[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8079-S8096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order previously entered, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 2299, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1025, in the nature of a
substitute.
Murray/Shelby amendment No. 1030 (to amendment No. 1025),
to enhance the inspection requirements for Mexican motor
carriers seeking to operate in the United States and to
require them to display decals.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak on the matter of
the Transportation bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may proceed.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator how long he
intends to speak?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. About 3 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Floridians who travel
Interstate 4 between Tampa and Orlando need relief. The congestion they
encounter on the I-4 corridor is paralyzing, and it is not just a
problem for our residents in Florida. It is also a nuisance for the
millions of tourists who visit central Florida each year. With each new
tourist attraction comes another traffic snarl. We must find ways to
relieve the gridlock, but double-decker highways are not the answer.
Last year, Florida's voters approved an initiative in a statewide
referendum that requires the State to build a high-speed train linking
five of our largest urban areas, and the spending measure that is now
before the Senate, particularly today--and we hope to complete
[[Page S8080]]
it today--will begin to start helping Florida meet that goal.
I am very grateful to our colleagues for including in this
Transportation appropriations bill $4.5 million for bullet train
planning in the corridor from Orlando to Tampa. Senator Graham and I
fought for this funding because we knew that our traffic problems could
not be solved by adding more lanes to our highways. And we have an
excellent opportunity in this high-traffic corridor between Tampa and
Orlando, where you can't build your way out of the problem with new
lanes, of creating a model for a new kind of transportation corridor
with specialized lanes and a high-speed rail running down its center.
The State of Florida has also committed $4.5 million in planning
money to a high-speed rail authority, and with this kind of partnership
between the State government and the Federal Government, we can make
this high-speed train a reality in that corridor that needs it so
desperately. The benefits could be enormous. A high-speed train between
Tampa and Orlando could travel more than 120 miles an hour, providing
commuters with a safer and faster alternative to their daily battles
with the traffic gridlock and the traffic jams.
I commend the Senator from Washington, the chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee, and her ranking member, the Senator from
Alabama. I am so pleased the committee has provided this important
funding, and I am going to continue to work with my colleague from
Florida to see that this money is included in the final version of this
bill.
Mr. President, I thank you very much for this opportunity to state
something that is so important to Florida.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Washington is
recognized.
Amendment No. 1030
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, now that we have again called up the
Transportation bill, I want to take some time to address the issue of
Mexican trucks. This issue was discussed yesterday evening by a number
of Senators, and I thought it would be valuable to take some time to
discuss the provisions in the committee bill and explain to my
colleagues why it is so critical that the Senate include these strong
safety requirements in the bill we send to conference.
The ratification of NAFTA 7 years ago anticipated a period when
trucks from the United States, Canada, and Mexico would have free rein
to service clients from across the three countries. This was not really
a change in policy as it pertained to Canada, since the United States
and Canada had reciprocal trucking agreements in place long before
NAFTA was ratified. However, it did require a change when it came to
truck traffic between the United States and Mexico.
For several years, the opening up of the border between these two
countries was effectively put on hold by the administration due to
their concerns over the absence of reasonable safety standards for
trucks operating in Mexico. While Mexican trucks have been allowed to
operate between Mexico and a defined commercial zone along the border,
the safety record of those trucks has been abysmal. The Department of
Transportation inspector general, the General Accounting Office, and
others have published a number of reports documenting the safety
hazards presented by the current crop of Mexican trucks crossing the
border.
At a hearing of the Commerce Committee last week, the inspector
general testified about instances where trucks have crossed the border
literally with no brakes. Officials with the IG's office have visited
every border crossing between the United States and Mexico, and they
have documented case after case of Mexican trucks entering the United
States that were grossly overweight, that had no registration or
insurance, and that had drivers with no licenses.
This chart to my left displays the likelihood that trucks will be
ordered off the road by U.S. truck inspectors, and I think the numbers
speak for themselves. According to the Department of Transportation's
most recent figures, Mexican trucks are 50 percent more likely to be
ordered off the road for severe safety deficiencies than United States
trucks, and Mexican trucks are more than 2\1/2\ times more likely to be
ordered off the road than Canadian trucks.
Equally troubling is the fact that Mexican trucks have been routinely
violating the current restrictions that limit their area of travel to
the 20-mile commercial zones. The DOT inspector general found that 52
Mexican trucking firms have operated improperly in over 26 States
outside the four southern border States. An additional 200 trucking
firms violated the restriction to stay within the commercial zone in
the border States.
Mexican trucks have been found to be operating illegally as far away
from the Mexican border as New York State in the Northeast and my own
State of Washington in the Northwest. The inspector general reported on
one shocking case where a Mexican truck was found on its way to Florida
to deliver furniture. When the vehicle was pulled over, the driver had
no logbook and no license. As I said, there have been experiences such
as this in half the States in the continental United States. Given this
deplorable safety record, the official position of the U.S. Government
since the ratification of NAFTA was that the border could not be open
to cross-border trucking because of the safety risks involved.
Two things have caused a change in this policy: First, a new
administration has come into power, one that believes the border should
be opened. Second, the Mexican Government successfully brought a case
before a NAFTA arbitration panel. That panel ruled the U.S. Government
must initiate efforts to open the border to cross-border trucking.
This new policy brought about a frenzy of activity at the Department
of Transportation so that the border could be opened to cross-border
trucking as soon as this autumn. The agency has hastily cobbled
together a series of measures intended to give United States citizens a
false sense of security that this new influx of Mexican trucks will not
present a safety risk. These measures have been reviewed by both the
House and Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittees and have
been found to be woefully inadequate.
When the House debated the Transportation appropriations for fiscal
year 2002, its concerns about the inadequacy about the DOT safety
measures were so grave that they resulted in an amendment being adopted
on the floor of the House that prohibited the Department of
Transportation from granting operating authority to any Mexico-
domiciled trucking company during fiscal year 2002.
That amendment passed by a 2-to-1 margin, 285-143. Moreover, by the
time the Transportation bill left the House, it had been stripped of
every penny of the $88 million the administration requested to improve
the truck safety inspection capacity at the United States-Mexico
border.
The administration's approach is to allow Mexican trucks to come in
and to inspect them later. At the other extreme, the House approach is
to prevent Mexican trucks from coming in and to refuse to inspect them
at all.
What Senator Shelby and I have done is to write a commonsense
compromise that will inspect all Mexican trucks and then let them in.
Just as we require Americans to pass a driving test before they get a
license, the bipartisan Senate bill before us requires Mexican trucks
to pass an inspection before they can operate on our roads.
First, the bill includes $103 million--$15 million more than the
President's request--for border truck safety activities.
Second, the bill establishes several enhanced truck safety
requirements that are intended to ensure that this new cross-border
trucking activity does not pose a safety risk.
The enhanced safety provisions included in the Senate bill were
developed based on the recommendations that the committee reviewed from
the DOT inspector general, the General Accounting Office, and law
enforcement authorities, including the highway patrols of the States
along the border.
They will ensure there is an adequate safety regime in place before
our borders are opened to cross-border trucking. The provision was
approved unanimously by both the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee.
[[Page S8081]]
In a moment, I will review the committee's safety recommendations in
detail, but first I want to address the issue of compliance with NAFTA.
I have heard it alleged that the provision adopted unanimously by the
committee is in violation of the NAFTA. Nothing could be further from
the truth. I voted for NAFTA, and I support free trade. My goal is to
ensure free trade and public safety progress side by side. But rather
than take my opinion or that of another Senator, we have a written
decision by an arbitration panel that was charged with settling this
very issue. That arbitration panel was established under the NAFTA
treaty, and it is that panel's ruling that decides what does and does
not violate NAFTA when it comes to cross-border trucking.
I want to read a quote from the findings of the arbitration panel.
That quote is printed on this chart. I want to read it to my
colleagues:
The United States may not be required to treat applications
from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as
applications from United States or Canadian firms . . . U.S.
authorities are responsible for the safe operations of trucks
within U.S. territory, whether ownership is United States,
Canadian, or Mexican.
The arbitration panel made clear that under NAFTA, the United States
is within its rights to impose whatever safety regimen it considers
necessary to ensure safety on U.S. highways.
While the Department of Transportation has stated it is seeking to
treat U.S., Mexican, and Canadian trucks in the same way, the fact is,
we are not required to treat them in the same way. Where greater safety
risks exist, we are entitled under NAFTA to impose stricter safety
conditions. That is what the provisions adopted unanimously by the
Appropriations Committee do. They establish stricter safety conditions
for those Mexican trucks that want to travel anywhere in the United
States.
It is a very convenient argument for the administration to claim
these safety provisions somehow violate NAFTA. They make that argument
for one reason and one reason only: because they want to convince
Senators they must choose between safety and free trade. I am not
fooled. The Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on
Transportation were not fooled, either. I voted for NAFTA, but I also
read the arbitration panel's decision that made clear we are within our
rights to impose whatever safety requirements are necessary to protect
our highways. The safety requirements that the Department of
Transportation has proposed are grossly inadequate.
Now, lest anyone thinks this is partisan, I make clear I think the
truck safety record under the Clinton administration was not any
better. We have a lot to do in terms of moving the safety agenda
forward, not just in terms of Mexican trucks but all trucks.
Let me take a few moments to discuss in detail the truck safety
provisions that were reported in the committee bill. First, inspectors
must be on duty. The provision adopted unanimously by the committee
requires Mexican trucks cross the border only at those points where
inspectors are actually on duty.
The DOT inspector general found that Federal and State border
inspectors were on duty 24 hours a day at only two border crossings.
Mexican trucks crossing the border during off hours are not subject to
inspection. The committee provision requires that Mexican trucks cross
the border only at those inspection stations where inspectors are
actually on duty. How can anyone possibly argue that our safety is
being protected if these trucks are rolling across the border where no
safety inspector is on duty? Yet that is currently the case at certain
times of the day at 25 of the 27 border crossings.
The inspector general has compiled data that shows conclusively that
there is a direct correlation between inspection staffing levels at the
border crossings and the quality of trucks that cross at those border
crossings. Put simply, trucks that need to worry about being inspected
tend to cross the border at those crossings where an inspector is not
on duty. That is a loophole that must be closed.
Second, Mexican truck companies must have thorough compliance
reviews. The DOT plans to issue conditional operating authority to
Mexican truck companies based on a simple mail-in questionnaire. All
that the Mexican truck companies will need to do under their plan is to
check a box saying they have compiled with U.S. regulations and their
trucks will start rolling across the border. In fact, under the DOT
plan, Mexican trucking companies would be allowed to operate for at
least a year and a half before they would be subjected to any
comprehensive safety audit by the Department of Transportation. Under
the committee provision, no Mexican trucking firm will be allowed to
operate beyond the commercial zone until inspectors have actually
performed a compliance review on that trucking company. This review
will look at the conditions of the trucks and the recordkeeping. They
will determine whether the company actually has the capacity to comply
with U.S. safety regulations.
Once they have begun operating in the United States, Mexican trucking
firms will undergo a second compliance review within 18 months. That
second review will allow the DOT to determine whether the Mexican
trucking firm has complied with U.S. safety standards. It will allow
them to review accident and breakdown rates, their drug and alcohol
testing results, and whether they have been cited frequently for
violations.
Third, compliance reviews of Mexican trucking firms must be performed
onsite. Every time a U.S. motor carrier safety inspector performs a
compliance review on a U.S. trucking firm, it is done at the trucking
firm's facility. Every time a U.S. motor carrier safety inspector
performs a compliance review on a Canadian trucking firm, it is done at
the Canadian trucking firm's facility. When it comes to Mexico, the
Department of Transportation wants to allow compliance reviews to be
conducted at the border. This is a farce. A compliance review by
definition requires the inspector to carefully review the trucking
firm's vehicles, record books, logbooks, wage and hour records, and
much, much more. You cannot perform a compliance review at a remote
site. It is not even a poor substitute.
At the same time as the DOT claims it wants to provide for equal
treatment between U.S. trucking firms, Mexican trucking firms, and
Canadian trucking firms, they want to establish a huge loophole where
Mexican trucking firms don't have to be subject to inspection. There is
a long list of abuses that could result if inspectors never visit a
trucking company's facility. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why
the DOT wants to allow those potential abuses on the part of Mexican
trucking firms while insisting every compliance review in the United
States and in Canada is performed onsite.
Fourth, we must verify all documents at the border. The provision
that has been reported by the committee requires that the license,
registration, operating authority, and insurance of every Mexican truck
be verified at the border. This is absolutely essential if we are to be
sure that the vehicles crossing the border are being driven by
experienced drivers, with safe driving records, and that the vehicles
are insured and registered.
It is well understood that, while the condition of a truck is
important when it comes to maintaining safety, the capabilities of the
driver are far more important when it comes to minimizing the risk of a
fatal accident. Our experience in dealing with illegal immigration and
illegal drug trafficking across the United States-Mexico border has
shown that there is a recurring problem of forged documents among
people crossing the border.
We cannot allow individuals with forged documents to drive 18-
wheelers anywhere in the United States. It is simply common sense that
we make the extra effort to verify the license, insurance, and
registration of the trucks when they cross the border.
Fifth, we must require scales and weigh-in-motion machines at the
border. The provision passed unanimously by the committee requires all
border crossings to be equipped with both scales and weigh-in-motion
machines.
At present, vehicles in Mexico are allowed to operate at weights that
are far in excess of permissible weights in the United States. There
are no weigh stations currently operating in Mexico. None. The reasons
for requiring both weigh-in-motion machines and scales at each border
crossing are simple: to
[[Page S8082]]
move trucks rapidly while keeping overweight trucks out of the United
States. It would be very time consuming to put every truck on scales as
they cross the border. However, weigh-in-motion machines allow our
inspectors to pull out of the line only those few trucks that they
suspect to be overweight. At present, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration will not allow an enforcement act to be taken against an
overweight truck based on the findings of a weigh-in-motion machine, so
scales are necessary for the DOT to actually enforce U.S. weight
restrictions. There is no point in weighing the vehicles if you are not
prepared to take enforcement action against those that are overweight.
Recently, the DOT praised extensively the border safety regime in
place at the Otay Mesa border crossing in California. Otay Mesa has
both weigh-in-motion machines and scales to conduct enforcement actions
on overweight trucks. That is the model that the committee provision
would extend to other border crossings between the United States and
Mexico.
Sixth, we must require Mexican firms to have U.S. insurance. The
provision adopted unanimously by the committee requires Mexican
trucking firms to obtain insurance, and their insurer must be licensed
to operate within the United States.
This is the requirement that currently pertains to Canadian trucking
firms seeking to operate in the United States. We do not understand
why, if the requirement is good enough for the Canadian trucking
companies, the DOT thinks it's too onerous for the Mexican trucking
companies.
There could be significant hurdles and challenges to collecting
insurance claims from Mexican insurers. American motorists who have
been injured by Mexican trucks could face serious jurisdictional
hurdles to getting compensated for their injuries.
We will also be able to verify the solvency of these insurance
companies writing these insurance policies if they are operating in the
United States. We will not have that capability when it comes to
Mexican insurance companies.
At present, the Mexican trucks crossing the border legally into the
commercial zone purchase insurance policies that last only 1 day. These
insurance policies are granted by Mexican insurance companies routinely
without any knowledge of the condition of the truck.
Do we really want a situation where a Mexican trucking firm heading
to Chicago and back has an insurance policy that is only 5 days long
with the trucker getting a different policy from a different insurance
company every time he crosses the border?
We must make sure that the Mexican trucking companies operating in
the U.S. have the kind of insurance that is verifiable, sustainable,
solvent, and cooperative when it comes to paying off claims made by
U.S. motorists and U.S. companies that have been injuried by Mexican
trucks.
Seventh, we must ensure rules are in place before the border is
opened. The provision unanimously adopted by the Appropriations
Committee requires that critically important safety rules are completed
by the DOT before the border can be opened. These rules were not
randomly selected. The rules that we require to be published before the
border can be opened are targeted at the specific safety concerns
surrounding Mexican trucks.
The rules that would be required to be published before the border
can be opened include: Rules mandating that foreign trucking companies
including Mexican trucking companies be aware of U.S. safety standards;
rules establishing minimum training standards for U.S. truck
inspectors; rules requiring the development of staffing standards to
determine the appropriate number of inspectors at the Mexican border;
rules prohibiting foreign motor carriers, including Mexican trucking
companies, from leasing their vehicles to another trucking company if
they have been subjected to a suspension, restriction, or limitation on
their right to operate in the U.S.; and rules permanently disqualifying
any foreign motor carrier that is found operating illegally in the
United States.
All of these rules are specifically pertinent to the safety
challenges presented by Mexican trucks.
All of these rules were called for in the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act that was signed into law over a year and a half ago.
But the DOT wants to put the cart before the horse. The DOT wants to
allow Mexican trucks across the border first and then develop the
pertinent safety standards later.
When the Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act, we
did so with the knowledge that we would be facing a day in the future
when Mexican trucks may be allowed free access into the United States.
That is why the strong safety requirements were put into that bill.
Now the DOT wants to let the Mexican trucks across the border without
implementing these new requirements. The DOT is arguing that it may
take a year or two to finalize these regulations and to put these rules
into place.
If it requires an extra 12 months so that safety is not undermined by
the influx of Mexican trucks, then it will be worth the wait.
Eighth, inspector positions must be filled by trained inspectors. The
provision adopted unanimously by the committee fully funds the DOT's
request for 80 additional inspectors for the Mexican border.
The committee provision also includes a requirement to ensure the DOT
does not fulfill the requirement by simply moving safety inspectors to
the border from elsewhere in the country.
We have Federal Motor Carrier Safety Inspectors in my State and every
other State, and they are charged with maintaining truck safety in
those states. I don't think that any of us want to see all our truck
safety inspectors throughout the U.S. move down to the Mexican border
just so the DOT can allow trucks to be moving across the border by this
fall.
Ninth, our borders must have adequate inspection capacity. The DOT
Inspector General found that in 47 percent of the border crossings,
Federal and State inspectors had space to inspect only one or two
trucks at a time. At more than half of the border crossings, inspectors
had only one or two spaces to park out-of-service trucks. That fact
severely undermines their ability to order trucks off the road.
It is one thing to say that you have inspectors on duty, and it is a
very different thing to say that there is sufficient capacity at the
border to do meaningful inspections and, if need be, order trucks off
the road.
The provision, reported unanimously by the committee, requires the
DOT inspector general to certify that the inspection stations have
sufficient capacity to conduct meaningful inspections and the ability
and capacity to order trucks off the road if necessary.
Tenth, we must have adequate data systems in place. The provision
adopted unanimously by the committee requires the inspector general to
certify that the database that is being compiled on Mexican trucking
firms and Mexican drivers is sufficiently accurate and accessible to
allow U.S. law enforcement authorities to conduct their work.
These databases are key if we are going to be able to monitor the
safety performance of Mexican trucking firms and Mexican truck drivers.
The DOT inspector general found significant problems with the
accuracy and completeness of the law enforcement databases on Mexico-
domiciled trucking companies.
In fact, they found that there were 900 Mexican trucking companies
that could not be accounted for between the database on insurance and
licensing and a separate database that houses identification numbers.
While it is true that the Mexican Government is starting to compile
its own databases, it is widely recognized that there is not nearly
enough information in the database to enable U.S. law enforcement to
gather any information on the safety record of Mexican trucking firms
and Mexican drivers.
The committee provision requires the DOT inspector general to certify
that these databases are actually functioning in a way where U.S. law
enforcement can do its job.
It is not enough to have the computers operating. There needs to be
sufficient information to allow U.S. law enforcement to keep unsafe
Mexican trucking firms and unsafe Mexican drivers off our roads.
[[Page S8083]]
Eleventh, we must be able to enforce license revocation. When our
colleague Jack Danforth was in the Senate and serving as chairman of
the Commerce Committee, he made a great many contributions to
transportation safety.
One of his greatest contributions was the law requiring a uniform
commercial drivers license here in the United States. That requirement
came in the wake of numerous horror stories where U.S. truckdrivers had
their licenses revoked and then got new licenses in other states so
they could continue driving.
Jack Danforth put a stop to all of that. He put a system in place in
the United States where we monitor the issuance of commercial drivers
licenses in all 50 States, to make sure that multiple licenses aren't
being issued to the same driver.
There is no such system in Mexico. In fact, there is hardly any
computerized data on who is getting a commercial driver's license in
Mexico. There is almost no data on the driving record history of
Mexican drivers within the Mexican system.
The provision unanimously adopted by the committee requires the DOT
inspector general to certify that there are mechanisms in place within
Mexico to ensure that Mexican drivers with insufficient driving records
have their licenses revoked and cannot get a new license through
surreptitious means.
The DOT claims that it supports subjecting Mexican drivers and
Canadian drivers to the exact same standards as U.S. drivers. Yet there
is absolutely no mechanism in place in Mexico to make that into a
reality.
No one in Mexico is monitoring the safety record of Mexican drivers
to any degree of accuracy. As of today, there is no capability of U.S.
law enforcement authorities to tap into a database that is sufficiently
comprehensive to give a clear picture of an individual's driving record
in Mexico.
It is going to take several months for the Mexicans to compile such a
database and, even then, its accuracy is going to be questioned.
None of us wants a catastrophic truck accident in our State and to
find out that it was the driver's fourth or fifth accident. If we are
serious about subjecting all truckdrivers to the same safety standards,
then there needs to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the
driving performance of Mexican truckers is being monitored as it is
here in the United States.
Twelfth, the California inspection plan. The final provision I would
like to discuss is the pending amendment before the Senate. It is
sponsored by Senator Shelby and myself. We laid the amendment down last
Friday when the bill was first brought up in the Senate.
We think it is an important measure that strengthens the truck safety
provisions in the underlying bill.
During the hearings last week in both the House and Senate
authorizing committees, much attention was paid to the inspection
system that has been implemented by the State of California to handle
the safety deficiencies posed by Mexican trucks. The California system
requires every truck seeking to cross the border to be fully inspected
at least every 90 days. This requirement is dramatically more stringent
than currently exists at the border with Texas, Arizona, or New Mexico.
As a result of this stronger enforcement effort, the percent of
Mexican trucks ordered off the road has dropped to a level that is
better than that of other border crossings.
The provisions in the bill already reported by the committee require
strict new measures to verify the licenses, registration, operating
authority, and insurance of all Mexican trucks crossing the border.
This additional amendment will impose the California plan at all
border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico.
It is my understanding that the administration supports the
imposition of this new inspection regime. I think it strengthens the
bill in an important way that will better protect the safety of our
constituents.
Finally, it has been alleged that all of the safety measures that
have been included in the committee bill will cost more money than has
been provided to date.
If the DOT needs more money to ensure the safety of America's
highways, then I believe that Secretary Mineta and OMB should come
forward with a request for the additional funds.
The appropriations bill reported by the committee already provides
$15 million more for the border truck safety activities than was
requested by DOT. If the DOT comes forward with a formal request for
more resources, the committee will work with the Department to find the
necessary resources. It will be money well spent.
For several years, our country has been looking for a way to balance
the open trade--called for by NAFTA--with the safety we expect on our
highways.
We understand that commerce must move, but we are concerned about the
safety of Mexican trucks--especially since they are 50 percent more
likely to violate our safety standards.
After a lot of hard work, after listening to the safety experts, the
Department of Transportation, the GAO and the industry, we have come up
with a plan that allows both goals--free trade and safe roads--to
progress side by side.
This bill will not violate NAFTA. The arbitration panel already told
us that we can take steps to ensure our safety.
Let me repeat that. The official panel that determines compliance
with NAFTA has already told us we can take the safety measures we need.
This bill does not violate NAFTA.
This bill won't stop trade across our border, but it will stop unsafe
drivers and unsafe trucks from threatening the American public.
Under our bill, when you are driving on the highway and there is an
18-wheeler with a Mexican license plate in front of you, you can feel
safe.
You will know that the truck was inspected.
You will know that the company has a good track record.
You will know that an American inspector visited their facility--on
site--and examined their records, just as we do with Canadian trucking
firms.
You will know that the driver is licensed and insured.
You will know that the truck was weighed and is safe for our roads
and bridges.
You will know that we are keeping track of which companies and which
drivers are following our laws--and which ones are not.
You will know that if a driver is breaking our laws, we will revoke
his license.
You will know that the truck didn't just cross our border unchecked
but crossed where there were inspectors on duty, ensuring our safety.
That's a real safety program.
This is a solid compromise. It will allow robust trade while ensuring
the safety of our highways.
I appreciate that some Members want to take a different approach. I
am here, and I am willing to listen to constructive ideas.
But as a country, we should not move toward weaker safety standards.
And as a Senator I will not help the Senate weaken the standards that
ensure the safety of the American public.
We can have free trade and safe highways--and this bill shows us how.
It sets up a real safety program that will keep Americans safe and it
fully complies with NAFTA.
I urge my colleagues to support this pro-safety, pro-trade bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, be immediately recognized after my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I know that we have and will hear a
great deal about Mexican trucks during the consideration of the
Transportation appropriations bill, and much of the information will
seem to be inconsistent or contradictory. In the interests of a
meaningful and productive discussion of the issue, I would like to
summarize what we do know about Mexican trucks.
According to the Department of Transportation inspector general,
during Fiscal Year 2000, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration reports show that Federal and State inspectors performed
46,144 inspections on Mexican trucks at the border and within the
commercial zones. For those inspected, the out-of-service rate declined
from 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 36 percent
[[Page S8084]]
in fiscal year 2000. By comparison, United States trucks' out-of-
service rate for fiscal year 2000 was 24 percent.
Clearly, the data we do have indicates that the out-of-service rate
for Mexican trucks in 50 percent higher than our own domestic truck
fleet. Accordingly, we need to do more to inspect trucks entering the
United States at the Mexican border.
The President's budget request and the committee reported
Transportation appropriations bill does do more: the President's budget
requested $88 million for inspectors and new border inspection
facilities and the committee reported bill provides a minimum of $103
million for inspectors, safety grants to states, and new border
facilities--quite an increase.
In the near term, developing an inspection capability that includes
providing inspectors and inspection facilities at the border crossings
is central to ensuring compliance with United States safety
regulations.
Unfortunately, those capabilities, necessary regulations, forms and
facilities are not yet in place to provide an inspection and
enforcement regime that can assure Americans that Mexican trucks
entering the United States, including the commercial zone, can match
the out-of-service rates of the United States trucking fleet, much less
the Canadian trucks operating in the United States.
No one should believe that Mexican trucks are inherently any better
or any worse than trucks from any other country--the United States or
Canada.
But unless a Mexican inspection regime is in place in that country
that can give Americans the confidence that trucks from Mexico are
statistically as safe as trucks operating in this country, we must
provide an inspection and regulatory system that insures that trucks
entering from Mexico meet a minimum level of fitness to operate on our
highways.
There has been a clamor that somehow providing an inspection and
regulatory regime for Mexican trucks entering the United States
violates NAFTA. As a Senator who did not support NAFTA, I do not
believe that NAFTA should dictate what the United States Congress can
and cannot do regarding the safety of vehicles operating on our
highways.
In fact, NAFTA itself provides that motor carriers entering a NAFTA
country must comply with the safety and operating regulations of that
country. Accordingly, requiring that Mexican truck drivers have a valid
commercial driver's license or that Mexican-domiciled trucks are safe
is clearly within the spirit and the letter of NAFTA.
The NAFTA arbitration panel held:
The U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe
operations of trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership
is United States, Canadian, or Mexican.
It is the duty, I believe, of the U.S. Congress to provide the policy
guidance for those U.S. authorities. The committee-reported bill takes
the appropriate steps to provide that policy guidance.
Let me briefly describe the Murray-Shelby language that is in the
committee-reported bill and the amendment to that language currently
before the Senate.
In addition to the minimum of $103 million for inspectors, safety
grants to States, and new border facilities, under the committee-
reported bill:
We require the Department of Transportation to only allow Mexican
trucks to cross the border at inspection facilities where inspectors
are present and on duty;
Further, we require the Department of Transportation to allow the
full opening of the border only--yes, only--when the inspector general
certifies that all of the 80 new inspectors provided under the
committee funding recommendation are fully trained as safety
specialists capable of conducting compliance reviews;
Further, we require the Department of Transportation to perform a
full safety audit of each Mexican trucking firm before any conditional
operating certificate is granted and then to perform a full followup
compliance review again within 18 months before granting a permanent
operating certificate;
Further, we require that all safety audits of Mexican trucking firms
take place on-site at each firm's facilities;
We prohibit the full opening of the border until the inspector
general certifies that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
has implemented a policy to ensure compliance on the part of Mexican
truckers with pertinent hours-of-service rules;
Further, we prohibit the full opening of the border until the
Inspector General certifies that the information infrastructure of the
Mexican authorities is sufficiently accurate, accessible, and
integrated with that of U.S. law enforcement authorities to permit the
verification of the status and validity of licenses, vehicle
registration, operating authority, and insurance of Mexican-domiciled
motor carriers while operating in the United States;
Further, we prohibit the full opening of the border until the
Department of Transportation requires checks of Mexican-domiciled
trucks by federally funded inspectors for violations of applicable
Federal regulations;
Further, we prohibit the full opening of the border until the
inspector general certifies that there is adequate capacity to conduct
a sufficient number of truck inspections to maintain safety;
Further, we prohibit the full opening of the border until the
Department of Transportation equips all Mexican border crossings with
weigh-in-motion systems as well as fixed scales for enforcement action;
Further, we prohibit the full opening of the border until the
inspector general certifies that there is an accessible database
containing sufficiently comprehensive data to allow for safety
performance monitoring of all Mexican drivers entering the United
States; and
We prohibit the full opening of the border until the inspector
general certifies that the Department of Transportation has published
certain overdue regulations relating to motor carrier safety.
In addition, the pending Murray-Shelby perfecting amendment improves
the inspection requirement in the Mexican truck provisions in the
committee-reported bill to require the inspection of all Mexican trucks
that do not display a current Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance--
CVSA--inspection decal--and requires renewal of those decals every 90
days.
This is the so-called California standard, and adding it to the
underlying inspection and enforcement regime included in the committee-
reported bill, we believe, improves the overall inspection process.
According to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, current data and
information on Mexican companies, who intend to travel internationally
from Mexico to the United States, is quite limited. This is because:
First, there have been few safety regulatory requirements placed on
the industry until very recently;
Second, there are a limited number of personnel trained and
continually performing oversight functions; and
Third, the information infrastructure has not been in place to
capture and record the results of the current limited oversight being
performed by the Mexican Government.
Given the shortcomings in the inspection and regulatory regime for
Mexican trucks and the immediacy of the Mexican truck issue, the
Murray-Shelby approach is one way to move this issue forward while
balancing the need to foster safety on our highways without closing the
border to Mexican trucks.
While this is an emotional issue for many, the Murray-Shelby approach
is a dispassionate treatment of the core issues related to inspection,
border and information infrastructure investment, and providing a
rational playing field for international trucking activities. I stand
ready, with the Senator from Washington, to work with interested
Members and the administration to move this legislation to conference.
In conference, we will continue to work with all interested parties
to make sure that the requisite investments and safety protections are
in place to further the Nation's interests in a safe, economically
viable, and fair international truck inspection system.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Colorado
be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
[[Page S8085]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a very interesting and a very
important issue. There are a number of ways to address this issue. One
method is to address it in the manner chosen by my colleagues, Senator
Murray and Senator Shelby. Another method would be the approach chosen
by the House of Representatives that passed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin,
a provision that simply prohibits the use of funds in the next fiscal
year to license trucks to go beyond the 20-mile limit that are doing
hauls out of Mexico.
Let me describe this issue, if I might, so that we all get an
understanding of what is happening. We are trying to plug together two
economies with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I did
not vote for NAFTA. I did not think it was a good trade agreement. I
thought it was terribly negotiated, badly negotiated on our behalf. And
I think evidence suggests that has been the case.
We took a trade relationship with Mexico, which had a small surplus
for us, and turned it into a very large deficit that is growing and
growing and growing. We took a deficit with Canada and doubled it, and
then some. So I do not think NAFTA turned out very well for a range of
reasons.
We were told, when we passed NAFTA: NAFTA will allow the product of
unskilled labor from Mexico to be moved into the United States; and
that is essentially what will happen with respect to the trade coming
from Mexico. In fact, since NAFTA was passed, what are the most common
imports and the largest imports from Mexico to the United States? The
product of skilled labor--automobiles, automobile parts, and
electronics--exactly the opposite of what was suggested when NAFTA was
enacted.
But aside from all of that, aside from the fact that it has taken
skilled jobs away from the United States and moved them to Mexico;
aside from the fact that it has turned a surplus with Mexico into a
huge trade deficit, we are now told by a panel that negotiates these
issues of trade compliance that we must allow Mexican long-haul
truckers into this country.
We have, since the NAFTA agreement, prohibited Mexican long-haul
truckers from going beyond the 20-mile limit established by the
previous administration. We are now told that must change, and we must
allow access to the United States by Mexican long-haul truckers. Many
are concerned about that, myself included.
Let me give you just an example of why one might be concerned.
The San Francisco Chronicle did a piece by sending a reporter to
Mexico, who spent 3 days on the road with a Mexican long-haul trucker.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss what happened with that
Mexican long-haul trucker. It was described in a rather interesting and
useful piece in the San Francisco Chronicle.
This was a trucker who went from Mexico City to Tijuana. That is the
equivalent of driving from the bottom of Texas to the northern part of
North Dakota; it is a very long trip. This driver traveled 3 days,
1,800 miles; and during the 3 days he slept 7 hours. Let me say that
again. This person drove 1,800 miles and was awake 21 hours a day. No
logbooks. No minimum hours of service. No drug testing. No inspections
for safety.
The question is this, for this country: With such a different set of
standards as relates to Mexican trucks versus United States trucks, and
the Mexican trucking industry versus the United States trucking
industry, do you want to drive down an American highway and in your
rearview mirror see an 80,000-pound 18-wheeler behind you that may or
may not have been inspected, and may or may not have brakes, and may or
may not have been driven by somebody driving for 18 hours straight? Is
that what you want for you and your family to see in your rearview
mirror? Is this just sort of scare nonsense that we talk about? No, not
at all.
Look at the difference in standards. We take great care in this
country to describe very specific requirements for trucking firms and
their drivers in the United States. They must have logbooks to describe
how long they have driven and where they have driven. They must have
safety inspections. They must take drug tests. They must have safety
inspections on the equipment. There are minimum hours of service. There
are a whole series of requirements they must meet. Why? Because in this
country we decided long ago that if we are going to share our
highways--and we must--with this very important part of our
transportation system--trucks--then we want to be sure that some 2-door
compact car sharing that highway with an 18-wheeler carrying 80,000
pounds--we want to make sure that safety is a preeminent condition in
this country. So we established regulations. Some say all regulations
are bad. I don't believe that. I think some regulations are critically
necessary--for safe food, healthy drinking water, safe highways. On the
issue of safe highways, we decided long ago with respect to our
trucking industry what kind of requirements they must meet, and we have
the inspectors, we have the investigators, we have the entire system in
place.
This book is the ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,''
January 1, 1999, last revised. This is from the Department of
Transportation. This rather large, imposing book is full of
regulations. Why? It is to provide for public safety on America's
roads. Now if that is what we do in this country, what happens in
Mexico? Nothing equivalent to this happens in Mexico. Some say: Well,
you know what you are doing. NAFTA was a trade agreement between the
United States, Mexico, and Canada, and you are coming to the floor only
talking about Mexico. Why not Canada?
The reason is obvious. Canada has a rather similar economy to ours.
They have similar trucking regulations and safety requirements to ours,
but there is nothing that is remotely similar with respect to Mexico.
So we must, it seems to me, be concerned about the lifting of this 20-
mile limit of Mexican long-haul trucks coming into this country.
President Bush indicates he wants to do that on January 1. I disagree.
The authors of the Transportation appropriations bill have a provision
in this bill that says to the President: You can only do this under
certain circumstances and under certain certifications. I happen to
think that is a step in the right direction. I would much prefer,
however, that we simply shut off funds for this purpose in the coming
fiscal year. I have seen people certify anything--Republican and
Democratic administrations. They have certified many things. If we say
you must certify with respect to drugs in Mexico, they do it. If we say
you must certify that El Salvador, in the 1980s, was responsible for
human rights violations, they certify it.
I am worried about anything that requires anybody to certify because
I think there are people here who will certify to almost anything, who
will sign a blank sheet of paper. We are nowhere near ready to allow
Mexican long-haul trucks into this country. We had a hearing in the
Commerce Committee last week. I am a member, and I sat there all
morning. I inquired of the witnesses. Some of the witnesses were the
Secretary of Transportation, the inspector general, the head of the
Teamsters Union, and so many others. I inquired of those witnesses, and
the one conclusion with which I think everyone came away from that
hearing is that there isn't a ghost of a chance of this country being
ready to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country without
compromising basic safety on American roads.
Let me cite some examples. This is the inspector general report of
the Department of Transportation. He talks about the capability of
inspecting Mexican trucks coming into this country. I think we have 27
border crossings. Only two of those border crossings have full-time
inspectors 24 hours a day. So out of all the border crossings that
would allow Mexican trucks to come in, only two have inspectors 24
hours a day. At 20 of the crossings, the inspectors who were there--and
there are only a few of them--didn't have dedicated phone lines to
access any databases so they could validate a simple thing like a
commercial driver's license. At 19 of the locations, the inspectors had
space to inspect 1 or 2 trucks at a time. At 14 of the locations,
inspectors had 1 or 2 spaces to park vehicles placed out of service.
The inspector general talked to us about having to turn Mexican
trucks
[[Page S8086]]
back. He said: You know, we have a problem if we don't have a place to
park them. I said: Why can't you turn them around? He said: For
example, we have a Mexican truck come to the border and it is
inspected--incidentally, 2 percent are inspected, so most of them are
never inspected--but we inspect it. I said: Why can't you turn it back?
He said: No, we have to park it. I said: Why? He said: Because it had
no brakes. So we have an 18-wheel truck, with no brakes, trying to get
into the United States, but they can't turn it back to Mexico because
it has no brakes. To the extent that they have insurance, they buy 1
day of insurance.
So, look, the testimony by the Secretary of Transportation, the
inspector general, and others demonstrates clearly that we are nowhere
near being ready to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country.
This IG's report is a fascinating document that I suggest all of my
colleagues read. Thirty-six percent of the Mexican trucks are turned
back for serious safety violations--serious violations--and most of the
trucks are not inspected at all. The implication is that we will
somehow have the capability on January 1 to have a rigorous inspection
and compliance program with respect to these Mexican trucks. There is
nothing like that that is capable of being done between now and January
1. That won't be done between now and 2 years from now, in my judgment.
The only way you can possibly do this is if you have enough
inspectors at the border and compliance officers to go down and
actually make onsite compliance inspections of the Mexican trucking
firms. There aren't anywhere near the resources to do that. Even the
resources requested by the administration in this year's budget come up
short of doing what they say they will or must do in order to be ready
for January 1. They talked about the number of inspectors they would
need--139--and then the IG said, by the way, that is the minimum
number, that it would actually be more than that. The administration
requested that number, and they came up 40 inspectors short because
they are using the number twice for inspectors and compliance officers.
The point is that none of this adds up. It is fuzzy math, fuzzy
policy. It is plain bad policy, in my judgment, to suggest we are
anywhere near the time when we should allow Mexican long- haul trucks
into this country.
The hearing we held last week persuaded me that we need to take
aggressive and bold action. I am going to file an amendment--I do not
know at this moment whether I will call it up--I am going to file an
amendment this morning that will allow the Senate to vote on the House
language.
The House language says simply: There shall be no funding allowed for
the processing of applications for these trucks or licenses for these
trucks to exceed the 20-mile limit in the coming fiscal year.
Is that going to change anything? No, because there is not a ghost of
a chance of anyone being able to comply or to certify that we have the
inspectors or the ability to allow these trucks into the country in the
first place and still maintain safety on America's roads.
The fact is, even with the 20-mile limit--on this chart the States
outlined in red are where Mexican trucks have been seen and Mexican
truckdrivers stopped by law enforcement authorities. These are just the
ones that have been stopped. Yes, it includes North Dakota.
I am constrained to say, as bad as this trade agreement was which
hurts us on the northern end by allowing unfairly subsidized Canadian
grain to come into this country, that what we will have now is the
perverse circumstance, perhaps, of unsafe Mexican trucks hauling
subsidized Canadian grain to American cities. Talk about a hood
ornament for foolishness, that is it.
The States in red are where we have already seen Mexican trucks
moving into this country, in violation of the law, I might add. The
administration's proposal is to on January 1 open it up completely.
The DOT Office of Inspector General mentioned 36 percent of the
Mexican trucks that were inspected were placed out of service. In fact,
it said something more than that; it said serious safety violations. I
mentioned one example of why they could not move the truck back into
Mexico. They had to park it because it had no brakes.
A 1998 estimate was that 139 inspectors were needed. That is a
conservative number. That number is based on conditions in 1998 and did
not account for changes, such as expanded hours of operation and growth
in commercial traffic.
They are 40 short of this number, but even that number, the IG says,
is short of what is needed. Currently, the only permanent inspection
facilities at the United States-Mexico border are the State facilities,
two of them in California. Excluding those two crossings, they observed
the following conditions: At 20 crossings, inspectors did not have
dedicated phone lines. I mentioned that. At 19 crossings, they had the
capability to inspect only 1 or 2 trucks.
All of us understand, we are talking about a Presidential veto. God
forbid the President should veto this bill. It does not matter to me if
he vetoes this bill. What matters to me is that we do good public
policy that ensures the safety of the American people. That is all I am
interested in.
The first and most important step we should take in the Senate, in my
judgment, is to take the House language, put it in the Senate bill, and
go to conference, and the House and Senate will have said: We will not
allow funds to be used in this fiscal year to allow Mexican trucks to
come into this country beyond the 20-mile border because it will
jeopardize the safety of American highways.
Senator Murray and Senator Shelby have put a provision in their bill,
and if the provision works as it is written, I expect it will do the
same as I propose to do with the House language.
My great fear is we have too many people in this town who will
certify to almost anything, and an administration that wants to open it
up on January 1, very likely, unless we prohibit the expenditure of
funds to do so, will find a way to open that border. In my judgment,
that will jeopardize safety on American highways.
I will conclude where I started. Some of the best evidence is
anecdotal evidence. We have some information about accidents and the
condition of Mexican trucks and the fact that there is very little done
with respect to logbooks. In fact, Mexico requires logbooks, but they
do not enforce it.
It is like when the maquiladora plants hosted American companies that
wanted to build manufacturing plants to manufacture south of the
border, and they said: Well, gosh, Mexico has very strict environmental
laws with respect to polluting the air and water. Sure they do. They
just do not enforce them. So what if they have the laws? It is totally
irrelevant. You can have all kinds of laws on the books; if you have a
blind eye to the enforcement, it is totally irrelevant.
With respect to this issue of logbooks and other things, some say:
Mexico requires logbooks. Yes, they sure do; and nobody has them, and
nobody cares.
I started with the anecdotal piece about the San Francisco Chronicle,
and I will finish with that.
It is not, I am told, out of the ordinary for long-haul trucks in
Mexico to be driven by Mexican drivers who are paid $7 a day, driving
15, 20--in this case, nearly 21--hours a day for 3- or 4-day trips.
The San Francisco Chronicle talked about the truckdriver who left
Mexico City and drove to Tijuana. He drove 3 days. That driver slept 7
hours in 3 days, making $7 a day, driving a truck that would not have
passed inspection in this country with a cracked windshield. No
logbook, no drug inspection, no mandatory safety inspection on the
vehicle.
Is that really what we want to allow to come into our country at this
point? I think not. It has nothing to do with who it is. It has
everything to do with whether it is safe.
The answer is, until the country of Mexico not only has regulations
and standards that we can count on and rely on and that are enforced,
and enforced rigorously, we ought to decide we will not let safety on
America's highways be jeopardized, and the way to do that is, in my
judgment, to pass the House prohibition on funding.
As I indicated, I am filing the amendment this morning. I am
obviously going to continue to talk to colleagues.
[[Page S8087]]
I share the same concern and interests that my two colleagues do. I
think the language they have written is good language. I just believe
in the end we will have people certifying to anything and the
administration will find a way to allow these trucks to come in on
January 1. That will be a giant step in the wrong direction for safety
on America's highways.
We ought not ever engage in trade agreements that would in any way
force us or squeeze us to compromise safety in this country. It does
not matter whether it is food safety or highway safety, nothing in
trade agreements ought to require us to diminish our standards that we
have established for people in this country. That is why I am so
concerned about this issue.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Colorado is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, after listening to my colleague from
North Dakota, I could say ditto and let it go at that because I
certainly agree with his comments. I am inclined to tell the Senator
from North Dakota, if he offers the amendment mirroring the House
language, I would probably support that.
I want to speak today in support of Chairman Murray's language in the
fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill, and I want to
speak in favor of this language for a couple of minutes.
First and foremost, the safety of every American who travels on our
streets and highways must not be compromised by vehicles that are
unsafe by American standards, despite trade relations.
All of us in the Senate make our decisions based on a personal frame
of reference, and certainly my frame of reference includes the 6 years
I drove as a professional driver while I was putting myself through
college years ago. In fact, I am still probably the only Member of the
Senate who has a commercial driver's license and, in fact, still
drives, more as an escape from the tediums of the Senate work than
anything else, but I still get out on the road pretty regularly. I
speak to drivers and spend a great deal of time at truckstops and
places where they frequent, listening to their concerns.
I know the safety requirements that each American driver must adhere
to are very complete. I am concerned that without the language provided
in this bill and report, Mexican drivers will not be subject to the
same standards. I am sure there are some very skilled and talented
Mexican drivers, and we have to be very careful to make sure we do not
do a blanket indictment on the Mexican trucking industry. My comments
are certainly not meant to do that.
The standards between the equipment and the monitoring between
drivers in the United States and Mexico, unlike the drivers of the
United States and Canada, are worlds apart. This is an enormous safety
issue, as my colleagues have already mentioned, and I do not think we
should ignore this for a minute.
Mile for mile, American truckdrivers are much safer than drivers of
automobiles. The single drivers are averaging about 5,000 miles a week
in the trucks and, if they are team drivers, probably 10,000 miles a
week. They have to be safe drivers.
Certainly those who have driven or have been around accidents
involving trucks know that many of the trucks from Mexico are not in
good repair. The average fleet of the American trucking industry, I am
told, is 3 to 6 years old. These are figures I quote from the American
Trucker's Association. The average Mexican fleet is 15 years old. When
averaging 100,000 miles a year, it does not take much math to figure
there is a huge difference in upkeep and maintenance on a truck
traveling that much more over a period of 15 years. Wear and tear on
the truck is huge.
In a truck-auto accident, obviously, the trucker will not get hurt--
80,000 pounds versus 3,000 pounds. The law of physics says whoever is
in the smaller vehicle will receive the most damage. Passenger vehicles
driving alongside a truck face serious safety hazards if the truck is
not in good repair. My concerns regard the unsafe trucks that are not
being regulated.
American truckers, to be qualified for CDL, have to pass eight
written tests, several driving tests, a physical every 2 years, and
ongoing training in the company, which is in turn federally regulated.
It is very easy to lose their license for any small infraction dealing
with alcohol, drugs, or unsafe driving. There is almost zero tolerance
allowed to remain a professional driver.
To my knowledge, Mexican drivers are not restricted to hours of
service. This has been mentioned before. The U.S. truckdrivers are
restricted. Each American truckdriver has specific regulations as to
how long he is allowed to drive, how many hours he can be at the wheel,
and he has to keep meticulous records in a logbook dealing with every
single minute he is behind that wheel. The record is checked on a
regular basis, and significant fines are levied to both the drivers and
the owners of the vehicles who violate the service regulations.
By the way, I am holding one of the books of regulations, 1,112 pages
long. There are seven of these books. This is title 49, section 171-
180, and it is one of the sections dealing with transportation. This
simply deals with transportation of hazardous materials. All American
shippers, all carriers, and all drivers have to comply with the rules.
Who in the heck will monitor compliance for the Mexican trucks? I can
read English and speak it pretty well, but one must read some of the
sections three or four times to understand the nuances of the
regulations. I defy anybody to tell me the trucks coming from Mexico
will comply with the letter of the law and the regulations as American
drivers do.
The Mexican truck drivers are under no safety regulations, no
incentive to adhere to our regulations, as I understand it. I raised
these concerns as the Senator from North Dakota did when we were
discussing the NAFTA treaty several years ago. We simply convinced very
few people there were real dangers and of the unintended consequences
of both fast track and the NAFTA agreement. Of course, it was shooed
in. We are going to visit another agreement very shortly. I hope most
of my colleagues in the Senate recognize sometimes in this pellmell
rush to increase trade we have to revisit issues because we are not at
all supportive at a later date.
The Mexico-based registered trucks are authorized to operate in a 20-
mile border, as Senator Dorgan mentioned. This was provided under the
original NAFTA agreement. They have been spotted, however, in 30
States, which I think is a clear violation of that trade agreement.
Certainly it has not been addressed. Common sense demands the matter be
addressed before we allow more uninspected trucks to enter our country.
Opponents of the Murray language point out the outstanding fine the
U.S. must pay for violating truck agreements under NAFTA. I would like
to know what the penalties have been for the Mexican trucks we have
found all over the United States. This isn't an issue of discrimination
or adherence to trade agreements, although they would like to reduce it
to such, but an issue of safety for every American who travels the
roads of America and an issue of fairness. A loaded tractor-trailer
operating at highway speed is especially dangerous if the vehicle has
worn brakes, bad steering, or any weaknesses in the integrity of the
truck. We demand very strict safety guidelines, but clearly rollover
risks are more acute when a truck is involved in an accident. A loaded
semitruck of 80,000 pounds does not stop like a family sedan, but takes
up to 10 times longer to stop.
I refer to an article in Land Line Magazine, and I ask unanimous
consent it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. This article in Land Line Magazine reports four members
of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, headed by
subcommittee chairman Thomas Petri, and the ranking member,
Representative Robert Borski, recently conducted a factfinding mission
on border inspection stations. The purpose of the mission was to view
the station and consider the possibility of opening new ones. The
members were impressed the way the inspection stations of California,
[[Page S8088]]
which have about a 25 percent out-of-service rate for the trucks from
Mexico, similar to the ones in the United States. In other words, about
one-fourth of the trucks, whether American or Mexican trucks, did not
comply with the American safety standards. When it came to Texas, the
results were vastly different because Texas doesn't have State
facilities for inspecting. Clearly, if a trucker knows he will be
stopped at one inspection system, he will go to the area of least
resistance.
I refer to a paragraph in that article, quoting Representative
Borski:
``Texas' inspection system is virtually nonexistent . . .
Trucks pour over the border there. They may be safe and may
be not.''
``Texas has no infrastructure to look at trucks,'' he
added. ``During our visit, we were shown two parking spaces
for inspecting trucks two at a time with 4,000 trucks per day
at that crossing. The out-of-service rate was staggering.
Texas Department of Public Safety Major Coy Clanton told us
if they looked at seven or eight trucks, they would take five
out of service for significant safety violations. I think the
key is that a truck that isn't inspected will be neglected. I
think that's the biggest danger.''
I hope, when asked to vote for fast track, that we recognize the
danger of simply reducing ourselves to rubber stamps for any
administration. I voted against NAFTA, as did my colleague from North
Dakota. I recognize that is the law now. We have to abide by the
agreement.
However, let me also refer to some of the comments made by Jim Hoffa,
the general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
that he provided in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on July 18:
. . . the United States is under no legal obligation to
implement the findings of the NAFTA panel. Under U.S. law,
the health, safety and welfare of the U.S. citizens is
paramount and to the extent NAFTA conflicts with any U.S. law
dealing with health, environment and motor carrier/worker
safety, U.S. law prevails. Even under the terms of NAFTA, the
U.S. is entitled to disregard the panel's recommendation, and
simply allow Mexico to take equivalent reciprocal measures or
negotiate compensation or a new grant of some trade benefits
to Mexico. Indeed, the United States has not traditionally
allowed foreign countries or international bureaucracies to
dictate its domestic policy, particularly where the health
and safety of U.S. citizens is concerned . . .
Some would say that Mr. Hoffa, as the president of the Teamsters, may
be somewhat of a protectionist. He has every right to be. By some
estimates, the United States has lost 800,000 manufacturing jobs since
NAFTA was implemented. Certainly the loss of jobs, although secondary
to the safety of our people, is important. I think the language of this
bill is vital to the health and safety of all of us. I urge my
colleagues to support the Murray provisions of this bill.
I challenge the opponents of this position to explain why we should
allow 80,000 pound accidents waiting to happen to drive the same roads
our families drive.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit No. 1
[From Land Line, July 2001]
Congress Fact-Finding Committee Visits U.S.-Mexico Border Inspection
Stations
(By Rene Tankersley]
Four members of the House Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit recently visited border inspection stations in San
Diego, CA, and Laredo, TX, as part of a fact-finding venture
to determine the safety of Mexican trucks crossing into the
United States.
Subcommitee Chairman Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), ranking
minority member Rep. Robert A. Borski (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner
(D-CA) and Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) toured the border
inspection stations May 19-20.
Land Line talked with Reps. Petri and Borski about what
they saw and how it affected their outlook on the possible
opening of the U.S.-Mexico border. Both Petri and Borski
seemed thoroughly impressed with California's state-owned
inspection station at the border between San Diego and
Tijuana, Mexico. The state-operated station inspects trucks
and truckdrivers for safety and compliance with state motor
vehicle laws.
``California's very comprehensive truck inspection program
applies to all trucks, Mexican and American,'' Petri said.
``Trucks must have an inspection sticker, which is renewed
every three months at the border station. If inspectors find
problems with the equipment, the drivers either fix the
problem there or receive an order, and sometimes a fine, to
fix the problem and be re-inspected on their next trip to the
border station.''
Borski agreed, and added that the out-of-service rate at
the California station is average. ``California's inspection
station has about a 25 percent out-of-service rate for trucks
from Mexico, which is similar to the rate for U.S. trucks,''
Borski said.
The party of four also visited the federal border
inspection station in San Diego. Here federal inspectors
examine trucks for contraband, both illegal aliens and drugs,
using their new laser x-ray machines x-ray the entire truck.
The federal government has about 15 contraband stations in
Laredo due to the larger volume of goods coming through this
border by truck and rail. The congressional party visited
Laredo's newest facility, which inspects and x-rays boxcars
and trailer piggyback units.
With the overwhelming workload at the U.S. Customs
contraband stations, Borski is concerned with how opening the
border will affect the officials there. ``Government
officials working down there are overwhelmed already,''
Borski said.
Texas does not have a state facility at the border crossing
to inspect trucks for compliance with Texas motor carrier
laws.
``Texas' inspection system is virtually nonexistent,''
Borski said. ``Trucks pour over the border there. They may be
safe and may be not.''
``Texas has no infrastructure to look at trucks,'' he
added. ``During our visit, we were shown two parking spaces
for inspecting trucks two at a time with 4,000 trucks per day
at that crossing. The out-of-service rate was staggering.
Texas Department of Public Safety Major Coy Clanton told us
if they looked at seven or eight trucks, they would take five
out of service for significant safety violations. I think the
key is that a truck that isn't inspected will be neglected. I
think that's the biggest danger.''
Petri believes the Bush administration has planned for the
needed improvements to the truck inspection system.
``President Bush in his budget provided for $100 million to
improve inspections at the U.S.-Mexico border,'' Petri said.
``We think they're in the process of replicating California's
inspection station in Texas. It will be like anything else.
If people know, the word goes out loud and clear that they
are going to be inspected, or going to be fined or sent back,
they'll get their equipment up to standard very quickly.''
Borski agreed the California system should be replicated,
but is concerned with the length of time it would take to
build such a facility.
``They should set up a system like California's facility,
or we shouldn't open the border,'' Borski said. ``It will
take at least 18 months to build an inspection station.''
``In California the border is narrow, but in Texas there's
maybe 15 crossings with virtually no inspection,'' Borski
explained. ``I don't think the border should be open in Texas
any farther than that 20-mile radius until we get a better
inspection system.''
Borski and 30 other representatives are co-sponsoring a
resolution to urge the president not to open the border until
safety inspection concerns are adequately addressed. ``You
can be for NAFTA and still insist on trucks being
inspected,'' Borski said. ``It's a safety question, not a
trade question.''
Two bills would bar Mexican trucks until they are safe
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is
supporting legislation currently moving through both the U.S.
Senate and House targeting truck safety under NAFTA.
House Resolution 152, introduced May 24 by U.S. Rep. James
Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Jack Quinn (R-NY), would delay
granting Mexican trucks authority to operate in the U.S.
under NAFTA until a prescribed comprehensive plan to ensure
their safety is in place. Thirty-one additional lawmakers are
listed as original cosponsors of the Oberstar resolution.
Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) bill, introduced May 25, would
halt cross-border operations until the Mexican trucks can
meet safety standards. SB965 is cosponsored by Sen. Harry
Reid (D-NV).
``Only about 1 percent of Mexican trucks entering the
United States are inspected by the United States at the
border, but 36 percent of those that are inspected are turned
back for serious safety violations,'' Sen. Dorgan says.
``Mexico does not have the same safety standards we have in
the United States, ``he said as he introduced the bill.
``There are no minimum safety standards for trucks or
equipment, no limit on the hours a driver can stay on the
road, no drug testing. These trucks will put people on
America's highways at serious risk. The American people don't
want to drive down the highway and find they are alongside a
severely overloaded truck with someone in the driver seat who
may have been on the road for 20 hours or more.''
Dorgan said ample evidence from California, Nevada and
other states documents a significant number of Mexican trucks
are regularly turned back at the U.S. Mexico border for
serious safety violations, even under the current rules.
``Every day, every hour, these unsafe trucks are coming
across our border, and that will only increase if the
Administration plans are allowed to go forward,'' he said.
Even the Department of Transportation acknowledges its
enforcement program, which is seriously under-staffed, cannot
assure the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United
States.
``The serious shortcomings of trucks from Mexico is a
problem that too many lawmakers are ingnoring.'' said OOIDA
President Jim Johnston. ``There is a great deal of
[[Page S8089]]
opposition and concern among many people across the country
for the current plan to open the border at the end of this
year without appropriate safety measures in place.''
OOIDA maintains that, while the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration has proposed several rules it claims
will allow verification of Mexican carrier compliance with
U.S. safety rules, the proposals only touch upon a fraction
of the issues raised by the opening of the border. OOIDA
points out other issues that will demand increased government
supervision will be in the areas of Customs and Immigration,
and compliance with all federal and state licensing,
registration, permitting, environmental and user fee and tax
requirements as every U.S. truck is required to do. Also left
unanswered is how to process a Mexican truck or driver in
violation of NAFTA trade rules or our safety standards.
``American truckdrivers must comply with enormous numbers
of safety rules and regulations to operate legally on our
highways,'' OOIDA's Johnston says. ``These include a
stringent physical examination and drug and alcohol testing
of drivers, truck weight limits, and hours-of-service rules.
Mexico does not impose the same rules on their trucks and
drivers. It makes no sense, is reckless, and is completely
unfair to create exceptions to these rules for Mexican
carriers. That's what we will be effectively doing if we open
the border before Mexico imposes equivalent rules and we are
prepared to ensure their carrier's compliance with them.''
Official NAFTA plan nearing completion: Democratic Senators ask Bush to
hold off on Mexican trucks
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration says the
official North American Free Trade Agreement implementation
plan is now nearing completion. FMCSA spokesman David Longo
expects it to be available in mid-June. Meanwhile, more
Washington lawmakers are voicing concerns about cross-border
trucking. Fearing a compromise of safe roads, 10 Democratic
senators have made the latest news, asking that the plan to
allow Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways be
reconsidered.
In a letter sent June 11, the senators assured the
president they are supporters of NAFTA, but said that
granting access to U.S. roads could ``seriously jeopardize
highway safety, road conditions and environmental quality.
A NAFTA arbitration panel ruled in February that the United
States was violating the treaty by not opening the border per
provisions of the treaty, and the Bush administration
launched a plan to comply. The Bush administration and
transportation officials currently are establishing rules for
cross-border trucking and want them finished in time to let
the trucks operate in the United States before the end of the
year. The public has until July 2 to comment on the proposal
that would require all Mexican trucks to apply for permission
to operate in the United States. A safety audit would be
conducted within 18 months, but the senators are concerned
about the interim.
The letter was signed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Max
Baucus (D-MT), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Evan
Bayh (D-IN), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Richard Durbin (D-
IL).
Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murray
amendment that is pending, as well as the underlying bill. I think
Senator Murray deserves to be commended because she has taken on what
is a huge safety issue for the people of our country, and she has done
it in a way that has been open and transparent and she has listened.
I think with the additional amendment that she has at the desk right
now--which really, in a sense, adopts a procedure we are using in
California to inspect trucks to give them a decal so we know they are
safe--adds immeasurably to her language that is already in the
underlying bill.
I think the subject of NAFTA trucks is a very big issue because it
isn't a theoretical issue anymore. It is a question of whether these
trucks are safe. The Commerce Committee just held a hearing on the
coming of the NAFTA trucks through the Mexican border.
I am a member of the Commerce Committee, and I will tell you right
now, from a lot of hearings, I am relieved that the problem I am
looking at is actually not as bad as I thought. In this case, I was far
from relieved. It is much more worrisome, after having heard the
testimony of Cabinet Secretary Mineta and the inspector general of the
Department of Transportation.
The issue of the safety of what I call the NAFTA trucks is not about
free trade, nor is it about protectionism.
I know that Senator Murray, who is shepherding this bill through and
who is now presiding over the Chamber, is a tremendous advocate of free
trade. I think back. I can't truly think of a time when she didn't come
down on that side. She is taking the leadership on the safety question.
That is really what it is. That is the bottom line.
Why should the Senator from California be concerned about this border
truck issue? Clearly, my State has about 23 percent of all the NAFTA
truck traffic. If it turns out that the trucks coming in are not safe,
it is going to have a devastating effect on the people of California.
That is something that is of great concern to me.
In 1999, there were 4.5 million commercial motor vehicles crossing at
the California-Mexico border. It is estimated that most of these
crosses were made by 80,000 trucks. The opening of the border is
expected to increase the number of NAFTA trucks. For example, we have
190 applications awaiting full access to our highways at the DOT.
Unless our safety standards are improved and--this is really the big
word--``enforced,'' the result will be that Californians, whether
driving to work, or a soccer mom driving her kids, or whoever happens
to be in that motor vehicle, will be next to a truck that may not meet
our standards or that may have a driver who is exhausted. I will
explain why that is apt to be the case.
If I went along with the Bush administration, I would be putting
those people at risk.
There is nothing more sacred to an elected official than protecting
the health and safety of the people he or she represents.
This issue is very important to me. I want to show you a chart, which
I will summarize. It will be very hard for the Presiding Officer to
identify it from there. I will explain why the issue of NAFTA trucks is
so important.
When former Congressman Mineta, now Secretary Mineta, was before the
Commerce Committee, he said: Don't worry, Senator. We are going to
enforce our own laws on the Mexican trucks and on the NAFTA trucks as
they come through.
Then the logical question is, How many of these trucks have been
inspected to date by the Federal Government? The answer is 2 percent of
all the trucks that are coming in are being inspected.
Then you say: All right. In those inspections, how many of those
trucks are passing the safety inspections?
The answer is 23 percent.
Let me go through that again.
The DOT is only inspecting 2 percent of the NAFTA trucks that are
coming in across the Mexican border. Out of that, 23 percent failed
inspection. It could be assumed that is the average that failed the
inspection. Imagine how many trucks we would catch if we inspected 100
percent. How many people are in danger because we are not inspecting
100 percent? Therefore, those trucks are on the road.
Secretary Mineta says: Don't worry, be happy. We are going to put the
American law into place on these inspections. Yet we don't have the
inspectors. Oh, they will have them by January, they say.
I don't believe it. It isn't going to happen. As a matter of fact, I
asked: What would happen if California then said in January we are
tired of spending millions of dollars on our own inspections, and we
are going to allow the Federal Government to inspect?
The inspector general said: We would be in big trouble.
Talk about an unfunded mandate, I think California is spending $30
million or $35 million on an inspection regime that is so good, by the
way, that Senator Murray takes the decal plan. That is the amendment
that is pending. But even with that, how many are we inspecting in
California? Also, about 2 percent. We are only inspecting 2 percent of
the trucks in California. Everyone says California is doing the best.
It is a harrowing issue for all of us. Those trucks are going to wind
up all over the country--in Illinois and on the east coast. They are
already showing up there, by the way. They are breaking the law. They
are only supposed to go 20 miles from the border. But they
[[Page S8090]]
are breaking through, and they are showing up.
How about this for one question--it was actually Senator Allen who
asked the question of the inspector general: Why don't we just have
those trucks turn around and go back to Mexico when they don't pass the
inspection?
Do you know what the inspector general said? Because they have no
brakes. They have no brakes.
Let me tell you why we have a problem. We have not checked these
trucks as they come in. We are inspecting 2 percent. We can't get ready
to inspect all the trucks by January 1.
Now I have a better chart to show you. It is the same thing but a
little bit bigger. This is much better.
Here is our problem. In the United States, a truckdriver is allowed
to drive up to 10 consecutive hours, work up to 15 consecutive hours
with a mandatory 8 hours of rest, and cannot drive more than 70 hours
during each 8-day period.
Some people think that schedule is too harsh. There are issues in our
own country about driving up to 10 hours consecutively, working up to
15 consecutive hours with the mandatory 8 hours of rest, and not
driving more than 70 hours during each 8-day period. There are some in
our country, including a lot of the safety experts, who say that we are
too weak; that our drivers are too tired; and that there are too many
accidents. Yet we are about to allow Mexican trucks in because we can't
enforce any of this at the border when they have none of these
restrictions.
Let me repeat. There are no restrictions on Mexican drivers in terms
of how many hours they have to work and on how many consecutive hours.
There is no requirement of rest and no restrictions.
If you are only inspecting 2 percent of the trucks at the border, you
apply this, and you find someone who has been driving, say, for 20
hours straight, there is really nothing you can do if that individual
just gets right through the border.
We have random drug tests for our drivers. In Mexico, they do not
have random drug tests.
Medical conditions and qualifications: Absolutely, in the United
States, if you have certain medical conditions, you cannot get your
license. In Mexico, there are no such qualifications.
The driving age for interstate driving in America is 21. In Mexico,
it is 18.
You are going to have an 18-year-old driving big-rig trucks and not
getting any rest, who was never subjected to a random drug test, who
might have a medical condition, and who is never disqualified. And
Secretary Mineta says: Don't worry, be happy; We will catch them at the
border. But we do not because we do not have enough inspectors. That is
why Senator Murray's language in the bill is so important because she
is going to say: Look, we are not putting an arbitrary date on you, but
you are not going to do this. You are not going to have this situation
until you are ready to inspect all of these vehicles.
Let's look at the next chart.
Let's compare truck safety regulations. In the United States, there
are comprehensive standards for components such as antilock brakes,
underride guards, night visibility, and front brakes.
In Mexico, it is not as strong a test; there are less vigorous tests.
For example, front brakes are not required. The maximum weight for a
truck in the United States is 80,000 pounds; in Mexico it is 135,000
pounds.
For any of you who know the issue of what happens when these heavy
trucks are on our roads in terms of what happens to our roads, we even
have troubles today because people are saying our trucks are too heavy.
In Mexico, it is a 135,000-pound limit.
Hazardous material rules: In America: strict standards, training,
licensure, and an inspection regime. In Mexico it is very lax; there
are fewer identified chemicals and substances and fewer licensure
requirements.
Roadside inspections--you see those stops where trucks have to pull
to the side and get inspected--we have them in the United States. They
do not have them in Mexico.
Why is it important we show these differences? Because people say: We
do not have problems with Canada. The thing is, in Canada they have
regulations like ours. So inspecting all those trucks is not the same
problem. When you have free trade between countries that have different
rules and regulations as to the safety of the trucks, the safety of the
drivers, it is a different situation.
So the reason we have shown all this to you--and I will again show
you the first chart--is because we have drivers coming in our country
in these NAFTA trucks who may be driving--how many hours consecutively
in one case?--up to 20 hours without a rest. They were not subjected to
a random drug test in their country. They slip through the border
because we are only inspecting 2 percent of the vehicles. And they
could have a medical problem from which, if they had it in this
country, they would have been disqualified. They could be 18 years old.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 4, 2001]
Mexico's Trucks on Horizon: Long-Distance Haulers Are Headed Into U.S.
Once Bush Opens Borders
[By Robert Collier]
Altar Desert, Mexico.--Editor's Note: This week, the Bush
administration is required by NAFTA to announce that Mexican
long-haul trucks will be allowed onto U.S. highways--where
they have long been banned over concerns about safety--rather
than stopping at the border. The Chronicle sent a team to get
the inside story before the trucks start to roll.
It was sometime way after midnight in the middle of
nowhere, and a giddy Manuel Marquez was at the wheel of 20
tons of hurtling, U.S.-bound merchandise.
The lights of oncoming trucks flared into a blur as they
whooshed past on the narrow, two-lane highway, mere inches
from the left mirror of his truck. Also gone in a blur were
Marquez's past two days, a nearly Olympic ordeal of driving
with barely a few hours of sleep.
``Ayy, Mexico!'' Marquez exclaimed as he slammed on the
brakes around a hilly curve, steering around another truck
that had stopped in the middle of the lane, its hood up and
its driver nonchalantly smoking a cigarette. ``We have so
much talent to share with the Americans--and so much
craziness.''
Several hours ahead in the desert darkness was the border,
the end of Marzquez's 1,800-mile run. At Tijuana, he would
deliver his cargo, wait for another load, then head back
south.
But soon, Marquez and other Mexican truckers will be able
to cross the border instead of turning around. Their feats of
long-distance stamina--and, critics fear, endangerment of
public safety--are coming to a California freeway near
you.
Later this week, the Bush administration is expected to
announce that it will open America's highways to Mexican
long-haul trucks, thus ending a long fight by U.S. truckers
and highway safety advocates to keep them out.
Under limitations imposed by the United States since 1982,
Mexican vehicles are allowed passage only within a narrow
border commercial zone, where they must transfer their cargo
to U.S.-based long-haul trucks and drivers.
The lifting of the ban--ordered last month by an
arbitration panel of the North American Free Trade
Agreement--has been at the center of one of the most high-
decibel issues in the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship.
Will the end of the ban endanger American motorists by
bringing thousands of potentially unsafe Mexican trucks to
U.S. roads? Or will it reduce the costs of cross-border trade
and end U.S. protectionism with no increase in accidents?
Two weeks ago, as the controversy grew, Marquez's employer,
Transportes Castores, allowed a Chronicle reporter and
photographer to join him on a typical run from Mexico City to
the border.
The three-day, 1,800-mile journey offered a window into a
part of Mexico that few Americans ever see--the life of
Mexican truckers, a resourceful, long-suffering breed who,
from all indications, do not deserve their pariah status
north of the border.
But critics of the border opening would also find proof of
their concerns about safety:
--American inspectors at the border are badly undermanned
and will be hard-pressed to inspect more than a fraction of
the incoming Mexican trucks.
California--which has a much more rigorous truck inspection
program than Arizona, New Mexico or Texas, the other border
states--gave full inspections to only 2 percent of the
920,000 short-haul trucks allowed to enter from Mexico last
year.
Critics say the four states will be overwhelmed by the
influx of Mexican long-haul trucks, which are expected to
nearly double the current volume of truck traffic at the
border.
--Most long-distance Mexican trucks are relatively modern,
but maintenance is erratic.
[[Page S8091]]
Marquez's truck, for example, was a sleek, 6-month-old,
Mexican-made Kenworth, equal to most trucks north of the
border. But his windshield was cracked--a safety violation
that would earn him a ticket in the United States but had
been ignored by his company since it occurred two months ago.
A recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department said
35 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States
last year were ordered off the road by inspectors for safety
violations such as faulty brakes and lights.
--Mexico's domestic truck-safety regulation is extremely
lax. Mexico has no functioning truck weigh stations, and
Marquez said federal police appear to have abandoned a
program of random highway inspections that was inaugurated
with much fanfare last fall.
--Almost all Mexican long-haul drivers are forced to work
dangerously long hours.
Marquez was a skillful driver, with lightning reflexes
honed by road conditions that would make U.S. highways seem
like cruise-control paradise. But he was often steering
through a thick fog of exhaustion.
In Mexico, no logbooks--required in the United States to
keep track of hours and itinerary--are kept. Marquez slept a
total of only seven hours during his three-day trip.
``We're just like American trucks, I'm sure,'' Marquez said
with a grin. ``We're neither saints nor devils. But we're
good drivers, that's for sure, or we'd all be dead.''
Although no reliable statistics exist for the Bay Area's
trade with Mexico, it is estimated that the region's exports
and imports with Mexico total $6 billion annually. About 90
percent of that amount moves by truck, in ten of thousands of
round trips to and from the border.
Under the decades-old border restrictions, long-haul trucks
from either side must transfer their loads to short-haul
``drayage'' truckers, who cross the border and transfer the
cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks. The complicated
arrangement is costly and time-consuming, making imported
goods more expensive for U.S. consumers.
Industry analysts say that after the ban is lifted, most of
the two nations' trade will be done by Mexican drivers, who
come much cheaper than American truckers because they earn
only about one-third the salary and typically drive about 20
hours per day.
Although Mexican truckers would have to obey the U.S. legal
limit of 10 hours consecutive driving when in the United
States, safety experts worry that northbound drivers will be
so sleep-deprived by the time they cross the border that the
American limit will be meaningless. Mexican drivers would
not, however, be bound by U.S. labor laws, such as the
minimum wage.
``Are you going to be able to stay awake?'' Marcos Munoz,
vice president of Transportes Castores jokingly asked a
Chronicle reporter before the trip. ``Do you want some
pingas?''
The word is slang for uppers, the stimulant pills that are
commonly used by Mexican truckers. Marquez, however, needed
only a few cups of coffee to stay awake through three
straight 21-hour days at the wheel.
Talking with his passengers, chatting on the CB radio with
friends, and listening to tapes of 1950s and 1960s ranchera
and bolero music, he showed few outward signs of fatigue.
But the 46-year-old Marquez, who has been a trucker for 25
years, admitted that the burden occasionlly is too much.
``Don't kid yourself,'' he said late the third night.
``Sometimes, you get so tired, so worn, your head just
falls.''
U.S. highway safety groups predict an increase in accidents
after the border is opened.
``Even now, there aren't enough safety inspectors available
for all crossing points,'' said David Golden, a top official
of the National Association of Independent Insurers, the
main insurance-industry lobby.
``So we need to make sure that when you're going down
Interstate 5 with an 80,000-pound Mexican truck in your
rearview mirror and you have to jam on your brakes, that
truck doesn't come through your window.''
Golden said the Bush administration should delay the
opening to Mexican trucks until border facilities are
upgraded.
California highway safety advocates concur, saying the
California Highway Patrol--which carries out the state's
truck inspections--needs to be given more inspectors and
larger facilities to check incoming trucks' brakes, lights
and other safety functions.
Marquez's trip started at his company's freight yard in
Tlalnepantla, an industrial suburb of Mexico City. There, his
truck was loaded with a typical variety of cargo--electronic
components and handicrafts bound for Los Angeles, and
chemicals, printing equipment and industrial parts for
Tijuana.
At the compound's gateway was a shrine with statues of the
Virgin Mary and Jesus. As he drove past, Marquez crossed
himself, then crossed himself again before the small Virgin
on his dashboard.
``Just in case, you know,'' he said. ``The devil is always
on the loose on these roads.''
In fact, Mexican truckers have to brave a wise variety of
dangers.
As he drove through the high plateaus of central Mexico,
Marquez pointed out where he was hijacked a year ago--held up
at gunpoint by robbers who pulled alongside him in another
truck. His trailer full of canned tuna--easy to fence, he
said--was stolen, along with all his personal belongings.
What's worse, some thieves wear uniforms.
On this trip, the truck had to pass 14 roadblocks, at which
police and army soldiers searched the cargo for narcotics.
Each time, Marquez stood on tiptoes to watch over their
shoulders. He said, ``You have to have quick eyes, or they'll
take things out of the packages.''
Twice, police inspectors asked for bribes--``something for
the coffee,'' they said. Each time, he refused and got away
with it.
``You're good luck for me,'' he told a Chronicle reporter.
``They ask for money but then see an American and back off.
Normally, I have to pay a lot.''
Although the Mexican government has pushed hard to end the
border restrictions, the Mexican trucking industry is far
from united behind that position. Large trucking companies
such as Transportes Castores back the border opening, while
small and medium-size ones oppose it.
``We're ready for the United States, and we'll be driving
to Los Angeles and San Francisco,'' said Munoz, the company's
vice president.
``Our trucks are modern and can pass the U.S. inspections.
Only about 10 companies here could meet the U.S. standards.''
The border opening has been roundly opposed by CANACAR, the
Mexican national trucking industry association, which says it
will result in U.S. firms taking over Mexico's trucking
industry.
``The opening will allow giant U.S. truck firms to buy
large Mexican firms and crush smaller ones,'' said Miguel
Quintanilla, CANACAR's president. ``We're at a disadvantage,
and those who benefit will be the multinationals.''
Quintanilla said U.S. firms will lower their current costs
by replacing their American drivers with Mexicans, yet will
use the huge American advantages--superior warehouse and
inventory-tracking technology, superior access to financing
and huge economies of scale--to drive Mexican companies out
of business.
Already, some U.S. trucking giants such as M.S. Carriers,
Yellow Corp. and Consolidated Freightways Corp. have invested
heavily in Mexico.
``The opening of the border will bring about the
consolidation of much of the trucking industry on both sides
of the border,'' said the leading U.S. academic expert on
NAFTA trucking issues, James Giermanski, a professor at
Belmont Abbey College in Raleigh, N.C.
The largest U.S. firms will pair with large Mexican firms
and will dominate U.S.-Mexico traffic, he said.
But Giermanski added that the increase in long-haul cross-
border traffic will be slower than either critics or
advocates expect, because of language difficulties, Mexico's
inadequate insurance coverage and Mexico's time-consuming
system of customs brokers.
``All the scare stories you've heard are just ridiculous,''
he said. ``The process will take a long time.''
In California, many truckers fear for their jobs. However,
Teamsters union officials say they are trying to persuade
their members that Marquez and his comrades are not the
enemy.
``There will be a very vehement reaction by our members if
the border is opened,'' said Chuck Mack, president of
Teamsters Joint Council 7, which has 55,000 members in the
Bay Area.
``But we're trying to diminish the animosity that by
focusing on the overall problem--how (the opening) will help
multinational corporations to exploit drivers on both sides
of the border.''
Mexican drivers, however, are likely to welcome the
multinationals' increased efficiency, which will enable them
to earn more by wasting less time waiting for loading and
paperwork.
For example, in Mexico City, Marquez had to wait more than
four hours for stevedores to load his truck and for clerks to
prepare the load's documents--a task that would take perhaps
an hour for most U.S. trucking firms.
For drivers, time is money. Marquez's firm pays drivers a
percentage of gross freight charges, minus some expenses. His
three-day trip would net him about $300. His average monthly
income is about $1,400--decent money in Mexico, but by no
means middle class.
Most Mexican truckers are represented by a union, but it is
nearly always ineffectual--what Transportes Castores
executives candidly described as a ``company union.'' A few
days before this trip, Transportes Castores fired 20 drivers
when they protested delays in reimbursement of fuel costs.
But Marquez didn't much like talking about his problems. He
preferred to discuss his only child, a 22-year-old daughter
who is in her first year of undergraduate medical school in
Mexico City.
Along with paternal pride was sadness.
``Don't congratulate me,'' he said. ``My wife is the one
who raised her. I'm gone most of the time. You have to have a
very strong marriage, because this job is hell on a wife.
``The money is OK, and I really like being out on the open
road, but the loneliness . . .'' He left the thought
unfinished, and turned up the volume on his cassette deck.
It was playing Pedro Infante, the famous bolero balladeer,
and Marquez began to sing.
``The moon of my nights has hidden itself.
``On little heavenly virgin, I am your son.
``Give me your consolation,
``Today, when I'm suffering out in the world.''
Despite the melancholy tone, Marquez soon became jovial and
energetic. He smiled
[[Page S8092]]
widely and encouraged his passengers to sing along. Forgoing
his normal caution, he accelerated aggressively on the
curves.
His voice rose, filling the cabin, drowning out the hiss of
the pavement below and the rush of the wind that was blowing
him inexorably toward the border.
How NAFTA Ended the Ban On Mexico's Trucks
The North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into
effect in January 1994, stipulated that the longtime U.S.
restrictions on Mexican trucks be lifted.
Under NAFTA, by December 1995, Mexican trucks would be
allowed to deliver loads all over the four U.S. border
states--California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas--and to
pick up loads for their return trip to Mexico. U.S. trucking
firms would get similar rights to travel in Mexico. And by
January 2000, Mexican trucks would be allowed throughout
the United States.
However, bowing to pressure from the Teamsters union and
the insurance industry, President Clinton blocked
implementation of the NAFTA provisions. The Mexican
government retaliated by imposing a similar ban on U.S.
trucks.
As a result, the longtime status quo continues: Trucks from
either side must transfer their loads to short-haul
``drayage'' truckers, who cross the border and transfer the
cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks.
The complicated arrangement is time-consuming and
expensive. Mexico estimates its losses at $2 billion
annually; U.S. shippers say they have incurred similar costs.
In 1998, Mexico filed a formal complaint under NAFTA,
saying the U.S. ban violated the trade pact and was mere
protectionism. The convoluted complaint process lasted nearly
six years, until a three-person arbitration panel finally
ruled Feb. 6 that the United States must lift its ban by
March 8 or allow Mexico to levy punitive tariffs on U.S.
exports.
COMPARING TRUCKING REGULATIONS
The planned border opening to Mexican trucks will pose a
big challenge to U.S. inspectors, who will check to be sure
that trucks from Mexico abide by stricter U.S. truck-safety
regulations. Here are some of the differences:
Hours-of-service limits for drivers
In U.S.: Yes. Ten hours' consecutive driving, up to 15
consecutive hours on duty, 8 hours' consecutive rest, maximum
of 70 hours' driving in eight-day period.
In Mexico: No.
Driver's age
In U.S.: 21 is minimum for interstate trucking.
In Mexico: 18.
Random drug test
In U.S.: Yes, for all drivers.
In Mexico: No.
Automatic disqualification for certain medical conditions
In U.S.: Yes.
In Mexico: No.
Logbooks
In U.S.: Yes. Standaridized logbooks with date graphs are
required and part of inspection criteria.
In Mexico: a new law requiring logbooks is not enforced,
and virtually no truckers use them.
Maximum weight limit (in pounds)
In U.S.: 80,000.
In Mexico: 135,000.
Roadside inspections
In U.S.: Yes.
In Mexico: An inspection program began last year but has
been discontinued.
Out-of-service rules for safety deficiencies
In U.S.: Yes.
In Mexico: Not currently. Program to be phased in over two
years.
Hazardous materials regulations
In U.S.: A strict standards, training, licensure and
inspection regime.
In Mexico: Much laxer program with far fewer identified
chemicals and substances, and fewer licensure requirements.
Vehicle safety standards
In U.S.: Comprehensive standards for components such as
antilock brakes, underride guards, night visibility of
vehicle.
In Mexico: Newly enacted standards for vehicle inspections
are voluntary for the first year and less rigorous than U.S.
rules.
(Mr. DURBIN assumed the chair.)
Mrs. BOXER. It goes through the story of a driver who came across the
border and who was completely exhausted. The article says:
It was sometime way after midnight in the middle of
nowhere, and a giddy [truck driver] was at the wheel of 20
tons of hurtling, U.S.-bound merchandise.
The lights of oncoming trucks flared into a blur as they
whooshed past on the narrow, two-lane highway, mere inches
from the left mirror of his truck. Also gone in a blur were
[the driver's] past two days, a nearly Olympic ordeal of
driving with barely a few hours of sleep.
It is a harrowing story. The title of it is ``Mexico's Trucks on
Horizon, Long-distance haulers are headed into U.S. once Bush opens
borders.''
What the Murray language does in this bill is make sure, before this
driver gets through the checkpoint, we can test him, we can talk to
him, and we can tell him to get a rest. We can inspect his truck and
see whether it meets the standards. That is why it is so important.
Quoting from the article:
A recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department said
35 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States
last year were ordered off the road. . . .
I was told 25 percent, but it looks like it is 35 percent of the
trucks were ordered off the road.
Now remember, we are only inspecting a couple percent, but out of
that 35 percent were ordered off the road.
In Mexico, no logbooks are required. They are required in the United
States. The driver has to keep track of his hours and itinerary.
It says this driver slept a total of 7 hours during his 3-day trip.
I know that young people have good instincts, but I would say, if
somebody sleeps for 7 hours on a 3-day trip, I do not want them driving
next to a family in Washington State or Illinois or California or
anywhere on our highways. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
The Murray amendment is very important--the one pending--and the
underlying language in the bill to make sure there is not a premature
rush to say open the borders, everyone is coming in, until we have done
certain important things. And those things are outlined in the Murray
bill. I am going to go through what they are.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration must perform a full
safety compliance review of the Mexican truck company, and it must give
the Mexican truck company a satisfactory rating. And now with the added
decal, we know those trucks will be inspected every 90 days. Federal
and State inspectors must verify electronically the status and validity
of the license of each driver of a Mexican truck crossing the border.
It goes on.
We are going to make sure, before we open up this border completely--
and right now what we are doing is we are allowing those trucks to
drive just 20 miles from the border--before we open them up completely,
they will be safe.
They talk about, in this article, the fact that these drivers are
taking stimulant pills. In this particular case, the driver said he did
not do that; he just needed a few cups of coffee to stay awake.
Actually, before this reporter went on this long-haul trip with the
driver--
[The] vice president of Transportes Castores jokingly asked
a Chronicle reporter . . . ``Do you want some pingas?''
``Pingas'' is slang for ``uppers.'' So they did not even hide the
fact that their drivers are using these pills.
Then the driver is quoted--this is really an incredible story; that
is why I put it in the Record--as saying: ``Don't kid yourself.'' He
said this late on the third night. ``Sometimes you get so tired, so
worn, your head just falls.'' ``Your head just falls.''
So here the driver is coming in because of a free trade agreement,
and the President of the United States, George Bush, has said he is
picking a January 1 start date for them to have complete access to our
highways. And if it was not for the Murray language, I will tell you, I
think I would--there is an expression of throwing yourself in front of
a truck--I would not go that far, but I would certainly use every
legislative tool I had to stop that from happening because we know how
dangerous it is.
The driver says--he has a religious statue in his truck-- ``Just in
case, you know. The devil is always on the loose on these roads.''
They talk about the wide variety of dangers that these drivers face.
So I would just have to say, in conclusion, that we have a very
important set of standards that we have developed in our country for
both drivers and for the trucks they drive. Therefore, when we allow a
whole other set of trucks and a whole other set of drivers into our
Nation, where, in that country, they have nowhere near our standards
for the drivers and the trucks, we have to make sure that we can, in
fact, check those trucks and check those drivers to make sure that we
are not putting our citizens at risk.
People who are for 100-percent free trade always say: Cheap goods,
cheap goods for our people. And in many cases, it is true. But I will
tell you, if you start losing a life on the road, and
[[Page S8093]]
more lives than 1 or 2 or 10 or 100 or 1,000, it does not matter if you
have a cheap T-shirt or a cheap appliance, or anything, if you cannot
live long enough to enjoy it.
So to those free trade advocates who absolutely come to this
Chamber--and there is nothing they will see that will take them off
their blind path of free trade--let me just simply say to them: You
better imagine what could happen if we have a series of accidents where
trucks do not have brakes, where drivers are exhausted and they are
falling asleep at the wheel, where the trucks weigh 135,000 pounds,
swaying on our freeways. This is crazy. In the name of free trade and
George Bush's decision that January 1 is the magic date--not on my
watch, Mr. President. Twenty-three percent of those trucks come into
California. Not on my watch.
Now, the House took more drastic action-- I would go so far as to
support that--which simply says we are cutting off the money until we
believe we are ready for this influx of trucks. Good for them over
there. They are right. This is that dangerous. Once we have our regime
in place, once we have these trucks inspected, once these drivers live
by our rules, once we have enough enforcement, once we are ginned up at
the border to do this right, I will be the first one here saying: good
work, let's go.
But my colleagues ought to listen to the IG and his comments about
how ill-prepared we are as of this date to accept this kind of influx.
So until we can guarantee the safety of these trucks and the
condition of these drivers, until we can make those promises to our
people, then I say that free access beyond that 20-mile border should
not be granted. And until the Murray language is really carried out, I
am going to do everything I can to make sure we do not allow in these
kinds of truckdrivers who can barely keep their heads up. I am
optimistic that our friends in Mexico will eventually adopt more
rigorous standards. I am confident we will eventually be able to have
drivers who are, in fact, not exhausted and not popping pills trying to
keep awake. Eventually, it will happen. It will be good.
I am happy to yield to my friend if he has a question.
(Mr. EDWARDS assumed the chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I followed the Senator's statement. I am
glad she made this a part of the Record. I hope she believes, as I do,
that the chair of this important Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Murray, has included very valuable language in this legislation which
will establish some standards once and for all in terms of Mexican
trucks coming across the border into the United States.
I would like to ask the Senator from California the following
question. Recently, the Ambassador of Mexico came to my office and we
talked about the truck issue. I said to him: Will your country, Mexico,
agree that whatever trucks you send across the borders and whatever
truckdrivers you send across the borders, they will meet the same
standards of safety and competence as American trucks and American
drivers? He said: Yes, we will agree to that standard.
I ask the Senator from California, based on the experience in
California, whether that has happened, whether or not she has found in
the inspection that the drivers and the trucks meet the standard of
competency and safety that we require of American trucks and American
truckdrivers.
Mrs. BOXER. Unfortunately, I say to my friend, it has been a
disaster. Although we have inspected approximately 2 percent of the
trucks coming across, out of those, 35 percent have failed. They have
failed the inspection, which means that either the driver doesn't meet
our standards--he may be 18 years old or may have a medical condition--
or the truck itself fails--maybe it is 135,000 pounds or more than the
80,000 pounds.
Prior to my friend walking in, I said I strongly support what Senator
Murray is doing. I would even go further. I am glad her amendment takes
us further. I commend her for what she has done. In terms of what the
gentlemen told you in your office, if they have made that change, it is
not a fact in evidence up until this point.
Mr. DURBIN. I also ask the Senator from California this, if she will
further yield for a question. What the Senator is seeking, as I
understand it, is at least the enforcement that Senator Murray has
included in this Transportation appropriation bill, which includes, if
I am not mistaken--and I stand to be corrected if I am--that we would
in fact go into Mexico to the trucking firms, see these trucking firms,
inspect their trucks in Mexico, understand the standards they are using
for hiring drivers and the like; secondly, that all of the trucks
coming in from Mexico would be subject to inspection in the United
States.
It is my understanding, from Senator Murray's bill, that of the 27
points of entry in the United States, there are only 2 currently
inspecting trucks on a 24-hour basis--2 out of 27. So we have a system
where, frankly, many thousands of trucks come in from Mexico without
the most basic inspection in terms of safety.
I ask the Senator from California if she believes this would move us
toward our goal of having safer trucks and truckdrivers coming in from
Mexico.
Mrs. BOXER. There is no question. Under the Murray language, she is
very clear to state that the Federal Motor Carrier Administration must
perform a full safety compliance review of the Mexican truck company,
and it must give the Mexican truck company a satisfactory rating before
granting conditional or permanent authority outside the commercial
zone--meaning that 20-mile zone--and the review must take place onsite
at the Mexican truck company's facility. That is absolutely accurate.
Again, the best of all worlds would be--and it would be terrific--if
in Mexico they upgraded their laws to conform with American laws. We
cannot force that, but I say as a friend of Mexico--a good friend--that
is what they ought to do because then their people would be safer and
we would not have to have all of this enforcement activity. But until
they have brought their laws up to our level in terms of the trucks and
drivers, we must enforce.
What I like about the Murray amendment--and I understand Senator
Shelby had a hand in this amendment, and I thank him from the bottom of
my heart because 23 percent of that traffic comes right into my State.
Without this amendment--and just setting an arbitrary date is a
frightening thought--all these trucks would be coming in and we can
only inspect 2 or 3 percent of them. God knows, we all fear what could
happen in our States--a devastating accident with trucks that don't
have brakes, drivers who have fallen asleep at the wheel, et cetera.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for taking the floor and bringing
this to our attention. We all encourage a free market economy and
bargaining, but we don't want to bargain health and safety. We draw a
line there. We hold other countries to the same standards to which we
hold American trucking companies and American truckdrivers. Senators
Murray and Shelby have, I think, included language that moves us toward
that goal.
I thank the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for entering into
this colloquy, and, again, I thank Senators Murray and Shelby, and also
Senator Dorgan, who has been working hard on the Commerce Committee. I
also thank Senator Fritz Hollings, who, at my request in the Commerce
Committee, did hold a hearing on this issue of NAFTA trucks. It was an
eye-opener for us all. When you hear an inspector general talk about
how a lot of these trucks don't have any brakes and they are trying to
get into our country, that is a very frightening thought.
In conclusion, for those people who are free trade advocates--and my
record on trade is I am for fair trade, which leads me to sometimes
support trade agreements and sometimes not to. But for those who say
``free trade at any price,'' let me tell you this is too high a price
to pay. If you want to deal a blow to free trade, work against the
Murray-Shelby amendment. If you work against that language in this
bill, and we have a situation where this President can open up this
border and we start to have a series of tragic accidents, I will tell
you, that will be the biggest setback for free trade. You really want
to advance free and fair trade and support this decal language in the
amendment pending and support the language in the underlying bill.
[[Page S8094]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to speak today about two amendments that I have
filed and will call up later. I recognize now we are dealing with an
amendment concerning the trucks from Mexico. I wish to speak about a
different issue, and that is something that is tucked into the Senate
appropriations bill that deals with aviation in the Greater Chicago
area.
I have been working with my colleague, Senator Durbin, almost since
the day I came to the Senate, to find a resolution to the air traffic
problems in the Chicago area. Senator Durbin has included language in
the appropriations bill, as it was reported from the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, that addresses aviation transportation in
the Chicago area.
This is the language that appears in this fiscal year 2002
Transportation appropriations bill concerning the Chicago-area
aviation: Section 315 says:
The Secretary of Transportation shall, in cooperation with
the Federal Aviation Administrator, encourage a locally
developed and executed plan between the State of Illinois,
the City of Chicago, and affected communities for the purpose
of modernizing O'Hare International Airport, addressing
traffic congestion along the Northwest Corridor including
western airport access, and moving forward with a third
Chicago-area airport. If such a plan cannot be developed and
executed by said parties, the Secretary and the Administrator
shall work with Congress to enact a Federal solution to
address the aviation capacity crisis in the Chicago area.
In Chicago, aviation is the No. 1 issue. In fact, throughout northern
Illinois, that is what my constituents are talking about. O'Hare
Airport, which is one of the finest airports in the world, has been at
capacity since 1969, and in recent years the traffic congestion has
gotten worse than ever. I attribute a lot of that to a decision
Congress made 2 years ago to lift the delay controls at LaGuardia and
Chicago O'Hare Airports. After they lifted the delay controls which had
been in effect since 1969, we started to see delays at O'Hare and
LaGuardia go up exponentially.
As a result of those delays, now many people are trapped waiting on
the tarmac at O'Hare and LaGuardia for their planes to take off. In
fact, when I returned to Washington on Sunday evening, I was trapped on
a United Airlines plane on the tarmac at O'Hare for at least 2 hours. I
did not get into Washington until close to midnight.
This is becoming the norm that people experience as they travel
through O'Hare, particularly in the summer months. Often, as we know,
those airplanes are very uncomfortable, particularly in the hot
weather, while you are waiting on the tarmac at O'Hare.
Last night, Senator Durbin's office and my office had a softball game
on The Mall. I am much chagrined to report that Senator Durbin's office
beat us by one run. I think the score was 9-8. But if we had been able
to take one of the 22- or 23-year-old interns off Senator Durbin's team
and substitute that star athlete with Senator Durbin, as my team was
required to have me play, my team might have been more competitive. But
Senator Durbin spent, I believe, 3 hours on the tarmac at O'Hare
yesterday and was unable to make that game. This is how it is when you
travel through O'Hare.
I compliment Senator Durbin on being active in trying to resolve the
problems. Clearly, we are both interested in finding a solution, though
we may have a different perspective on the solution.
One of the amendments I will later offer will add language to this
section 315 that encourages any Federal, State, or local solution that
comes out of this process to consider using the Rockford Airport.
Rockford is, I believe, the second largest community in the State of
Illinois. It is on the Northwest Tollway, northwest of the city of
Chicago. The Northwest Tollway runs from the Chicago loop out to O'Hare
Airport and then it goes beyond, out to Rockford Airport.
Rockford Airport, which I visited a few weeks ago, is right now not
being used, even though it is a wonderful facility with annual capacity
for 237,000 operations a year. The airport has two magnificent runways:
one 10,000 feet, another 8,200 feet. Right now the airport is being
used for cargo operations. It is a hub for United Parcel Service, and
they have been doing very well right there.
There is no reason the Rockford Airport should not be used to
alleviate air traffic congestion in Chicago. Many of the solutions that
others have proposed--expanding or modernizing O'Hare, tearing it up,
rebuilding it so it can handle more flights, or building a third
airport--those may all someday come to fruition, but all of those
solutions will take years, if they ever happen at all, and they will
cost hundreds of millions, even billions, many billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, just outside O'Hare, we have a fabulous airport that is
already built, that does not require the expenditure of any money to
get it used to alleviate air traffic congestion at O'Hare. The airport
is being used sometimes to land planes from Midway or O'Hare when there
is bad weather in the area and those planes have to land.
This chart is a schematic of the Greater Rockford Airport. We can see
there are two runways that are already built, a 10,000-foot runway and
an 8,200-foot runway. They also have plans for a future runway someday.
Their passenger terminal is capable of handling 500,000 passengers per
year. Their runways are state of the art. They have even, I am told,
landed the Concorde at Rockford Airport. As far as I know, this airport
is able to land any plane flying today.
It is superior in that respect--at least its runways are--to
Chicago's Midway Airport, which was the busiest airport in the world
before O'Hare was built in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The runways
at Midway are only about 6,000 feet, and it makes it very difficult to
have long-haul operations out of Midway.
I am going to offer language to section 315 that would encourage the
use of Rockford. This is the wise thing to do for aviation consumers in
the Chicago area and especially for the taxpayers, but it will not cost
any money.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator object to my being shown as a cosponsor
to the amendment?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I agree to that, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. I make that unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, would
the Senator not agree that when it comes to this Rockford Airport--we
may have disagreements on O'Hare; we may have disagreements about other
airports; but we are in agreement that Rockford has an extraordinary
facility currently not utilized by any commercial air carrier. Senator
Fitzgerald has contacted airlines and I have contacted them as well.
My understanding is one of the major airlines in our country visited
Rockford this week. We all believe this is a resource that should be
available, no matter what we do in Chicago with O'Hare or even in
Peotone. We are 5 to 10 years away from seeing any significant change.
In the meantime, Rockford is a resource that should be examined and
utilized to try to reduce congestion and delays at O'Hare and to
provide quality air service to the people living in and around the
Rockford area.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank my colleague from Illinois. I thank Senator
Durbin for joining as an original cosponsor of this amendment and also
for working with me. This is absolutely one of the bright spots on the
aviation picture in Illinois today, one of the issues on which we hope
to agree. It is one of the wonders of the world, in my judgment, that
Rockford is not being used right now when it is so close to O'Hare. It
is an easy answer, in my judgment, to alleviating traffic congestion at
O'Hare.
I wish to point out a few things. In addition, there are 740,000
people living
[[Page S8095]]
and working within 25 miles of Rockford Airport. Beyond that, there are
2.2 million people living within a 45-minute drive of Rockford Airport.
There are probably not that many large cities in this country that
would have that many people within a 45-minute drive of their airport.
Another point I have not made is that over 400,000 airline passengers
a year depart from Rockford's market service area via bus to access the
air transportation system at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
Both American and United Airlines, which control almost all the
operations at O'Hare, run several passenger shuttle buses to the
Rockford Airport every day and funnel from there 400,000 passengers a
year into their hub operation at O'Hare. That further congests O'Hare.
In addition, I am told 800,000 people a year drive their cars from the
Rockford area to get to O'Hare. There are 1.2 million people coming
from the Rockford Airport--not using the Rockford Airport but coming
out of Rockford to further congest O'Hare. It makes common sense we
make greater use of the Rockford Airport.
I see Senator Gramm is on the floor. I told him I would be happy to
allow him to speak for a few minutes. With the approval of the Chair, I
would like to come back and continue my discussion of Chicago aviation
after Senator Gramm has had an opportunity to speak.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask for 2 minutes on this issue?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we now will be addressing the issue of
Mexican carriers. It is going to be, I assure the managers, a subject
of extended debate. We believe also that we will have sufficient votes
to sustain a Presidential veto if it comes to that.
The Senator from Texas and I will be speaking on the substance of
various amendments we will have. We expect, unfortunately, extended
discussion on this issue.
I wish to discuss the lack of negotiation on this issue. The Senator
from Washington and the Senator from Alabama have refused to sit down
and talk to us about this issue. I am deeply disappointed in that. I
have done a lot of business on the floor of the Senate recently on some
very difficult issues. On each of those occasions we have at least had
a dialog in negotiations to see if we could not find common ground.
Unfortunately, the managers of the bill have not allowed such a
discussion or debate.
I say to the Senator from Washington, I worked closely with her on an
issue very important to her and her State because of a tragedy that
took place on pipeline safety. No, I didn't always agree with the
Senator from Washington, but we sat down and we worked together at
hearings before the committee. I tell the Senator from Washington, I am
very disappointed neither she nor her staff would sit down and discuss
this issue with us so we could try to attempt to find common ground. I
don't think we need a confrontation on this issue. I don't think the
differences between the so-called Murray language and what the Senator
from Texas and I are doing are that far apart. Now we have had to get
the White House involved, the threat of a Presidential veto, and
extended debate on this issue.
I ask again the managers of the bill: Could we please have a
discussion and at least find common ground on this issue? So far, there
has been an adamant refusal to enter into a discussion. I must say, I
am very disappointed, especially on an issue of this importance, at
least in my view, to the people of my State as well as the people of
this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me give an outline of where we are and how we got
here. I will be happy to yield the floor and let the distinguished
subcommittee chairman speak.
The House of Representatives, following a policy of the Clinton
administration, voted to deny the President the ability to implement
NAFTA. I remind my colleagues that we entered into an agreement with
Mexico and Canada to form the North American Free Trade Agreement and
to form the largest free trade area in the world. Part of that
agreement was to have free trade not just in goods but in services.
Part of that agreement is we set a timetable during which we would
allow trucks to cross the border within a certain distance for border-
type trade and then we would set up a phase-in process whereby trucks
could go back and forth across the border between Mexico and Canada,
Mexico and the United States, the same way they do between the United
States and Canada.
The deadline for that agreement to be fully implemented was on the
verge of passing when George Bush became President. He made it clear in
the campaign and he made it clear when he became President that he felt
obligated to live up to the agreements we had made with Mexico and
Canada in NAFTA. Those agreements gave us the ability to set safety
standards with regard to Mexican trucks that basically were similar to
what we have with Canadian trucks and our own trucks. It did not give
us the ability to have discriminatory standards.
The Teamsters Union had consistently opposed the implementation of
this agreement. They opposed it, and President Clinton refused to begin
the phase-in process, refused to start the inspection process, and now
we are down to the moment of truth as to whether we are going to live
up to the agreement we made in NAFTA.
I remind my colleagues, as tempting as it is for our own advantage,
at least our perceived political advantage, to go back on the
commitment we made to NAFTA--first of all, in doing so we are
discriminating against our Mexican neighbor because we are treating
them differently than we are treating our Canadian neighbors.
Secondly, all over the world, legislative bodies are debating whether
or not to go back on agreements they have made with the United States.
One of reasons I feel so strongly about this issue, I believe the
credibility of the American nation is on the line as to whether we will
live up to the agreement we have made.
Now, there is no question about the fact that the White House, after
having an absolute prohibition on the implementation of the treaty in
the House, the White House was delighted to see a similar action not
taken in the Appropriations Committee. In that case, it was the lesser
of what they perceived to be the two evils.
The problem is, when we look at the amendment currently in this bill,
there are several provisions that clearly violate NAFTA, several of
them violate GATT, and all of them represent a procedure whereby we
treat Mexico very differently than we treat Canada.
Let me give three examples of provisions in the bill that clearly
violate NAFTA.
The first is a provision in the bill that requires that Mexican
trucks be insured by American insurers--not just insurers who are
licensed in the United States but insurers who are domiciled in the
United States. That is a clear violation of NAFTA and a clear violation
of GATT because it basically denies national treatment standards to
which we agreed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate is
scheduled to stand in recess at 12:30.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent I might have 5 additional minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Texas
require at this time?
Mr. GRAMM. I have asked for 5 additional minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like 2 minutes to respond when
the Senator from Texas concludes. Does the Senator from Alaska wish to
make a statement?
Mr. STEVENS. Not during the lunch hour, no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me review the three areas that are clear violations of
NAFTA in this provision before us. The first is a provision requiring
companies to buy American insurance. It is one thing to say they have
to have insurance licensed in the United States. That would conform
with NAFTA. But to say they have to buy insurance from companies
domiciled in the United States is a clear violation of NAFTA, it is a
clear violation of GATT, and it violates the national treatment
standards
[[Page S8096]]
that we have set out in trade. This is critically important to America
because all over the world we have American business interests that
would be jeopardized if other countries engaged in similar activities
against America.
Another provision which clearly singles out Mexican truckers, where
American truckers are not affected by a similar provision and neither
are Canadian truckers, is a punitive provision that says if you are
subject to suspension or restriction or limitations, you can't lease
trucks to anybody else. No such requirement exists in American law. No
such requirement exists with regard to Canadian trucks. But there is
such a limitation in this amendment, and that limitation clearly
violates NAFTA by denying Mexican economic interests the same
protection of the law that American economic interests and Canadian
economic interests have.
Another provision of the law which is totally different from the way
we treat American trucks and the way we treat Canadian trucks is that
if a foreign carrier is in violation, a foreign carrier can be
permanently banned from doing business in the United States. Where is a
similar provision with regard to Canadian trucks and American trucks?
Let me summarize, since I am running out of time, by making the
following points: No. 1, I am for safety. I have more Mexican trucks
operating in my State than any other person in the Senate, other than
Senator Hutchison, who represents the same State I do. I am concerned
about safety, but I do not believe we can sustain in world public
opinion a provision that discriminates against our neighbors in Mexico,
a provision that treats Canadians under one standard and Mexicans under
another. If we want temporary measures whereby we can get Mexican
trucks up to standard, that is something with which I can live. But
permanent provisions where we are treating Mexico different than
Canada, that is something with which I cannot live.
I think it is important that we try to work out a compromise. But I
can assure you, given that the administration believes this issue is
critical to the credibility of the United States in negotiating trade
agreements and enforcing our trade agreements around the world, Senator
McCain and I and Senator Lott intend to fight to preserve the
President's position.
Some suggestion has been made that we just would do a cloture on the
amendment of Senator Murray. I remind my colleagues, the amendment is
amendable. If it were clotured, we would have 30 hours of debate on
cloture, and there would then be three other cloture votes on this
bill. I do not think that is a road we want to go down.
What is the solution? The solution is to have strong safety
standards, but you have to apply the same safety standards to Canadian
trucks that you do to Mexican trucks. We do not have second-class
citizens in America, and we are not going to have second-class trading
partners. We cannot set one standard for Mexicans and one standard for
Canadians in a free trade agreement that involves all three countries.
So Senator McCain and I are for safety, but we are not for
protectionism. We are not for provisions that make it impossible for
the President to provide leadership to comply with NAFTA, and we are
willing to fight to preserve the President's ability to live up to our
trade agreements.
I hope something can be worked out. I am not sure where the votes
are. What I see happening is that protectionism is being couched in the
cloak of safety. We are willing to have every legitimate safety
provision for Mexican trucks that we have for Canadian trucks and for
American trucks. We are willing to have a transition period where we
have more intensive inspection. But in the end, in a free trade
agreement involving three countries, we have to treat all three
countries the same. What we cannot live with is discrimination against
our trading partner to the south.
I appreciate the Chair's indulgence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Washington has 2 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I heard the comments of the Senators from
Arizona and Texas. I want to make it very clear, I have never been
against discussion. We put this bill out on the floor last Friday. It
has been out here for 3 days. I have continually said I am happy to
look at any language any Member brings me on any item of discussion
under transportation. What I am against is weakening any of the safety
provisions we have included in the committee bill.
The proposal that was given to me by the Senator from Arizona
considerably weakens and actually guts many of the safety provisions
that Senator Shelby and I put into the underlying bill. That simply is
not a path we are going to take on the Senate floor. Our provisions
were adopted unanimously in the Appropriations Committee. I am not
interested in going into a back room and negotiating a sellout of the
committee or of the safety provisions that I believe are extremely
important. That is simply a nonstarter for me as manager of this bill.
I do remind all Senators they can offer amendments and this Senator
is happy to consider them as the rules allow. As far as the NAFTA
provisions are concerned, I will remind all of our colleagues once
again, the underlying bill is not a violation of NAFTA. That is very
clear. I set that out in my remarks this morning, and I am to go
through that again this afternoon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15, when the Senate
reconvenes, the Senator from Illinois be allowed 20 minutes to discuss
his issue that he would like to present to us and then Senator Bill
Nelson from Florida be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________