Mexican trucks that cross the U.S. border to legally serve the 
commercial zone have been ordered off the road by U.S. motor carrier 
inspectors 50 percent more frequently than U.S.-owned trucks.
  Some of my colleagues in the administration think this is just fine. 
I do not and Senator Shelby does not and a majority of the Senate does 
not. We as a country have made great strides to improve our highway 
safety. One of the greatest contributions to highway safety was an 
initiative by Senator Danforth requiring a uniform commercial driver's 
license or CDL here in the United States. That requirement came in the 
wake of numerous horror stories where U.S. truckdrivers had their 
licenses revoked and then got new licenses in other States so they 
could continue driving. Jack Danforth put a stop to that. He 
established a system in the United States where we monitor the issuance 
of commercial driver's licenses in all 50 States to ensure that 
multiple licenses are not being issued to the same driver. There is no 
such system in Mexico. In fact, there is hardly a system at all that 
allows access to the driving record history of Mexican drivers.
  None of us want to learn of a catastrophic truck accident that could 
have been avoided. For some reason our commonsense safety provisions 
are being called discriminatory. Under NAFTA, we are entitled to treat 
Canadian, U.S., and Mexican trucking firms differently based on what we 
know about the safety risks they represent.
  The opponents of this provision are fond of quoting the NAFTA 
provisions related to national treatment and most-favored-nation 
treatment, and they read, respectively:

       Each party shall accord to service providers of another 
     party, treatment no less favorable than it accords in like 
     circumstances to its own service providers.
       Each party shall accord to service providers of another 
     party, treatment no less favorable than it accords in like 
     circumstances to its own service providers of any other party 
     or of a nonparty.

  The opponents of this provision have focused on the ``no less 
favorable'' language of this clause, but they have left the other part 
out. I want to spend a moment discussing ``like circumstances'' 
language. It permits differential treatment where appropriate to meet 
legitimate regulatory goals, including highway safety. Don't take my 
word for it. Let's look at NAFTA, chapter 21, which says clearly 
``nothing in chapter 12''--this is the cross-border trade services 
section:


[[Page 15292]]

       . . . shall be construed to prevent the adoption or 
     enforcement by any party of any measures necessary to 
     security compliance with laws or regulations that are not 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement including 
     those related to health and safety and consumer protection.

  In 1993, when Congress ratified the NAFTA-implementing language, it 
also approved the U.S. Statement of Administrative Actions which says 
in part:

       The ``no less favorable'' standard applied in articles 1202 
     and 1203 does not require that service providers from other 
     NAFTA countries receive the same or even equal treatment as 
     that provided to local companies or other foreign firms. 
     Foreign Service providers can be treated differently if 
     circumstances warrant. For example, a State may impose 
     special requirements on Canadian and Mexican service 
     providers if necessary to protect consumers, to the same 
     degree as they are protected in respective local firms.

  Ultimately there is one authority that decides what violates NAFTA 
and what does not, despite what we have heard on this floor over the 
last week and a half. Who decides is the NAFTA arbitration panel. Here 
is what they had to say in their ruling on this very topic:

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

  So the NAFTA treaty itself stipulates that the U.S. can take measures 
to ensure the safety of its citizens. Congress' intent was clearly to 
allow this, and the NAFTA arbitration panel agrees.
  Opponents have repeatedly quoted just part of the NAFTA treaty to 
make their case. But when you look at the entire treaty, at the 
specific implementing language passed by our Congress--and I will again 
remind our colleagues I voted for that--and at the official arbitration 
panel's ruling, it is clear that our safety provisions are consistent 
with NAFTA.
  Those are the facts. But in spite of the facts, we hear the 
administration's allies suggesting this is driven by special interests. 
Let's take a look at who those special interests are, suggesting the 
Congress fulfill its obligation to protect the health and welfare of 
our citizens.
  Let me read to you who those special interests are who back the 
majority of the Senate and the safety provisions in this bill: 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Parents Against 
Tired Truckers, Consumer Federation of America, the Trauma Foundation, 
Triple A of Texas, American Insurance Association, the California 
Trucking Association, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, an independent drivers association 
in Mexico, Friends of the Earth, the Owners, Operators and Independent 
Drivers Association, the Sierra Club, and organized labor.
  Those are the special interests that believe our constituents should 
be safe on our highways.
  Finally, let me address the issue of implementation of NAFTA. To be 
sure, this is not a problem that the Bush administration created. It is 
one that it inherited. The problem is how this administration has 
chosen to respond to the challenge.
  As I have stated previously, this debate is not about how to keep 
Mexican trucks out of the United States. This is about the conditions 
under which we will let them enter. For all of the discussion of our 
obligations to our neighbors to the south, my first obligation is to 
the people who elected me. We can comply with NAFTA, promote free 
trade, and ensure the safety of our roadways simultaneously.
  I believe Senator Shelby and I have crafted a provision that will 
help us achieve those goals.
  The administration and its allies have taken considerable exception 
to this, and while I am working with them to seek ways to address their 
concerns, I am unwilling to sacrifice my principles. With the provision 
contained in our bill, when you are driving on the highway behind a 
Mexican truck you can feel safe. You will know that the truck was 
inspected and the company has a good truck record.
  You will know that American inspectors visited their facility and 
examined their records.
  You will know the driver is licensed and insured, and that the truck 
was weighed and is safe for our roads and for our bridges.
  You will know that they will keep track of which drivers are obeying 
laws and which ones are not.
  You will know that drivers who break our laws won't be on our roads 
because their licenses will be revoked.
  You will know that the driver behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler has 
not been driving for 20 or 30 straight hours.
  You will know that the truck didn't just cross our border unchecked 
but crossed where there were inspectors on duty.
  That is real safety. We should get about the business of passage.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the delay and the insults and pass 
this good, balanced bill that will help our country make progress on 
the transportation challenges that are getting worse every day. This 
bill is balanced; it is bipartisan; and it is beneficial. Let's put it 
to work for the American people.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, our dear colleague from Washington says 
opponents of this provision--such as the New York Times, the Washington 
Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Cleveland Plain Dealer--are trying to 
cloud the issues. But supporters of her provision, such as the Deseret 
News, see it in crystal-clear terms.
  Let me begin by saying that our colleague from Washington asked: Who 
can be opposed to truck safety? How could anyone be in favor of unsafe 
trucks on American roads? The answer to that is very simple. No one is 
opposed to truck safety. No one wants unsafe trucks on our roads.
  I will begin by asking that amendment No. 1053, which is the 
substitute that Senator McCain and I submitted, and which is supported 
by the administration, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Amendment No. 1053

       On page 72, beginning with line 14, strike through line 24 
     on page 78 and insert the following:
       Sec. 343. Safety of Cross-Border Trucking Between United 
     States and Mexico.--No funds limited or appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended for the review or processing 
     of an application by a motor carrier for authority to operate 
     beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on 
     the United States-Mexico border until--
       (1) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--
       (A)(i) requires a safety review of such motor carrier to be 
     performed before the carrier is granted conditional operating 
     authority to operate beyond United States municipalities and 
     commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border, and 
     before the carrier is granted permanent operating authority 
     to operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial 
     zones on the United States-Mexico border;
       (ii) requires the safety review to include verification of 
     available performance data and safety management programs, 
     including drug and alcohol testing, drivers' qualifications, 
     drivers' hours-of-service records, records of periodic 
     vehicle inspections, insurance, and other information 
     necessary to determine the carrier's preparedness to comply 
     with Federal motor carrier safety rules and regulations; and
       (iii) requires that every commercial vehicle operating 
     beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on 
     the United States-Mexico border, that is operated by a motor 
     carrier authorized to operate beyond those municipalities and 
     zones, display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 
     decal obtained as a result of a Level I North American 
     Standard Inspection, or a Level V Vehicle-Only Inspection, 
     whenever that vehicle is operating beyond such motor carrier 
     operating a vehicle in violation of this requirement to pay a 
     fine of up to $10,000 for each such violation;
       (B) establishes a policy that any safety review of such a 
     motor carrier should be conducted on site at the motor 
     carrier's facilities where warranted by safety considerations 
     or the availability of safety performance data;
       (C) requires Federal and State inspectors, in conjunction 
     with a Level I North American Standard Inspection, to verify, 
     electronically or otherwise, the license of each

[[Page 15293]]

     driver of such a motor carrier's commercial vehicle crossing 
     the border, and institutes a policy for random electronic 
     verification of the license of drivers of such motor 
     carrier's commercial vehicles at United States-Mexico border 
     crossings;
       (D) gives a distinctive Department of Transportation number 
     to each such motor carrier to assist inspectors in enforcing 
     motor carrier safety regulations, including hours-of-service 
     rules part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (E) requires State inspectors whose operations are funded 
     in part or in whole by Federal funds to check for violations 
     of Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations, 
     including those pertaining to operating authority and 
     insurance;
       (F) authorizes State inspectors who detect violations of 
     Federal motor carrier safety laws or regulations to enforce 
     such laws and regulations or to notify Federal authorities of 
     such violations;
       (G)(i) determines that there is a means of determining the 
     weight of such motor carrier commercial vehicles at each 
     crossing of the United States-Mexico border at which there is 
     a sufficient number of such commercial vehicle crossings; and
       (ii) initiates a study to determine which crossings should 
     also be equipped with weight-in-motion systems that would 
     enable State inspectors to verify the weight of each such 
     commercial vehicle entering the United States at such a 
     crossing;
       (H) has implemented a policy to ensure that no such motor 
     carrier will be granted authority to operate beyond United 
     States municipalities and commercial zones on the United 
     States-Mexico border unless that carrier provides proof of 
     valid insurance with an insurance company licensed in the 
     United States;
       (I) issues a policy--
       (i) requiring motor carrier safety inspectors to be on duty 
     during all operating hours at all United States-Mexico border 
     crossings used by commercial vehicles;
       (ii) with respect to standards for the determination of the 
     appropriate number of Federal and State motor carrier 
     inspectors for the United States-Mexico border (under 
     sections 218(a) and (b) of the Motor Carrier Safety 
     Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31133 nt.)); and
       (iii) with respect to prohibiting foreign motor carriers 
     from operating in the United States that are found to have 
     operated illegally in the United States (under section 219(a) 
     of that Act (49 U.S.C. 14901 nt.)); and
       (J) completes its rulemaking--
       (i) to establish minimum requirements for motor carriers, 
     including foreign motor carriers, to ensure they are 
     knowledgeable about Federal safety standards (under section 
     210(b) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 
     (49 U.S.C. 31144 nt.)),
       (ii) to implement measures to improve training and provide 
     for the certification of motor carrier safety auditors (under 
     section 31148 of title 49, United States Code), and
       (iii) to prohibit foreign motor carriers from leasing 
     vehicles to another carrier to transport products to the 
     United States while the lessor is subject to a suspension, 
     restriction, or limitation on its right to operate in the 
     United States (under section 219(d), of that Act (49 U.S.C. 
     14901 nt.)),

     or transmits to the Congress, within 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, a notice in writing that it will 
     not be able to complete any such rulemaking, that explains 
     why it will not be able to complete the rulemaking, and that 
     states the date by which it expects to complete the 
     rulemaking; and
       (2) until the Department of Transportation Inspector 
     General certifies in writing to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation, the Senate Committee on 
     Appropriations, the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Appropriations that the 
     Inspector General will report in writing to the Secretary and 
     to each such Committee--
       (A) on the number of Federal motor carrier safety 
     inspectors hired, trained as safety specialists, and prepared 
     to be on duty during hours of operation at the United States-
     Mexico border by January 1, 2002;
       (B) periodically--
       (i) on the adequacy of the number of Federal and State 
     inspectors at the United States-Mexico border; and
       (ii) as to whether the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration is ensuring compliance with hours-of-service 
     rules under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, by such motor carriers;
       (iii) as to whether United States and Mexican enforcement 
     databases are sufficiently integrated and accessible to 
     ensure that licenses, vehicle registrations, and insurance 
     information can be verified at border crossings or by mobile 
     enforcement units; and
       (iv) as to whether there is adequate capacity at each 
     United States-Mexico border crossing used by motor carrier 
     commercial vehicles to conduct a sufficient number of vehicle 
     safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out-of-
     service as a result of the inspections.

     In this section, the term ``motor carrier'' means a motor 
     carrier domiciled in Mexico that seeks authority to operate 
     beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on 
     the United States-Mexico border.

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I want people to see this amendment 
because the amendment requires that every Mexican truck be inspected. 
It requires that the most stringent safety standards are met before 
Mexican trucks come into America, but it does it in a way that complies 
with NAFTA, a treaty obligation of the United States. It does it in a 
way that is common sense, to use the Senator's words, and that deals 
with legitimate safety concerns.
  Rather than going on all day, let me try to do the following thing, 
which I think represents about as fair a way of responding to the 
Senator from Washington as one can respond.
  She sets the standard that it be common sense and that it meet 
legitimate safety concerns. I wish to add to that that it not violate 
treaty obligations of the United States.
  I would like to take four provisions of the amendment of the Senator 
from Washington, and I would like to submit it to those tests.
  I have to say that I am quite pleased that the major newspapers in 
America have not been confused by this debate. In fact, the Chicago 
Tribune probably put it best in their lead editorial entitled ``Honk if 
you smell cheap politics.''

       The truth is that Teamsters truckers don't want competition 
     from their Mexican counterparts.

  I am pleased that people have not been confused. But in case anybody 
still has any confusion about what we are talking about, I want to take 
five provisions from the Murray amendment and submit them to her test 
of common sense, legitimate safety concerns, and do they violate NAFTA.
  The first has to do with a provision of the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999. This is a bill that was adopted by Congress, 
that has not been implemented fully by either the Clinton 
administration or the Bush administration, and it has to do with 
safety. These provisions apply to every truck operating on American 
highways. They apply to United States trucks, to Canadian trucks, and 
to Mexican trucks.
  The Senator from Washington says in her amendment that until this 
1999 law is fully implemented, even though it applies to American 
trucks, American trucks can continue to operate; and even though this 
law applies to Canadian trucks, Canadian trucks can continue to 
operate; but until this law is fully implemented, until the regulations 
are written--and the administration says that these regulations cannot 
be written and this bill cannot be fully implemented for at least 18 
months--until that is the case, no Mexican truck would be allowed to 
operate in interstate commerce in the United States. And that provision 
would be clearly in violation of NAFTA.
  I ask a question: If it is common sense that we don't want trucks to 
operate until this law is implemented, why don't we say all trucks? In 
fact, if we said all trucks, we probably would not be able to eat lunch 
this afternoon. But it would be common sense and it would not violate 
NAFTA.
  The first provision of the Senator's amendment, in essence, says that 
something that cannot happen for 18 months has to be done before we are 
going to comply with a treaty related to Mexican trucks. That is as 
arbitrary as saying that Mexican trucks can't come into the United 
States until the 29th of February falls on a Tuesday. It is totally 
arbitrary, and it is aimed at only one objective; that is, to treat 
Mexican trucks differently than American trucks, differently than 
Canadian trucks, and in the process of violating NAFTA.
  I think any objective person would say that requiring an action that 
has nothing to do with Mexican trucks to be undertaken by the U.S. 
Government before we are going to live up to a solemn treaty obligation 
of the United States has no element of common sense in it, nor does it 
have anything to do with legitimate safety. If it had anything to do 
with legitimate safety, we would restrict all trucks until this law was 
implemented.
  Finally, the final test: Does it violate NAFTA?
  Our requirement under NAFTA is very simple. It is one sentence. It is 
in

[[Page 15294]]

the section on cross-border trade and services on page 1129. It says:

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

  This is the point: We are saying to American truckers that you can 
operate every day, even though this 1999 law is not implemented. We say 
a few Canadian trucks can operate today, even though this law is not 
implemented, but Mexican truckers can never operate, even though in 
NAFTA we promised they could. They can never operate until this law is 
fully implemented and the regulations are written.
  That is clearly not equal protection of the law; it is clearly not 
equal treatment; and it clearly violates NAFTA.
  The second provision of the Murray amendment that doesn't make common 
sense, that has nothing to do with legitimate safety, and that violates 
NAFTA has to do with truck leasing.
  Let me set it in context. Big trucking companies don't own trucks 
anymore. They lease them to each other. The last thing any trucking 
company can afford to do is have trucks that cost $250,000 sitting in 
their parking lot.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GRAMM. So what happens is, when a trucking company loses business 
or is under some limitation, the first thing they do is get on the 
Internet, and they put their trucks out for lease. They lease them to 
other companies, and the trucks are used. You cannot stay in the 
trucking business if you cannot lease your trucks.
  The second provision of the Murray amendment says, if any Mexican 
trucking company is under any suspension, restriction, or limitation, 
they cannot lease their trucks.
  There is not a major trucking company in America today that is not 
under some restriction or some limitation. You cannot operate trucks in 
America without having some restriction or limitation. It may be that 
you thought your turn signal was working, and it was not when you were 
inspected, or your mud flap tore off, but there is not a major trucking 
company in America today that does not have some limitation.
  What the Murray amendment says is it is OK if a Canadian company has 
a limitation or has a suspension; they can lease their trucks to 
another company to operate--after all, they would go broke if they 
could not do it--and any American company that is under a restriction 
or a limitation can lease its trucks. But under the Murray amendment, a 
Mexican company that is under a restriction or a limitation cannot 
lease its trucks.
  Does that make common sense? No. Is that a legitimate safety issue? 
No. Does that violate NAFTA? You bet your life it violates NAFTA 
because it treats Canadian companies and it treats American companies 
different from Mexican companies.
  Why, if your objective is safety, would you want to have a provision 
that says that while Canadian companies can lease trucks and American 
companies can lease trucks--because they have to do it to stay in 
business--Mexican companies cannot lease trucks? You do not put that in 
an amendment because you are concerned about safety; you put it in an 
amendment as a poison pill to make it impossible for Mexican companies 
to operate in the United States. It is as arbitrary as saying: We can 
take our safety exams in English, but Mexican truck drivers have to 
take their safety exams in Chinese. It is totally pernicious and 
totally discriminatory against Mexico.
  Now look, you can argue we should have or we should not have entered 
into an agreement to allow a North American market to be opened to 
trucks of the three countries that joined the agreement. But the point 
is, we did agree to it. It was signed by a Republican President. We 
ratified it in Congress under a Democrat President. The final 
enforcement is occurring under a Republican President. We are committed 
to the obligations we entered into here.
  No one can argue that not allowing Mexican companies to lease 
trucks--when no major American company could operate without being able 
to lease trucks--is a legitimate safety concern. No one can argue that 
that has anything to do with the application of common sense, nor can 
anybody argue that that does not violate NAFTA.
  Now, today, almost every truck in Canada is insured by a company that 
is domiciled outside the United States. Most of them are insured by 
Lloyds of London. Some are insured by Canadian companies. Some are 
insured by European companies. The plain truth is, it is almost 
impossible in the world in which we live to know where an insurance 
company is domiciled because insurance companies are now doing business 
all over the world. So it is very difficult to know what 
``nationality'' they are.
  American trucking companies are not required to buy insurance from 
American companies. In fact, some of them have insurance with Dutch 
companies, with British companies and with Canadian companies. That is 
the way we operate. And that is common sense. That meets legitimate 
safety concerns. And that does not violate NAFTA. But whereas we let 
Canadian trucking companies buy insurance that is not sold by American-
domiciled companies, and whereas we let American trucking companies buy 
insurance that is not sold by American-domiciled companies, the Murray 
amendment requires that Mexican trucks purchase insurance from 
companies domiciled in the United States. That violates common sense. 
It is not a legitimate safety issue, and it clearly violates NAFTA.
  No. 4, as I mentioned earlier, almost any trucking company, at any 
one time, would have numerous violations--some small, some large, but 
it would have numerous violations--and you have a gradation of 
penalties for those violations. The same is true with regard to 
Canadian companies. But under the Murray amendment, if you are a 
Mexican company--we say in NAFTA that you are going to be treated 
exactly as an American company, exactly as a Canadian company; no 
better, no worse--but under the Murray amendment, if you have a 
violation, you are barred from operating in the United States of 
America. You have a penalty, and it is the death penalty.
  Does that make common sense? Is that a legitimate safety concern? Is 
that a violation of NAFTA? The answer is, no, no, yes. It does not make 
common sense; it is not a legitimate safety concern; and it does 
violate NAFTA.
  Let me just take a simple provision. If you needed living proof that 
this debate has nothing to do with safety, let me pose the following 
question: If you really wanted safe Mexican trucks--and I remind my 
colleagues that with the support of the administration, Senator McCain 
and I offered an amendment that required the inspection of every single 
Mexican truck coming into the United States, something we do not do 
with regard to Canadian trucks, something we do not do with regard to 
our own trucks, but if you were really concerned about safety, and you 
were going to implement NAFTA and allow Mexican trucks in interstate 
commerce, would you want to take your best, most experienced inspectors 
and put them where they are going to be inspecting Mexican trucks? I 
would. And I think that is a reasonable question.
  If your concern is safety and not protectionism, if your concern is 
legitimate safety and not a back door way of violating NAFTA, if your 
concern is about safe trucks, not about keeping Mexican trucks out of 
the United States, wouldn't you want to have your most experienced 
inspectors inspecting Mexican trucks --and we require inspecting every 
one of them--because you want your best people inspecting new trucks 
that are coming into the country for the first time? Doesn't that make 
sense?
  Would it make any sense, if your objective was safety, to have a 
provision that current inspectors who have training and experience 
could not be moved to inspect Mexican trucks? Could anyone who had any 
concern about safety of Mexican trucks support a provision that said 
you could not take inspectors who are trained and experienced and

[[Page 15295]]

move them to the Mexican border to inspect existing trucks?
  You have to start from scratch. You have to hire new people, you have 
to train them, and you have to get them experienced. Remember, months, 
years are ticking off the clock.
  Could anybody have any reason to believe that a provision that said 
experienced inspectors could not be moved so they would be inspecting 
new Mexican trucks coming into the United States--if your concern was 
about safety, that would be the last provision you would ever put in 
your bill. If you were concerned about safety, you would never ever 
support a provision that said you have to inspect Mexican trucks, but 
you cannot take people who are trained and experienced--who are now 
inspecting trucks --and move them so that they can inspect Mexican 
trucks. That would be the last thing on Earth you would ever do. But 
the Murray amendment does it.
  Remarkably enough, the Murray amendment says that they are so eager 
to inspect these Mexican trucks, that they are so concerned about their 
safety, that not one inspector who is currently inspecting trucks in 
America, not one inspector who currently has both training and 
experience, can be moved to meet this new need of inspection.
  Why on Earth would anybody who is concerned about safety ever have 
such a provision? The only reason that any such provision would ever be 
written into an amendment is if the objective was not safe Mexican 
trucks but the objective was no Mexican trucks.
  The Murray amendment literally says: Anybody who is currently 
inspecting trucks, anybody currently licensed to inspect trucks, 
anybody currently trained to inspect trucks cannot be moved so that 
they inspect Mexican trucks. They have to be recruited, trained, and 
then they have to get practical experience.
  The net result of that is not safe Mexican trucks; quite the 
contrary. To the extent they came into the country, it would mean 
unsafe trucks. But the objective, the only logical, commonsense reason 
that such a provision would ever be in a bill is if you want to 
prohibit Mexican trucks.
  Our colleagues can say over and over and over and over again that 
this is about safety. The problem is, the administration, Senator 
McCain, and I support inspecting every Mexican truck, something we do 
not do with Canadian trucks, something we do not do with American 
trucks. We support employing exactly the same standards in requiring 
them to meet every standard we have to meet, and we support a more 
stringent inspection regime until they prove they are meeting those 
standards.
  What we do not support, what we cannot support or accept, and what we 
will continue to oppose through three more clotures and ultimately a 
Presidential veto, is discrimination against Mexico. We will not 
support and we will not accept provisions that go back on our 
commitment in NAFTA.
  The greatest country in the history of the world does not violate 
commitments it makes in treaties. I repeat: While I know it is easier 
to cover this story by saying this is about various levels of safety 
standards, the things that the administration objects to and the 
Mexican Government objects to and Senator McCain objects to and I 
object to have nothing to do with safety. They have to do with 
provisions that are written for one and only one purpose; that is, to 
prevent Mexican trucks from coming into the United States and, in the 
process, violating NAFTA.
  I have outlined--there are others I could go through--five 
irrefutable examples where we say: Until some regulation is promulgated 
that applies to all trucks, not just Mexican trucks, that Mexican 
trucks shall not come into the country.
  I have talked about not letting Mexican trucking companies lease 
their trucks when we let American and Canadian companies lease their 
trucks. The only reason you would not do it is if you want to make it 
so people cannot be in the trucking business. I have talked about 
buying insurance. We don't make our own companies buy American 
insurance. We make them buy insurance that is licensed, that meets our 
standards, but they can buy Dutch insurance, British insurance, 
Canadian insurance, Japanese insurance. What this provision would do is 
treat Mexico differently than everybody else.
  This is not about safety. This is about discrimination. This is about 
treating Mexico, an equal partner in NAFTA, as a second-class citizen. 
This is about sham safety provisions that basically have the result of 
preventing Mexican trucks from operating in the United States and 
violating NAFTA.
  Let me conclude by making the following point: It is an incredible 
paradox. A lot of talk has been made about Mexican trucks. Today 
Mexican trucks bring goods to the border, come across the border, go to 
a warehouse, and unload and go back. The Mexican trucks that are 
operating in the 20-mile radius of the border are basically hauling 
watermelons and cabbages and vegetables. You are dealing with old 
trucks. People do not haul cabbages across the border in 18-wheelers.
  The figures being used about safety inspections, even though Mexican 
trucks are being inspected twice as much as Canadian trucks today--and 
by the way, the drivers in the inspections are being rated better than 
American drivers; many of them are college graduates--people are using 
trucks that are hauling cabbages as an example of the kind of trucks 
that are going to be operating in interstate commerce.
  The plain truth is that Mexican trucking companies are going to lease 
trucks from the same leasing companies that lease trucks to American 
trucking companies, and they are going to buy new trucks to lease. The 
debate is not about safety. The debate is about protectionism. The 
debate is about a well-organized special interest group, the Teamsters 
union, which has worked very hard to try to prevent the United States 
from living up to NAFTA. They are not going to win.
  First of all, we have three more clotures, and we intend to use every 
right we have because this is an important issue. I have to say, I am 
surprised that so many of the major newspapers in America--the New York 
Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Cleveland Plain 
Dealer--despite all of this fog of rhetoric, ``safety, safety, safety, 
safety,'' when the provisions in dispute have nothing to do with 
safety, I am pleased that they have seen through the fog.
  The reason the Founding Fathers structured the Senate as they did was 
that they were not counting on the New York Times or the Washington 
Post seeing through the fog. They recognized that there were going to 
be issues where you were going to have well-organized special interest 
groups standing outside that door. They were going to be lobbying. They 
were going to be pushing, and it was going to be possible to take raw, 
rotten special interests--in this case, special interests that would 
have us violate a solemn treaty agreement of the United States--and 
make us hypocrites all over the world when we call on our trading 
partners to live up to their agreements, when we are violating our 
agreement with our neighbor to the south.
  The Founding Fathers recognized that people would get confused, that 
issues would get clouded. And so when they structured the Senate, they 
gave a few Senators--one Senator, any Senator--rights to defend their 
position. Senator McCain and I have used those rights. We are going to 
continue to use them. There are three more clotures before this bill 
will ever go to conference. The bill, if it does get to conference, 
will be fixed, or the President will veto it, and we will start the 
whole process over.
  In the end, when we are dealing with something as important as NAFTA, 
when we are dealing with something as important as America living up to 
its treaty obligations, if that is not worth fighting for, the job of a 
Senator is not worth having.
  I am pleased that the major papers in America are not confused. I am 
pleased that it is clear to them that people should know that this is 
about special

[[Page 15296]]

interests. This does violate NAFTA. I have given five clear examples, 
beyond any reasonable doubt, where no person could argue that the 
provisions of the Murray amendment have any objective at all other than 
preventing Mexican trucks from coming into the country.
  The one that I spent the most time on is the one that has to do with 
simply the question of whether you want inspectors to inspect Mexican 
trucks. The Murray amendment says no. Any inspector currently 
inspecting trucks in America can't go inspect Mexican trucks. You have 
to hire new people. You have to train them. You have to let them get 
experience.
  That provision is not about safety. That provision is about raw, 
rotten protectionism. Happily people are recognizing it for what it is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think it is very important that we 
go back and look at what has happened on the issue of Mexican trucks, 
NAFTA, and the safety of American highways.
  When NAFTA was passed, it was explicit in permitting the Federal 
Government and individual States to establish and enforce their own 
requirements for truck safety. It also said that there should be a 
single standard in every jurisdiction. So the standard should apply to 
trucks from the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
  However, what I think has been missed in this debate is the ruling of 
the international tribunal in February which, it has been pointed out, 
did find the United States in violation because we actually had halted 
the truck safety rules in 1995 in this country, and so the United 
States had failed to meet the deadline.
  But the other part of this Mexican tribunal ruling was that the 
United States does not have to treat applications from Mexican-based 
carriers in exactly the same manner as United States or Canadian firms. 
In fact, there are some differences in the treatment of Canadian firms 
because of different operating authorities in that sovereign country.
  The panel also said that the United States is not required to grant 
operating authority to any specific number of Mexican applicants. I 
went back and looked at the makeup of the NAFTA tribunal because I 
thought it would be important to know. The tribunal was two Mexican 
citizens, two United States citizens, and the chairman was from 
Britain. The vote was unanimous because it was noted that there could 
be different rules for certain countries because of the significant 
differences in the country's safety regimes. So this was not a 3-2 
vote, where the Mexican nationals voted differently from the United 
States and British nationals. It was a unanimous vote that acknowledged 
there would be differences that could be addressed.
  The Bush administration, to its credit, is playing catchup because we 
have had 5 years of delays from the previous administration. Their 
proposed rule that came out of the Department of Transportation was a 
start, but it was not adequate to provide clear United States safety 
under any kind of term that would be considered acceptable.
  The original Department of Transportation rule would require that, 
for the first 18 months of operation, Mexican carriers would be 
required to comply with documentary production, insurance requirements, 
and undefined safety inspections. The rule was vague and insufficient. 
That is why I sat down with officials from the Department of 
Transportation and I said: These rules are inadequate. We cannot allow 
trucks to come into our country that haven't either been certified or 
inspected, and the certification would only come from inspection. That 
would not be prudent. It would not be responsible.
  The Department of Transportation authority agreed. We have been 
working all along--Senator Murray, Senator Shelby, Senator Gramm, and 
Senator McCain, along with myself--with the Department of 
Transportation to beef up those rules. I think it is fair to say that 
the Murray-Shelby language has part of the requirement for beefing up 
those rules, and Senators McCain and Gramm have suggested, in the form 
of drafts, other requirements. In fact, I have offered other 
requirements that are not in either bill, which I think are very 
important.
  Yes, I think we can change some of the parts in this underlying bill. 
I think the discussion that has been going on for almost 2 weeks on 
this floor is really a process discussion, not a substantive one. I say 
that because I think we are very close to agreeing to the parts of the 
underlying bill that should remain, the parts that should change; and I 
think all of us are in agreement that the House version is unacceptable 
because the House version does what has caused us to get in trouble 
under the NAFTA agreement, and that is shut down the regulations and 
act as if we are just not going to comply. That is not responsible. The 
House position is not tenable.
  On the other hand, I think we are very close to significant changes 
in the original Department of Transportation regulation because they 
were totally inadequate and they now have stepped up to the plate and 
agreed, working with Senator Murray, myself, and with Senators Gramm 
and McCain, to come up with good safety regulations.
  The bottom line for all of us is that we must have inspections of 
every truck. When we talk about whether we go into Mexico to the site 
of the trucking company to make the inspection, I think we should do 
that if we have the permission to do it. And it will be in the interest 
of the trucking company in Mexico to allow the inspectors in, because 
if you get the certification stamp on your truck as a result of being 
inspected onsite, then your truck will not be stopped at the border. It 
will have been inspected and certified, and you will be able to operate 
it under the same rules as a U.S. truck operates. And if the Mexicans 
agree that it is in their best interest--and I think they will--then 
that is going to alleviate a lot of problems, and it is going to ensure 
the inspections that will ensure the safety.
  Secondly, the Murray language in the underlying bill does something 
very important to implement this regulation, which the House failed to 
do, and that is, it has the $103 million that has been requested by the 
President to finance the infrastructure to hire and train the 
inspectors at the border and to provide aid to States to inspect trucks 
along the United States-Mexico border.
  Now, I cannot imagine anything worse than saying we are going to have 
all these regulations, but we are not going to have any inspectors. One 
of the reasons so many of my border constituents are concerned about 
the Mexican truck issue is because we have had Mexican trucks within a 
20-mile limit through the border, and they have not all been inspected; 
they have not all met the requirements that would make people on our 
highways feel safe. In fact, I will quote from the AAA Texas Chapter 
press release in which it says:

       The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that more 
     than 35 percent of trucks from Mexico, under this 20-mile 
     rule, were taken out of service for safety violations in 
     2000. That compares to 24 percent for U.S. trucks and 17 
     percent for trucks from Canada.
  It is very important we look at the people who are living with this 
problem the most right now. We have had a lot of editorials read into 
the Record, and I will read two editorials from Texas newspapers, one 
from the El Paso Times. The heading is: ``It Is About Safety. No ifs, 
ands or trucks--unless they pass the test.''

       Just as the U.S. Senate was voting in favor of tough safety 
     standards for Mexican trucks crossing into the United States, 
     a new truck-inspection site sprang up at Delta Drive and 
     Hammond Street, near the Bridge of the Americas.
       It was a welcome surprise, given the extreme level of 
     concern about the safety of Mexican trucks coming into the 
     country and driving through El Paso.
       The new inspection station near the Americas Bridge should 
     furnish a clearer picture of how bad the safety problems with 
     Mexican trucks are or are not. Between January and June, 
     inspectors at international bridges placed 132 American 
     trucks out of service, and 944 Mexican trucks. This indicates 
     a severe problem exists.


[[Page 15297]]


  So it is very important.
  I ask unanimous consent the editorial from the El Paso Times be made 
a part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the El Paso Times, July 29, 2001]

   It's About Safety--No Ifs, Ands or Trucks--Unless They Pass Tests

       Just as the U.S. Senate was voting in favor of tough safety 
     standards for Mexican trucks crossing into the United States, 
     a new truck-inspection site sprang up at Delta Drive and 
     Hammett Street, near the Bridge of the Americas.
       It was a welcome surprise, given the extreme level of 
     concern about the safety of Mexican trucks coming into the 
     country and driving through El Paso.
       State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, said the information 
     gleaned from the inspections would be forwarded to President 
     Bush to let him know ``what kind of trucks are coming 
     through.''
       Bush is currently engaged in a bitter fight with Congress 
     over how tough safety standards should be for Mexican trucks 
     entering this country. Bush has threatened to veto the 
     tougher rules the Senate is advocating.
       The new inspection station near the Americas Bridge should 
     furnish a clearer picture of how bad the safety problems with 
     Mexican trucks are or aren't. Between January and June, 
     inspectors at international bridges placed 132 American 
     trucks out of service--and 944 Mexican trucks. That indicates 
     a severe problem exists.
       Pickett said the state isn't planning to make the new 
     inspection station a permanent fixture. But during its 
     lifespan, it should be able to furnish much pertinent 
     information to the discussion over truck safety.
       Meanwhile, the president and Congress have to meet at some 
     middle ground concerning Mexican trucks. The North American 
     Free Trade Agreement mandates allowing Mexican trucks access 
     to all parts of the United States.
       That, of course, should be honored.
       But both Congress and the president must also look out for 
     the safety of American highways and American motorists.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will also read from the Austin 
American Statesman of July 31, 2001; the headline, ``No Matter Their 
Origin, Trucks Must Be Safe.''

       For Central Texans, the fight over Mexican trucks on 
     America's roads and highways is more than just an inside-the-
     beltway partisan political battle. Austin is ground zero for 
     trucks coming across the border and up Interstate 35. I-35 
     from San Antonio to Dallas is already one of the most 
     dangerous stretches of interstate in the Nation. Adding 
     thousands of unsafe trucks to the mix increases the threat to 
     accidents, injuries and fatalities. What is spirited debate 
     and hardball politics in Washington is deadly reality in 
     Austin. In fact, both sides may be right. A NAFTA panel said 
     as much earlier this year when it found the United States in 
     violation of the treaty for restricting Mexican trucks but 
     then added, the safety of trucks crossing the border is a 
     legitimate issue and an important responsibility of the 
     Federal Government.

  That is the tribunal that was unanimously speaking with two Mexican 
members, two United States members, and a British chairman.
  It goes on to say:

       Congress should not abrogate NAFTA for purely political 
     purposes and force Mexican trucks to meet stiffer standards 
     than the American-Canadian fleets. If the Mexican trucks do 
     not meet the standards, however, pull them off the road. It 
     should, as President Bush suggests, step up inspections and 
     increase enforcement of the safety standards already in 
     place.

  That is exactly what the bill before us today does. It beefs up 
inspections.
  This is common sense. Of course we must beef up inspections. The 
Murray language does that. Of course we must pay for it. The Murray 
language makes it a priority.
  After the House passed the amendment that would shut down the 
inspections at the border and take the money away, I went to Senator 
Murray and said, this is not responsible governing. She agreed, and she 
has worked with a lot of different interests to try to forge what is 
right. Maybe it is not perfect. I do not agree with every single part 
of it. I think Senator Gramm and Senator McCain have made a few good 
points, but I do not think holding up the bill and keeping progress 
from going forward is the right approach. They certainly have the right 
to do that, as any Member of the Senate does, but I do not think we are 
going to get to the goal they want by holding up the bill.
  We have a workable bill before us. We can make some changes, and I 
think Senator Murray will work with us to make those changes.
  The Department of Inspection and President Bush have made very solid 
suggestions on what we need to uphold NAFTA and to uphold the integrity 
of safety on the U.S. highway system.
  I hope the games will end. I hope we can go forward with a very good 
start on this problem so we will be able to immediately begin the 
process of putting those border inspection stations in place, because 
without the inspections, none of this is going to make sense. I assure 
my colleagues, we will not have safety if we do not have the capacity 
to inspect, and that is the most important goal we should all have.
  I agree with the Austin American Statesman and the El Paso Times. 
These are two cities. Austin is our State capital. El Paso is the 
largest Texas border city with Mexico. The largest Mexican city on the 
entire border is Juarez. We know safety is important for every person 
who is on our highways: Americans, Hispanic Americans, Black Americans, 
Asian Americans, and foreign people traveling on our highways. We have 
a reputation for safety. We must uphold that reputation for the sake of 
our families and our children.
  I do not want unsafe American trucks. I do not want unsafe American 
cars. That is why we have inspection requirements because people 
traveling on our highways feel safe, and we must assure they stay that 
way.
  We are close to a compromise. I do not really think we are talking 
substance anymore. We are talking process. We have a solution the 
Department of Transportation, the President of the United States, and 
every Member of the Senate is going to agree is the right solution. The 
real donnybrook is whether we put it on the bill now or we hammer it 
out in conference with all sides at the table. We can do it in 
conference with all sides at the table.
  Reasonable minds can disagree on this. I certainly think every 
Senator has the right to hold up progress, but inevitably we are going 
to sit down at the table in conference and work this out. I hope that 
does not mean September because we will have lost a month of setting up 
those inspection stations and starting the process of getting our house 
in order to have inspections of every truck coming into our country, 
from Canada or Mexico.
  If we wait until September, because of the process initiatives that 
have been going on for over a week on this bill, we are not serving the 
best interests of our constituents and the people who depend on us to 
make the right decisions. I hope we will listen to the tribunal that 
spoke out and said we have the sovereign ability to keep our roads 
safe. We can come to an agreement that will do that and comply with our 
responsibilities under trade agreements as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on a 
subject unrelated to the topic that is now before us, and that my 
comments follow those of the Senator from Mississippi this morning, Mr. 
Cochran, who spoke on missile defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, could I ask the Senator for 
how long he wishes to speak?
  Mr. ALLARD. I request 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. That will be fine. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized 
at the expiration of those remarks.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, of 
course, object to the request to speak, my understanding is we are on 
the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. I came over 
intending to speak on that matter, on the amendment that has been 
discussed most recently.

[[Page 15298]]

  The Senator from Nevada wishes to be recognized following the Senator 
from Colorado; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. I shall not object. I did want to indicate I wanted to 
speak on this bill, on the amendment, but I will certainly defer to the 
morning business request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allard are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business''.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I heard this morning the Senator from 
Washington, the manager of this bill, talk about why this legislation 
is important. Earlier this morning, I talked about why this legislation 
is important to people of the State of Nevada. I heard her this morning 
read into the Record the names of organizations that support this 
legislation, and a few minutes later I walked over to my office.
  As I walked to my office, one of my friends said: I would like you to 
meet someone. As I proceeded over to see the person that I was asked to 
meet, I was introduced to a woman from the State of Maine. I cannot 
remember her name. I was introduced to her outside this Chamber. She 
was here representing Parents Against Tired Truckers. It doesn't sound 
like much, does it?
  This woman lost a son. In 1993, her son was killed by a truckdriver 
who had been on the road too long. That is what this legislation is all 
about, making sure our roads are safer. I acknowledge that there are 
things we could do with American truckdrivers that would create safer 
ways for me and my family to travel on these roads. But we do not need 
to get into that today.
  What we need to get into today is recognizing what Senators Murray 
and Shelby have done, which is to write legislation to make our roads 
safer so that we do not have this organization gaining more parents who 
have lost children as a result of tired truckers.
  I told the woman whose son was killed in 1993: I appreciate you being 
involved for so long.
  She said: I am never going to give up.
  That is how I look at the Senator from Washington: She is never going 
to give up. She believes strongly that what she and Senator Shelby have 
crafted is fair. Keep in mind, it is not as if the Senator from 
Washington is working in a vacuum.
  What the House of Representatives did, by a 2-1 vote, is outlaw 
Mexican trucks coming into the United States. So it seems to me this 
approach is reasonable; it does not outlaw all Mexican trucks coming 
into the United States, but to say we want Mexican trucks coming into 
the United States to have certain basic safety features. And we want to 
check to see if they are adhering to those safety features. That is 
what her legislation does.
  So I personally am very happy with this legislation. It is no wonder 
that we have people lobbying the Senate. When you hear about lobbyists, 
the first thing you think of are people wearing Gucci shoes and driving 
in limousines. The woman from Maine did not have a limousine, and she 
was not wearing Gucci shoes. She paid her own way here to advocate for 
safer highways. This legislation is important to her.
  That is why we have all kinds of organizations--too lengthy to put in 
the Record; some of these names have already been put in the Record--
that are advocates for highway and auto safety.
  Public Citizen is a public interest organization that is involved in 
many things dealing with consumer safety. They are concerned about this 
legislation. They favor the Murray proposal.
  Consumer Federation of America: Of course, we know what the Consumer 
Federation of America is. It is an organization that supports consumers 
getting a fair break in America. That is what the legislation is from 
the Senator from Washington. It is just to make sure that the traveling 
public will be on highways and roads where the trucks coming from other 
countries have certain minimal safety features. That is how I look at 
it. Others may look at it differently.
  The Trauma Foundation: Why would the Trauma Foundation be interested 
in legislation such as this? The Trauma Foundation is interested in 
legislation such as this because people get hurt on these roads--people 
get maimed, injured, and killed. That is why the Trauma Foundation of 
America supports this legislation.
  I think one of the most interesting aspects of this legislation is 
that the Texas Automobile Association of America supports this 
legislation. I think that is pretty good. In fact, the Texas AAA issued 
a press release, going line by line over the legislation of the Senator 
from Washington, supporting her legislation.
  On-site safety audits at the company facilities prior to authorizing 
their trucks to cross the border: This isn't what Senator Murray is 
saying; this is what the Texas Automobile Association of America is 
saying.
  They also say there should be significant improvements in safety 
inspections at the border, including enforcement of U.S. weight limits. 
They also said there should be adequate resources for enforcement 
throughout the United States. They believe there should be verifiable 
insurance on each vehicle. It does not seem too bizarre to me that this 
legislation calls for trucks coming into the United States to have 
adequate and verifiable insurance information on each vehicle.
  There should be shared tracking of the company's truck and driver 
safety records between the United States and Mexican authorities. The 
Texas AAA says there should be enforcement of safety laws, including 
limiting the number of continuous hours spent driving. That also does 
not seem too outrageous to me, that if we are going to have these huge 
trucks with over 100,000 pounds of material on them, we are asking that 
the drivers have a limited amount of hours driving these trucks. I 
think that is something that is extremely important.
  So they end their press release by saying: The safety of the motoring 
public should not be risked in the rush to meet an apparently arbitrary 
deadline. They believe that it is extremely important. So I think it 
kind of says it all, if we have the Texas AAA asking that we uphold 
this legislation. It is reasonable legislation.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would be delighted to yield.
  Madam President, I want to say a word about the Mexican truck 
amendment, the Murray-Shelby amendment, particularly to commend both 
Senator Murray and Senator Shelby on their diligence. The Senator from 
Washington has been persistent and has been ultimately fair.
  What happens is--since we have been criticized about even putting 
this on an appropriations bill--many times the cart gets before the 
horse. And what happened on this occasion was that the President of the 
United States announced summarily that come January 1 we were going to 
admit the Mexican trucks, ipso facto--bam, that was it.
  I go back immediately to the debate that we had about NAFTA, where it 
had been suggested that we use the common market approach rather than 
the free market approach. The Europeans learned long since that the 
free market approach did not work. On the contrary, they said: What we 
need to do is to develop the infrastructure of a free market; namely, 
property ownership, labor rights, respect for the judiciary, the 
infrastructure, if you please, for safety and for health care.
  The Europeans thereafter taxed themselves some $5.7 billion over a 5-

[[Page 15299]]

year period, setting those elements of infrastructure up within Greece 
and Portugal before they admitted Greece and Portugal into the common 
market.
  We see the result of not having done that. Here we are faced with the 
announcement by the President and, thereupon, the action by the House 
in their appropriations bill. So while we had, in the authorizing 
committee, scheduled a hearing with respect to the Mexican trucking 
problem, we had to act in the Appropriations Committee in order to make 
it deliberate and sound and fair.
  The action on the House side was not that deliberate, sound, or fair. 
On the outside they just said: Look, we cut off any and all funds for 
the admission of Mexican trucking into the United States come January 
1--or during the fiscal year 2002.
  I would agree with the President, that would be a nonstarter. So what 
we did then, working with Senator Murray and Senator Shelby at the 
authorizing level, is we continued, we had the hearing, and we 
addressed elements included in the Murray-Shelby amendment providing 
just those things that are required by U.S. truckers.
  I was particularly sensitive to that. There was no one who opposed 
NAFTA any more strongly than this particular Senator. Yet now we have 
it. It is not going to be repealed. It should be made to work.
  Very interestingly, since my colleague from Texas is on the floor, 
what happened was, it didn't work, NAFTA didn't work. Drugs got worse. 
Immigration got worse. The take-home pay of Mexicans got worse. We were 
supposed to get 200,000 jobs. We lost 500,000 jobs. Instead of a $5 
billion-plus balance of trade, we have a $25 billion deficit in the 
balance of trade with Mexico.
  There was one good message that went to the American people. For the 
first time in some 82 years, they kicked out the PRI. And who is in as 
the Foreign Minister? Jorge Castaneda, one of the biggest opponents of 
NAFTA. Who is in as security chief down in Mexico? Mr. Adolfo Aguilar 
Zinser. I worked with these gentlemen. They were trying to build up 
Mexico's infrastructure.
  Yesterday, I met with Mexico's Minister of the Economy, Luis Ernesto 
Derbez. I said: Mr. Minister, point out to me whereby there is any one 
of these provisions here in Murray-Shelby that is not required of the 
American truckers. He couldn't point out a one. I said: I know you 
haven't had a chance to study it because the White House and others 
have been calling around, jumping on them down in Mexico, saying: Get 
on up here. We have an anti-Mexican thing going on here. They are 
jumping all around, and they don't know what they are talking about.
  I said: Write me a letter and point out whereby we don't require of 
our American truckers what we are requiring in Murray-Shelby. Of 
course, they can't do it.
  So this idea of ``negotiate, negotiate,'' and ``they bypassed us,'' 
and all that, that is out of whole cloth. We had an authorizing 
hearing. We had the witnesses appear. This isn't pro-Mexican; it isn't 
anti-Mexican. Trade is a two-way street. If we require it of the 
Mexicans, that which we are requiring of our own truckers, they 
immediately will counter and require it of our American truckers. When 
you do not have the infrastructure, that is when the damage is done; so 
we put in Murray-Shelby that on-site safety inspections take place.
  The Secretary of Transportation, my good friend, said: Are we going 
in to inspect them? The Mexican inspectors come up to Senator Murray's 
home State of Washington to check the apples, and, yes, we are going in 
to check those stations, like the Canadians check ours and we check 
theirs. Why? Because once we know the work there at that safety station 
is sound and thorough and reliable, then they can come to the border 
with a sheet of paper and we will pass them right on through. We can't 
just have passthroughs and a sheet of paper giving you nothing.
  This thing has gotten wholly out of kilter. I think it was really 
done to slow down the process, because we were doing too well over 
here. We passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, and we have been passing 
other things around here. We are going to pass some appropriations 
bills.
  Our opponents say we haven't negotiated. Baloney. I've been 
negotiating and I remain ready to negotiate.
  Put up your amendment, and we will vote. Let's get on with this 
particular measure. Get it over to the conference. Pass this one and 
move forward. But don't put this in the context of anti-Mexican or 
unfair or in violation of NAFTA.
  I went immediately to the arbitration panel, and Minister Derbez 
yesterday agreed. He said: No, we understand safety is required on both 
sides of the border. It is part of NAFTA. It is not in violation of 
NAFTA. So we know we hadn't violated NAFTA and violated our treaty. I 
don't know why all this sanctimony about violating treaties around 
here. That is all we have ever had, violations of these trade treaties. 
I had the book this morning put out by the special trade 
representative--it is an inch and a half thick--of all the violations, 
68 pages by the Japanese. Come on. We can't get into Japan 50 years 
later. So we really have to honor our treaty and all that? Come on.
  I have heard enough of it now. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, 
and Senator Murray have gone about this in a purely bipartisan manner. 
There is no partisan or anti-Mexican feature to this whatsoever. It is 
a political slowdown. They know it.
  Let's get on with the slowdown and let's go on home as we are 
supposed to in the month of August. The month of August has arrived. I 
see the distinguished minority leader is here. He likes to go home at 7 
o'clock. I like to go home in August.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, in the interest of time, might I inquire 
of the Senator from North Dakota, was he seeking time to speak further 
on the issue?
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came to speak on the amendment in the 
bill. I agreed to a unanimous consent request to allow a Member on the 
minority leader's side to do 20 minutes of morning business on this 
subject. I have waited to have an opportunity to speak for about 8 to 
10 minutes on the issue of Mexican trucks.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, of course we try to accommodate each other 
on both sides of the aisle. We try to go back and forth in those 
speeches. I was not aware of that earlier agreement. I am perfectly 
willing to allow the Senator to go forward at this point. Then I will 
speak next in line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Mississippi, the minority leader, is 
most generous. There was not an agreement. When the Senator from 
Colorado sought 20 minutes in morning business, I was here waiting to 
speak on the bill. He certainly was entitled to speak in morning 
business. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
  I rise to address the issue of Mexican trucks. My friend, the Senator 
from Arizona, has spoken about it today. My friend, the Senator from 
Texas, has spoken.
  After all the debate, it is important for everyone to understand, 
there is nothing here about punishment or being punitive to the country 
of Mexico. That is not what this is about. Some of my colleagues have 
said we are being discriminatory. That is not true.
  The truth is, this issue is about highway safety. Senator Murray from 
the State of Washington has put a provision in the appropriations bill 
that is not only appropriate but needs to be kept in this bill in order 
to assure safety on America's highways. Frankly, I wish she had chosen 
to use the House language which was presented by Congressman Sabo. It 
is stronger language. It would prohibit, during this coming fiscal 
year, the use of funds in this legislation to certify Mexican trucks 
desiring to go beyond the 20-mile limit.
  I wish Senator Murray had included that. She did not. She chose to 
take a different approach. She has taken an approach that also will 
provide a measure of safety for American highways.

[[Page 15300]]

  What is this issue really about? It is not about whether we are 
violating a trade agreement. No one can credibly argue that any trade 
agreement at any time under any circumstances requires this country to 
sacrifice safety on its highways.
  It is about using common sense to understand when and under what 
circumstances shall we allow Mexican long-haul truckers to go beyond 
the 20-mile limit that now exists.
  Some will say: Let's immediately allow Mexican long-haul trucks to 
operate throughout the United States. That is what President Bush says. 
On January 1, we intend to allow long-haul Mexican truckers into this 
country beyond the 20-mile limit. He says we will provide inspections 
and so forth.
  The fact is, there will not be sufficient inspections. There are not 
sufficient inspection stations. There are not sufficient inspectors. 
There are not sufficient compliance officers. There is not a ghost of a 
chance of that happening. Everyone knows it.
  I sat in a 3- to 4-hour hearing in the Commerce Committee with the 
Secretary of Transportation and the Department of Transportation 
Inspector General. All of us understand that the numbers of inspectors 
and compliance officers requested for the border fall short of what is 
required for safety monitoring.
  To those who say we can allow access throughout the United States to 
Mexican trucks on January 1 and those traveling on our highways will be 
protected, the numbers don't add up. We will not be protected. There 
are not the resources available to hire the number of inspectors or the 
compliance officers to allow this to happen.
  Are there reasons for us to be concerned if you don't have a regime 
of inspections? The answer clearly is yes. I would refer again to a 
news report about long-haul trucking in Mexico that featured in the San 
Francisco Chronicle in March. This article simply mirrors what most of 
us know about the lack of standards in Mexico. A reporter went down and 
traveled for 3 days with a Mexican long-haul trucker. In 3 days this 
Mexican long-haul trucker drove 1,800 miles and slept 7 hours. Yes, 
that is right; in 3 days, he slept a total of 7 hours. He didn't run 
into safety inspections because safety inspections are not common in 
Mexico. The driver didn't keep a logbook because, although they are 
required in Mexico, drivers don't keep them.
  The fact is, in Mexico, they don't have limitations on hours of 
service, and so a truckdriver can drive 3 days and sleep only 7 hours 
and will not be in violation of Mexican laws.
  The question is, Would you want the truckdriver in the San Francisco 
Chronicle article to cross the U.S.-Mexico border into this country, 
after having slept only 7 hours in 3 days while having driven 1,800 
miles in a truck that could not meet this country's safety standards 
because it had a broken windshield? I don't think anybody would want 
him to cross into this country and travel on America's highways. That 
clearly compromises safety on our highways.
  So, the Senator from Washington has placed a provision in this 
legislation. She had to put it on this appropriations bill because the 
President indicated he intends to move on January 1. Really, the only 
option to stop the President's intentions is to put the provision in 
the appropriations bill and give us some assurance of safety on 
America's highways. That is what this dispute is about.
  I agree that there is room for different opinions, but on this 
legislation, the facts are quite clear. I sat in a hearing for hours on 
this subject, hearing from the Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General. The Inspector General's report represents the base of facts 
here. The Mexican trucking industry does not have the same standards we 
do. There is no requirement for such standards. The inspection stations 
that should exist in the United States don't exist. Those inspection 
stations that do exist are not open sufficient hours to for proper 
inspection. If trucks happen to be inspected, at the vast majority of 
sites, there aren't enough spaces to park the trucks with serious 
safety violations. You can't send them back to Mexico because, for 
example, they may not have brakes. These are insurmountable problems to 
overcome prior to January 1.
  That is why the Senator from Washington has done what she did. She 
needed to put restrictions in this legislation that I think are 
necessary to assure highway safety.
  My understanding is that the Senator from Kentucky would like me to 
yield for a unanimous consent request. I would be happy to yield to him 
for that purpose, providing I am recognized following that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Under the provisions of rule XXII, I yield my hour to 
the minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, in the interest of time and in the 
interest of responding to the Senator from Mississippi, who graciously 
allowed me to be recognized, I will complete my statement only by 
saying this: My colleague from South Carolina made a statement about 
the issue of the NAFTA trade agreement. I saw another colleague smile 
to himself as to what my colleague, Senator Hollings, said. The NAFTA 
trade agreement has been awful. Some people walk around here and think 
it is one of the best things that ever happened to this country. I have 
no idea why they think that. This is a trade agreement that turned a 
trade surplus we had with Mexico into a huge deficit and a growing 
deficit. It took a modest deficit with Canada and doubled it very 
quickly. It is beyond me how someone can view that as progress. I 
think, in fact, it has injured this country in many, many ways.
  I was intrigued by a statement by Senator Gramm, who said, ``Do you 
know what the Mexicans have said? They have said if we put this 
provision in this appropriations bill restricting President Bush's 
ability to allow Mexican long-haul trucks to come into this country 
beyond the 20-mile limit, Mexico is going to retaliate against us on 
the issue of high-fructose corn syrup.''
  High-fructose corn syrup. I wonder if my colleague knows that Mexico 
has already been dealing with high-fructose corn syrup in a way that 
essentially abrogates the NAFTA treaty and, in fact, Mexico has been 
found guilty of violating the trade agreement on the corn syrup. Mexico 
is already in violation on syrup, and they are threatening that somehow 
if we don't take the Murray language out of the bill they are going to 
take action on corn syrup. I am sorry, they already took that action 
and it violated the NAFTA trade agreement.
  Incidentally, nothing that protects America's highways, in my 
judgment, should ever be considered a violation of a trade agreement. 
The next time somebody says there is a violation of NAFTA or a trade 
agreement, I will simply observe that on corn syrup, which has been the 
one area raised on the floor, the only violation that exists is Mexico 
violating a trade agreement with the United States.
  So I find it intriguing that there is this sort of blame-our-country-
first on all these issues. Our country has been open; it has been 
willing to embrace all kinds of trade expansion opportunities almost 
everywhere in the world. But every time we turn around we discover that 
either a trade agreement was negotiated in an inappropriate way or 
someone is refusing to enforce a trade agreement.
  This is a circumstance that is very simple. Senator Murray has put in 
a rather simple, easy-to-understand amendment. We ought to be willing 
to stand behind it on behalf of safety on America's highways. This is 
not about anti-Mexico. It is not about sending a discriminatory message 
to anybody; it is about standing up for safety on America's highways. 
We are nowhere near ready to be able to allow Mexican long-haul trucks 
into this country. Their safety standards are nowhere near compatible 
with ours, and it would compromise safety on our highways to allow 
Mexican trucks to operate throughout the United States beginning on 
January 1. That is what the

[[Page 15301]]

Murray amendment says. That is why we are trying to keep that amendment 
in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that the minority leader from 
Mississippi may be seeking recognition. I don't believe he is at this 
moment. I will yield as soon as he is prepared to speak. I want to make 
a statement on this issue in a moment.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota because I think he summarized 
this issue. I went home to Illinois over the weekend. It is interesting 
how many people are following this debate but no real surprise. How 
many of us are out on the highways now going back and forth to work or 
on vacations? Look on the freeways in Chicago or on the interstate 
highways in downstate Illinois; you see a lot of trucks. We can rightly 
assume, if they are American trucks, that they are subject to pretty 
substantial standards in terms of the safety of the vehicle and the 
competency of the driver. What kind of standards? An inspection, No. 1, 
to make sure the brakes work, make sure the trucks don't weigh too 
much, make certain the lights work on the trucks, and basic things such 
as that.
  Secondly, when it comes to the competency of American truckdrivers, 
we are pretty demanding. We ask them to keep a log and tell us how 
frequently they are driving and for what period of time. We subject 
them to drug tests and alcohol tests. We go through a lengthy 
background check to see if they have a history of driving under the 
influence or reckless driving. We make them pass a CDL exam for their 
license and to go out on the road. It is a demanding examination. We 
want them to understand the highway standards and regulations for 
safety in the United States.
  When my family is driving down the highway for a vacation--which I 
hope will happen sometime in August--and we see a truck coming up 
behind us, if it is an American truck from an American trucking company 
with an American driver, I at least have the peace of mind that it is 
more likely than not that the truck has been inspected and that the 
driver has passed the test.
  What is this amendment all about? This is about trucks that aren't 
American trucks and are driven by people who are not American citizens. 
We are talking about trucks coming in from Mexico. Many of the people 
who come here today and support this provision by Senator Murray 
requiring standards for Mexican truck inspection, standards for Mexican 
truckdrivers, voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
Some of them, as previous speakers have said, believe it was not in the 
best interest of the United States.
  I don't come from that position at all. I am from the State of 
Illinois. Exports are critical to Illinois, whether it is in the 
agricultural sector or the manufacturing sector. I voted for NAFTA.
  I voted for NAFTA believing we were doing two things: opening up a 
potential market for the United States in Mexico and opening up a 
potential market for Mexico in the United States. I believe in free 
trade so long as it is fair, so long as it is subject to standards and 
rules that are enforced.
  In the middle of this debate, it could have been one of the most 
contentious debates I recall in Congress. I was a Member of the House 
of Representatives when the NAFTA issue came before us. During the 
course of this debate, there was a high intensity feeling, particularly 
opposition from a number of people, environmentalists, those 
representing labor unions. They were opposed to NAFTA.
  A number of us went to the Clinton administration and said, if we 
pass this NAFTA treaty, we want to understand how it is going to work. 
The first question I asked, and received a response in writing, was 
this: If we agree to NAFTA, a trade agreement with Mexico, will we have 
to compromise any of our health and safety standards in the United 
States?
  The answer came back, unequivocally, no. If a health and safety 
standard is imposed on an American company, the same standard can be 
imposed on the Mexican company and product coming into the United 
States. Whether it is the safety of food that is brought in or whether 
it is the safety of trucks driven in from Mexico, they are subject to 
the same standards.
  A few weeks ago the Ambassador of Mexico came to my office. He is a 
very nice gentleman. I met him there and then again in Chicago when 
President Vicente Fox visited Chicago 2 weeks ago. We had a long talk 
about this.
  I said: Mr. Ambassador, let me ask one basic question. If we will 
hold Mexico to the same standards when it comes to the safety of trucks 
on the highway and the competency of drivers that we hold American 
trucks and American truckdrivers to, will that be acceptable?
  He said: Yes, that is not unreasonable.
  I remember this particularly. He said: When it comes to logbooks, 
tell us what is wanted in these logbooks. The color of the cover of the 
logbooks can be told to us. We will live by the same standard as 
American truckdrivers.
  I thought that was a reasonable position to take. It certainly is 
what I understood when we voted for NAFTA, but if one listens to the 
critics of Senator Murray's amendment, they are suggesting holding 
Mexico to the same standards as the United States is protectionist; it 
is violating free trade; it is violating NAFTA.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. I think they have 
overreacted. I invite them to read the language Senator Murray has put 
in this bill. What she has said time and again is: The Mexican trucks 
and Mexican truckdrivers will be subject to the same standards.
  What if we should take out the Murray language altogether? What if we 
had no such language in the law? What could we expect?
  There are several things we know about Mexican trucking companies. 
One, under Mexican law, there is no limit to the number of hours a 
driver can drive a truck. In the United States, there are specific 
limits. We believe that if someone is behind the wheel for a long 
period of time, it can take its toll. They are not as responsive as 
they should be. They may not be as careful as they should be. In 
Mexico, there is no limitation.
  We heard the comments earlier from the Senator from North Dakota, 
when a reporter from the San Francisco newspaper traveled with the 
Mexican truckdriver, they covered 1,800 miles in 3 days and the 
truckdriver slept a total of 7 hours. Think about yourself driving 
1,800 miles, perhaps driving from St. Louis to Los Angeles. Or going 
back and forth across the country, and in a span of 3 days you cover 
that trip with 7 hours' sleep. How good are you going to be behind the 
wheel at that point?
  Let us change this. You are not just behind the wheel of your car. 
You are driving a truck down that highway that could weigh 135,000 
pounds. That 135,000 pounds is another important figure because we have 
a limitation on the weight of trucks in the United States at 85,000, 
but not in Mexico. They can put trucks on the road at 135,000 pounds.
  We have a driver who has no limitation on the number of hours that he 
can consecutively drive down the highway, with a truck that is 
substantially larger than anything permissible under the law in the 
United States. That driver keeps no logbooks because the law is not 
enforced in Mexico. That driver is not subject to the same drug and 
alcohol testing as American truckdrivers because they have not 
established the laboratories for testing. We see that time and time 
again. The Mexican truck companies and the Mexican truckdrivers do not 
meet the minimum standards we expect in the United States.
  What if there was an accident? This is worth noting, too. In the 
United States, if someone has a truck on the road, with an American 
truckdriver and an American truck, their liability insurance will range 
from $750,000 to $5 million. A Mexican truckdriver has average 
insurance of $70,000. Think about how little that covers if one is in a 
serious accident with a lot of injuries.

[[Page 15302]]

  The Murray amendment is a reasonable amendment. It is one I hope 
those who support free trade, as I support free trade, will understand 
is part of the bargain. We are prepared to say to Mexico, we will live 
up to their standards when it comes to our exports to their country. 
They should live up to our standards when it comes to their exports to 
the United States of America.
  That is not unreasonable. That is what fair trade is all about. The 
Murray amendment is a substantial step forward to establish a standard.
  When people in Illinois have said to me, Senator, when you get back 
to Washington make sure the Mexican trucks are safe, they understand, 
as well as I do, when we are going down the highway with our family, 
heading for vacation and look in the rearview mirror, we should not 
have to look twice to try to determine whether that license plate is 
from the United States or from Mexico as to whether it is safe.
  We ought to know wherever those trucks are from, they are going to be 
safe for all families on the highway in the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer, in her capacity as a 
Senator from New York, pursuant to rule XXII, yields her hour to the 
Senator from Washington, the manager of the bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, Senator Daschle and I have been talking 
and working on what agreement can be worked out about how to proceed 
for the remainder of the evening and tomorrow and maybe even into 
September. While we are checking with all the interested parties, I 
have not spoken at length on this issue. I do not wish to speak at 
length now, but I think I should speak to some of the issues that are 
before us with regard to the Transportation appropriations bill and 
this very important issue of how the operation of buses and trucks from 
Mexico and the United States are able to go back and forth across the 
border.
  First of all, I emphasize I appreciate the work that has been done by 
the manager of this legislation on both sides of the aisle with regard 
to transportation. Transportation is a very important part of what the 
Federal Government does and it is one of those areas where the Federal 
Government does the allocation of funds in the right way. We do not 
generally direct all the money must go to one place or another, even 
though there are some areas where we provide direct instructions. The 
bulk of the money is sent to the States based on a formula that is 
decided, of course, in the TEA-21 bill. The States get a large sum of 
money and then they decide what the priorities are in terms of what 
roads or what bridges are worked on and in what priority, how much of 
that money can go for railroads, because we gave a lot more flexibility 
under TEA-21, the Transportation Act, that we passed a couple of years 
ago. I guess it has been 3 years ago now. That money can go into 
railroads or it can go into mass transit. There has been a lot of 
flexibility, but most of the key decisions are made by the States once 
they get the money. So this is important legislation.
  As we look to the future economic growth of this country, in my mind, 
obviously, how the Government works with the people, can we control 
regulations? Can we control the burdens? How much are people able to 
keep of their own money? That is a very important part of economic 
growth. I think the energy area is a very important area of our future 
economic growth. It is a matter of national security, but certainly it 
is key to being able to have a growing economy in this country.
  We are going to have to have more exploration for oil and gas, more 
use of other fuels, more opportunity for alternative fuels, more 
incentives for conservation, the entire energy package. As a part of 
this, trade is important, but transportation is also critical. It does 
create jobs. It is about safety on our highways.
  If we are going to have a growing country and a growing economy, we 
have to have the whole package, too. It is not just about roads and 
bridges. It is about urban mass transportation, railroads, airports, 
rivers, and harbors, all the different aspects of transportation.
  In my own State, I have tried to emphasize that as we try to make 
economic progress, it is critical to focus on improving education and 
that we have a decent transportation system because so many areas that 
needed economic development could not get them. It was next to 
impossible. The roads were not four lanes; they were two lanes narrow 
and dangerous. Many people, including my own father, were killed on 
those roads because of the unsafe hilly nature of our road system. If 
we are going to have the economic development we are seeking, we have 
to have a good overall transportation system.
  Of course, the third component is jobs creation. If you are not 
aggressively pursuing expansion of existing industries and businesses 
and seeking other industries to come in, international corporations to 
come in, as we have in my own State of Mississippi--Nissan is 
constructing a facility that will cost approximately $1.2 billion, the 
largest new single-industry plant in the history of our State. In order 
for that to succeed, they will have to have access to a transportation 
system.
  I commend the managers of the legislation for the work they have done 
on this bill. I in no way object. I approve of what is in this 
legislation to the extent I know exactly what is in it.
  How did we reach this point on the Mexican truck issue? When the 
Senate was prepared to vote on the North American Free Trade Act, I had 
some reservations about it and expressed those reservations. Some of 
the concerns I had were addressed as we went through the process. I 
kept asking questions and expressing concern about trucks and truck 
safety coming out of Mexico. Those around at the time or those 
following it will remember it was one of the last issues that was 
addressed in the NAFTA legislation. I was sympathetic. Nobody wants 
unsafe trucks on America's highways. Nobody wants unsafe trucks, 
whether they are from Mexico, Canada, or America. We have all had the 
scary experience of having an 18-wheeler meet us and come too close or 
go by us with flaps blowing in the wind. We did resolve the problem. We 
have been living with that.
  Again, I think sometimes trucking and truckers do get a bum rap; that 
companies are conscious of safety needs. These drivers in the United 
States, our own drivers, are good men and women whose lives are at 
stake, also. I had an occasion for a few years to be a part owner of a 
trucking company. I know all that is involved in trying to make ends 
meet with a trucking company and how difficult it is to have a 
truckload going to Chicago and come back empty. A company can wipe out 
an entire profit with empty backhauls.
  I know a little bit about all the licensing requirements in America, 
the number of tags needed, the different requirements in the different 
States. For every truck that comes into my State, and I guess other 
States in America, there is a weigh station. They are lined up coming 
from Mobile, AL, headed to my home State, to pull off the highway and 
go through the weigh station and be inspected. Quite often, we have the 
highway patrol observing who is going and coming.
  I do not want to in any way demonize truckers in this country for the 
job they do. They are an important part of our economy.
  This has become very much a problem in this particular bill. Why? The 
truth is, I think there was too much of a rush to just say, come on in, 
trucks from Mexico, without proper inspection. That is inadequate, 
unacceptable, but also the situation where we have

[[Page 15303]]

trucks come from Mexico to within a 20-mile zone and they hand off the 
goods to American trucks. They cannot come any further than that. I had 
occasion last December to be in Laredo, TX. I saw the trucks lined up 
down the highway, but they could only come so far, and then there was a 
very expensive and dilatory process of passing on the goods to come on 
into the United States.
  We have a growing, improving relationship with our neighbors to the 
south. President Bush has worked with the leaders in Mexico, both as 
the Governor of Texas, and now as President, with their new President 
Fox. They are addressing a number of issues, including drug 
trafficking, how we deal with the necessary extradition of criminals 
between the two countries, how we deal with the immigration question, 
and, yes, transportation, how we deal with the border crossings and the 
illegal aliens who, in many instances, prefer to be legal aliens. These 
are all difficult issues but they are important and we are addressing 
them now in a broader sense than ever in my memory.
  I met this past week with four members of the Mexican Senate 
including the President, President Jackson. We talked about some of 
these issues and how they don't always agree. I think they represented 
three different parties; they do not always agree with President Fox; 
they do agree we should continue to have free-flowing trade and 
transportation and communication between our countries.
  The idea that trucks from Mexico can only come in 20 miles and must 
stop and cannot go further is unacceptable. Also, the idea that trucks 
can come into this country without proper inspection, without proper 
insurance, without proper licensing, without safety inspections, is 
unacceptable.
  I have never suggested trucks from anywhere be able to come into this 
country on our roads and not comply with our safety requirements. But 
there is a limit how far that can go. They have to have credible 
insurance. The idea that some say they cannot have insurance coverage 
from a Mexican company, what kind of attitude is that? We can't require 
that they have to have insurance in America. Both countries should 
require in the other country's case that it has to be credible 
insurance; it has to be a real company; it has to be sufficient; and 
there has to be a process so we know who is providing that insurance 
from Mexico, and they can turn the tables on us and say we must know it 
is credible insurance of the United States.
  The drivers must be properly trained and licensed. You do not just 
jump in an 18-wheeler and take off. You cannot even shift gears in 
those things. I have tried it. They have to meet certain licensing 
requirements.
  There is no disagreement that we should have inspection, but it 
should be reasonable and fair. It should be affordable in terms of what 
the government has to pay, and it has to be done in a reasonable period 
of time. Those who don't want Mexican trucks on our American highways 
have an ``anti-attitude.'' Some people don't like it that I have called 
it anti-Hispanic or anti-NAFTA. How can anyone justify that kind of an 
attitude? We cannot have that.
  We need to find a way to work through this because of perhaps an 
eagerness to get this process underway that contributed to the 
difficulty we are having now. The House of Representatives lost control 
of the issue and wound up putting the same old language in the 
Transportation bill that basically said you would not be able to bring 
the trucks in here; just stop it. They made a big mistake. It does not 
make a difference if it is a Republican or Democrat House, whether it 
is bipartisan or unanimous. That cannot be where we leave the issue.
  Then the administration contacted members of the Appropriations 
Committee in the Senate and said: We have a big problem with that 
language; so will Mexico. We are running the risk of being held in 
noncompliance with NAFTA. We are running the risk of having action 
taken against American goods, whether it is telecommunications or corn 
syrup products. We have to solve this problem.
  The appropriators, to their credit, Republican and Democrat, worked 
on the language. They came up with what is now referred to as the 
Murray-Shelby language. They thought, I believe, that they had made 
sufficient progress. Subsequent to that, on reviewing that language, it 
was clear that language was very problematic.
  Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta, expressed his concern to a 
number of Senators, including to me, personally, about how there were 
too many restrictions; there was not enough flexibility; it would cost 
almost twice as much as what the President asked for, which I think was 
$88 million for safety compliance. And because of the restrictions and 
the extra costs and the contracting involved, the trucks from Mexico 
would not be able to come into the United States for months or even a 
year or more.
  By the way, it is a two-way street. As long as we are not letting 
Mexican trucks come into the United States, American trucks are not 
going to be able to go to Mexico. That is why the Mississippi Truckers 
Association wants to get this matter worked out and why they oppose the 
Murray language. They want to be able to take our products from 
throughout the Southeast or anywhere in the country and haul it in the 
other direction.
  So that is when a number of Senators started saying the language that 
came out of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee presented 
too many problems; we need to find a way to correct it.
  What are those concerns? It does have to do with flexibility. Does 
the Department of Transportation have sufficient flexibility to 
effectively administer safety requirements? It is a basic question. We 
want safety requirements and responsibilities, but there must be some 
degree of flexibility, of how those are administered. The language in 
section 343 of this bill, S. 1178, raises serious questions about that.
  In order for the operators from Mexico to come across the border, 
there were some 22 separate requirements that had to be met. Standing 
alone, certain requirements may be acceptable, but taken as an 
aggregate, they result in a violation of commitments.
  It is going to lead, as I pointed out, to delays. Just one example of 
the type of thing we talked about is the one I referred to in a number 
of discussions earlier, the cost of the weigh stations, for instance. 
The requirements to install weigh-in-motion systems, fixed scales, 
electronic scanning machines, and hand-held tracking systems as well as 
requirements to employ additional inspectors and to conduct inspections 
within Mexico would just require lots of extra money, lots of delays, 
and lots of time. I will give a couple of examples.
  Why would you require weigh-in-motion scales and static scales, both, 
not one or the other? And, by the way, if you require them both, you 
have to contract it. You do not just run out there and take these 
scales off the shelf. You have to contract for them; you have to get 
them and have them put in place. This would require you to have both. I 
do not think we have that in most of our States. When trucks come in 
from Arkansas or Louisiana or Tennessee, we weigh them statically. 
Maybe we do weigh some of them in motion, but we do not have to have 
both of them.
  The other example is conducting inspections in Mexico. As time goes 
forward, perhaps both countries would like to have some of that. I had 
one Senator say to me: Look, FAA requires inspection at the base before 
a plane flies into the United States. There is a big difference, 
though. When a plane leaves Mexico, the next stop is an airport or 
landing strip in the United States. The difference between the place of 
doing business of a truck in that situation is they have to cross the 
border. There is a point at which there would be an inspection.
  Perhaps this can be worked out. But to impose at the beginning the 
requirement that we have to go into the place of business and inspect 
within that country and they are going to require the reverse--that 
they be able to come in and inspect in our country--is just one more 
example of some of the problems we have.

[[Page 15304]]

  Never, ever have I seen a bill where a compromise could have been 
more easily and quickly worked out than this one. Yet the warring sides 
refuse to agree to do that. I think sometimes maybe there were 
misunderstandings. Somebody told me on this side of the aisle, on the 
Democratic side--or maybe I should not say just Democratic--the 
proponents of the language in the bill said: Why wouldn't you go with 
the California solution? I said: Great, it sounds fine to me. Why don't 
we do what they do in California, the inspection areas where they have 
crossings into California? They said it was because your opponents to 
this language would not agree to it.
  That came as a surprise to me. As a matter of fact, in talking to 
Senator Gramm and Senator McCain, I had the clear impression that what 
they were advocating was the California inspection regimen. So I think 
the two sides passed in the night here.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is actually in the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. There was an agreement, yet they never could seem to come 
to closure on it.
  I know the Teamsters, a group with whom I do not have a problem. I 
have worked with the Teamsters. I have been supported by the Teamsters 
sometimes--probably not again anytime soon. I understand their concern. 
But because this language was in the appropriations bill because, it 
appears to me, the Teamsters really do not want Mexican trucks to come 
into America, and because of misunderstandings, and, yes, because of 
personalities, we could not resolve this.
  We could have done this bill at least a week ago. Everybody in this 
room and everybody on both sides knows it can be done. Now the 
appropriators said: Wait a minute, you are getting too exercised. This 
is not necessary. We will fix it in the conference. Don't worry, don't 
worry, we will fix it in the conference.
  Yes, and usually I buy that argument. But there is a little problem 
with this one. You have totally unrealistic, unacceptable language in 
the House bill, the Sabo language. And the language in the Senate 
Transportation appropriations bill also has a number of concerns--these 
22 requirements. So if you have a bad situation and a worse situation, 
how do you split the difference? That is usually what happens in 
conference. You go somewhere between where the House is and where the 
Senate is. Yet the solution is outside both.
  I know the immaculate conceptions that come out of these conferences. 
It really doesn't make a difference what the House and Senate did; the 
conferees will do what they want to, particularly on a bill that is not 
an appropriations bill, because they are not affected by rule XVI 
anymore. So maybe they will come out with something that is fair, 
understandable, not unduly restrictive, affordable, that both the 
proponents and opponents are satisfied with and the President can sign, 
and we can go on with our business.
  But I have been a little ill at ease about that. So I have gone back 
to some of the supporters of the language we have in this bill and 
asked them again: Will you assure me that in conference there will be 
this dedicated effort, and in fact you will get a bill the President 
can sign? And they have assured me of that.
  I guess if they do not sign the conference, they might make that 
stick. Maybe others will say we will see about that. And there are 
those who are thinking: We will do what we want to. If the President 
vetoes it, we will override the veto.
  That will not happen. That will not happen. I can guarantee the 
Senate right here, right now, if this is not properly resolved and the 
President does not sign it, if he vetoes it, we will sustain the veto. 
We will sustain the veto.
  But have I advocated that? No. The President doesn't want to veto 
this bill, and I don't want him to veto the bill. I don't want to have 
to make sure we have the votes to sustain the veto. The solution is: 
Resolve this. Make it NAFTA compliant. Let's be fair to both sides.
  I don't always agree with what this administration or previous 
administrations have advocated with regard to Mexico--or Canada, for 
that matter. I get very upset with what Canada is doing to the United 
States in our trade relations. I think what they are doing with regard 
to soft lumber products is totally unacceptable, and I think this 
administration should be at least as aggressive as the previous 
administration, through the Customs Office and through our Trade 
Representative, in assuring that the Canadians comply with our lumber 
agreements.
  So it is not that I am one who is always here taking firm stands in 
support of our neighbors and in support of even the treaties when I 
think the treaties are not being administered fairly or they turn out 
to be basically fair. So I don't profess to be 100-percent pure on 
this.
  But you cannot defend, legitimately, honestly, and intellectually, a 
situation where we say to our neighbors and to legitimate truckers, you 
cannot come any more than 20 miles into the United States. That is not 
where we should be.
  So the President has expressed his interest in this. I think he has 
tried to be restrained in terms of threats. But he has made it clear 
this is important. President Fox is going to be in the United States 
the first week in September when this bill is going to be in 
conference, I guess, or about to go to conference. I hope we will not 
be in the process of passing legislation and sending to our President 
at the time something that clearly President Fox will not agree with 
and will be opposed to while he is in town. I guess he is coming to 
town September 3 or 4 or 5, or something of that nature.
  We do have correspondence here that clearly states the Mexican 
Government's concern. I have a letter.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    July 24, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       We have been following the legislative process regarding 
     cross border trucking on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This 
     is an issue of extreme importance to Mexico on both legal and 
     economic grounds. From a legal standpoint, Mexico expects 
     non-discriminatory treatment from the U.S. as stipulated 
     under the NAFTA. The integrity of the Agreement is at stake 
     as is the commitment of the U.S. to live up to its 
     international obligations under the NAFTA. I would like to 
     reiterate that Mexico has never sought reduced safety and 
     security standards. Each and every truck company from Mexico 
     ought to be given the opportunity to show it complies fully 
     with U.S. standards at the state and federal levels.
       The economic arguments are clear-cut: Because of NAFTA, 
     Mexico has become the second largest U.S. trading partner 
     with $263 billion of goods now being exchanged yearly. About 
     75% of these goods move by truck. In a few years, Mexico may 
     surpass Canada as the U.S. largest trading partner and 
     market. Compliance with the panel ruling means that products 
     will flow far more smoothly and far less expensively between 
     our nations. Doing so will enable us to take advantage of the 
     only permanent comparative advantage we have: that is our 
     geographic proximity. The winners will be consumers, 
     businesses and workers in the three countries.
       We are very concerned after regarding the Murray amendment 
     and the Administration's position regarding it that the 
     legislative outcome may still constitute a violation of the 
     Agreement. In this light, we hope the legislative language 
     will allow the prompt and nondiscriminatory opening of the 
     border of international trucking.
       Finally I would like to undermine our position, that to the 
     Mexican government the integrity of the NAFTA is of the 
     utmost importance.
           Sincerely,
                                     Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista,
                                         Secretary of the Economy.

  Mr. LOTT. This is a letter from the Secretary of the Economy in 
Mexico. It says:

       The economic arguments are clear-cut. Because of the NAFTA, 
     Mexico has become the second largest U.S. trading partner 
     with $263 billion dollars of goods now being exchanged 
     yearly. About 75 percent of those goods move by truck. In a 
     few years, Mexico's may surpass Canada as the U.S. largest 
     trading partner and market.

  It goes on to note they believe the language in this bill does not 
meet the requirements of NAFTA.

[[Page 15305]]

  They believe it is a violation of our agreement and that reasonable 
change and a reasonable agreement should be worked out soon.
  I very rarely agree with what I read in the editorial pages of the 
Washington Post. But to my absolute amazement, on Saturday I got up and 
read the Washington Post, and there it was--an editorial saying ``NAFTA 
in trouble''--the Washington Post editorializing against the 
restrictions on the Mexican trucks coming into the United States. The 
concluding sentences are shocking sentences. It says:

       President Bush says he will veto legislation unless such 
     discrimination is removed from it.

  That is the right course.
  That is what this is all about.
  I don't affix blame at any one place, or the administration, or on 
us. Somehow or another we have gotten to where we are. Now we can't 
seem to find a way to let go. Now we have a situation where Senators 
were willing to pass this on a voice vote at 2 o'clock. Now it is 10 
minutes until 3. We are not going to have a vote on it, I guess, until 
tomorrow. That delays other legislation we are working on with 
interested parties on both sides. Senators Daschle, Reid, and Nickles 
have been involved along with Senators Gramm and McCain.
  A lot of this is just totally unnecessary. Here we are talking, once 
again, about an issue we have been talking about for a week or more. 
Who is to blame? Yes. Sure. I am sure Senators will say we would have 
been glad to have voted on this last week. I have been through this 
explanation of how we got here.
  But I wanted to make the point that we were ready to finish with this 
issue an hour ago, and we couldn't get it done. I hope maybe we can use 
this as a case study.
  When you go to law school, you learn the law by studying trials, 
lawsuits, and cases that have gone before. This should be a case study 
for the administration, for the House, for the Senate, for our trading 
partners, and for us as to how not to deal with an issue. I hope we 
will learn from it.
  I hope we can put it behind us and move on in a positive way to other 
appropriations and other bills. But it has been a difficult one.
  I have supported Senators McCain and Gramm in their efforts. I have 
had some Members on the other side ask: Why would you do that? You 
haven't always agreed with those guys on other subjects. Right. But the 
difference this time is I thought they were right. It is real simple. I 
wasn't mad at anyone. I just couldn't defend where the United States is 
at this time with regard to Mexican trucks.
  I had not spoken on the floor on this issue. I wanted to give a 
little bit of the history and urge my colleagues to find a way to 
complete this and move on to other legislation that is also very 
important for our country. Rather than recriminations, let's just learn 
from the experience.