[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S./MEXICAN TRUCKING: SAFETY AND THE CROSS-BORDER DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
=======================================================================
(110-16)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-787 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas
California GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania GARY G. MILLER, California
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
JULIA CARSON, Indiana HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Carolina
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Virginia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania TED POE, Texas
JERRY MCNERNEY, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BOB FILNER, California CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Louisiana
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
DORIS O. MATSUI, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JOHN L. MICA, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety.................................................... 45
Hill, Hon. John H., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Administration, accompanied by Jeffrey N. Shane, Under
Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation........ 4
Hoffa, James P., General President International Brotherhood of
Teamsters...................................................... 45
Rogers, Major Mark, State Commercial Vehicle Safety Coordinator,
Texas Department of Public Safety.............................. 45
Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Transportation.............................................. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 59
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 60
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 294
Lipinski, Hon. Daniel W., of Illinois............................ 299
Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 300
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 308
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Gillan, Jacqueline S............................................ 65
Hill, Hon. John H............................................... 264
Hoffa, James P.................................................. 271
Rogers, Major Mark.............................................. 314
Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III..................................... 316
Shane, Hon. Jeffrey N............................................ 264
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., A Representative in Congress for Oregon,
Letter, Herbert J. Schmidt, President and CEO, Contract
Freighters Inc., March 9, 2007................................. 19
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety:
U.S. Department of Transportation handout, March 2007.......... 89
Transcript from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee hearing on the nomination of Mary Peters to be
Secretary of the Department of Transportation, September 20,
2006......................................................... 91
List prepared by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's legislated
rulemaking actions and studies, and additional agency actions 156
Report from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety: The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration: A Failed Agency......... 182
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S./MEXICAN TRUCKING: SAFETY AND THE CROSS-BORDER DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
----------
Tuesday, March 13, 2007,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
DeFazio [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee will come to order.
First off, I understand that we will be joined by
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is not a member of
the Subcommittee. But I would ask unanimous consent she be
allowed to sit with the Committee. Hearing no objection, that
will be allowed on a timely basis.
Today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
is to examine the issue of a pilot program to allow 100 Mexican
trucking companies free access to the entire continental United
States. I have a number of grave and ongoing concerns about
this program that hopefully will be in part addressed today.
Then again in part, they may not, and it may require further
action by this Committee.
After having a meeting yesterday pertaining to this
hearing, just out of idle curiosity I went online to Google and
I Googled the word ``mordedura,'' which means the bite, which
means essentially bribes. And as someone who has long been a
student of Mexico and speaks very little and very bad Spanish,
but understands a good deal about the country, they do not have
the same system and respect for laws as we do, they have
different traditions. In that country, it is rampant and
widespread among minor and not so minor government officials
that bribery is a way of doing business.
I have concerns that if we are accepting a paper program, a
paper program that certifies drug and alcohol testing, a paper
program that certifies the hours of service, that we are
accepting their commercial driver's licenses, that if we are
basing it on a government-to-government negotiation, with the
understanding that they have the same sort of enforcement of
laws down to those levels in the bureaucracy, I think we are
sadly mistaken. So that leads me to believing that we need to
have some additional levels of trust. And trust would come
through a rigorous pilot program. The program is already skewed
by cherry-picking the Mexican trucking companies.
But we want to know that even though we are cherry-picking
and even though hopefully they will have their best drivers and
trucks online, that we are checking to see that they are indeed
truly conforming. I would hope that testimony is delivered
today that relieves some of my anxiety in those areas.
Then beyond that, quite truthfully, I have an interesting
advisory from the State Department, there is some concern
expressed on the Senate side that Mexico isn't immediately
giving reciprocity to American trucking companies which is of
course fairly extraordinary. But secondly, American trucking
companies don't want to drive in Mexico, again, the problem of
lack of laws and enforcement of laws. There is an advisory from
the State Department saying commercial trucks from the U.S.
should stay out of Mexico, you are likely to be hijacked or
otherwise shanghaied down there.
So this just sort of reinforces my view, which goes to some
of these other regulatory regimes that we are adopting. But
ultimately what I see really is the agenda here, and I must
disclose I voted against NAFTA, is that this is a way to
displace American labor. Yet once again, with marginal if any
benefit to American consumers, by some minuscule reduction in
the price of cheap goods that were manufactured in China or
Mexico and then imported into the United States to a middle
class that doesn't exist any more.
Having a well-paid, well-trained, well-regulated trucking
industry and truck drivers benefits our society as a whole. And
what I see as the grand vision here is that we will develop
ports in Mexico, the junk will be made in China, shipped there,
we can avoid the longshoreman's union and not pay a living wage
to people unloading the ships. Then we can load it onto trucks
that will drive it from there into the United States with
workers who are again not paid a living wage and may have a
host of other problems inherent in that.
So that is sort of the longer term vision to be realized
here. I am not inclined to support this in any way, but I am
going to be particularly rigorous in looking at protecting
public health and safety, because I am not going to sacrifice
public health and safety for a non-existent economic benefit.
With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing today to listen to testimony on the Department of
Transportation's new cross-border demonstration project. The
safety of trucks coming into the U.S. across the Mexican border
has been of concern and it is one that has been of concern to
this Committee for quite a few years. Since the opening of the
border to truck traffic appears eminent, it is very important
for this Committee to stay engaged and ensure that the border
opening is handled properly with the safety of American
motorists as our top priority.
At the time NAFTA was passed, a sizeable majority of people
in my district were in favor of it. I feel certain that if
NAFTA was up today, a sizeable majority would be opposed to it.
I am concerned that treaties like NAFTA essentially want to do
away with our borders and with Mexico and Canada and merge us
into a North American Union. I am greatly opposed to this and
want to protect U.S. political and economic sovereignty.
Although I do have concerns about NAFTA, it is the law. It
is important that the U.S. follow international law, especially
laws we have entered into willingly. But compliance with NAFTA
does not necessarily mean we open the border without any
scrutiny of the process.
This Committee should actively review DOT's plan to open
the border and should revisit the demonstration plan once it
has been initiated to evaluate its effectiveness. It is
imperative that Mexican trucks and truck drivers be as safe as
U.S. trucks and drivers. And safety is really the only thing
that this Subcommittee can fairly look at, although I do have
concerns like the Chairman about American jobs.
It is of concern to me, that as I understand it, there's
about 160 or so Mexican trucking companies who are already
interested in this, but only, I understand, two American
trucking companies wanting to go the other way. It seems to me
if we are going to do something like this, it needs to be done
in a fair way, I would say a tit for tat way. And we should let
one Mexican trucking company in for every American trucking
company that wants to go and gets permission to go into Mexico.
I know, too, that there legitimate safety concerns. I have
had complaints over the years about Mexican drivers, uninsured
drivers who have hit and seriously injured constituent of mine.
My home State of Tennessee recently put in a requirement that
while not requiring people to be necessarily fluent in English,
they have included a test to make sure that drivers can at
least read the road signs. So we need to think about things
like that as well.
But I thank you very much for calling this hearing. It is
important that we look into this from every aspect that we are
allowed to do. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Are
there other opening statements?
Yes, Mr. Holden.
Mr. Holden. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank
you for conducting this hearing today. I look forward with
interest to hearing from our witnesses.
A few years ago, when Mr. Petri was chairman of this
Subcommittee, I traveled with him and a few other members to
San Diego and to Laredo and was just absolutely shocked at the
failure rate of the truck drivers and the trucks coming into
the Country with lack of insurance, lack of conformation of
registration. And in the maintenance failures of the brake
systems and numerous other aspects of the vehicle.
So it was an absolute failure when I was on the ground
looking at it a few years ago, and I am just curious if there
has been any progress made since then. So Mr. Chairman, thank
you for conducting this hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his succinct
statement.
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. I
appreciate your calling this hearing. I will say very briefly,
Mr. Chairman, this hearing has generated much interest in my
district. I have received several telephone calls expressing
concern about this. I appreciate your having called the
hearing.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Coble. Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ditto on all the remarks, Mr. Chairman.
California has always had a longstanding issue with allowing
trucks into our area. I look forward to clarification of a lot
of the issues at this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her extraordinarily
succinct statement. I see no other opening statements. We can
proceed with the witnesses.
I believe either Mr. Hill or Mr. Shane or are both going to
testify? Mr. Hill, okay, and you are doing backup today, is
that it?
Mr. Shane. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Hill.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
MOTOR CARRIER ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: JEFFREY N. SHANE,
UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the
Department of Transportation's demonstration project to
implement the trucking provisions of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, NAFTA. I am pleased to describe to you what
the Department has done to implement Section 350 of the fiscal
year 2002 Appropriations Act and the additional steps we have
taken to ensure that we safeguard the safety and the security
of our transportation to work even as we strengthen trade with
a close neighbor and important trading partner.
As Secretary Peters announced on February 23rd, the U.S.
and Mexican governments have agreed to implement a limited,
one-year demonstration project to authorize up to 100 Mexican
trucking companies to perform long-haul international
operations within the U.S. and 100 U.S. companies to do the
same in Mexico for the first time ever. These companies will be
limited to transporting international freight and will not be
authorized to make domestic deliveries between U.S. cities. It
is also important to note in the demonstration project there
will be no trucks authorized to transport hazardous materials,
no bus transportation of passengers, and no authority to
operate longer combination vehicle on U.S. highways.
The program will meet, and in some cases exceed, the safety
requirements that Congress included in Section 350. For
example, Section 350 requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to perform 50 percent of all pre-authority
safety authority audits of Mexican trucking companies at the
company's headquarters in Mexico. In fact, for the duration of
this program, FMCSA will perform 100 percent of these audits on
site. That means the U.S. inspectors will have eyes on and
hands on access to all of a company's records, equipment, and
personnel as we are determining whether that company has the
systems in place to meet Section 350 requirements.
And the members of this Subcommittee know that Section 350
includes a very comprehensive set of requirements to ensure
that long haul Mexican trucks and drivers operate safely in the
U.S. For example, Section 350 requires all Mexican drivers to
have a valid commercial driver's license, proof of medical
fitness, and verification of compliance with hours of service.
They must be able to understand and respond in English to
questions and directions from U.S. inspectors must undergo drug
and alcohol testing, and cannot be under the influence of drugs
or alcohol.
All trucks must be insured by a U.S.-licensed insurance
company and must undergo a 37 point safety inspection at least
once every 90 days. Section 350 also requires all long haul
Mexican trucks to have a distinct DOT number, so that they will
be easy to identify by Customs and Border Protection officers,
FMCSA, State inspectors and more than 500,000 State and local
law enforcement officials. We are working closely with our
partners in the States to ensure they understand the parameters
of the program and are able to enforce the law effectively.
Finally, in addition to the Federal Motor Carrier safety
requirements, the Mexican trucks operating in the demonstration
project will be required to adhere to the same State
requirements as U.S. trucks, including size and weight
requirements, and pay the applicable fuel taxes and
registration fees. It is also important for us to bear in mind
that trucks from Mexico have always been allowed to cross our
southern border. Every day drivers from Mexico operate safely
on roads and major U.S. cities like San Diego, El Paso, Laredo,
and Brownsville. Every day, Federal and State inspectors ensure
trucks are safe to travel on our roads. And our records show
that Mexican trucks currently operating in the commercial zone
are as safe as the trucks operated by companies here in the
United States.
We have developed this limited program to demonstrate to
you, the Congress, and to the traveling public that we will be
able to implement Section 350 successfully to allow Mexican
trucks to operate safely beyond the commercial zone. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward
to working with you to create new opportunities, new hope, and
new jobs north and south of the border, while continuing to
ensure the safety of North American roads. Under Secretary
Shane and I would be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for your testimony.
With that, we would turn to the Inspector General, Mr.
Scovel.
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan and members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today as you evaluate the safety of cross-border trucking with
Mexico under the provisions of NAFTA. We appreciate the
Committee's interest in the demonstration program that will
expand the reach of Mexican cross-border trucking.
Our role, as established in the fiscal year 2002
Transportation Appropriations Act, is to review eight specific
criteria and provide the results to the Secretary. We will
continue to work with the Department as the demonstration
program progresses, consistent with our responsibility to
preserve our independence and objectivity as we conduct our
annual audits under the fiscal year 2002 Act and as we respond
to your requests that we audit the demonstration program.
We have issued seven reports on border safety since 1998
and will issue an eighth report shortly. Today I would like to
address four key issues concerning cross-border trucking with
Mexico. First, we have seen significant progress in border
safety in recent years. We have visited 27 large and small
border crossings, some multiple times, and found that FMCSA had
in place the staff, facilities, equipment and procedures
necessary to substantially meet the criteria set forth in the
Act.
For example, the number of Federal Motor Carrier
enforcement personnel, including inspectors, has jumped almost
20-fold since 1998, from 13 to 254. In addition, the number of
Mexican trucks taken out of service after inspection declined
by about half, from 44 percent to 20 percent, a rate comparable
to that of American trucks. Further, all States can now take
enforcement action when necessary against Mexican trucking
companies, a significant improvement over 2003, when only two
States had this capability.
Second, we have concerns about the completeness of the data
in the so-called 52nd State system. This is a data repository
set up by FMCSA for traffic convictions of Mexican commercial
drivers while operating in the United States, and is needed to
allow U.S. officials to bar Mexican drivers from operating here
for the same offenses that would bar U.S. drivers. We have
found reporting problems and other inconsistences with this
system at the four border States.
In one example, data reported by Texas showed a steep
decline in traffic convictions between January and May 2006.
When we brought this to FMCSA's attention, it turned out that
Texas had stopped reporting this data. After developing an
action plan with FMCSA, Texas subsequently eliminated a backlog
of some 40,000 Mexican commercial traffic convictions.
To its credit, FMCSA has acted quickly to work with the
States to correct these issues. Strong follow-up action or
interim solutions will be required, however, especially as
Mexican carriers begin to operate more extensively beyond the
border States.
Third, we have two observations regarding FMCSA's
demonstration program expanding cross-border trucking with
Mexico based on our past and current work. One, FMCSA will need
to ensure that it has an effective screening mechanisms at
border crossings. Hundreds of trucks enter the Country from
Mexico each day at large volume crossings. While the law
requires 50 percent of Mexican driver's licenses to be checked,
FMCSA has announced a standard of every truck, every time. This
will not always be easy. A driver must first be identified, in
this case by an X, appearing after the DOT number that is
present on the side of all interstate trucks. In instances that
we have observed, the driver is then taken out of line for a
license check by FMCSA staff. This process could be streamlined
if FMCSA enforcement personnel work collaboratively with the
Customs and Border Protection Service.
Two, FMCSA will need clear objectives and measures of
success. In order to assess performance and risk, the agency
must have meaningful criteria, especially if it wants to
consider opening the border to greater numbers of carriers in
the future. To date, we have seen no details on how the
program's success will be evaluated.
In summary, Mr. Chairman based on our work over the past
eight years, we see continual improvement in the border safety
program along with a willingness by the parties involved to
solve problems once identified. Some areas need and are
receiving the proper attention. We will continue to audit the
cross-border trucking program, report on its progress and
address the specific concerns of this Committee.
This completes, my statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you or other members of the Committee may
have at this time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thanks for your report and your
testimony.
I will begin the questions with Mr. Hill. I guess my first
question is quite broad, but you're referring to this as a
pilot program. It has to do with safety of motor carriers,
commercial motor vehicles, driver safety. My reading, and I am
not a lawyer, but by my reading of the law this seems to have
been anticipated in the Transportation Act for the 21st
Century, TEA-21. It sets out requirements to follow if you are
conducting a pilot.
How is it that the Administration feels they are exempt
from this law? Because this so-called pilot does not meet those
guidelines. It is our understanding nothing has been published
in the Federal Register, no public comment except on individual
carriers from Mexico, has been solicited. It is not a three
year program. There is a whole long list of failings regarding
pilot programs. Do you have legal counsel, have they informed
you that you are exempt from this law?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed that with legal
counsel. If you are referring to Section 4007 of TEA-21, the
language that is given there specifies how we are to conduct a
pilot program when it give relief from or alternatives to the
safety regulations. In this particular instance, there is no
attempt to deviate from our current regulations. There is no--
----
Mr. DeFazio. Where is the language? I have the law. Where
is the language relating to innovative approaches to motor
carriers, commercial motor vehicle and driver safety may
include, may include exemptions from a regulation prescribed
under this chapter as--et cetera. I don't see that language
that you are quoting from legal counsel in the statute. Is this
inferred or are you actually quoting statutory language?
Mr. Hill. I believe that there is a reference there to
having to give relief from or alternatives to the existing
safety regulations. We are not giving any relief here or any
alternatives. We require them to qualify.
Mr. DeFazio. I beg to differ. It is certainly an
alternative. We are having a foreign government basically
assess whether or not their truck drivers are meeting U.S.
requirements for public health and safety relating to drug
testing, hours of service, vehicle safety, driver licensing.
How can you argue that that isn't------
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we are going to be handling them
just like we do Canadian carriers in our ongoing safety regimen
now. We are verifying that they are in compliance with U.S.
regulations, not in compliance with Mexican regulations. We are
verifying that they comply with U.S. law. And so our------
Mr. DeFazio. We will follow up on that issue regarding your
statutory authority. Let's go to the program itself.
The allegation is this is a ``pilot,'' i.e., we are going
to demonstrate something. And it is not a permanent and full
opening of the board of the United States. Yet I do have a copy
of the initial agreement, and I believe Mr. Shane participated
in this process. It sets out three things. First stage, six
months, we let the Mexicans in. Second stage, six months, U.S.
companies that want to have their trucks hijacked will be
allowed to go into Mexico.
Third stage, we get at the end of the 12 month period, in
which a full and permanent opening of the border is foreseen,
and new carrier operations being appropriated normal operating
authority procedures of each country. Have we already reached
the conclusion that that at the end of 12 months we are opening
the border? It says foreseen. To me that is, it is not like
there will be an evaluation that will take a certain period of
time, there will be a report to Congress, whatever. It is
foreseen that we will fully open our border.
Mr. Shane. Mr. Chairman, may I answer that question?
Because as you pointed out, I was privy to those conversations.
Number one, that document is a record of consultations, it is
emphatically not an agreement. We did not establish any
international obligations beyond those established in NAFTA.
The objective of that document was simply to write down the
mechanics of what the two countries contemplated we would do in
the demonstration program.
The third element of it, as you have suggested, is the
normalization of relations between the U.S. and Mexico in
trucking. It was an aspiration that we included in the record
of consultations.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But here is the question. What is going
to happen at the end of 12 months? We have had exchanges
before, and I do enjoy it. But we don't have a tremendous
amount of time and I want to accommodate other members. As I
said before, you should work for the State Department, I think
you would be a great diplomat. But let's get to the bottom
line. What happens at the end of 12 months? Are we going to put
into abeyance the existing rights of the 100 companies. Since
it is on a rolling 18 month basis, it sounds unlikely, it
sounds like we are already extending people beyond the 12
months. Is there going to be a suspension of further approvals
while there is some sort of real, deliberative, evaluative
process.
What is going to happen at the end of 12 months? This says
it foresees full border opening. What is the U.S. position?
What mechanics, what will happen at the end of 12 months, plain
and simple. I'm a simple guy. So what are we going to do at the
end of 12 months?
Mr. Shane. We will conduct an evaluation in concert with
both the Inspector General and a panel of experts that the
Secretary of Transportation will commission for the purpose of
delivering objective advice to us about how the program has in
fact------
Mr. DeFazio. Objective advice. These will be people named
by the Secretary, who has implemented, authored the program,
which hasn't been publicly noticed or comment on. And she's
going to really objectively choose objective people who are
going to really objectively evaluate what really happened.
Mr. Shane. Precisely------
Mr. DeFazio. And there is going to be further consultation
with the Congress on this?
Mr. Shane. I am sure there will be consultation with
Congress, not just at the end, but the Secretary has herself
promised that the Congress will be informed as the program is
unfolding, not merely at the end. The members of the panel, I
apologize, I am not in a position to scoop the Secretary on any
announcements about the individuals, but I think when you see
the individuals, you will conclude that they are precisely as
you have described, that they are objective and they are
independent and they will provide objective advice.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I hope that is the case. I thank you for
that, but again, I am concerned that it is essentially a
foregone conclusion that you have to get this done before this
President leaves office, and you don't have a lot of time left.
So I am very concerned that this is a foreordained conclusion.
Let me go to one specific that I raised with the
Administrator yesterday and see if he has an answer. I know
that the IG might have something to say about this. The IG
expressed concern about their drug testing. Basically, there
are no certified labs in Mexico. There is no assurance of chain
of custody. And there are tremendous concerns, given anecdotal
evidence, that it is commonplace, absolutely commonplace, that
the abused truck drivers of Mexico frequently abuse substances
to stay awake during very long hauls, because there are no
hours of service within Mexico, but somehow magically we are
going to have hours of service when they come across our
border. They are being abused to the point of driving 2,500
kilometers, no relief, being told to get there in a certain
period of time, and they are using drugs.
Now, I am very concerned that those same people are going
to be pushed across the border into the United States. I want
to know, there are two things. One is, I am not willing to
accept that somehow this Mexican trucking company down there is
taking the samples in a secure way from the right people and
shipping them to the United States to be analyzed. They could
have one guy who is giving the samples. So that is a concern.
I want to know, is there going to be a safeguard? Are we
going to test a certain percentage of these drivers at the
border to make sure that this drug testing program is real and
there are no problems?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we are going to work with the
Mexican carriers to make sure they comply with drug and alcohol
requirements the same as U.S. carriers and Canadian carriers.
As I told you yesterday, the Canadian carriers do not have drug
testing.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Again, we had this discussion
yesterday, and I have already gone through the careless
disregard for the law in Mexico and the fact that these are not
things that are commonly accepted in Mexico and it is not
likely that, being assured--I am not assured. Will you require
a certain percentage of the people in this pilot program, it is
a pilot program and we would want to verify that it is working,
to take drug tests at the border, yes or no?
Mr. Hill. During this demonstration project------
Mr. DeFazio. Is it yes or no, and then we can get to the
number?
Mr. Hill. All four of the companies that we have audited
have said that they are going to do their collections in the
United States.
Mr. DeFazio. They are going to do their collection------
Mr. Hill. Their drivers are going to have their specimens--
----
Mr. DeFazio. They are going to fly their drivers up here or
drive them up here?
Mr. Hill. I don't care how they are going to do it, but
they are going to do it in the United States. Secondly------
Mr. DeFazio. I still would like to know that we are going
to do some sort of random testing of these people at the
border. Didn't the IG report on the problems with the chain of
custody here and concerns about the program?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have expressed in
testimony previously our concern with specifically the
collection process used to produce Mexican specimens for
analysis in the United States labs. Much attention has been
focused on the lab question, and it is true, Mexican specimens
need to be examined here, because there is no certified lab in
Mexico.
However, based on my long experience with the U.S.
military's drug prevention and detection effort, I can say that
we have had minimal problems with our laboratories. We had,
regrettably, more extensive problems with the integrity of the
collection process, including some ingenious schemes by service
members to subvert or defeat the collection process. If this
Committee were to ask my office to verify that the agreement
which the U.S. and Mexican governments entered into in 1998
that calls for drug collection processes in Mexico to be
equivalent to those in the United States, it would be difficult
for my office to produce an opinion unless we were allowed into
Mexico to examine their process.
Now, if the current procedure envisions Mexican drivers
entering this Country and producing samples here, then my
office would be in a much better position to examine the
process and to provide an objective opinion back to the
Committee.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin my questions, I have been asked by Ranking
Member Mica, who is apparently not going to be able to make it
here, to request unanimous consent that his statement on this
issue be placed into the record, and also to ask unanimous
consent that statements and questions be permitted to be
submitted for the record from any member. I ask unanimous
consent.
Mr. DeFazio. Without objection.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Administrator Hill, I was very impressed by the precautions
such as insurance and other requirements that you are going to
put in on these Mexican trucking companies. And I was very
impressed by Inspector General Scovel's report. I have heard of
a lot of testimony from inspectors general, most of which has
been very critical of the departments that they are inspecting.
But most of what he said is there had been some great
improvements and your agency has done some really good work.
But I was told that there was an associated press article
recently in which a National Transportation Safety Board member
said that since only a very tiny percentage of the hundreds of
thousands of U.S. truck companies are inspected every year,
does your agency have the resources and the staff to really
inspect all these carriers in Mexico and on the border, while
maintaining all that you are required to do in regard to the
U.S. trucking companies?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I
would just simply say to you a couple of things. First of all,
when the Section 350 Appropriations Act was put in place, there
was not only a very specific set of guidelines given to us to
follow, but there was also funding that allowed us to hire
dedicated resources, human resources, to deal with the
requirements of Section 350.
So we have dedicated personnel that all they do is deal
with the border issues. For example, the number of inspectors
that we have along the border is not representative of what we
have anywhere else in the Country. The vast majority of
commercial vehicle safety at the roadside is done by our
dedicated State and local and law enforcement partners. I think
you are going to hear from one of those members in the second
panel. We work with the more than 13,000 State inspectors that
do commercial vehicle inspections all throughout this Country.
So the people that are dealing with this particular issue along
the border are dedicated, and that is their only job, is to
deal with Mexican trucking related matters along the border.
So I would take issue that we are diverting resources. In
fact, the statute very clearly says that we are forbidden from
taking resources from within the agency and dedicating them to
this Mexican trucking enforcement protocol. So I believe that
we have the adequate resources to deal with this.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Let me ask you something else. You
heard in my statement that there's just a lot of concern all
across this Country about the trade imbalance that we have. I
was told yesterday, as I mentioned, that there are 160 Mexican
trucking companies that want to come in here under this
demonstration project and only 2 U.S. carriers have applied for
operating authority in Mexico. Are those figures accurate, and
if so, are you going to do something to try to encourage more
U.S. trucking companies? And thirdly, is this some sort of real
high priority so you are going to feel pressure to hurry up and
approve all these 100 Mexican companies to qualify for this
program?
Mr. Hill. The numbers that you cited, I am aware of the
Mexican applications that we have in place, but I am not aware
of all the U.S. interests. I have heard the number two, I have
also heard the number six. I don't think the number is very
high.
We are not going to rush through this inspection process,
this safety process. One of the reasons why we are starting
with 100 carries is to give us an opportunity to demonstrate to
the Congress and to ourselves to make sure that we are going to
have the safety protocols that are adequate in place before we
would ever look at anything any larger. And there needs to be
an evaluation not only of what goes on in Mexican carriers but
we are also going to be evaluating whether or not Mexico
affords equal treatment to our carriers wanting to go south.
So part of the demonstration project is to make sure that
their process is transparent, allowing American trucks to apply
and to receive operating authority and to be allowed to operate
in the same manner that we allow their trucks to operate in
this Country.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I will say once again, I am sure it won't
be done this way, but I think we should approve a Mexican
company for each American company that wants this authority in
Mexico.
Let me ask you this. A little over a year or so ago, I went
to a very sad funeral in my district for four young people from
Crown College, a small Christian college in my district, who
had been, those four young people were on a mission trip to
Florida. And they were killed in a very horrible wreck by a
Mexican truck driver.
What I would like to know is this: How are we going to be
able to determine whether these Mexican truck drivers, how are
we going to know whether they have a safe driving record in
Mexico? How are we going to know that we are not allowing truck
drivers in here that, the Chairman mentioned some concerns
about the drug problems of some of these drivers. The drug
problem, that is certainly a concern. But also the safe driving
record, how do we verify this with these Mexican companies? I
understand that some of these records in Mexico are really not
that good.
Mr. Hill. Congressman, when we look at the commercial
driver's license record, our inspectors daily are making CDL
checks, commercial driver's license checks in the commercial
zone. We do about 20,000 of those every month. So we are
querying the Mexican Licencia Federale data base. It is called
LIFIS, and it is an information similar to our own in terms of
its electronic capacity. So our inspectors are verifying driver
history records and we know that there are driver
disqualifications occurring, because we are finding them now in
the commercial zone.
Mr. Duncan. So in other words, you think that their records
system there is just as good as ours?
Mr. Hill. I do not know; I have not seen the details of
their system. I know that we were required to have a system in
place and to make sure that we could account for violations for
drivers operating in the United States. That piece I am sure
about. I am not as confident about the Mexican LIFIS system. I
do not know the details of it.
Mr. Duncan. All right, I am going to forego any other
questions, so we can get to other members. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Ranking Member.
We will go in the order that people arrived at the
Committee. Mr. Holden?
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Hill, I heard what you just said about not
being able to verify the Mexican system. But I can tell you, as
I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have visited San Diego and
Laredo. Mr. Filner, who just stepped in a moment ago, it is his
district, that San Diego crossing. I can tell you that they
couldn't check the records in Mexico. They are hooked up to a
system in Mexico City that basically was a failure. If you
count the minor, major violations plus the situations where
they were not able to verify one way or the other, it is almost
100 percent of failure at that time, just a few short years
ago.
So if we are going to rely on the Mexican system for
verification and trust them, I don't believe there is any
accuracy for it, unless they have come a long way baby in the
last few years. So I know you might not have anything further
to add to what you just said to Mr. Duncan's question, but I
don't have any faith in their system, based on being their
first-hand and looking at it.
That deals with the registration and the licensing and the
insurance, maybe personal information on the driver. But I
think you mentioned this in your opening remarks, how are we
going to physically test the vehicles? Is it going to be tested
in the U.S. or are we going to trust Mexican inspectors for
that as well?
Mr. Hill. Congressman, we are going to do two different
regimens for verification of the vehicle safety. When our
inspectors, FMCSA inspectors, go south into Mexico and do the
pre-authority safety audit, a pre-authority safety audit is
something we are required to do by Section 350 before any kind
of operating authority is granted to a Mexican carrier. During
that pre-authority safety audit, we will be inspecting every
one of the trucks that is anticipated to be used in this long-
haul operation.
For example, the very first pre-authority safety audit that
we did, the trucking company had 37 tractors. But he was only
going to dedicate five of them, and trailers, to the long haul
operation. So we are recording what vehicles those are, and we
are going to physically inspect every one of them to make sure
they are in compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. Then if
they pass, we will affix a safety decal which will then
indicate to us that the vehicle has met safety standards.
Mr. Holden. You said that the project is going to inspect
50 percent of the traffic, is that the goal?
Mr. Hill. The law requires us to inspect 50 percent of the
traffic, but we are going to be inspecting 100 percent of the
carriers involved in this demonstration project.
Mr. Holden. And how many vehicles, how many crossings are
we talking about?
Mr. Hill. I'm talking specifically now about the pre-
authority safety------
Mr. Holden. The authority, okay.
Mr. Hill. When we go into the--we are going to do 100 of
those. Then at every one of the border crossings, when those
vehicles cross into the U.S., we will be looking for that
vehicle through a specific designator. It has an X designation
on the side of the truck. Then we are going to be working with
DHS to make sure that we have access to their information, so
that when we know one of these carriers is in the queue, we can
pull that vehicle out of line and make sure it is inspected at
the border.
Mr. Holden. So after pre-approval, the scrutiny will, what
level of scrutiny will there be, or are we just going to trust
that there has been no change in the vehicle, no changing of
plates, no changing of i.d. numbers?
Mr. Hill. Every vehicle that we see that is a long haul
Mexican truck, we are going to be making sure they have a
safety decal on it, which would indicate they have been through
an inspection.
Mr. Holden. I understand.
Mr. Hill. Then we are going to be looking at the license
for that particular driver, to make sure that it is in
compliance. Now, the law requires us to do 50 percent of those.
But we are going to be checking each one of them at the border,
when they enter the Country, for this demonstration project.
That is the goal.
Mr. Holden. I understand, Mr. Administrator, and I
appreciate your testimony. But I am telling you, after being
there, I am very, very skeptical.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have you
all with us today.
Mr. Hill, I am going to ask you a simplified question, and
I may be amplifying my ignorance in doing it. But what is the
primary purpose in the cross-border demonstration project?
Mr. Hill. The primary purpose, sir, is to fulfill our NAFTA
obligation, which has been delayed now for several years, and
to make certain that our processes in place meet the
requirements of Section 350 of the Appropriations Act, to
ensure that we have safe operation of those vehicles coming
into the Country.
Mr. Coble. Currently, Canadian trucks travel into the U.S.,
hauling international loads, do they not?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Coble. How do Canadian trucks and drivers measure up in
the U.S. safety-wise?
Mr. Hill. In the year 2005, the typical out of service rate
for a Canadian vehicle was 13 and a half percent, which was
lower than what the out of service rate is for the U.S.
carriers. I can explain out of service rate if you would like
me to go into a little more detail.
Mr. Coble. If you would.
Mr. Hill. Okay. Whenever we do this inspection that we have
been referring to in our testimony and in answer to questions,
if a violation is found that is so serious that we can't allow
the safety to be ensured by moving the vehicle or the driver,
it is rendered out of service. It can't move until the driver
violation or the vehicle violations are fixed. So the rate at
which we found those violations with Canadian carriers was 13
and a half percent in 2005.
Mr. Coble. So as well or better that our trucks and drivers
perform, I presume?
Mr. Hill. Yes. The out of service rate for U.S. vehicles in
2005 was 21 and a half percent.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Hill, what actions will the FMCSA take when
the pilot programs have been concluded?
Mr. Hill. As the Under Secretary indicated in his response
to the Chairman a moment ago, we are going to be evaluating
whether or not there are adequately safety protocols in place
and being followed. In other words, are the requirements in
Section 350 working as we anticipated that they are supposed to
work, and then we are going to be making reports on that, as he
indicated, to Congress and other places to ensure that we have
fulfilled our requirement under the law before we would proceed
on it.
Mr. Coble. Will U.S. operations in Mexico be evaluated as
well?
Mr. Hill. The purpose of the bi-national monitoring group,
I don't know whether you have heard this reference, but there
is a team of people in Mexico and a team of people in the U.S.
that are going to be working together to make sure that we
remove any kinds of impediments or obstacles to allowing this
process to go forward. We will be making sure that U.S.
carriers going south are giving proportionate treatment and we
will be evaluating how well that is being done.
Mr. Coble. And will the Mexican officials respond in a
similar way?
Mr. Hill. We have assurance from both the Secretary of SCT,
the Secretary of Communication and Transport, and their staff,
that they will work with us on this endeavor, yes.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am listening
with great interest, because I sat on California Transportation
Commission at the State level for six years. This had come up
then. It really hasn't changed a whole lot in terms of the
questions. Now, whether the fixes have been there, I don't
know. But I can go into another area, because I have some
knowledge of some of our American companies losing loads in
Mexico.
Now, is there anything that will help our drivers, our
U.S., if they are able to contract going into Mexico to assure
their safety and the safety of their cargo? Because I can name
you one company that's lost billions of dollars in cargo theft
in Mexico, coming up to deliver to the U.S., it is a major
company. There is no help from the Mexican side.
Now, that said, there are other issues that I have and I
want to ensure that we don't bypass some of the inherent issues
that we have. I was born and raised in a border town, I travel
to Mexico fairly often. I know some of the issues in dealing
with the bureaucracy in Mexico in regard to some of the law
enforcement, et cetera. I have a concern that if we are
allowing our folks to go into Mexico, will they be as
protected, or will they have the ability to be able to have
recourse to assistance from the Mexican federal government to
assist our companies? That is a big issue for my carriers and
for some of the businesses that I know.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that insight. I
will assure you that we are working closely with the Mexican
officials and SCT. I think what you are also talking about is
perhaps another area of the Mexican government in terms of
protective service and so forth that we are going to be having
to make sure that we work with them as well through this
process.
The Mexican government has committed to us that they want
to have a proper working relationship of NAFTA on both sides of
the border. That would imply safety and safe passage, just as
we are going to be ensuring that on our side of the border. So
we are committed to working with them on this issue.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I certainly want to talk to you, or
send you the information so you can look into this one. Because
it does involve trucking of products sold to the American
companies for processing by American companies, to be delivered
in the U.S. and hijacked. The Mexican government has done
little to nothing on that.
Mr. Hill. We would be glad to relay that information.
Mrs. Napolitano. The other questions that I have have to do
with, in following up on the questions of my colleague, was on
setting up the inspections on the U.S. side of trucks coming
in, every single one, on this pilot. Do we have enough trained
personnel, U.S. employees at those stations to be able to carry
out those inspections on those trucks? Are you limiting it to
certain crossings only? How are you setting that up?
Mr. Hill. Ma'am, one of the points that I want to make sure
that the Committee understands is that we are going to be
verifying at the border whether or not the truck has been
properly inspected. That could imply a safety decal issued by a
certified inspector that they have already been inspected in
the last 90 days, what will be verifying at the border.
But to answer your specific question, back in 1995, we had
very few staff in place to do this. I think we had a handful of
people. We now have over 250 FMCSA staff dedicated to border
inspection and auditing activities. In addition to that, we
have over 350 to 400 State inspectors along the border. That is
a large presence to deal with a very limited number of Mexican
trucks that are coming into this Country for long haul
operations, 100 carriers and a limited number of vehicles.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you differentiate in the training
between long haul and short haul at the border by the training
you have given these individuals?
Mr. Hill. We have done that with our staff, and we are
working with the State and local authorities to do that as
well, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. In regard to the--and I have very little
time--to the ability of States to be able to have higher
standards, is that preempted by NAFTA? Higher standards for
incoming drivers into, say, for instance, California, which has
higher standards?
Mr. Hill. The current regime is that when a Mexican carrier
or driver comes into a State, they must comply with those State
requirements. So if there are requirements in place that that
State has, they are going to be required to fulfill those
requirements.
Mrs. Napolitano. Will they know those laws in Mexico, so
they can abide by them? Who is going to give them the training
to be able to recognize what is expected and required of them
when they come into U.S. territory for any given State?
Mr. Hill. Part of our process from the FMCSA side is to do
some of that education on the front end, during this pre-
authority safety audit. But primarily, we are there to do
enforcement. We are making sure that the safety protocols are
in place.
But I think during that time, we could also be answering
questions and providing information to them, as you have
indicated.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
At this point in the record, I just would insert for the
record, since she has questions about security, a document from
Securitas Security Services, USA, which outlines the problems
of hijacking, 50 truckloads from January of this year up to
March 7th, and quite a number of U.S. truckloads being hijacked
and an advisory from the State Department. Again, since in
part, entering into this agreement with Mexico depends on
enforcement of the laws. He goes on to say, and this is the
director of these services, who is monitoring what is happening
to his companies in Mexico. The Mexican government has not
become involved yet, because they are considered to be
outpowered. And these are the people we are going to depend
upon to enforce the safety and security laws for the American
public.
Ms. Fallin.
Ms. Fallin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate all of you coming today to give us this
testimony. It is a very important topic.
I just have a couple of questions, and if I could start
with Mr. Hill. Being in Oklahoma, we have the NAFTA corridor
coming up I-35, the middle of our State. I have seen the wear
and tear that the trucks take on our highway systems. I am just
curious, if this demonstration project goes through, are there
any types of fees that the Mexican truck companies will pay to
help us with the wear and tear on our national transportation
system?
Mr. Hill. Congresswoman, the requirement for Mexican
carriers coming into the Country specifies that they have to
meet State laws. One of the State laws that is in place is
something called the International Fuel Tax Agreement, IFTA,
and that is designed to collect fuel tax to help pay for the
Highway Trust Fund. Those vehicles will be subject to IFTA
requirements, they will have to have a decal that is affixed to
the vehicle for officers to see non-compliance and they will be
enforced if they are not following it.
Ms. Fallin. Okay, another question. I know this is to open
up trade and goods between our two countries. Have we had any
further economic impact studies that if we have the trucks
coming through the United States, that will affect our economy
and trade?
Mr. Hill. I am primarily a safety person. But I would just
say to you that in the course of hearing this discussed, we
believe that it will eliminate bottlenecks at the border,
thereby increasing efficiency and I think the Chairman even
referred to that in the opening comments, that there will be
some measured relief given to the American consumer. So we
believe that it will have an impact of allowing the free flow
of commerce between our countries.
Ms. Fallin. Okay. Then one last question for Mr. Scovel.
According to the testimony, it says all States have adopted
operating authority rules. And the States are prepared to
enforce those safety standards under this program. Will there
be any extra cost to the individual States for training and
also for making sure the trucks are in compliance?
Mr. Scovel. I would like to defer to the Administrator on
the cost question. My staff has examined the training provided
by FMCSA to State law enforcement personnel. One of our
recommendations has been to ensure that that training is
adequate, so that the local and State law enforcement
authorities know what they are looking for, and moreover, know
the data systems, data bases, that they can access in FMCSA,
pertaining to the specific operating authority of a vehicle.
Mr. Hill. If I may just add to that in terms of the
funding, we do have grants in place that we are working with
the International Association of Chiefs of Police to do
training as we speak. We are training trainers throughout the
Country so that they can then do training for their local law
enforcement. That is money that was provided by the Congress
and we are using it to make sure that there is adequate
training in place.
Ms. Fallin. Thank you very much. We are always concerned
about unfunded mandates back to our States.
Mr. Hill. This will not be one.
Ms. Fallin. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady.
At this point in the record, in response to a question she
raised and a response from Mr. Hill, I would submit a letter
from CF, the Contract Freighters, Incorporated, Herbert
Schmidt, President and CEO. He points out that we actually have
an extraordinarily viable and efficient system already of
dealing with freight from Mexico, that he has agreements with
Mexican trucking companies. His U.S. certified, U.S. approved,
U.S. drug tested drivers provide and drive the trailer to the
border area, they drop it, the Mexican company picks it up,
takes it into Mexico, likewise coming the other way. So we
don't deal with this whole issue of the Mexican trucks on the
U.S. roads.
So there is already a very efficient way to deal with this.
He goes on to say that basically no U.S. trucking company in
their right mind is going to operate in Mexico because of the
safety and security problems. So I would submit that, without
objection, into the record.
[The information received follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeFazio. Now we will move on to Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I come to this hearing from a different perspective, having
been a truck driver back in the days when you needed a
chauffeur's license instead of a CDL. I would like to thank the
Ranking Member about his poignant story about people from his
district who dealt with the consequences of trucking accidents
that have a very real concern to me, in light of the
regulations we are talking about here today. Because one of the
things we know is that having similar requirements for
insurance on a Mexican trucking company is a very different
thing than having that same insurance requirement on a U.S.
trucking company. Because under the current regulations, DOT
carriers in the United States are only required to carry
$750,000 of liability coverage unless they are carrying
hazardous materials, and then that limit goes up to a million
dollars.
If you are in a bus load of Catholic school kids and you
get hit by a U.S. carrier, the first line of defense to take
care of those claims is that insurance policy. The second line
of defense is the assets of that trucking company located in
the United States. The problem with this requirement is that if
you have a catastrophic injury, such as a hazardous release of
a Mexican carrier, for example, in Ms. Fallin's home district,
that $1 million policy won't even begin to cover the liability
consequences of that injury. Then the people in her district
are going to be faced with pursing a claim against a foreign
trucking company that has little or no assets in this Country
other than the vehicle that was involved in the collision and a
very long and arduous process, trying to get jurisdiction over
that company's assets, not over the company itself, to make
those people whole. And if they aren't made whole, then we as
taxpayers pick up the burden.
So what I would like to know from the three of you is
whether you feel that applying the same insurance requirement
for Mexican trucking companies is going to protect the safety
of U.S. citizens if they are involved in a catastrophic loss
involving a Mexican trucking company.
Mr. Hill. Congressman, thank you for those observations.
First of all, I would just say to you that we are required to
follow U.S. law, and right now that is the law of the land. And
we do that currently with Canadian carriers that come into the
Country. So we already have a regimen in place. As far as the
hazardous materials release, we are not going to have hazardous
materials in this demonstration project. So that is one piece
of the equation that you explained that we will not have in
this demonstration project.
I will defer to anyone else who might want to address the
liability issues.
Mr. Shane. I can't really add very much more to that, other
than to say that the purpose of the demonstration program is to
look at issues just like that one and to have a binational
monitoring program in place that will identify issues,
impediments to the normalization of relations with Mexico that
we will need to address before we go any further. There are
important pieces of information that we are trying to extract
from this demonstration program, and it may very well be that
we will come back with some recommendations to the Congress
about whether or not our insurance is adequate for U.S. and
foreign trucking companies in the U.S.
Mr. Braley. Well, as someone who has represented U.S.
trucking companies and claims against U.S. trucking companies,
one of the big concerns I have is where those records are going
to be maintained. Because if there is a requirement that the
documentation required currently under USCSA is maintained in
this Country, the accessibility to people who are regulating
and people who are required to pursue those types of issues is
much easier than having to leave this Country and go to some
remote location in Mexico where that trucking company may be
headquartered and maintains its records.
So can any of you answer for me what record-keeping
requirements are going to be part of this pilot project, to
make sure that we in this Country have a means to monitor the
compliance of these companies?
Mr. Hill. Sir, I would just say to you that when we go down
and do our safety audit and then document what we find there,
we will be retaining those records and they would be subject to
anyone who would like to see them. They are a part of our
files, so they would be kept in the United States as far as the
compliance with the safety regulations for that Mexican
carrier.
Mr. Braley. But as I understand it, that is a snapshot
taken at one point in time. It is not a dynamic record-keeping
process, which is what you as companies complying with this
regulation are required to have in their drivers' files.
Mr. Hill. Well, they are required to have the same kind of
ongoing updates to their files, just as U.S. carriers are.
But in terms of the issue of insurance, if they have any
kind of deviation from their coverage, we are notified of that
and we will take action to suspend their operating authority if
they do not keep their insurance in force.
Mr. Scovel. Congressman, if I may address your question as
well. As Inspector General, my staff has not yet examined the
insurance question in depth. I will note that the Committee's
request by letter of last week to my office to conduct an audit
of the demonstration program specifically asked us to address
insurance, and we will do so.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. That's an excellent question. Mr. Scovel, you
implied something in an earlier question. Has your staff been
to Mexico to some of these companies that have already been
chosen to review the comprehensive nature of the documents that
they are keeping along the lines of what he is asking? Have you
been given that opportunity?
Mr. Scovel. We have not, not yet. We have made extensive
visits to the border crossings.
Mr. DeFazio. Why haven't you been down there?
Mr. Scovel. Part of the problem involves the brand new
nature of the demonstration program.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But is there any barrier? Will you be
going there for certain to review the compliance on that side
of the border?
Mr. Scovel. That is a question that we will ask the
Department to assist us with. In view of the fact, of course,
that Mexico is a sovereign country, that will require some
negotiations. We would hope, in order to respond to this
Committee's request for our current audit, that we will be
granted authority at least to accompany FMCSA inspectors on the
pre-authority safety audits.
Mr. DeFazio. We would love to help you with that. Thank
you.
We will go on to Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I listened to the Inspector General's commentary earlier
and he mentioned that there are associated problems with
reporting Mexican driver convictions in the U.S. How difficult
is it going to be to implement the recommendations of the
Inspector General?
Mr. Hill. Congressman, as he indicated in his comments that
we were responsive to their request to deal with this issue
when we found out about it in Texas, the 40,000 citations and
dispositions have been entered into the system and have been
corrected. We are working with New Mexico, Arizona and
California. We are going to make resources available to them to
make sure that their current system of reporting that
information is updated and current. We are going to be
monitoring this as we go through the demonstration project.
Mr. Boustany. And you will expand this to the other States?
My States of Louisiana has I-10 running through. I talk to
sheriffs and State troopers all the time, and of course, this
is going to be a concern.
Mr. Hill. Yes.
Mr. Boustany. And making sure they are up to speed on the
reporting and what mechanism they have to follow through to
report convictions, to make sure that the data base is clean.
Mr. Hill. Yes, one of the relationships that we have is not
only with the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
but also with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. They are the people that oversee the bureaus of
motor vehicles throughout the Country, not oversee, but they
have an association, they have a close working relationship. So
we are going to be making certain that they have a clear
understanding of the importance of feeding this into the 52nd
State. They have been briefed on it, but we are going to be, as
we now move into this demonstration project, we will make
certain that that is a part of the regular update, that we meet
with them.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you.
Mr. Scovel, your testimony mentions the development of
systems that will permit electronic verification of licenses
when a truck crosses the border. We currently don't have that
kind of system in place, do we?
Mr. Scovel. My understanding, Congressman, is that FMCSA
inspectors at that point, through the LIFIS system, can access
Mexican records concerning their commercial driver licenses.
Here in the States, we have the so-called 52nd State system,
which allows FMCSA inspectors, as well as State and local law
enforcement authorities, to check possible convictions of
Mexican commercial drivers in this Country.
Mr. Boustany. We have concerns about the Mexican data,
don't we?
Mr. Scovel. Actually, Congressman, our examination of that
shows that the Mexican data base is accessible. We haven't had
an opportunity to verify all the content of that data base.
However, we obtained data from FMCSA indicating that in April
2006, FMCSA and state inspectors checked some 20,000 commercial
driver license records through the Mexican LIFIS system. About
one out of five of those revealed problems with the Mexican
driver's license, they were expired, they were restricted, or
the driver was not found in the database. That shows, we think,
that first of all, the data base is accessible and secondly,
the information that we are able to extract from it was helpful
to FMCSA inspectors in making their judgments.
Mr. Boustany. So given that, you do not feel that the
implementation of this demonstration project is premature? Do
you feel like you have adequate information to work with to go
forward and implement the project?
Mr. Scovel. The purpose of the demonstration project, of
course, is to test the number of these systems. And we give
credit for FMCSA for taking what appears to be a limited and
rather prudent step in that regard. There are a host of
unknowns that cause my staff great concern. You referred
earlier to the 52nd State system and its implementation beyond
the four border States. You noted in my testimony, sir, that we
found reporting inconsistencies and some problems in the four
border States. While we certainly trust FMCSA to carefully
ensure the full implementation of that program through the
other States in the Country, we will of course verify that and
report back to Congress.
Mr. Boustany. I thank you for your answer. I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. In a moment, we will have to adjourn for the
votes. I am going to have to go to Homeland Security. I just
wanted to say something at this point.
I believe, and I realize this is ultimately an ideological
struggle over free trade and this Administration's opinions on
that. They want to deliver for the Mexican government. But you
are blissfully unaware, and I believe Mr. Filner will fill you
in a little bit on this, on the reality of Mexico. Here is a
quote from the article by Charles Bowden. These things are not
made up. Talking to truck drivers: We make almost nothing, less
than $300 a week. I work 48 hours non-stop. I drive 2,400
kilometers per trip and get no time for turnaround.
Every man at the table agrees on their biggest problem: the
government. And by that they mean the police, especially
federal, who will rob them at will. If you drive to Mexico
City, another driver adds, you are robbed for sure. Police are
the first to rob you. If you report a robbery, the police will
try to make you the guilty person.
Then they go on to talk about drug use. This is the reality
in Mexico. It is truly the reality. And you are saying, oh, we
checked 20,000 commercial driver licenses against the data base
kept by these same corrupt police officials. The people who are
in that system are the ones that didn't pay the bribes.
You are just blissfully unaware of what you are doing here.
And we are not going to put in place extraordinary safeguards
to deal with it. I am just very disappointed in the
Administration on this issue. We are talking about the highways
of the United States of America and the safety of the American
public. And all for an ideological hit on free trade and a
little sop to Mexico, because they haven't been able to deliver
on some other things.
This is extraordinary. The hearing will continue
immediately after these votes. It should take about 20 minutes.
We are recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Filner. [Presiding] The Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit will come back to order.
Our Chairman, Mr. DeFazio, will be back in a few minutes. I
will substitute until he does get here. As fate would have it,
I was next on the list to start questions. I apologize, I did
not hear your opening statement, although I read them. I also
missed some of the questions, so if you have gone over it, just
tell me.
I happen to represent the entire California border with
Mexico between San Diego and Yuma, Arizona. I have represented
that area on the school board, on the city council and now in
Congress for a total of almost 30 years. So I would say I have
a little familiarity with the area.
And I must say to you, with all due respect, that a lot of
the comments that I heard and read sounded to me and to the
people I represent as very unrealistic. You don't really know
what is going on there to make the kinds of statements that I
have heard, and I will point out some of them. People
throughout the border, whether they are in Texas or New Mexico,
Arizona or California, are going to say that you guys have got
to spend some time there with truckers, owners and with drivers
on both sides of the border, as I have done for years, and then
you would have a better sense of reality.
My five minutes is not going to allow me to have a full
sense of dealing with some of the delusionary statements you
made, but let me try to go over some of them. When Mr. Braley
asked a very good question about liability issues, your first
statement was, oh, we have done that with Canada. No problem.
There is a slight difference between dealing with a first
world country and a third world nation, slight difference. And
all the records and verifications and certifications and stuff
that you are talking about hardly exist in Mexico. And if they
do exist, they can be forged with great ease.
So I am not sure that you fully understand the question or
the issues. I have read in your statement that you are going to
inspect every truck, every time, in this pilot program. And all
drivers must have a valid commercial driver license, proof of
medical fitness, and verification of compliance with hours of
service. There is no way you will be able to do that in any
satisfactory manner, in my humble opinion.
That is, in my district, every day, 300,000 people go back
and forth legally. There must be 5,000 to 6,000 trucks per day
through my district. Your pilot, as I understand it, did you
have a number anywhere of how many trucks you are going to do
per day on this?
Mr. Hill. Sir, we are trying to determine that, but we
believe it will be somewhere under 1,000 trucks. We do know----
--
Mr. Filner. Per day or per period?
Mr. Hill. For the whole demonstration project.
Mr. Filner. So maybe you will have a few a day? What is it?
See, you are using issues that have no relevance to the
situation. At one crossing that I represent, 3,000 trucks go
by. There is no way you can inspect anywhere near a few percent
of those. The lines now, without a safety inspection, could be
two hours long, could be four hours long, could be eight hours
long. You are not going to inspect every one of them. You are
going to inspect a certain percentage, 1 percent, maybe 2.
The real volume of traffic is so big. If your pilot program
is so small that you can accommodate it, it doesn't give you
any sense of the reality of the situation.
Do you have a number for how many per day?
Mr. Hill. We don't know. We are going to distribute it
geographically, because it will depend on where they come
through the port and it will depend on the size of the carrier.
But we do intend to evaluate the safety protocols that we have
in place. That is the whole point of this demonstration
project.
Mr. Filner. But you have had them in place for years and
years. The volume is just so great, and the ability to
circumvent the regulations is so easy that that doesn't mean
much. You said, I think, in answer to one question, that when
you inspect a truck, what are you going to do? You are going to
give them a green decal, right?
Mr. Hill. It will vary in color.
Mr. Filner. That is the decal they give now. What are you
going to give?
Mr. Hill. We are going to inspect to ensure that their
vehicle and driver meet the requirements that U.S. trucks meet.
Mr. Filner. How are you going to tell me their hours of
service?
Mr. Hill. We are going to first of all verify that they
have a log book in seven previous days, just like we do for
U.S. and Canadian drivers. Secondly, our people have laptop
computers. The will enter into their point of destination and
where they left from as supported by their bills of lading and
other documents that are required to be carried. We will enter
that to se if the drive time matches what their log indicates.
And then we also have a way of verifying through an audit or
compliance review what kind of compliance they are doing on a
regular basis. If they are found to be in violation, then we
will revoke their operating authority.
Mr. Filner. Are you sure they have a valid driver's
license? How are you going to make sure of that?
Mr. Hill. We are going to do it through verification of the
Licencia Federale Information System, which is the------
Mr. Filner. See, you are talking about things that in our
society work: verification, certification. There is no such
thing in Mexico. I could get a driver's license that would look
to you perfectly valid. Just give me an hour and I will get it.
And the data base could or could not have my name. Who knows?
How do you check the insurance? They give you a form?
Mr. Hill. They are going to be required to have insurance
with a U.S. insurer------
Mr. Filner. And how do you know they have it?
Mr. Hill.--and that insurance company must certify with us
that it is in force through a standard process that we now use
with U.S. and Canadian carriers. It is not coming from the
Mexican motor carrier, it is coming from the U.S. insurance
company.
Mr. Filner. And if a company has 10 trucks, each of those
trucks is going to be in your system?
Mr. Hill. They are required, when they do their
certification through the MSC 90 form, to state what kind of
vehicles are going to be in force through that policy. That is
something we will verify.
Mr. Filner. But is that specific vehicle on that
verification, on that system?
Mr. Hill. I would like to get back to you for the record.
Mr. Filner. It doesn't, believe me. What they do now is
give you some insurance form that they may have for one truck,
but there may be 12 other trucks in their fleet, and it looks
like they have------
Mr. Hill. Right now, the Mexican carriers that are going
through the commercial zone and back to Mexico use a trip
insurance process. They are not going to be allowed to use that
in this long haul demonstration pilot. They mst have insurance
in force with a U.S. insurer. That is different than what you
are talking about with the trip insurance.
Mr. Filner. I want to know, is each vehicle going to be in
this system for verification? Every vehicle that the truck
company has?
Mr. Hill. We are going to be determining------
Mr. Filner. Or is it just for the company?
Mr. Hill. We will be determining which vehicles by VIN
number are going to be a part of the demonstration project.
Mr. Filner. You didn't answer the question about the decal.
After they have been certified safe, they get a decal?
Mr. Hill. They get a commercial vehicle safety alliance
decal. It is a decal that is now put on trucks anywhere in
Canada, United States------
Mr. Filner. So if they come back next day and they have
that decal, you will just wave them through?
Mr. Hill. We could, unless there is an obvious safety
defect, then we could pull them in.
Mr. Filner. I am glad you have a lot of confidence in the
decal. You can't scrape off the decal without destroying it,
right? I have watched windshields being taken from one truck to
another, with ease. Every one of those things that you said,
which in our society is so important, and people carry it out
most of the time. When you see stuff on decals and when you see
an insurance verification, it is real. It ain't so with the
ones you are going to get.
And when you get to the real case, the volume is so heavy,
that you will never be able to do it. You will never be able to
handle this without more efficiency at the border crossing. I
will tell you, if you are waiting two, three, four, five hours
now, and the safety inspection is added onto that, there is not
a lot of room at most of the border crossings to do that, for a
large number of trucks. The highway patrol in California has a
station. But only a few trucks can pull in there. And if you
are going to do every one, every time, there is no way. There
is just absolutely no way you can do it, believe me. So you are
going to have to do only a certain number, and when you get
down to that low percentage, then your system is not
guaranteed.
My time is up, but I just wanted to let you know, from the
point of view of those of us who represent the border, what you
are saying has just no sense of reality. There is no way that
you can do most of this stuff, from our experience. I have
stood at the border with American truckers, with truck owners,
with Mexican truckers. They have shown me all the problems of
trucks coming through, even ones that may pass a safety
inspection. They showed me what the driver was doing that
nobody could tell. Virtually every truck had something wrong,
every truck, with either insurance or the driver's
certification, every truck. In fact, there was a pilot case
used in California, I think the California Highway Patrol and
you guys did this in the test case, and you had almost 100
percent of problems.
You are going to have a major accident somewhere in Iowa,
maybe with a school bus, the Mexican driver who hadn't slept
for three days, has no insurance, and he runs into an American
bus. The American people are going to say, how did this happen?
We should not let us get to that situation.
Is Mrs. Miller here?
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes, they
moved me up here.
Let me just say first of all, gentlemen, I appreciate your
attendance here today, and what has been some very tough
questioning, and I think in a very bipartisan way. Because I
think there is tremendous consternation on the part of the
Congress on both sides of the aisle about how this program is
going to work. And I do, I am very cognizant of the fact that
it is a manifestation of NAFTA.
Coming from Michigan, I would tell you that I am not
predisposed to be very sympathetic to NAFTA and some of the
unintended consequences that have happened as a result of
NAFTA. That is what happens sometimes with these trade
agreements, I suppose. In my district, my colleague is from
California, a border State. Michigan is also a border State. In
fact, I-69, which is sometimes referred to as the NAFTA super
corridor, or superhighway, however you characterize it, has its
genesis actually in my district. The traffic transits over the
Blue Water Bridge, which is the second busiest commercial
artery on the northern tier of the Nation.
I will also tell you that actually, before I cam to
Congress, I was the Michigan secretary of state. That is one of
three States where the secretary actually has jurisdiction and
principal responsibility for all motor vehicle administration.
So I was responsible for licensing all vehicle drivers, whether
that is passenger vehicles or commercial driver licenses, or
hazardous material endorsements on the CDLs. And I did note
that you said there would be no hazmat transited in the initial
pilot.
But I will also tell you, I am very familiar with AMBA and
the types of reciprocity of data bases amongst all of the
States, which was a work in progress for many years. Sharing
the data, with safety records and driving records, et cetera,
amongst the States in our Country has gotten much, much better
than it has ever been. It is not that way in Mexico. I do not
know what the reciprocity is amongst the country of Mexico, but
I did hear Mr. Scovel mention that when you were looking at the
driving records, you noticed that one in five had some sort of
discrepancy. If I can say respectfully, you seem to be somewhat
cavalier about that.
Let me tell you that, Michigan, if we had one in five, we
would be in crisis, if there was a one in five problem with our
driver's licenses. So I don't think the LIFIS system that is in
Mexico does have the transparency that would give me any kind
of comfort level. I think it is unfortunately that the Congress
apparently cannot stop this program, because I would be very
interested in trying to stop what you are having to carry out
as a result of what the Congress did, and as a result of NAFTA
as well.
I guess I would ask, I note that there are approximately
100 Mexican companies that have signed up to start this
program. Only two American companies have signed up, which even
I can figure out that something is wrong with that equation.
Perhaps you could explain to me a bit your process, flesh it
out a little bit, the process that you took for auditing these
companies in regards to their records.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congresswoman. A couple of points on
the auditing of the records. First of all, we are in that
process right now. We have done only two or three of those. I
am not familiar with any more at this point.
What we did is we looked at the people that applied and we
are going down the list and we are going to do safety audits.
What we are finding is that the first 16 that we had a list to
go to audits on, 4 of them, when they heard that we were coming
in to do the audits, have chosen not to participate. So we
don't know how many we will eventually have to go through in
order to get to the 100 carriers that we have talked about.
And then beyond that, we have gone through a process of
verifying their information before we ever get there to make
sure it is current and that they do intend still to participate
in long haul trucking. So that is how we have done it at this
point, and I will be glad to go further, if you have any
further questions.
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. I don't know that I have any
questions. I suppose I am just making the statement that
everybody else on this Committee has seemed to make during the
course of this hearing, of how much distress there is and how
uncomfortable people are about this entire pilot program. I am
concerned they are going to run up I-69 through my State as
well and up into Canada, if Canada will allow such a thing to
happen. I don't know if that is part of the NAFTA agreement or
not.
But I do have great consternation and as I say, it is
unfortunate that Congress is not able to stop this.
Thank you.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mrs. Miller.
Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I represent part of southeast Texas, and I too am very
concerned about this situation. I am not convinced at all that
this is a wise idea. It looks like it is great for Mexico, and
what does the United States get out of it? A player to be named
later seems to be the only thing that we will get out of this.
Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, where I have been numerous times,
the largest inland port in the United States, about 5,000 18-
wheelers a day cross that port of entry each direction. Only a
fraction of those trucks are already inspected. Now we are
going to have more trucks coming in, and only a fraction of
those will be inspected.
Recently in Houston, the NBC affiliate has done an
examination of the trucking industry in the State of Texas and
the people who drive those trucks. Texas leads the Nation in
fatalities of 18-wheelers. Yesterday there were two wrecks, 18-
wheelers in rush hour yesterday morning. It is a daily
occurrence. It seems as though the inspection of the trucks and
the truck drivers is something that occurs only on an
occasional basis. Now we are going to have more trucks and more
drivers.
In Mexico, you can buy anything at the border for a price.
You can get yourself a social security card, you can get
yourself a commercial driver's license in any State you want,
you can have an insurance card and you can be anybody you want
to be. And they will sell all that to you before you cross into
the United States. I don't see that that is going to change
under this system and especially under the inspections.
So my concern is, as stated by everybody else, while it may
sound like a noble idea, the reality of the matter is, there is
no guarantee that these vehicles will be inspected for safety,
that their drivers, that we even know who they are, much less
know about their criminal record or use or abuse of narcotics.
And I just want to know what assurances the American public has
that these trucks will meet standards of the American trucking
industry, the drivers are as qualified as an American trucker,
what assurances we have except we are going to inspect most of
them or some of them.
Mr. Hill. Congressman Poe, concerning the issue of the
drivers and the security and their history, we are going to be
verifying the driver information at the time that we do the
pre-authority safety audit, we will be there physically in the
company. We are going to be looking at the information. We are
going to verify that the driver's license is in force and it is
accurate.
Secondly, we are also working with DHS to make sure that we
vett names through appropriate watch lists and drug-related
data bases, so that we have assurance the people that are
coming into this demonstration project are not going to be
involved in nefarious activity through any data base that we
have.
Secondly, I would just say to you that as we move forward
with the vehicle safety inspections, we are not only going to
be inspecting these at the time of the pre-authority safety
audit at the carrier's place of business, but we are also going
to be inspecting vehicles at the border now, we do that. Last
year we did 210,000 with our partners here in Texas in the
southern border region, 210,000 inspections. So we are actively
involved in already doing safety inspections along the
commercial zone.
Mr. Poe. Of those 210,000, how many passed inspection?
Mr. Hill. There were, the out of service rate for the
Mexican carriers was 21 percent, which is comparable to what
the U.S. out of service rate was nationally of 23 percent.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Filner. How are you going to know if they leave?
Mr. Hill. I am sorry, I did not understand.
Mr. Filner. Truck comes in, you have inspected it, you have
guaranteed that we are safe. How long can that truck driver
stay without anybody knowing it? Are you verifying the exit?
Mr. Hill. We are working with DHS on that.
Mr. Filner. The answer is no, that you are not going to
verify it.
Mr. Hill. They are allowed to be in the Country for a
specified period of time under a visa.
Mr. Filner. But look, and I am sure Mr. Hoffa can speak for
himself, but you have a driver here who is going to work for
far under what an American teamster is going to make, and you
won't even know it. There is no exit system, right?
Mr. Hill. There is------
Mr. Filner. So they can work all day from L.A. to San Diego
or from Minneapolis to Chicago, back and forth for $5 and hour
or $10, whatever. How are you going to know that, and how are
you going to verify after a week that they are still safe?
Mr. Hill. I would think that the carrier involved might
have a little bit of interest in where his or her truck is.
Mr. Filner. That carrier may be a different carrier the
next day. I mean, every answer that you give is as if it is a
first world nation of contracts and memberships and laws. The
same trucking company that you verified will be a different
trucking company the next day.
Mr. Hill. Those motor carriers that you are referring to
that switch their identity every day, we are going to have a
record of that, and if it doesn't match, then we are going to
be putting them out of service.
Mr. Filner. Meanwhile the truck driver is going back and
forth. What are the consequences of that?
Mr. Hill. If there is a motor carrier that you just
described that is switching their identity, then they are
operating outside the scope of their authority. When they are
detected somewhere in this Country------
Mr. Filner. But the trucks are already here.
Mr. Hill.--then we will place the vehicle out of service,
and the vehicle will not be allowed to move until it is
properly licensed. Which is what we do now with U.S. carriers.
Mr. Filner. Just like we do with anybody who overstays
their visa in this Country, we have noted them, we know they
are here and we go after them, right?
Mr. Hill. I am not prepared to talk about DHS protocol in
terms of immigration and visa issues. But I can tell you about
the safety------
Mr. Filner. Yes, but I am just saying, those of us with
experience with it, it is laughable what you are suggesting. It
is not going to work.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, we appreciate
your being here. And we appreciate all you do. I know you work
really hard in trying to come up with the right solutions to
problems. But I too have real concerns with this. As the
Chairman just mentioned, if you look at the State Department
program with the visa, 43 percent of the people who are here
illegally have overstayed their visa. Immigration and
Naturalization is a mess. It is broken.
So DOT does a good job with a lot of things, but I guess my
problem is, I don't see where you are going to do any better in
a similar situation than these other agencies have done. It is
a real concern.
You mentioned that 860 applications to come over here, you
have whittled it down to 150, 160. But again, the fact that
only one or two of our carriers, in an effort to make a buck,
are willing to venture across the border, that is a very
telling thing. We compare with Canada, and yet we would
certainly have countless carriers going the other way.
You have mentioned a lot about different enforcement
mechanisms. How many people are you going to hire? How much
increased staff are you going to do? What do you anticipate a
budget, increased budget? If you are not going to increase the
budget for these things, then where are you taking it from to
pay the bills for this?
Mr. Hill. Congressman Boozman, I don't know if you were
here for my earlier answer, but when the 2002 Appropriations
Act was put in place, there was dedicated funding given to
hiring people for this particular project, not so much the
demonstration project, but Mexican border enforcement. So the
people that we have in place, the 274 FTEs that we have in
place on the southern border, those are dedicated positions.
They are not allowed to go up into Maine or to Michigan, so
they are dedicated to the southern border.
We do not anticipate asking you for an increase in the
budget, because the Congress has already provided that funding
specifically to do this particular border enforcement work.
Mr. Boozman. But there will be, it has been alluded to, the
problem of the trucks not doing what they are supposed to do
once they are in the United States. Our agencies now are
basically busting a gut and there is no increased ability for
them to enforce. How are you going to enforce all the potential
problems that you are going to have once they get beyond the
border?
Mr. Hill. One of the purposes of the demonstration project
is just that, we are going to take the concerns that I have
heard expressed by skeptical people today, and we are going to
evaluate whether or not we are going to see an effective long
haul trucking operation coming into this Country and going
south. If what you are saying is accurate and the U.S. trucks
have difficulty going south, then I think that is a part of the
evaluation process and we will have to make a determination
whether this is really something that the U.S. Government wants
to do.
But our purpose is to at least try it and make sure that we
fulfilling our NAFTA obligations. At this point, we are not
doing so.
Mr. Boozman. I understand. But again, it seems like if you
are going to do this, then you have to have enforcement in the
interior and you have to budget somehow to do that. You have to
pay the people to do it and you have to do it with a pilot
program. I live in Arkansas. Seventy percent of the crime in
Arkansas is meth-related. Most of that comes from Mexico. There
is no way that you are not going to have increased smuggling,
you are not going to have increased trafficking unless you go
the whole way with the enforcement and the whole bit.
If you are going to do this, and I think you have the
ability to do it, but you do have to do it with the
understanding that you are going to be held accountable. And we
really are going to do that. I think that is fair. That is what
we are elected to do. But you really are hearing some very
valid concerns that really do need to be addressed. If you are
going to do this, you can't do it on the cheap. You have to do
it right or it is going to bite you.
Mr. Hill. I would just say to you, Congressman, in closing,
that we have 13,000 State inspectors right now that we work
with throughout this Country. I know Paul Kalonch and the
people down in Arkansas quite well; I work with him. He is a
past president of CVSA. People like that all throughout the
Country are right now finding unsafe vehicles, unsafe drivers
every day. They did over 3 million roadside inspections last
year.
I just heard about a commercial vehicle inspector from the
State of Michigan, two or three weeks ago, who caught a major
drug operation through a regular commercial vehicle inspection.
I have done this my whole life, 29 years I have been in the
State police. Believe me, I want this to work well. I do not
want unsafe trucks in here. I don't want unsafe drivers. I
don't want crime coming in here.
But my job in the Executive Branch is to execute what the
Congress has approved, and this is what I am here to do and I
am trying to do it the way you folks are going to allow us to
do it.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Filner. If someone from the Arkansas Highway Patrol
stops a truck and finds it unsafe because something happened
after the inspection, of course, what happens to that truck and
driver?
Mr. Hill. In terms of a vehicle defect?
Mr. Filner. Vehicle, or person.
Mr. Hill. CDL violation or drugs and alcohol?
Mr. Filner. Whatever. If the highway patrol, if the guy
finds either a crime by the driver, insurance problem, safety
problem, a drug problem there in Arkansas, what happens to the
truck and the driver?
Mr. Hill. The vehicle, if it is an offense that requires
incarceration, the Customs and Border Protection staff will be
called. They will come and deal with the legal alien and the
vehicle will be placed out of service and it could either------
Mr. Filner. He's not illegal, you let him in.
Mr. Hill. Pardon?
Mr. Filner. How are you saying illegal alien? You certified
that they were legal when they came in.
Mr. Hill. Excuse me. If they are found to be a legal alien
and they are in violation of some State or Federal law, Customs
and Border Protection will come and get them and take them back
to their country. The vehicle will have to be moved by either a
U.S. carrier or by an appropriate approved long haul Mexican
carrier with authority.
Mr. Filner. You are going to have some problems.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard a
lot of very interesting points today, and I have to concur with
some of the things that particularly Congress Poe and
Congressman Boozman mentioned about making sure that we do this
right if in fact it is going to happen.
Now, I have a little bit of a different perspective. I
represent Florida. We don't have the issue of drivers across
the border. However, I just keep hearing that if it is drivers
or trucks coming from the great white north that it seems to be
okay, but if it is coming from the not so white, brown Mexico,
it is totally horrible and everything is going to fall apart,
which frankly, I think is rather offensive, to tell you the
truth, what I have heard a little bit today. Particularly when
for some reason it looks like Canada is infallible and Mexico
cannot be trusted, no matter what.
My understanding would be, whether you look at cases, for
example, like suspected terrorists that have come over the
border, they have come from Canada, which means that they are
not infallible like we know that the Mexican border clearly is
not infallible. But I have just been hearing a lot of this
talk, Mr. Chairman, about all these Mexicans are incapable of
doing anything. And frankly, it borders on offensive, to tell
you the truth.
Not that there are not real issues. But what I would say is
that the real issues are both from the Canadian side and the
Mexican side, because just the fact that they are the great
northern lighter skinned border does not mean that they are
infallible. Because history has shown that, Mr. Chairman, that
they are not infallible either. So my understanding is that
that is what the pilot program is all about, to try and figure
out what some of those issues are, correct? To try to solve
some of those issues.
But I am hoping that we are not only looking at, as we need
to, what some of those issues are with Mexico, which I know
there will be many of them, you have heard a lot of the issues
today, but I hope that we are not assuming that because it
comes from Canada that for some reason everything is okay there
and you cannot get fake decals. The Chairman just mentioned a
little while ago how he has seen windshields being shifted.
Those are not Mexican trucks.
So we already have issues. I am just hoping that we don't
only emphasize Mexico and we look at the whole issue, and what
are you doing to make sure that we are not going to be
forgetting other borders just because they may not be brown.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman. Just for the record, I
want to state that safety doesn't have a color lens here.
Safety is safety, it is vehicles, drivers, we are going to be
doing safety regardless of what nationality is involved in the
trucking operation.
Secondly, I would say to you that as a part of the
appropriations process, the Congress has given $32 million to
us every year during this reauthorization period to address
border enforcement grants for both the north and the south. So
there is money going to the States of Michigan, available to
the States of Michigan, Maine, Vermont, all of those northern
tiered States to do border enforcement for Canadian carriers,
just as we do with the ones down in the south.
The only caveat is that because of the Section 350
requirements in the 2002 Appropriations Act, we are
specifically required to do some things that are unique to the
Mexican carrier population, which is going into Mexico and
doing the audit. But I can assure you that we have, working
with our States, we regularly do enforcement along the northern
border and we are going to continue that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. What happens when the pilot program is
concluded? It is done and then what steps are taken to make
sure that the issues that you have found, and I am sure there
will be a myriad of issues, are actually dealt with and not
just kind of passed over like, oh, we did the pilot program,
not let's go and expand it. How are you going to deal with
those issues and how are you going to aggressively deal with
those issues?
Mr. Hill. As the Under Secretary indicated earlier, this
evaluation process is not going to happen at a point in time on
the 11th month at the end of the project. It is going to be
throughout the demonstration project.
I think one of the values to what we are doing by allowing
us to observe these first few months of this project with the
Mexican motor carriers is to really focus in on the safety
issues and determine how well they are complying or not
complying in accordance with Congressional requirements.
But to answer your specific question about the evaluation,
we are going to make sure that there has been equal treatment
south of the border as we are seeing with the Mexican carriers
coming north. So that is going to be a key part of what we
evaluate.
Obviously, safety is the standard that we have to make sure
that people who are participating in this are going to meet
safety standards. I do not want there to be an event, I do not
want there to be some kind of a crash that occurs that draws
attention to this. We have to make sure we have done everything
that the Congress has asked us to do, and we are committed to
doing that through evaluation process.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you very much.
I have some questions, and I am not trying to be
argumentative, I have some questions I have not been able to
answer based on what I have heard. There is no way of tracking
these drivers when they come into the United States. Let's say
you have a truck coming across the border and you have two
drivers, one on the passenger side, one in the driver's side.
How do you know that both those drivers go back?
Mr. Hill. I can only tell you that from a safety
perspective, we are going to be verifying whether or not the
driver and that passenger in the vehicle is authorized to be
there. That is a current part of our regulations.
Mr. Miller of California. What type of authorization do
they need? They don't need a visa?
Mr. Hill. They do need a visa, I am told by the Customs and
Border people. I don't have a DHS perspective, I don't have all
of their perspective on this. But it is my understanding when
they come into the Country and they declare that they are going
to be going into the United States, at that point they will be
pulled out, they have an individual interview with Customs and
Border Protection, they go into their data base and they begin
tracking them.
Mr. Miller of California. Okay. The Chairman kind of
touched on a question, let's say a truck comes from Ensenada
with a load. They come from Ensenada, Mexico, they drive to
Portland, Oregon to drop their load off. Then they pick up a
load in Portland and they drive it back to Grants Pass and drop
it off, pick a load up at Grants Pass to Sacramento, drop it
off, pick a load up in Sacramento to Los Angeles, drop it off,
pick up a load in Los Angeles to San Diego, drop it off, pick a
load up in San Diego and they are going back to Ensenada.
How are we to track that in any way? How do we know that is
not occurring? All it would take is some cooperation with some
American scheduler who schedules pickups. I know it sounds like
an argumentative question. It is really not meant to be. But
this could very likely happen. And the guy going back, he is
going to be awful cheap. How do we make sure that does not
occur?
Mr. Hill. Congressman, I don't think it is an argumentative
question. It is a relevant question and it is a term that we
use in the industry today called cabotage. Cabotage simply says
that if you are coming in from Canada or you are coming in from
Mexico, you can only deliver to a point in the U.S. and pick up
a load and take it back. I think the answer to that is, through
regular inspections that people are subjected to and going
through weigh stations, using systems that we now have in place
throughout this Country. I know Oregon has a very thorough
process at the weigh station and they look at the way that is--
----
Mr. Miller of California. So you would track that truck to
every weigh station?
Mr. Hill. No, we are not going to track it. But what I am
saying is, in the course of them coming through there, we would
verify with their bill of lading and make sure that the loads
are in fact where they are supposed to be going. And if they
detect cabotage, then they are going to be subject to being
placed out of service, they cannot move the load.
Mr. Miller of California. And each time these trucks come
across the border, do they have to go through the safety
inspection process, or is it a one time process?
Mr. Hill. They have to be through a safety inspection
process at least every 90 days, as verified by a safety decal.
If we see an obvious safety defect or we want to inspect the
vehicle, we can do so without having to just wave it on through
because of a safety decal.
Mr. Miller of California. I don't know if it was discussed
earlier, but in 1994, the Mexican engines met our emissions
standards, so U.S. EPA, up to 2003, but the Mexicans have not
revised the standard which requires a 50 percent reduction,
that was in 2004 to 2007, and a 90 percent reduction of
nitrogen oxide in 2007 and beyond. Are we mandating that they
meet those new standards?
Mr. Hill. When we have vehicles coming in from out of
country, they are required to comply with the standards that
are in place in those States. So if States are enforcing air
quality standards, as they do in California with the------
Mr. Miller of California. So they have to meet the new
standards?
Mr. Hill. They would have to comply with those standards.
Mr. Miller of California. My concern is a lot of our
railroads are being impacted because they are trying to cut the
standards, because the pollution is being emitted. Our own
truckers are having to buy a new type of diesels to meet the
standards. These Mexican trucks are actually going to have to
do that?
Mr. Hill. One of the things that we have found,
Congressman, in doing the two audits that we have already, is
that the vehicles that are being proposed to come into the
Country for long haul operations are newer models. The 2003,
for example, is the most recent version of model coming into
the Country. Those would meet the U.S. standards. So we
anticipate they will be sending their best equipment north, so
that it would avoid breaking down, and therefore we believe
they will be using newer equipment.
Mr. Miller of California. I really hope that the Government
is going to enforce this numerous pickups standards, where they
are not allowed to stop in numerous cities to pick up cargo to
be shipped. Because we have lost so many jobs in this Country
to illegal immigration. To lose more jobs to illegal activity
by those who are supposed to be here legally is just one more
burden I think it just unacceptable by the American worker. So
I just would strongly encourage some type of mechanism or
program be developed and is in place that we can actually track
these weight loads and make sure there is no disparity between
those and we are really protecting American jobs. That is the
biggest concern I have.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.
Mr. DeFazio. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman for his
questions.
Just a couple of quick questions, I appreciate the
indulgence of the Committee being here so long. Just to follow
up on two questions raised by the gentleman. On the emissions
standards, a 2003 truck would not meet the 2007 or the proposed
2010 standards, and we are not going to require that they do?
Are we going to have a requirement that any truck crossing the
border meets the 2007 standards, and a requirement that any
truck crossing the border meets the 2010 standards? Are we
going to require that? Do the Mexicans have the low sulfur
diesel available to those people?
Mr. Hill. I am told that they are working on improving the
low sulfur diesel fuel access in their country. And what we are
going to be requiring them to do is comply with the law, U.S.
standards as they come into this Country. But we don't enforce
that.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. So basically, we are going to have
Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. and competing with U.S.
trucks who don't meet the emissions standards and haven't had
to make the investment or the expense.
On the other issue about the cabotage, I think the
gentleman raised a very good point. What percent of the trucks
en route does FMCSA stop and examine within the U.S. on an
annual basis? Of all the trucks out there and all their
movement, what percentage?
Mr. Hill. I would have to get back to you for the record.
Mr. DeFazio. So you would be like single low digits, right,
in terms of truck trips?
Mr. Hill. I would really have to look at the data.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, the question, but that goes to the
question of enforcement of cabotage. The truck comes to the
border, it has a manifest, it says, I am going to New York.
Then apparently they get to New York, they could deadhead all
the way over to Ohio and then come back down with a load from
Ohio, that would be allowed? You don't have to go to New York
and back from New York. You could go to New York, you could
drive the truck over and pick something up in Chicago and drive
it back down, is that correct? It's just international movement
that's required?
Mr. Hill. Yes. I am not sure that would be a financially
smart move for the truck, but that could happen, yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, depending upon the cost of labor versus
the cost of fuel and when you are not towing a trailer, who
knows. But let's just leave that for now. But that is the legal
framework.
But then, who is going to intercept that truck between New
York and Chicago on a regular basis to determine that in fact
it wasn't scheduled to take a load from New York to Chicago. It
went to New York, the manifest says it is going to come back
from Chicago, but only if the random occurrence of a stop
happens between New York and Chicago and the person is smart
enough to ask for the manifest and can read the manifest, if it
is in English, and determine whether or not that truck is en
route or not and see that it is carrying a load and it was only
supposed to go to New York with a load and back from Chicago,
and in between it is not supposed to have a load? It seems to
me like we are really opening the door to the abuses that the
gentleman on that end raised. I just don't see that we are
building in some certainty here that we are going to prevent
cabotage. And there is going to be a tremendous temptation on
the part of agents to do cabotage, because they can save money.
Mr. Hill. Would you like me to respond?
Mr. DeFazio. Sure.
Mr. Hill. Okay. To the first one, yes, I am quite confident
that the inspectors are smart enough to look at the manifest
and determine where that is, because that is a part of their
current process in doing an inspection.
Secondly, this will not happen in the demonstration project
the way that it would happen if we were doing this on a full-
scale opening of the border. But the compliance review has to
be done before any permanent authority is granted. So in other
words, we will go in and look at the books of this carrier, and
we will examine at that time whether or not they are doing
cabotage violations. And if they are, through their bills,
through their records that they have been at places other than
where they said they were going to do in terms of international
movements, then we will take action and deal with their
operating authority.
Mr. DeFazio. If you were doing something illegal, would you
put it on the books? Again, the faith--do you know what the
word comic book refers to among truckers?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, I have heard that.
Mr. DeFazio. So I am sure the same thing could go on in
this area. I doubt that if someone illegally moved product
between New York and Chicago that they would have declared that
and their company would record it on the books in Mexico that
we could go down and examine and find.
But in any case, just one last question. And I don't know
if Ms. Napolitano or Mr. Filner followed up on this. But again,
just back to the initial agreement. I just find it disturbing
that it says first stage, six months, second stage, six months,
third stage, commences at the end of the twelve months. Mr.
Shane has said there will be an evaluation before we open our
borders to any and all Mexican trucks.
But then you go to page two, next steps, pilot program,
joint formal announcement, done, creation, start of operations,
technical bond, done, identification of Mexican carriers, in
process. The beginning of the pilot program, hasn't happened
yet. But you go on down and you get to the end again, and it
says, beginning of pilot program, second stage, U.S. trucks,
and then beginning of the permanent opening third stage.
Again, this is all initial. You have to understand that
from a policy maker's perspective, we look at something that
says first stage, second stage, third stage, third stage is we
totally open our borders after 12 months and it is repeated on
two pages and it is initialed, we have to assume that there is
some understanding between the two governments that this thing
is going forward.
Mr. Shane. There is not such an understanding. The
understanding is as we have stated today, there will be an
evaluation preceding any normalization of the relationship
between the United States and Mexico on motor carrier
transportation. That is about as clear as I can make it.
Mr. DeFazio. The word normalization meaning what you think
must happen pursuant to the requirements of NAFTA, that is what
you mean by normalization, i.e., Mexican trucks can drive
anywhere in the United States of America?
Mr. Shane. And U.S. trucks driving anywhere in Mexico.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. But we already had, as I put in the
record, the security warning and the testimony that I put in
the record saying that actually, given the high degree of
hijacking that U.S. companies really are kind of reluctant to
go into Mexico and they have an advisory against going into
Mexico, because the Government isn't there to protect them. But
that same Government is keeping the records that will protect
the American people.
I don't have any further questions. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Nothing further, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Napolitano. One last bite of the apple,
then we will let these gentlemen go.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
brief.
We talk about the non-enforcement area of fuel, leaded
fuel. If I am understanding correctly, with California, EPA is
now working on the ports to assure that the ships coming in
have lesser sulfur, to be able to burn less fuel because of the
pollution of the port area, which then blows into my area,
blows out into the Inland Empire.
We are not looking at something similar to be able to
ensure that those trucks coming in are utilizing the low sulfur
fuel or unleaded, whichever?
Mr. Hill. I wish that I could tell you that I am EPA
specialist and could address all of this. I will be glad to
follow up on the record with any specific questions you have
about the environmental issues from our coworkers at EPA. But I
do know from my limited visits out there, your area, the Long
Beach port and so forth, that there are initiatives underway
with EPA and the country of Mexico to develop projects along
the border to decrease the incidence of high sulfur usage.
Secondly, they are also developing corridors in this
country of Mexico for trade routes for U.S. trucks to have low
sulfur diesel fuel. Because it is critical that they have that
in place in order for our trucks that use the low sulfur diesel
fuel after 2007, that they have that access.
Mrs. Napolitano. The reason I am asking is that I did talk
to EPA and they were telling me they were working on it with
the port authorities.
Mr. Hill. Okay.
Mrs. Napolitano. Then the last question that I will have
has to do with, and I am not sure if it was covered before, but
does Mexico have certified labs and protocols in place for drug
and alcohol testing of their drivers, and how is our U.S. DOT
planning to address the drug and alcohol testing of Mexican
truck drivers?
Mr. Hill. No, they do not have drug certified labs in
Mexico at this time. They have been working with us to do that,
but we have not seen their labs certified. We did enter into an
agreement with the Secretary of Communication and Transport in
1998 to have them use collection sites. Those collection sites
are staffed by SCT employees and there are, I think, seven of
them at this time.
Mr. Filner. I am sorry, whose employees?
Mr. Hill. SCT, Secretary of Communication and Transport,
which is the counterpart to our Department of Transportation in
Mexico. Government employees there supervise the collection of
the specimens and then they are sent to a U.S. lab, where they
will be tested in a certified U.S. lab.
Mrs. Napolitano. Because that goes to the safety, again, on
our highways and our roads, other transportation vehicles.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions for the record that
I will introduce.
Mr. DeFazio. I always encourage questions for the record,
although I have never had one meaningfully answered in 21
years. But you can always try. And that was both Democratic and
Republican administrations.
Thank you, thank you for your very generous grant of time.
I am sorry about the interruption with the votes. Thanks again.
With that, we would dismiss this panel and call the next
panel. Thank you.
Our next panel will be Mr. James P. Hoffa, General
President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Ms.
Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety, Washington, D.C.; and Major Mark Rogers, Texas
Department of Public Safety, State Commercial Vehicle Safety
Coordinator. If you could all take your seats and proceed in
that order.
Again, I would also thank this panel in advance for their
indulgence. I know this has taken a bit longer than we thought
to get to you. So with that, President Hoffa.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. HOFFA, GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; MAJOR MARK ROGERS, STATE
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY COORDINATOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr. Hoffa. Chairman DeFazio, thank you for the opportunity
to appear here, especially before this Committee, and
Congresswoman Miller, who is our former Secretary of State in
the State of Michigan. It is an honor to be here.
I am here as General President of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. We represent over 3 million members
and their families that every day use the American highway
system. Over 600,000 of our members every day deliver goods and
services using our American highways. Like every American, they
have a right to safe American highways. I am very alarmed that
the DOT is moving forward with this dangerous pilot project
that leaves so many questions about what is going on in Mexico,
and many of them have been raised here today. I have outlined
these concerns in my written testimony.
Mr. Chairman, the Bush Administration is playing Russian
roulette with the highways and the safety on America's
highways. DOT resources do not exist to inspect the thousands
of trucks called for in the so-called pilot program. The
Mexican government has had 15 years to address the issue of
drug safety and they have failed miserably. They have had 15
years to implement a simple computer program like we have in
the United States, like all of us have here in every State, all
coordinated together, and they have not done that. They have
had 15 years to have a driver safety program and a program
that, protocols like we have in the United States, and they
have not done that. They have had 15 years to create a driver
protocol for drug testing and physicals. And they have not done
that.
I am very shocked by the testimony here today, by the way,
which was different than what they gave to the Senate. When
they testified before the Senate, they said, well, we are going
to collect the drug samples down in Mexico. There is not one
drug testing lab in Mexico. After 15 years, they do not have a
drug testing facility down in Mexico.
Then today, Mr. Hill said, oh, we are going to do it at the
border. Then in part of his testimony after that he said, well,
we are going to collect them down in Mexico. Well what is it?
Where are they going to be collected? And what is the
temperature? I know how we do it in the United States. People
almost watch you take the specimen to make sure it is your
specimen. We all know how it is done, and it is not going to be
done in Mexico.
Left to its own, without the pressure of the United States,
Mexico trucks are even worse than they were before. Mexican
truck drivers are underpaid, untrained and overworked. They are
often forced to drive 24 hours without sleep. This is not the
fault of the Mexican worker. The sole responsibility for
meeting the standards required by NAFTA and the Murray-Shelby
safety provisions that Congress enacted in 2001 lies with the
Mexican government and the United States Government.
I would like to tell this Subcommittee what the Teamsters
Union has learned about Mexican trucking. Each of you has a
copy of an investigative report that we did in the Teamster
magazine, and I have provided that and I would ask it be made
part of the record. This is the story of an investigative
report done by Charles Bowden, who in 1999 wrote a story about
what is going on with the Mexican drivers. He was told in 1999
that they were exploited, exhausted, the truck drivers pushed
to the limit by their employers. And guess what? Seven years
later, he found the same thing is going on.
Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Bowden's article, which
are based on interviews with Mexican truckers. One said this:
``The longest distance I drive is from Ensenada to Cancun,
2,700 miles, five days and six nights. I do it myself and I do
it without a second driver.'' According to Bowden, they are all
family men who run the highways at least 25 days a month, and
they are adamant about two things, that nobody can make these
runs without using cocaine and crystal meth, and they all use
marijuana to come down from the high.
These drivers are victims of a system that the U.S. will
depend on to enforce drug and alcohol testing and hours of
service regulations. Is this the so-called pilot program that
we are supposed to rely on? What kind of confidence can we have
in that program? The Transportation Department Inspector
General just a couple of years ago found, after a very close
inspection, that they did not meet the standards of the
American highways.
The fact that there is no lab, after all this time, tells
us an awful lot.
What we are asked to do is believe that the Mexican driver
will produce a log book at the border that is accurate about
all his driving for the eight days previous in Mexico. Who
would really believe that? Even now in the commercial zone, of
the top out of service violations for Mexican drivers that are
screened, 15 have no log books and 22 percent try and come
across the border without commercial driver's licenses. We
don't even know who these drivers are because of the lack of a
computer.
So I would say, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, there are so many safety and homeland security
issues that need to be addressed before one Mexican truck comes
across the border that we should just say stop. We have to know
that our highways have to be safe. I would hope that Congress
could do something to stop this dangerous program, which is
really a mad rush to judgment, before this Administration runs
out.
Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, President Hoffa.
Ms. Gillan.
Ms. Gillan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to testify. I am Jackie Gillan, Vice President of
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
I would also like to add that the preeminent truck safety
groups, Public Citizen, CRASH and Parents Against Tired
Truckers, also support the views in my statement.
With only five minutes, it is hard to know where to start.
My 21-page statement can be summed up in three simple words:
don't do it.
Now let me explain why. The announced pilot program or so-
called demonstration project has all the elements of a perfect
storm. This perfect storm consists of a failed safety agency,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, overseeing
this project, major safety deficiencies at the border, a
cynical decision to open the border under the ruse of a phony
pilot program, and lastly, the American public paying the
price.
I really want to digress for a moment, because
coincidentally with this hearing, we had a conference this
weekend called Sorrow to Strength, where we had 65 people,
family members who have lost someone in a truck crash attend.
Many of those people are here in the hearing room today. They
have absolutely no confidence that the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration can protect their safety over domestic
trucking, let alone foreign trucking. We have Jane Mathis, who
lost her son and his bride of five days in a truck crash; the
Willbornes from Oklahoma whose son was moving into the dorm his
freshman year and was killed by a truck crash; and we have the
Woods family here from Virginia, whose daughter was killed
returning to college from her fall break. These are the people
that this pilot program is going to affect if we don't get it
right.
FMCSA has failed to meet any of its safety goals in the
last seven years. We still kill over 5,000 people annually and
115,000 or more are injured. FMCSA has ignored Congressional
mandates to issue safety regulations. And when they have issued
them, they are weak and ineffective. There are two important
safety regulations, the hours of service regulation for truck
drivers and entry level driver training has been overturned
unanimously in the court with stinging opinions. I am also
going to submit for the record a report that we released
yesterday, The FMCSA, A Failed Agency, that goes into great
detail to all of this.
The second component of our perfect storm is inadequate
border safety. We have already heard about some of the safety
deficiencies that are already at the border. I would like to
point out that even the IG in his testimony this afternoon used
the term that DOT has substantially met the requirements of
Section 350, and he did not say that they have met all the
requirements of Section 350. There are still serious questions
about drug and alcohol testing, medical and physical fitness of
drivers, and whether the States are now enforcing out of
service for foreign carriers.
I would also like to mention motor coach bus inspections,
which the IG has said are sporadic or non-existent, and the
issue of hazardous materials transportation with Mexico-
domiciled carriers. Now, I know these are not part of the pilot
program yet. But because Section 350(a) and (b) expressly state
that ``No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier
can be permitted to operate beyond the border zone until the
provisions of Section 350 have been fulfilled,'' this is a
legal bar to any commercial vehicles being granted operating
authority to travel beyond the border zones, until all the
requirements of Section 350 are fully completed.
Lastly, we have the third component of the perfect storm is
the one year pilot program, a calculated, cynical move to open
the border regardless of safety. Last week's testimony before
the Senate Appropriations Committee made it clear there was no
planning involved, no methodology to assure an objective trial,
no criteria for selection of participating motor carriers. We
also agree with you, Chairman DeFazio, that the pilot program
that they are composing does not comply with the law drafted by
this Committee in 1998 as part of the TEA-21 Section 407
governing the conduct of pilot programs by the U.S. Department
of Transportation. Calling the pilot program a demonstration
project fools no one.
We are also concerned because this pilot program was kept
in secrecy for many years, even though Secretary Peters at her
confirmation hearing assured the Senate Commerce Committee that
there wasn't any pilot program in the making. Last October,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety filed a FOIA to get the
documents to better understand and see what they were thinking
of in doing this pilot program. The Administration stalled and
stalled, and even though they were supposed to provide the
documents within 20 days, no documents were made available, and
therefore just this morning, we were forced to file suit in
Federal court in an effort to get these documents.
There is little question that the intent of the pilot
program is to supply the justification for opening the border
once the year is over. Mr. Chairman, we cannot let an agency
that has failed us so miserably in protecting domestic trucking
operations say, trust us on this critical decision affecting
American families. And I would also like to add that with
CAFTA, once the Mexican border is open completely, we do not
have any Section 350 guaranteeing the trucks that are going to
be coming up through Central America.
Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Gillan.
Major Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman and members,
my name is Mark Rogers. I represent the Texas Department of
Public Safety, and in my opening statement I would like to give
you an overview of our Texas border and safety program.
Our border safety inspection program is operated to provide
both an effective and efficient commercial vehicle enforcement
program that is designed to ensure public safety and security,
prevent the premature and unnecessary deterioration of our
State highway infrastructure due to overweight vehicles, and to
create an environment that promotes both vital and safe
commerce in the State of Texas.
Our program is designed to ensure that only competent
drivers are operating safe vehicles in compliance with our
State statute. Our program also encourages the trucking
industry to take a greater participatory role in resolving any
transportation issues that arise. It is important to note that
at our Texas-Mexico border, our goal is not only ensure safe
vehicles, but it is not to impeded legally compliant vehicles
as well.
When we determine whether to stop and inspect a vehicle, we
basically use four criterion. We visually inspect each vehicle
that passes by our inspection facility to see if there are any
safety defects, we weigh each vehicle on weigh and motion
equipment, we look to see if the vehicle is displaying the
valid commercial vehicle safety decal, and then we also look to
see if there is any other obvious defect or violation of our
State statutes that we enforce.
It is important to note that our border inspection program
does screen 100 percent of the vehicles visually. We also
screen 100 percent of the vehicles via weigh and motion scales.
But we generally only conduct a more thorough inspection of
only about 3 to 5 percent of the vehicles that actually cross
the border. In calendar year 2006, the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Agency indicated that there were over 3 million
commercial motor vehicles that crossed from Mexico into Texas.
During this same period, the Department of Public Safety did an
inspection on more than 101,000 of these vehicles. During these
101,000-plus inspections, we placed 23,651 of those vehicles
out of service, or had a 23 percent out of service rate. At the
same time, during these 101,000-plus inspections, we only
placed 649 drivers out of service, which is less than 1 percent
of the total inspections that we have done.
Thus far in calendar year 2007, our out of service rate for
vehicles continues to be at 23 percent, and our out of service
rate for drivers continues to be less than 1 percent. These
figures at the national level are comparable to the national
out of service statistics for vehicles, but they are much lower
than the national out of service statistics for drivers. We
attribute this to an aggressive enforcement program at the
border. These statistics are considerably lower than when we
first started our program back in 1995, when we virtually had a
100 percent out of service rate.
At present, the Department of Public Safety staffs the nine
largest ports of entry on a daily basis. We staff our
facilities at the same hours that the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection import lots are open. And our current border staff
numbers 310. The Texas Department of Public Safety remains
committed to assisting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration in meeting its requirements to ensure compliance
with Section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 U.S. Department of
Transportation Appropriation Act. It is through the support of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that our border
enforcement program has grown to its present level.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
address the committee on this important issue, and would be
happy to answer any questions concerning our Texas border
inspection program.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Major.
President Hoffa, obviously truck drivers often frequent the
same places, truck stops, whatever. I am wondering, what do you
hear? We have the story by this author, which seems quite
credible in terms of the problems in Mexico with the use of
drugs by the drivers, drivers who are abused by their
companies, made to drive extremely long distances without rest
breaks, basically no recognition for hours of service.
What are your folks who come in contact, do you have any
substantial number of members who come in contact with some of
the Mexican drivers? Have you heard confirmation of this with
drivers who are coming across the border?
Mr. Hoffa. We hear this down in the commercial zone, when
the drivers come across, where there is interaction between the
Mexican drivers, where they drop off the trucks, and then the
American truckers take them throughout the United States. There
are a lot of complaints from those drivers about how hard they
have to work, how they have to use drugs. Basically, our
drivers are saying, my God, if those people get over here, it
is going to really be a problem.
I think it is obvious that these drivers don't have the
same training, they are going to be pushed. When you get a
driver that is sent from Monterrey, Mexico, to deliver
something in Detroit, and he doesn't get it done in time, how
does he get home? The whole story is, what is his redress? Who
does he complain to? He doesn't have a union. He will be fired
if he doesn't do it in a certain period of time or do it the
way the company wants, because he doesn't have the protection
that we have of hours in service, of the wage and hour laws
that a person in the United States would have. They really have
no protection.
And this whole idea about, we are going to monitor the
hours and it is going to be kept in Mexico, well, how are we
going to get those records down in Mexico and how do we know
how they are kept? So I think that what I have heard from the
drivers is that it is going to be a big danger if they come
across, and that is from the American drivers. The Mexican
drivers, they are looking at it from the standpoint that, I
will do whatever I have to do to make a living, because I have
a family.
It is the same idea about what is coming across the border.
We have thousands of people, illegal aliens coming across the
border. They are coming here because there are jobs here, there
is money here. I think you are going to see the same thing with
the Mexican drivers. They want access because they want to make
money. It is the same thing about people coming across the
border. And the answer is, they don't have the training and
they are going to be pushed very, very hard and it is going to
create a serious problem on American highways.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Major, there was something that I
brought up with Mr. Hill yesterday, and since it relates to
Texas, I thought I would ask you about it. In the Inspector
General's report, they talked about something disturbing, which
is that we seem to see a huge drop-off in traffic convictions
from Mexican-licensed drivers from January through May 2006.
But then the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found
that Texas had just stopped putting information into the data
base, that in fact there had been 40,000 violations during that
relatively short period of time. That is basically a five month
period, that is 8,000 a month.
And now they go on to say that that Texas is still not
providing the information electronically, there is a manual
process. Can you address that a little bit? It doesn't give us
a high level of confidence. That is on our side of the border,
let alone what really goes on on their side of the border in
terms of violations, whether or not they are recorded properly
to their record and all that.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. Citations primarily are written at
the border via a laptop computer. They are generated for the
driver and then the driver is given a copy to report to the
court. Then the citation is not electronically transmitted to
the court. That is a manual process. It is taken to the local
court and it is filed by the officer. Once adjudication occurs
on the offense, some of the courts do electronically report
dispositions back to the Department of Public Safety, others do
not. That is a very manual process. Essentially, the reverse
side of the citation is filled out with the violation
information and that is forwarded by the court to the
Department of Public Safety for entry into the commercial
vehicle driver's license information system.
There were problems within the department's ability to be
able to report those violations. It was discovered and
corrective measures were taken with the support of FMCSA. They
are currently being reported in an electronic manner.
I also want to assure you, sir, it hasn't been because we
have reduced the number of citations that we were writing. The
number of citations has remained pretty static throughout this
entire period. We believe we have corrected our reporting
difficulties.
Mr. DeFazio. You said that basically you are inspecting
somewhere between 3 and 5 percent of the vehicles crossing the
border, and yet you had 23 percent placed out of service,
23,651 vehicles. Can we expect that if, I mean, let's put it
this way. Are those 3 to 5 percent because there was something
obvious going on? Or is that just a random sample?
Mr. Rogers. No, sir, it is because there was something
wrong with the truck, the inspector selected that particular
vehicle.
Mr. DeFazio. So he saw it moving and saw something?
Mr. Rogers. Correct. As it was rolling by, it was either
visually selected or there was some sort of obvious defect.
Mr. DeFazio. So if we had more personnel and we were able
to inspect more trucks, do you think that the out of service
rate would remain the same or perhaps would drop, because these
are the trucks with the most obvious defects?
Mr. Rogers. It would either remain the same, sir, or we
feel that it would decrease somewhat.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay. But still, that could mean a lot of
trucks that would be placed out of service who weren't driving
around?
Mr. Rogers. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. So that is a concern.
I don't think I have any other questions. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just tell you sincerely how much I appreciate your
calling this Committee hearing, because this is such an
important issue. I appreciate the panel, the second panel, all
of you coming again and sitting through what has been a very
lengthy Subcommittee hearing here today, particular Mr. Hoffa,
from the great State of Michigan.
After almost three and a half hours of listening, almost
without exception, every member on both sides has expressed
consternation about this program, what a problem it is going to
be. I think it is well documented by the testimony of all of
you and the panel before you, in some cases, about the
problems. This is really just a problem that is waiting to
happen.
I don't know what other question I can even ask of you. I
have no question in my mind that this is a bad situation. I
would respectfully suggest, I would like to start turning from
questions and think about an action plan on how the Congress
could actually stop this. I have been sort of sitting here
noodling about what we can--I cannot believe we can't do
anything about this. I do understand it is a manifestation of
NAFTA. I do understand about the court case, et cetera.
But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if I could respectfully suggest,
just something I have been thinking about, that this
Subcommittee or the full Committee would send a letter to the
appropriators, asking to have the funding for this particular
pilot program denied. That would be a way perhaps for us to
stop it. I am going to continue to try to think of other
avenues that we may be able to take as a Congress to stop what
I think, as I say, is just a huge, huge problem waiting to
happen.
As I mentioned, before I came to the Congress, being the
chief motor administrator in my State, I have worked with Mr.
Hoffa and other trucking groups with the rodeos, the trucking
rodeos, and we were so proud of our safety record and the kinds
of things that we have tried to do in our State and across the
Nation, in thinking about what the potential is here. I was the
Chairman of the Michigan Safety Traffic Commission for seven
years.
So I appreciate all the information that I am hearing here
today. What I am saying now is somehow we have to develop an
action plan of actually trying to stop this pilot program
before any damage is accrued to our Nation. That would be a
suggestion that I would lay out on the table and I will be
thinking of other avenues that might be appropriate as well.
Again, I want to thank the panelists, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. I actually had a brief
opportunity to approach Chairman Oberstar while we were voting
on the Floor and I expressed the same concern to him. I thought
that there was strong bipartisan concern that we needed to take
action, that we were not confident that the program, which is
dependent upon the good offices of officials in Mexico and
paper keeping, record keeping by these Mexican trucking
companies, was a sufficient measure to assure that these trucks
and drivers would be safe when they come across the border into
the U.S.
So I agree with you on that, and would like to, I intend to
first challenge their premise that they are exempt from the law
regrading pilot problems. It is highly unusual, in the least,
and Ms. Gillan, you might address this, since you are a
watchdog safety advocate. I am not aware of any other program
of this magnitude which did not go through a rulemaking process
with some notice in the Federal Register, which would be
required, as I see it, under TEA-21.
Ms. Gillan. You are absolutely right. I think it is
interesting that we gave similar testimony to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, where we challenged them about this
pilot program. And now they have changed the nomenclature to
call it a demonstration project. So I think that sort of says
it all right there, that they are trying to wiggle out from
under that requirement also.
And the fact of the matter is, if you also read Section
350, even though they have excluded trucks transporting
hazardous materials and buses, the language is very clear that
no vehicle shall cross the border until all the requirements of
Section 350 have been met. And they haven't been.
Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else have an opinion on that?
Mr. Hoffa. I would think that somehow Congress could deny
funding for this. Perhaps that is the way to do it, to notify
this Department and go to the Appropriations Committee and say
that there is broad bipartisan concern about this program and
that we will not fund it. And when funding does come up, it
would be found out and stopped.
Now, I know it is a big, amorphous budget and it is hard to
find the money in it. But at least that type of directive might
be something that would be a way to de-fund this particular
project. I have heard that has been done other ways, other
times. So may de-funding it or not funding is a possible way to
do it.
Mr. DeFazio. I am sorry, I didn't notice, we do have
another member of the Committee. I was so focused straight
ahead here.
In response to that, the problem of course is that the
giant Continuing Resolution would have extended funding through
next October for this particular program, in all probability,
since we didn't earmark anything and we left great discretion
to the agencies. So something, it seems to me, a limitation
amendment is certainly something that we can offer, if our
colleagues on Appropriations would see fit. But that would only
apply to the next fiscal year, which would mean we would still
have the program between May and October, at least. So I am
going to look for something that we might be able to do a bit
more immediately.
Mrs. Napolitano, I apologize.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is okay, you are on a roll.
To Mr. Rogers, do you check with the courts to see the
percentage of citations that are complied with in regard to
appearing in court, correction of defects and paying of any
fines?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am, we do. Roughly about 80 percent of
the citations that we write are complied with within the terms
of the citation. That leaves the remaining 20 percent that
result in warrants for the arrest of the driver. Then we have
those warrants in file. Should we interact with the driver, we
would serve those warrants and arrest that driver.
Mrs. Napolitano. But do you do that at the border? Because
if they come in, do you have the ability to identify those
warrant violators?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. You do, okay. Do you by any chance speak
to the other border highway patrol or other law enforcement
agencies to share comments? Do you meet and discuss this issue?
Mr. Rogers. No, ma'am. It is not a regularly scheduled
meeting between the four border States.
Mrs. Napolitano. Don't you think it might prove
advantageous to be sharing information?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. The more information you have, the
more sound decisions you can make. But it is has not been
something that has ever been put in place.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, maybe we should suggest to the four
border States that they discuss the issue. Because it will
affect the safety of the people that you guard.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
To President Hoffa, have you worked at all, have you had
any dialogue with the Mexican labor unions in regard to this
issue?
Mr. Hoffa. We have not. We know some of the people down
there. But on this issue, they haven't approached us nor have
we approached them. We should probably do that. But they are
very, very weak with regard to these issues. And there are
thousands and thousands of independent truck drivers that don't
belong to the unions. Unions there are relatively weak, and
they do not have enforcement power.
When people come across the border, they don't belong to
unions. The number of people belonging to the transportation
union is so small, that it really wouldn't cover and they
wouldn't have any jurisdiction over this. Now, maybe they could
speak out, that is something they could do. We could talk to
them about that.
But as far as the individual drivers, they really are not
union members.
Mrs. Napolitano. I understand that. But if they were able
to maybe suggest a way of being able to be more effective in
providing safety safeguards.
Mr. Hoffa. Well, as I said in my testimony, it has been 15
years. One of the things I like to point out is that when NAFTA
was passed in 1993, the United States actually had a trade
surplus with Mexico. Today we have a $68 billion trade deficit
with Mexico. So we know what is going on with Mexico,
everything is coming out and very little going in. There is a
huge trade deficit with Mexico. You would think that with all
that revenue and all that time, that they would have addressed
these issues. I agree, if the unions could speak out, that
would be good. But it really is a Government issue to bring up.
And you would think they would want to bring up their standards
to our level, so they could be true partners in NAFTA. And I
think they have failed that mission.
Mrs. Napolitano. I agree with you, because I know that
prior to NAFTA, I was not here during passage of that
agreement, it did not encompass some of the safeguards that
would be necessary. This is one of the reasons why I am totally
against some of these trade agreements that don't protect our
general public in the United States. We seem to be able to give
carte blanche, if you will, in some areas, without
understanding that what we are doing is tying the hands of our
law enforcement and of our other agencies to be able to protect
the United States, not only the business, but the public safety
of the people.
We talked about the issue of being able to have a truck
driver deliver, say, to New York and go back empty. Do you
think that happens, or do they pick up loads and take back?
Mr. Hoffa. It is hard to imagine that a Mexican truck
driver who was interested in making money and feeding his
family, he is going to find a way to make money. That is the
issue of cabotage, that they are not going to go back empty,
they are going to find something to take back, they are going
to find some way to stop. There is always a network of people
that say, if you stop here you can pick up something.
And I think that is something that the people from the
Administration really have no answers for. They had no way to
police the people in, when we all know about people coming to
this Country, they say they are going to be a student, they get
a visa, they come here, they disappear into the system. No one
can find these people. And if that is true, we can't find
people who come to our Country who have a visa and disappear,
how are we going to find these people?
Mrs. Napolitano. But Mr. Hoffa, on the way back, they have
to cross our border. Do we not at that border find out if they
are going empty or are they carrying materials and are they
qualified or allowed to be able to carry it back into Mexico?
Because they have to go through our border.
Mr. Hoffa. I didn't hear any testimony on that, and I
wonder what kind of documentation they have.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, maybe that is something we need to
go into.
Mr. Chair, there are a couple of other things I would like
to cover.
Mr. DeFazio. Go ahead.
Mrs. Napolitano. Suggestion, panel? Any one of you. What do
you suggest we need to do. And I heard you about the
appropriation, withdraw the funding or the cutting of funds to
be able to do that. But what other suggestions would you have
to be able to begin imposing upon this Administration the
necessity of being more careful on what we do on this specific
issue? Because it will affect our people and our safety.
Mr. Hoffa. Well, the problem, and I have been critical of
this Administration, they never saw a trade agreement they
didn't like. Every trade agreement they make, whether it is
Peru, whether it is Panama, whether it is Colombia, one trade
agreement after another, CAFTA, NAFTA, on and on and on. Every
one of them results in a massive trade deficit. Every one of
these agreements ends up with a trade deficit. I would like to
see one that works, or maybe it was equal.
The answer is, we have to make sure that there is an
equality. If you are going to sell your goods to us, we have to
be able to sell our goods to you. And with regard to what we
are talking about today, one of the Congressman said, I would
like to see it on the fact that if we are going to have 10
trucks going over the border into the United States, we will
have 10 American trucks going over there. Some type of equality
with regard to trade, some type of equality with regard to
services. To me that makes sense, so that we have some idea
that this is a fair deal. We want fair trade. No one wants to
build a wall around America. But we realize that we have to
have fair trade. And we do not have that today. It is a one way
street with a $68 billion trade deficit.
Mrs. Napolitano. So what would be the answer?
Mr. Hoffa. The answer is we should rewrite NAFTA, is one of
the things we should do. We should rewrite all these trade
agreements to make sure we have protections for our borders, to
make sure we preserve our sovereignty. Many of these agreements
say that we lose our sovereignty, that we cannot have a law
that is contrary to what they have in Mexico, we can't enforce
those laws. We have seen tests with regard to environmental
issues. We have to make sure that we protect what we have in
the United States, so we keep high standards as opposed to
going to low standards.
And that is the issue here with regard to highway safety,
that we know that our standards are up here, and we believe
that the standards in Mexico are down here. Until they meet our
standards, they should not be able to come across our border.
Mrs. Napolitano. They have been attempting to improve the
standards. That I know for a fact. They have not been able to
improve them to the standards that we keep raising, because we
do keep raising our standards to protect our folks. It is
something that we need to go at.
Ms. Gillan?
Ms. Gillan. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety comes at
it from a little bit different perspective, because we did not
take a position on NAFTA. We are a coalition of consumer
health, safety and insurance companies. We had many of our
consumer board members who opposed NAFTA and our insurance
members supported NAFTA. However, we are completely in
agreement that NAFTA should not degrade the safety of the
American public. That is why I am here testifying, saying that
the border is not ready to be opened. You have heard all the
different issues. You could have a driver from the central part
of Mexico drive 12, 14 hours, get to the border and still have
11 hours that they can drive. And fatigue is a major problem.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the answer?
Ms. Gillan. And the answer is, I think we need to get some
legislation passed to stop this pilot program from going
through. The Administration says they want to move it in 60
days. That doesn't give us a lot of time and they are not going
to correct these problems with 60 days.
Mrs. Napolitano. Major?
Mr. Rogers. Ma'am, unfortunately, as a State employee I
can't offer any advice as to pro or con against any piece of
legislation.
Mrs. Napolitano. But given your findings, given the impact
it has, would you want to have a budget to be able to help you
do better enforcement?
Mr. Rogers. At present, ma'am, the budget that is provided
to us by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is
quite adequate to do our enforcement program.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. They provide us with about $24
million each fiscal year, which is very adequate for our
enforcement.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, then the question, sir, would be, if
they go ahead and work through this pilot, this demonstration
project, what would be the impact on your ability to be able to
do the job?
Mr. Rogers. It would really be insignificant. We already
have 3 million trucks crossing a year in Texas. So a few more
will really not have an impact on us.
Mrs. Napolitano. But can you tell me if there is any real
impact on the communities themselves? I was born and raised in
Brownsville, Texas. I can tell you, I grew up in that area. To
see a mile long of trucks waiting to cross is not necessarily
what I remember of my home town.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. We are not the ones that create the
backlog. That is when they actually cross the border and
interact with Customs and Border Protection. Basically, if you
are not selected for inspection inside our facilities, you move
through in just a few seconds. So we really don't impede that
process. The lines occur when you are waiting to clear in
Customs and Border Protection.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gillan. Could I just add something? I just spent this
weekend met a police officer from Fort Worth, and he was
mentioning to me, I think it is an issue no one has even
focused on, the Federal money for truck inspections goes to the
State. But we haven't even thought about the burden is going to
be on local police, that once these trucks go out, leave the
border zones and travel throughout the United States, those
police are also going to be charged with enforcing trucks, if
they see a truck that is unsafe or a driver that is fatigued.
Nobody has even thought about the additional burdens on local
police when they have to start enforcing these truck safety
laws.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, because I
sat on transportation for six years in California, and the
Highway Patrol, which deals with not just--they deal all over--
what is specific to that issue is the safety, the upkeep, the
maintenance, the driver's license, the placarding, safety
factor in the normal, if the person had slept, the logs, all of
that came into play. As I say, it hasn't changed much. There
are still the same questions, as to whether or not we are going
to be allowing the truck drivers to operate under the same
premise that they operate in Mexico, with a few adjustments,
but not enough to be able to provide the law enforcement the
ability to determine whether or not they are safe to drive on
our streets and our highways.
Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Napolitano.
I want to thank the panel members for their time and their
testimony. I think you can see with perhaps one exception there
is broad concern on this Committee on a bipartisan basis about
the potential problems with this program. We are going to do
the best we can, I am going to begin to try and formulate a
strategy to push back on the Administration here. We are not
confident that they have reached the point at all where they
can assure us that these trucks coming across the border are
going to be as safe as American trucks, and even within our own
industry in our Country we have problems. So to bring in yet
another pool that pulls down the overall safety is not,
certainly not desirable.
Thanks again for your time and your testimony. The
Committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]