[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.

                          ____________________