Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for allowing me to go ahead and do this bit of work and make a statement about which I feel very personal and passionate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand H.R. 4 is at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that the unanimous consent request be amended to provide for a vote on Lugar amendment No. 1212, with 60 minutes of debate prior to the vote on the cloture motion.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, further reserving my right to object, I appreciate the spirit in which Senator Daschle made his comments. We are going to try and find a way to get the Agriculture supplemental appropriations bill done, and done in a reasonable period of time, certainly before too late tomorrow. I want to add to that, I appreciated what he had to say earlier tonight about his willingness to try and find a way to get completion on this bill, even tonight, so we would be able to go ahead and go to our constituents and our families tomorrow. I doubt it is going to be possible to do that, but we are still looking for a way. I appreciate his attitude, but at this point I understand his hesitancy, and I feel constrained to object to going straight to the cloture vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is noted.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If the majority leader will yield, he is not propounding a unanimous consent at this point?

Mr. LOTT. The majority leader is to designate a short period of time for each one of these nominations; is that right?

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. LOTT

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. 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.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object for two purposes, first of all, let me clarify. In the middle of this request it says that there be--is it 10 minutes each for Leahy, Hatch, and Hutchinson, as opposed to 2 minutes for debate as has been earlier indicated? You put it at 10 minutes each for those 3; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was going to reserve on behalf of Senator Thompson, but I see that he is present. I withdraw my reservation so Senator Thompson can make this request himself.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for moving this nomination. I have been very proud of the job that Jim Ziglar from Pascagoula, MS, has done as the Senate Sergeant at Arms. When he came, I asked him to make sure the office was run efficiently and fairly, certainly in a bipartisan way, a nonpartisan way. He certainly did that. Sometimes I think maybe he got a little carried away doing that. But he did a great job. I know he has friends on both sides of the aisle. When he came to me to talk about the possibility of becoming Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I questioned him about his desire to do that, but he assured me he was prepared for that challenge and that he wished to do so. I am glad he has been confirmed. I hope my colleagues will join him at the reception this afternoon. Certainly we all wish him well in this very important job that is going to take a lot of administrative ability and a lot of willingness to make changes to make sure that agency is run more efficiently. I also hope this is a sign that this is the first of many nominations that will follow very shortly that will move as quickly and easily as this one, that this is the opening in the floodgates. I thank Senator Daschle for bringing up the nomination.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?

Mr. LOTT. I have a couple of observations. Before we lock in any time agreement, we want to make sure we check with the leadership on both sides for when the next vote will occur. If we agreed to 4 hours, we are talking about a vote occurring at 20 minutes to 8 tonight, and I am not sure Senator Daschle or I want to do that. We need to do some checking. In terms of the time, I do not know what the advocates or the opponents of this amendment want. I do think this is a very important issue. We need to make sure everybody has been contacted and sufficient time is available to the proponents and opponents because this could be--well, this is one of the two issues that will determine whether or not this legislation goes forward. The other one is the dollar amount. We already have a problem with the fact that the Lugar amendment was not adopted, and that causes me a great deal of concern because I am worried now that this could lead to the necessity of having a conference and concern about when we get to conference and worried about the funds being available for the needs of agriculture in this country in August or in September. We have a major problem on our hands, and now this dairy compact being offered on this bill significantly complicates it further. All I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania is that before he locks in the time we have a chance to check on both sides of the aisle with opponents and proponents--and they are on both sides of the aisle--for a reasonable amount of time and a time for a vote will be necessary.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXII, I hereby yield 1 hour for Senator McCain and 1 hour to Senator Gramm.

Mr. LOTT. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I want to say that I appreciate the majority leader's comments about the need for us to have a serious effort to find a compromise on this issue that is still pending on the Transportation bill. I thank him for the assurances given to Senator Murkowski. As I understand it now, we will go to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act and have 60 minutes on that bill. Senator Murkowski will have his time, and we will go to final passage. Then after some debate time, we will have one or two votes on nominees. Did the Senator clarify that?