John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Washington just stated how she had received requests for Transportation appropriations from every Member of this body. I hope she will correct the record. She received no request from my office. She received no request, nor ever will receive a request from my office, for any transportation pork-barreling of which this bill is full. This bill has surpassed the President's total budget request by nearly $4 billion. This year's bill contains 683 earmarks totaling $3.148 billion in porkbarrel spending. Last year, there was only $702 million. I congratulate the Appropriations Committee on this. Always in the contract game of porkbarrel spending, some benefit substantially more than others. The State of West Virginia, for instance, will be the proud recipient of $6,599,062 under the National Scenic Byways Program. Of that money, $619,000 will be directed towards ``Promoting Treasures Within the Mountains II'' program; $8,000 will be given to Virginia's chapel, and $22,640 will go to fund the SP Turnpike Walking Tour. The State of Washington will also benefit substantially from the National Scenic Byways Program. Under that portion of the bill, Washington will receive $2,683,767, of which $790,680 will fund the North Pend Orielle Scenic Byway--Sweet Creek Falls Interpretive Trail Project; $190,730 will be directed to the Paden Creek Visitor and Salmon Access, and $88,000 will fund the Oakcreek wildlife Byway Interpretive Site Project. The programs go on and on. Let me tell you the real problem here, how great this problem gets over time: $4,650,000 is carved out of the Coast Guard portion of this bill to ``test and evaluate a currently developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United States and has a top speed of 40 knots. Fortunately, and I am sure, coincidentally, for the State of Washington, there is only one company in the country which produces such a vessel, and it just happens to be Guardian Marine International, located in Edmonds, WA. Not only did the U.S. Coast Guard not ask for this vessel, they looked at the Guardian vessel, considered its merits, and concluded that it would not adequately meet the Coast Guard's needs. Taxpayers of America, look at the Guardian fast patrol craft which will be yours whether the Coast Guard wants it or not. Yesterday, very briefly, my friend from Nevada said that I was mistaken in my comments about setting a precedent. I think his comments were well made. I accept them. There has not been the parliamentary movement as there should have been. I stick to and want to reiterate and will continue to reiterate my comments that what we are doing on an appropriations bill is precedent setting. We are changing and violating a solemn treaty made between three nations, and we are doing it on an appropriations bill. The Senator from Washington just enumerated the wonderful language for safety that they have on an appropriations bill. The authorizers, the committees that are given the responsibility and the duty to authorize, are the ones who should have written this language. The Appropriations Committee should only be appropriating money. Instead, in a precedent-setting procedure, they have now decided to include language which, according to the Governments of two countries, Mexico and the United States, two freely elected Governments of both of those countries have deemed in violation of this solemn treaty. This language, according to the Mexican Government, according to the U.S. Government, is in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. We are subject, obviously, to significant sanctions but, more importantly, again, the Senator from West Virginia is on the floor and he knows the history of this body more than I do. I do not know of a single other time in the history of this body that a solemn agreement, a treaty, has been tampered with on an appropriations bill-- in fact, abrogated to a large degree. There were great debates over the role of the United States in Vietnam. That was conducted under the aegis of the Foreign Relations Committee. There were other great debates on other foreign policy issues. All of them were conducted in this Chamber under the aegis and responsibility of the Foreign Relations Committee and sometimes the Armed Services Committee. I know of no time where the great debates on treaties were conducted as part of an appropriations bill on Transportation. This debate should be taking place under the responsibility of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and I allege again this is a precedent-setting move which, if it carries-- and I still hope that it does not--I am convinced the President can muster 34 votes to sustain a veto. This will have very serious consequences for the way we do business in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 1030 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I thank him very much for recognizing me. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says the Mexican nationals will be treated exactly the same as Canadian nationals. It has nothing to do with requirements on trucks. It has nothing to do with requirements. It has nothing to do with how these individuals residing one to our north and one to our south would be treated exactly the same way as citizens of their country and trading partners. I hope there will be no question that our neighbors to the north and the south will be treated on an equal and equitable basis. I want to quote from the report again from the NAFTA dispute resolution panel. I remind my colleagues, I believe we have 51 second-degree amendments on file. After this one is dispensed with, we will have 50 amendments remaining. They are all important additions. Hopefully, these modifications can be made to this legislation. I point out, as we continue to debate this issue again I quote, since a number of my colleagues are in the Chamber, an editorial in the Chicago Tribune. I see my colleague from Illinois. The headline is: ``Honk if you smell cheap politics.'' That is the headline. I emphasize for my colleagues, I am quoting from an editorial. This is not a reflection of my personal views: As political debates go, the one in the Senate against allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as dishonest as it gets. The talk is all about safety and concern about how rattletrap Mexican semis, driven by inept Mexicans, would plow into Aunt Bea putt-putting to the grocery store in her Honda Civic, somewhere in Pleasantville,

Mr. McCAIN. I asked that the amendment be read.

Mr. McCAIN. As much time as he might consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Could we modify that? Could I have 7 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sorry the Senator from Illinois just left the floor because he seemed to be deeply concerned about the process. From a Chicago Tribune editorial, headlined ``Honk If You Smell Cheap Politics,'' I will read a couple of quotes. Quoting from the Tribune: As political debates go, the one in the Senate against allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as dishonest as it gets. The talk is all about safety and concern about how rattletrap Mexican semis, driven by inept Mexicans, would plow into Aunt Bee putt-putting to the grocery store in her Honda Civic somewhere in Pleasantville,

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, in regard to the allegation of my friend from North Dakota, and the description of the regulations and rules in the country of Mexico, the fact is, in our substitute amendment it calls for the inspection of every single truck that comes into the United States from Mexico. There is a long list of all the requirements of licensing: Insurance, commercial value, safety compliance decals, et cetera, et cetera--a long and detailed set of requirements for Mexican trucks to enter the United States of America. The difference is, it does not have the same cumulative effect that the Murray amendment does, which violates the North American Free Trade Agreement. I have always enjoyed these billboards that are brought up on the floor that say: Does not violate NAFTA. Does not violate NAFTA. Unfortunately, for those who allege that, the Governments of the two countries that are involved have judged that it does violate NAFTA. Perhaps if the election last November had turned out differently, a Gore administration might have viewed it not in violation of NAFTA. But here is what the President of the United States says: ``Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill.'' So everybody is entitled to their opinions. But if you are the President of the United States, you are the only one that is entitled to veto. The Minister of Economics in Mexico: We are very concerned after regarding the Murray amendment and the Administration's position regarding it that the legislative outcome may still constitute a violation of the Agreement. The elected Governments of the two countries say, indeed, this Murray language is in violation of NAFTA. They are the ones who are elected by their people to make the determination, not individual Members of this body. Finally, as we wind up, I apologize for any inconvenience, any discomfort, any problems this extended debate has caused any of my colleagues. I know many of them had plans and were discomfited. I extend my apologies. I hasten to add, I have been involved in a number of major issues over the years I have been here. There has always been a willingness to negotiate and work out problems. That was not the case on this issue. I pledge, no matter what the outcome of this vote, I am still eager to sit down and work out what I view are differences that can be resolved and should be resolved between the Murray language and what we are trying to do because I don't think we are that far apart. Let's have men and women of good faith and goodwill sit down together after this vote so that we can resolve the differences. No one wants a Presidential veto of this bill; I agree. There is a lot of pork I don't agree with, but there are also a lot of much-needed projects. We don't want a Presidential veto. We have demonstrated that we have 34 votes and can easily sustain a Presidential veto. After this vote, I again promise my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Nevada, who have been here constantly, we want to negotiate and work out our differences. I am convinced we can. I yield the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. McCAIN. My purpose.

Mr. McCAIN. Either the last 3 minutes before 6:25 or the last 3 minutes before the comments of the managers, either one.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, under the agreement of the managers, I request the last 3 minutes be reserved for my comments or just before the final comments of the managers, whatever the managers desire.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time exists on both sides from now until the time for the vote?

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I agree with the Senator from Texas. But also let me point out that because of this action that is taking place right now, the Mexican Government and the President are having to respond to domestic discontent with the threat of sanctions, and they are judged to be able to enact sanctions because the panel determined we are in violation of NAFTA as we speak. Until this legislation was pending, there was no word out of Mexico that they would impose these sanctions. But in the last day, the last 24 hours, the Mexican Government has felt compelled to say they will enact sanctions. Why? Because the legislation before us makes permanent the blocking of the border to Mexican carriers, which was allowed according--not only allowed, but a part, an integral part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I mention again to my friend from Texas a letter from the Secretary of the Economy, Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista: We have been following the legislative process regarding cross border trucking on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is an issue of extreme importance to Mexico on both legal and economic grounds. From a legal standpoint, Mexico expects non-discriminatory treatment from the U.S. as stipulated under the NAFTA. The integrity of the Agreement is at stake as is the commitment of the U.S. to live up to its international obligations under the NAFTA. I would like to reiterate that Mexico has never sought reduced safety and security standards. Each and every truck company from Mexico ought to be given the opportunity to show it complies fully with U.S. standards at the state and federal levels. The economic arguments are clear-cut: Because of NAFTA, Mexico has become the second largest U.S. trading partner with $263 billion of goods now being exchanged yearly. About 75% of these goods move by truck. In a few years, Mexico may surpass Canada as the U.S. largest trading partner and market. Compliance with the panel ruling means that products will flow far more smoothly and far less expensively between our nations. Doing so will enable us to take advantage of the only permanent comparative advantage we have: that is our geographic proximity. The winners will be consumers, businesses and workers in the three countries. We are very concerned after regarding the Murray amendment and the Administration's position regarding it that the legislative outcome may still constitute a violation of the Agreement. In this light, we hope the legislative language will allow the prompt and non-discriminatory opening of the border for international trucking. Finally I would like to underline our position, that to the Mexican government the integrity of the NAFTA is of the outmost importance. That is from the Secretary of the Economy of the country of Mexico. I see my respected friend, the Senator from North Dakota, on the floor. I know his views on NAFTA. I do not know if many of the Mexican trucks will be getting up to North Dakota. But I do know that the Mexican Government right now is deeply concerned about this legislation, and if it passes, I can see no other action the Mexican Government would take but to enact sanctions. As the Senator pointed out, this is a critical stage of our relations with that country. I thank the Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. In response, I say to my friend, I don't think we have ever seen a friend of this nature in the history of the country of Mexico. We all know that there was one-party rule since the 1920s. We all know that when one party rules any country for an inordinate length of time, there is corruption. This is a breath of fresh air. The Senator mentioned we come from border States. Our States are going to be affected first by Mexican carriers coming across our border. In the State of Washington and on the northern tier, there is free access of carriers from Canada. So I kind of wonder about the contrast there. The State of Washington has free movement of trucks back and forth across their border. Yet Representatives of the State of Washington want to restrict flow across our borders with our southern neighbor. I find that interesting.

Mr. McCAIN. The answer, obviously, I say to the Senator from Texas, is it must be somewhat embarrassing for him. I think that was very much appreciated by President Bush. President Bush has expressed on several occasions his concern with what is happening and has taken a very personal interest in these proceedings. That is another point I emphasize. The relationship between President Fox and President Bush is as close and cooperative and good as any in the history of this country. I appreciated President Reagan's relationship with his southern neighbor as Governor of California. I believe the relationship of President Bush and President Fox opens up a vista for relations with Mexico the likes of which we have never seen, which there has already been manifestations of, by the extradition to the United States of drug dealers from Mexico. That would never have happened under a previous regime. I think President Fox, obviously, could not be very pleased today and may have to answer to some of his critics, of which there are many since he just unseated a party that had been in power for 60 years.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise, obviously, in support of the amendment of the Senator from Texas. The reason the Senator's amendment should be really approved without a single dissenting vote is that the amendment says exactly what the proponents of this so-called Murray language in the appropriations bill are alleging. They are alleging that the language to which we and the administration object is not in violation of NAFTA. I don't know the number of times--I would be glad to have a scholar research the number of times the Senator from Washington has said this is not a violation of NAFTA; this is not a violation of NAFTA; this is not in violation of NAFTA. So if the language is not in violation of NAFTA, then she should have no problem in approving this amendment, which says: Provided that notwithstanding any other provision in the Act, nothing in this Act shall be applied in a manner that the President finds to be in violation of the North American free trade agreement. Mr. President, during the previous two administrations, I supported a lot of legislation that gave the President of the United States a great deal of leeway in determining foreign policy issues. I did that because of my fundamental belief that the President of the United States should be the individual who conducts foreign policy, obviously, with the advice and consent of the Congress of the United States. So this amendment seems to me to be perfectly in keeping with the rhetoric of the proponents of the present legislation as it stands. I don't quite understand the objections to it, when the allegations are that the language in the appropriations bill is perfectly in compliance with NAFTA and doesn't violate it. I want to mention again, particularly in light of the last vote that was taken--and we all know we only got 30 votes on the cloture motion and we needed 41--first, I am still confident that, as to the vote yesterday and other votes that will be taken, we have sufficient votes to sustain a Presidential veto. As we all know, the President has said he would regretfully have to exercise that option. I also want to point out for the benefit of my colleagues, we have just affirmed a very dangerous practice, in my view. That practice-- which in the years I have been here has gradually increased year after year after year--is a proclivity to legislate on appropriations bills. We now have major policy changes, major legislative initiatives, included on appropriations legislation. So when the cloture was voted a short time ago, it not only affirmed, unfortunately, the right--or new right of appropriators to legislate on appropriations bills, but it also can set a very dangerous precedent for the future. There may be other amendments on other appropriations bills, which individual Senators view is in violation--in this case, of course, in violation of a solemn treaty agreement, but it may be in violation and affect issues that are important to them. Senators who are not members of the Appropriations Committee, Senators who are simply members of authorizing committees, have suffered under the impression that any major policy changes or legislation would originate in their committees of which they are members, the authorizing committees. Instead, we now see an abrogation--a growing abrogation--and an affirmation of that abrogation of the responsibilities of those who are members on the authorizing committees--in my view, a grossly unwarranted assumption of authority on the part of the Appropriations Committee. We all know what the purpose of an Appropriations Committee is, and that is to appropriate funds for previously authorized programs. I will be glad to read to my colleagues what the charter of the Appropriations Committee is. I must say, when I first came here--and I think the Senator from Texas who came here a couple years before me would agree-- it was a very unusual circumstance when you would see an appropriations bill that had a legislative authorizing impact. We would find the pork barrel projects, although they were dramatically less; we would find the earmark. But now we have a custom, that is increasing year by year, where the Appropriations Committee, in direct violation of their charter, are now setting parameters, which in this case affect a solemn treaty between three nations. Not only does this particular language, which is called, ``not in violation of NAFTA,'' clearly authorize on an appropriations bill, but it even goes so far as to affect a solemn trade agreement. I might add that is not just my view. That happens to be the view of the President of the United States and, almost as important, the view of the President of Mexico. Already the Mexican Government, in reaction to this pending legislation, has threatened sanctions which could reach a billion or more dollars against U.S. goods and services. Relations between the United States and Mexico, in my view--and coming from a border State I think I have some expertise on this subject--have never been better. We have a new party in power in Mexico, a new leader, and for the first time we are seeing border cooperation the likes of which we have never seen before, including the apprehension and extradition of drug dealers, something we could not only not achieve before, I remember back in the 1980s when a U.S. drug agent was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by individuals that at least allegedly could have had connections with the Mexican Government. We have come a long way in our relations. I note the President's first state dinner will be in September in honor of President Fox of Mexico. The relationship between our President and the President of Mexico is close, it is cooperative, and it will act to the great benefit of all Americans, particularly those of us who represent border States because we have so many outstanding border issues: immigration, drugs, pollution, transportation, among others. What do we do early in President Fox's administration? According to them, we violate a solemn treaty that was consummated years ago by previous administrations. The provisions of Senator Gramm and I require it, every vehicle beyond the commercial zones to be authorized and to display on their vehicle a decal of inspection, and the list goes on and on. State inspectors that detect violations will enforce such laws and regulations, and it goes on and on. According to our legislation, we are not giving blanket approval to Mexican carriers to come across the border. What we are doing is imposing some reasonable restrictions which would then stay in compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let me read from a letter we received from the NAFTA Coalition For Safe trucks: During its consideration of the bill to provide appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2002, we urge the United States Senate to adopt the McCain-Gramm amendment regarding the treatment of cross border trucking operations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. We represent the manufacturers, shippers and the transporters of the goods crossing the border, and want to ensure all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safe, reliable and efficient transportation of those goods between the United States and our trading partner to the South. Both the House-passed language and the language included by the Senate Committee on Appropriations violate NAFTA and will result in a ``closed'' border for the foreseeable future. While we commend the Senate Committee for seeking a solution to the outright ban contained in the House Bill, several of the requirements simply cannot be met and are unnecessary to ensure the safe operations of Mexican domiciled trucks when operating in the United States. Should the Congress vote to require the United States Government to continue to violate our obligations under NAFTA, Mexico will be free to impose extensive sanctions on U.S.-produced products. This will certainly lead to a loss of jobs for U.S. workers, particularly in manufacturing, which has already seen 785,000 lost jobs since July of 2000. We urge support of the McCain-Gramm Amendment, which will allow the United States to honor its commitments while establishing a safe and reliable flow of goods between the United States and our neighbor, trading partner and friend to the South. It is signed by the American Trucking Association, National Association of Manufacturers, Grocery Manufacturers of America, U.S.- Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Agricultural Transporters Conference, Border Trade Alliance, United States Chamber of Commerce, National Foreign Trade Council, the Fertilizer Institute, and TASA Trucking, the very people who will be sharing the highways and bridges of America on both sides of the border with Mexican transportation carriers. What we have done here--and I think it is important to put it in a certain perspective because there is a lot of heat of the moment; there are conversations about what the Teamsters will or will not do, how important it is for Republicans to gain the support of the Teamsters, and underlying it all is sort of a concern about really what would happen if these Mexican carriers came into the United States. As the Senator from Texas pointed out, they are 25 miles inside of our border States. We are proud of the relationship we have with our Mexican neighbors to the South. We are proud of their friendship. We are proud of the progress that they have made, both politically and economically. We are proud to call them our neighbors. What we have done, intentionally or unintentionally, is adopt language in an appropriations bill which was unknown to those of us on the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, unknown to the authorizing committee on which I am the ranking member. Language was adopted which, in the view of the President of the United States, in view of the President of Mexico, and I am sure the Canadian Government, and I am sure the NAFTA panels that judge these things, is a violation of a solemn trade agreement. I do not want to waste time reviewing the enormous economic benefit that has accrued to all three countries as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. They are phenomenal. When NAFTA was adopted in 1996, there was $300 million worth of trade a day between the United States and Canada. Today there is a billion dollars a day of trade between the United States and Canada. The numbers are comparable in the south. We have seen the maquiladoras. We have seen the growth of the economy in the northern part of Mexico far exceed the rest of Mexico. Why is that? It is because of the enormous increase in goods and traffic and services between the United States and Mexico. We have seen now one of the most successful treaties, from an economic standpoint and I argue cultural and other aspects, now being undermined or violated by an act of the appropriations subcommittee of the Senate, without a hearing. We did have a hearing on Mexican trucks in the Commerce Committee. We never acted. There was never a bill proposed. There was never any legislation proposed for consideration and markup by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No, it was stuck into an appropriations subcommittee bill. Here is where we are: The repercussions of this action are significant and severe, not only to the people of my State but the people of this country. We do not grow a lot of corn in Arizona; I wish we grew more, but clearly corn is one of the first areas where the Economic Minister of Mexico has said they may have to impose sanctions because they are entitled to impose sanctions as of this very day. We have also just heard that telecommunications equipment might be the next target of sanctions enacted by the Mexican Government. Why would they do that? With all due respect, because they have significant manufacturing capabilities within Mexico of telecommunications equipment and it probably would not be too bad for Mexico in the shortrun if they were not subject to foreign competition, although we all know the unpleasant and unwanted consequences of the lack of competition in all products. That is the situation we are in. It is very unfortunate. The Senator from Texas has an amendment which basically says none of the provisions in the appropriations bill would be applied in a manner that the President of the United States finds to be in violation of NAFTA. Literally, every bill we pass out of this body that has to do with foreign policy has a national security provision stating if it is in the interests of national security, the President can act if he deems so. Basically, that is sort of what this amendment of the Senator from Texas is all about. I also want to make one other comment about this issue and what we have done. The Senator from Texas and I were allowed to propose one amendment, which was voted on, and we had many other amendments. Obviously, that effort is going to be significantly curtailed because of a cloture vote. I view that as unfortunate, too, because if in the future Members of the Senate are seeking a number of amendments to be considered, and cloture is imposed without them being able to have all their amendments considered, then I think we are obviously setting another very bad precedent for the conduct of the way we do business in the Senate. For all of those reasons, I not only intend to slow this legislation, but I think we will have to try to see that this issue, no matter how it is resolved, resurfaces on several different vehicles in the future. I am not sure that there are many other issues before the Senate that are this important. We may have to, even after we have exhausted--if we do--all of our parliamentary options, exercise others as well. I say that not only because of the impact on this issue but the impact on the way we do business in the Senate. I was very proud during consideration of the campaign finance reform bill that everybody had an amendment. Anybody who had an amendment, we considered it; we voted on it; and we worked on it for 2 weeks. On the Patients' Bill of Rights, we worked on it; we had amendments; everybody was heard from; and everybody got their say. That is not the case with this legislation. It is not the case with this appropriations bill. I regret that. I have been here not as long as many but long enough to know when a very dangerous trend, a very dangerous precedent has been set, I recognize that. I will continue to do what I can to see that every Senator has the right to exercise his and her rights as Members of this body to see that their issues, their concerns, and particularly those that affect international agreements, are fully examined and voted upon and discussed and debated. I intend, obviously, to talk more on the specifics of what we are doing, but I hope my colleagues have no illusions as to what is being attempted on an appropriations bill where there is absolutely no place for this legislation. Those who are only members of authorizing committees, take note, my friends, because you may be next.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, are the intentions, after disposition of the nominations, to return to the pending legislation?