Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I am aware of these two valuable programs in the Department of Transportation and appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you.

Mrs. MURRAY. Let me say to the Senator from Maryland that we will keep her concerns in mind as the Transportation bill moves through conference.

Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to work with you to address these concerns as the Transportation bill moves through the process.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Florida is correct. The committee endorses the projects included in the bill's report, and will press for the adoption of that list in conference on this bill. However, the limited nature of that list does not prevent other projects from being supported during conference, should available resources be found.

Ms. MURRAY

Ms. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the importance of the Wilson Bridge for the eastern coastal region. I can assure the Senators from Virginia and Maryland that Senator Shelby and I will keep their views in mind when the bill goes to conference.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier today, my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, asked that his substitute be printed again in the Record. Much has been said about this substitute amendment. The claim is made that this substitute will protect safety while complying with NAFTA. That is just plain wrong. This claim is indicative of the problem we have had in these negotiations--the fact that our opponents define compliance with NAFTA as gutting the safety provisions in our bill. Lets look at the specifics of the McCain-Gramm substitute. The McCain-Gramm amendment is a legislative sleight of hand intended to take the teeth out of the safety provisions that were approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee. They create loopholes large enough to drive a Mexican truck through. Their amendment looks and sounds very much like the committee-adopted provisions when, in fact, the amendment weakens the committee-adopted provisions in several critical and dangerous ways. First, the McCain-Gramm amendment completely does away with the requirement that all Mexican trucking companies undergo a thorough compliance review before they are given authority to operate in the United States. Instead of that requirement, the McCain-Gramm amendment substitutes a cursory ``safety review''. A safety review is a much comprehensive review of a trucking company's operations. It is a quick and dirty paper check. It is not a thorough examination to ensure that a trucking company complies with all U.S. safety standards. It does not approach a compliance review in terms of ensuring that a trucking firm's operations are safe. My colleagues should not be fooled. A safety review and a compliance review are not the same thing. They are two very different things. A safety review should provide the American public with a whole lot less comfort than a compliance review when it comes to the operations of Mexican trucking firms. Second, the McCain-Gramm amendment completely does away with the requirement that compliance reviews be performed on site at each trucking firm's facility. Every time a U.S. Motor Carrier Safety Inspector performs a compliance review on a U.S. trucking firm, it is done at the trucking firm's facility. Every time a U.S. Motor Carrier Safety Inspector performs a compliance review on a Canadian trucking firm, it is done at the Canadian trucking firm's facility. Now when it comes to Mexico, the McCain-Gramm amendment wants to allow compliance reviews to be conducted at the border. This is a farce. A compliance review, by definition, requires the inspector to carefully review the trucking firm's vehicles, record books, log books, wage and hour records, and much, much more. You can't perform a compliance review at a remote site. It is not even a poor substitute. There is a long list of abuses that can result if inspectors never visit a trucking company's facility. For the life of me, I can not imagine why the sponsors of the McCain-Gramm amendment want to allow those potential abuses on the part of Mexican trucking firms while insisting that every compliance review here in the United States and in Canada is performed on site. Third, the McCain-Gramm amendment waives the requirement that the DOT publish critical safety rules before allowing trucks across the border. The McCain-Gramm amendment would allow the requirement to be waived by the Secretary by simply signing a letter stating that he will not publish these rules and sending it to Congress. The provision unanimously adopted by the Appropriations Committee requires that critically important safety rules must be completed by the DOT before the border can be opened. These rules were not randomly selected. The rules that we require to be published before the border can be opened are targeted at the specific safety concerns surrounding Mexican trucks. The McCain-Gramm amendment pretends to mandate that these rules go forward but simultaneously includes a provision that guts the same requirement. My colleagues--don't be fooled, the requirement in the McCain-Gramm amendment is a phony one that severely weakens the measures included in the committee-adopted provision. Fourth, the McCain-Gramm amendment does away with the requirement that the inspector general certify that critical safety measures are in place before the border is opened. Instead of requiring that the inspector general certify that it is safe at the border, the McCain-Gramm amendment simply requires that the Secretary of Transportation periodically submit reports to the committee on the state of problems at the border. This is a monstrous loophole. It creates more and more paperwork in Washington while the Mexican trucks come streaming across our border. It completely guts a number of the critical requirements in the underlying committee provision. The Committee on Appropriations receives a great many mandated reports by the Department of Transportation. Unfortunately, the record of the Department of Transportation in submitting reports to the committee is a poor one. As of this date, the Department of Transportation is overdue in submitting more than 22 reports to our committee from five different agencies within the Department of Transportation. Some of the deadlines of these reports date as far back as December 1995. This provision, frankly, is an insult. What our highway safety agenda needs is not more reports, it needs real improvements in the safety of the vehicles and drivers moving 18-wheelers across our country. That observation is not only applicable to Mexican drivers, it is applicable to United States drivers and Canadian drivers as well. All the reports in the world are not going to improve the condition of highway safety in the United States. What we need are firm mandates like those adopted by the Appropriations Committee to ensure that critical safety measures are in place before we face an influx of Mexican trucks that we are not ready for. The provisions in the committee bill must not be watered down. The committee provisions won't stop trade across our border. But they will stop unsafe drivers and unsafe trucks from threatening the American public. These provisions must not be weakened. Under our bill, when you are driving on the highway and there's an 18-wheeler with a Mexican license plate in front of you, you can feel safe. You will know that the truck was inspected. You will know that the company has a good track record. You will know that an American inspector visited their facility--on site--and examined their records--just like we do with Canadian trucking firms. You will know that the driver is licensed and insured. You will know that the truck was weighed and is safe for our roads and bridges. You will know that we're keeping track of which companies and which drivers are following our laws and which ones are not. You will know that, if a driver is breaking our laws, his license will be revoked. You will know that the truck didn't just cross our border unchecked, but crossed where there were inspectors on duty--ensuring our safety. That is a real safety program. That program must not be watered down, weakened, or gutted, as is proposed by the McCain-Gramm amendment. Mr. President, the committee bill is a solid compromise. It will allow robust trade--while ensuring the safety of our highways. I urge all Members to reject this effort to weaken the committee bill and endanger lives on our highways. woodrow wilson memorial bridge

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send a management package to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. That is actually in the bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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: . . . 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.

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 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.

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.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the distinguished Ranking Member and I agree that we will need to address this in the joint Senate-House Conference Committee.

Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. It is my intention to continue to press for full funding of the ATIS program in conference committee deliberations with the House. It should also be known that the subcommittee believes that full funding for ATIS is critical to the safety of our airways and that any reprogramming by the FAA should be done only after consultation with the subcommittee. tennessee public transportation

Mrs. MURRAY. I have duly noted the concerns of my friends from Tennessee and look forward to working with them on this issue.

Mrs. MURRAY. I am aware of your concern and I can assure you that during the Senate-House conference on this bill, we will keep your views in mind.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, how long does the Senator intend to speak?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from Mississippi, I be given 2 minutes to speak before the vote on the cloture motion.