[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8096-S8102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois was to be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted
to proceed now for 5 minutes, and then return to the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it isn't that this subject matter
should be dealt with briefly, but I think I can express my concerns in
5 minutes. I hope others are as concerned as I about this issue.
Senator Murray is here on the floor. She is the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation. She has worked very hard to accommodate
this bill through language with reference to Mexico and Mexican
trucking and busing between our borders under NAFTA. She has worked
very hard to get something much better than that which was passed in
the House and she kept things from passing in our subcommittee that
would be much worse than the arrangement we now have in the bill with
her amendment.
I would like to say that the United States should be quite pleased
today that we have a new relationship growing between the Republic of
Mexico and the United States. It is obvious everywhere you go in Mexico
with everyone you talk to, and with everyone you talk to in the border
States, that the arrival of President Fox has brought a whole new
attitude between these two great countries.
For instance, in the 29 years or so that I have been here, there have
been four Presidents of Mexico, but not a single one was willing to say
that the economic problems of Mexico are not America's problems, and we
have to solve our own. President Fox is the first President to say we
had better improve the permit system for people coming from his country
to work here because he believes they should do this in a legal manner
instead of a manner that leaves many Mexicans here in positions of
hiding out while they hold jobs and they can't return home--some
wonderful ideas about what should happen on our border in terms of
cleaning up the border which has grown topsy-
[[Page S8097]]
turvy. Law enforcement can now trust Mexican law enforcement for the
first time in modern times. The litany goes on.
I, for one, hope the Senators from both sides of the aisle will find
a way to sit down and draft a provision on the busing and trucking
access to the United States pursuant to the NAFTA arrangements. There
are some who have said their trucks aren't safe enough, that they don't
have the right kind of insurance--and a rather major litany.
I suggest we had better be careful that we are not couching these
things in a way so as to avoid what it really is. It appears to me it
is borderline discrimination against Mexican enterprise. There has to
be a better way to solve it than we have solved it in this
Transportation bill, but in a way that will let Mexico and Mexico's
leaders say we are equal partners with the United States, and that we
are going to be treated the same way as Canada. Canada, America, and
Mexico are the three partners. I believe to do otherwise is to say to
the Mexican people and the new President: We don't care about you; we
don't even care if we discriminate against you; we have a hot issue,
and we are going to pass something; and maybe in a few years we can
work something out with you, Mr. President of Mexico, as a NAFTA
partner of the United States.
I believe the time is now, on this bill. The President has said he
will veto the bill with the Murray language in it. That is official. We
ought to sit down and work out something for them so it won't be
vetoed.
There are great American transportation issues and problems for every
Senator and for every State. We ought to get the bill passed. The way
to get it passed is not to send it to the President with language he
already said he will veto and offend Mexico unjustifiably. What we are
doing is unjustifiable. Let's get it resolved.
There is a simple proposition around. Let's come up with a California
solution. I am pretty familiar with the various solutions. Let us in
the Senate say we stand ready to help.
I hope we can do this and pass the bill in due course--the full
bill--and put some legislation in it that will protect Mexico against
discrimination in trucking and busing and allow them to grow and
prosper, but at the same time offer as much assurance as we can that
their vehicles are going to be safe, and include whatever other
requirements we need to ensure they are treated like trucks coming from
Canada.
Mr. President, I stand in strong support of permitting Mexican motor
carriers full access to the United States in a safe, fair, and timely
manner.
The North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in January
1994. The agreement calls on each country to apply national treatment
to services of each of the trading partners. NAFTA required that
Mexican trucks have full access to the United States by January 1,
2001.
Rather than prepare ourselves to meet this obligation, we foolishly
prohibited our southern partner's trucks beyond 20 miles from the
border.
An arbitration panel ruled that the United States violated NAFTA, and
today we face the possibility of trade sanctions in excess of $1
billion per year of noncompliance.
Some hope to completely bar Mexican domiciled motor carriers,
assuming that because they are Mexican, then they are necessarily
unsafe.
I applaud Senator Murray's attempt to craft a balance to ensure that
Mexican trucks are safe, while meeting our national obligation.
As a Senator from a border state, I am deeply concerned about the
safety of Mexican trucks. However, I do not believe that we should use
safety as an excuse to inappropriately discriminate against Mexico.
As such, I have some fundamental concerns about the language of
Senator Murray's proposal.
Principally, I am troubled that it seems to harbor a deep mistrust of
Mexico.
The United States and Mexico both agree that Mexico must comply with
U.S. laws, and that it is the United States' right to enforce those
laws. Why then, must we impose additional and unreasonable requirements
before permitting Mexican motor carriers access?
NAFTA requires that each member country give national treatment to
the other member countries. That means that Mexico and Canada must
abide by U.S. safety standards when in the U.S.
Canada has been doing so for some time, and Mexico is prepared and
eagerly awaits the opportunity to do so. However, the current language
contains a host of provisions requiring the DOT Inspector General to
review the accuracy of Mexico's regulations and information.
These requirements are not only wholly offensive and paternalistic,
but fall far outside the purview of the IG.
Furthermore, the Department of Transportation inspects Canadian or
U.S. motor carriers' facilities only when there is evidence of
impropriety or a record of safety violations. Yet, Senator Murray's
provisions would require that DOT inspect every Mexican carrier's
facilities before any permission is granted.
In short, this is discrimination, plain and simple.
The Administration recognized that the current Senate language is
discriminatory and would violate NAFTA, and even issued a veto threat
if such language is retained.
I understand that many are concerned about the safety of Mexican
trucks, particularly since some statistics show that they have greater
out of service rates than U.S. trucks. I favor inspecting trucks to
advance legitimate safety concerns, and recognize that a direct
correlation exists between the condition of Mexican commercial trucks
entering the U.S. and the level of inspection resources at the border.
California is widely regarded as having the best inspection
practices. As such, the out of service rate for Mexican trucks in
California is commensurate to the rate for U.S. trucks.
Even the International Brotherhood of Teamsters support the
California inspection system. In a letter to President Bush, Mr. James
Hoffa stated, ``Currently, California provides a model of what a proper
border inspection program can achieve.''
If we all agree that California's inspection system works
efficiently, then perhaps we should model the Federal inspection
program after it, and refrain from treating our southern NAFTA partner
with such distrust.
Mexico has not indicated that it is unwilling to abide by our laws.
In fact, Mexico has stated that it will subject its trucks to
inspections more intense and more frequent than our own.
The issue is whether Mexican trucks on U.S. roads meet U.S. safety
standards. Inspecting trucks should be the focus of an inspection
program, rather than inspecting facilities in Mexico without just
cause.
Mr. President, I stand in strong opposition to language that would
discriminate against our southern partners and support proposals that
would ensure the safety of U.S. highways in a fair and timely manner.
I am confident that an equitable solution may be reached that will
ensure safe roads and meet obligations under NAFTA, and diffuse the
threat of veto.
I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for yielding me 5
minutes, and also the Senators who yielded me their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair and appreciate the Senator from
Washington giving me the time to speak on a matter of great importance
to the city of Chicago, and actually it is probably of some interest to
the Presiding Officer, as she grew up in the city of Park Ridge which
is right next to O'Hare International Airport.
I hate to say it, but since the Presiding Officer grew up in Illinois
we have had problems at O'Hare. O'Hare has been at capacity since 1969.
In fact, it was in that year that the FAA first put delay controls in
at O'Hare Airport. Unadvisedly, I think 2 years ago, Congress lifted
the delay controls at O'Hare and LaGuardia, and delays went up
exponentially. That has kind of renewed and intensified the crisis we
have in aviation in this country.
Madam President, I have filed an amendment I will discuss later that
I am continuing to work on with my colleague from Illinois, Senator
Durbin. I hope we will be able to work out some arrangements, but my
amendment would restore a Chicago supplemental airport to the National
Plan for Integrated Airport Systems around the
[[Page S8098]]
country, the so-called NPIAS list. For 10 years, Chicago had a
supplemental airport on the NPIAS list. It was taken off in 1997 by the
FAA. I think it is time we put the Chicago supplemental airport back on
that nationwide plan for airports. There are several reasons that I say
that.
I want to first point out exactly where we have our airports in
Illinois for those who are following this debate. I show you a map of
the Chicago area. We have O'Hare International Airport on 7,000 acres
on the northwest side of the city of Chicago. It is also bounded by the
cities of Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Elk Grove, Wood Dale, and
Bensenville. We also have Midway Airport that prior to O'Hare's opening
in the late 1950s, early 1960s, was the world's busiest airport, if you
can believe it. I think President Kennedy appeared at O'Hare's grand
opening in 1963 and by 1969 O'Hare was at capacity.
But if you look at where these airports are located, you see that in
order to get more capacity to expand these airports we are confronted
with a lot of problems. Midway Airport is right in the middle of a
congested area within the city limits of Chicago. In fact, I have never
heard the mayor of the city of Chicago suggest expanding Midway to have
longer runways. The runways are only 6,000 feet at Midway, so it is
very difficult to do a long-haul flight out of that airport.
Recently, Southwest Airlines, and also ATA, have been doing very well
at Midway. Midway is almost back to where it was in terms of capacity
before O'Hare was built. It is pretty much full right now. Then, of
course, we have O'Hare. O'Hare has seven runways.
I will show you a map of those seven runways. This is a blowup of
O'Hare Airport. All of this land in the interior shown on the map is
filled with runways. In fact, O'Hare has more runways, as far as I
know, than any other airport in the country. It has seven runways. It
does about 908,000 flights a year.
But when you get into expanding O'Hare, you are met with some real
logistical challenges. There is the Tri-State Tollway on the eastern
boundary of O'Hare. You have the Northwest Tollway on the northern
boundary of O'Hare, and you have Irving Park Road to the south, and you
have York Road--Route 83--to the west.
So a lot of people have been saying to me: Why don't we just put down
more runways at O'Hare? Many people think--and, in fact, some encourage
the perception--that putting in new runways at O'Hare would be as
simple as laying new sidewalks. But the fact is, it is very difficult
to figure out how you get more capacity at O'Hare.
I show you on this map the existing configuration of the runways at
O'Hare. This 7,000-acre field goes way back. The planning was started
in the 1940s. It came on line in the late 1950s. I gather that the
airport has had this runway configuration for many years--at least 30
years, maybe more. But there are seven runways at O'Hare. One of them
is one of the largest runways in the country.
I believe this runway--14R-32L--is one of the longest runways in this
country, about 14,000 feet. The problem with these seven runways,
though, is that they are not really laid out properly. In fact, in an
optimal configuration that would be done today in a new airport, they
would lay these runways out in a parallel fashion so they do not
intercept. If you have a plane landing on this runway shown on the map,
for example, then another plane cannot be taking off on that runway.
So O'Hare's problem isn't that it does not have enough runways but
that they are not laid out right. In fact, Atlanta's Hartsfield
Airport, which only has four runways--they are trying to build more
now--handles more flights now than O'Hare does, even though it only has
four runways. That is because those runways are laid out in a parallel
fashion, and you can have simultaneous departures and landings on those
different parallel runways.
In any case, Mayor Daley has recently proposed getting more capacity
out of O'Hare essentially by tearing all of this up and rebuilding it.
In fact, I think the mayor proposes tearing up three runways and
building four new ones. One of these runways--I think this runway, the
14,500-foot runway--they would just tear up and demolish it. They would
lay new runways all in a parallel fashion. But the problem is, this
project gets very expensive, and it would take a very long period of
time.
This is a diagram of Mayor Daley's proposed modernization of O'Hare,
which really amounts to a tearing up and rebuilding of the airport. He
would eliminate this runway and this runway I show you on the map, and
he would lay parallel runways. He would leave this runway shown here in
place. You would essentially have six parallel runways here, and then
two parallel in this direction shown here. Essentially, it is kind of
like a quad-four runway system. I think mainly these four parallel
runways would be the ones that would be used.
In addition, the mayor would add a western access to the airport. The
Presiding Officer would be very interested to know that when she grew
up in Illinois, it was much easier to get to O'Hare than it is today.
In fact, back in the 1950s and 1960s, there were just cornfields out in
that direction. The Northwest Tollway was built in the late 1950s
during the Eisenhower administration in 1958, and the development
started occurring much later.
But now it is very difficult to get into O'Hare because there is not
enough access. In fact, coming from my home in Inverness, which is only
12 miles to the northwest, sometimes it takes an hour to go those 12
miles east on the Northwest Tollway because of congestion.
So recognizing that congestion is a problem, the mayor would propose
creating a western access to the airport with another major expressway
coming into the west to relieve some of the bottleneck that enters now
at the airport on the east.
Also, he would add a new terminal. I think basically what they have
now is the main terminals, which he would redo under a program called
the World Gateway Program that would cost $4 billion, or actually $3.8
billion, to be exact. They would give United terminals 1 and 2, and
American terminals 3 and 4. My understanding of it is that most of the
other airlines would be stuck at a desk out here on the west side of
the airport.
These are the various elements that would have to be done in order to
accomplish Mayor Daley's expansion plan. They would close the 3
existing runways, construct 4 new runways, make an extension of 4
runways, construction of the west terminal, construction of western
airport access, acquisition of 433 acres, acquisition of 303 homes, and
acquisition of 240 rental units. The costs of this proposal have been
all over the map. I think the mayor initially disclosed about $6
billion. But that was pretty much just for tearing up and rebuilding
the runways. He did not include the $4 billion he is spending now on
the World Gateway Program. That brings it up, even by the mayor's cost
estimates, to about a $10 billion reconstruction project.
The fact is, when you add in the cost of all the ancillary projects,
including road building projects, you would probably have to expand the
Northwest Tollway and the expressway to accommodate more people. In
fact, you can barely get into the airport right now, as I have said.
Imagine what it would be like trying to get into the airport after
twice as many people are being urged to go into the airport. So it
would be a very costly project--probably somewhere in the $15 billion
range, possibly up toward $20 billion. The Chicago Tribune has had
estimates ranging from $6.3 billion to $18.9 billion.
My thought is this: I believe we have an aviation crisis in Chicago
because we lack capacity. We have far greater demand than we have
capacity. O'Hare has capacity for about 908,000 flights a year. Mayor
Daley's proposal of spending about $15 billion, and lasting at least 15
years following the approval process, would get us up to 1.6 million
operations a year. I favor, instead of going forward with that
proposal, building a supplemental Chicago airport. The reason I favor
that is because it would bring far more capacity, far more quickly, at
far less cost.
This is a chart that shows what would be involved in expanding O'Hare
vis-a-vis what would be involved in building a third airport in the
Chicago area. The cost could range from $13 billion to $26 billion for
the O'Hare expansion. The estimated cost of the third
[[Page S8099]]
airport, which would have six parallel runways and handle 1.6 million
operations a year, would be only $5 billion to $6 billion--the same as
Denver International Airport. Mayor Daley proposes adding 700,000
flights, or operations, a year for the money he proposes spending. For
a third of the cost, you could get 1.6 million more operations a year.
In contrast to the 15-years-plus it would take the city of Chicago to
tear up and rebuild O'Hare--and God only knows what the delays would be
like while they were tearing up and rebuilding O'Hare--the State has
estimated it could have the first phase of a third airport done in 3 to
5 years following the approval. That would only be with one or two
runways to begin with; ultimate build-out would be six runways. There
is great community support for the third airport. There is significant
community opposition around the expansion of O'Hare.
Also, competition. Surprise, surprise, but United and American oppose
a third airport. Well, United and American have at least 75 percent of
the operations. In fact, United and American oppose a third airport
because they, right now, have 76 percent of the hub gates at Chicago's
O'Hare Airport.
If you look around the country, you will see that we have a tendency
around the whole United States toward having a local air carrier that
has a dominant position at a regional hub airport. If you look at
Atlanta's Hartsfield, you have Delta with 62 percent of the hub gates.
At Dallas-Fort Worth, you have American Airlines and Delta together
controlling 84 percent of the gates. In Denver, a brand new airport,
United is already up to 57 percent of the gates. At Washington/Dulles,
United is up to 65 percent of the gates.
So, surprise, United and American oppose a third airport. The reason
for that is they would not control the third airport in Chicago. There
would be new entrants that would be allowed to come in and compete with
them. It seems to me that we should not let that detour us because we
are not representing the shareholders of the big six air carriers in
the Senate. We need to be worried about aviation consumers. Over the
last 20 years--in fact, since deregulation of the aviation industry in
the late 1970s--operations in aviation have gone up 80 percent in this
country. Yet we haven't built a single new major airport, except for
the Denver Airport, which was simply a replacement for the old
Stapleton International Airport, which got shut down.
As you look around the country, big airlines that have a dominant
position in their market fight like the dickens to prevent another
airport from being built because that would allow new entrants to come
into their territory, and it would force them to lower costs and
improve services or they lose new business to the new entrants.
Because United and American don't want new competitors coming into
their marketplace where they have a duopoly should not deter anybody.
What I think would be best for consumers in the Chicago area is if we
did have another major hub airport and we had other carriers coming
into compete with United and American. They are both good airlines.
They have wonderful employees and thousands of wonderful pilots,
mechanics, and stewardesses; but I believe the consumers in the Chicago
area would benefit by having new choices. I think there are
possibilities, such as getting a wonderful new startup airline such as
a Jet Blue, or even a Southwest Airways, which is competing at Midway
Airport in Chicago, but might someday enjoy having the opportunity to
run longer haul flights out of the Chicago area and compete more head-
on with United and American at O'Hare. To get one of those fine
airlines in the new airport would be great for the Chicago area, and it
would help decongest O'Hare for the rest of the Nation.
Now, in the few moments I still have, I want to make one final point.
In this regard, I want to associate myself with my colleague from
Illinois in the other Chamber, Jesse Jackson, Jr. For many years he has
been a strong proponent of a third Chicago area airport. It is the
south suburbs and the southern limits of the city of Chicago that he
represents in Congress. He makes the point that we should not want all
economic activity in our State concentrated in one 7,000-acre site.
That is perhaps why I disagree with Mayor Daley, the mayor of the
city of Chicago. He has a different constituency than I. As mayor of
the city of Chicago, he wants to keep as much economic development as
possible in the city of Chicago, and Chicago is a mighty fine city, and
I hope it remains always strong.
Looking at this issue as a Senator with statewide responsibilities
and concern for the whole State, I want other parts of Illinois to have
jobs, economic development, and an economic engine, too. I want the
Rockford area to have their airport used, I want jobs for the people in
the south suburbs, and I want some convenience for the 2 million-plus
people who live in the south suburbs who have to drive 2 hours or more
to get to O'Hare on those crowded expressways.
Yesterday, there was a good column in the Chicago Tribune by a new
columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Her name is Dawn Turner Trice. She
analogized this issue actually to the G8 economic summit that was just
concluded in Europe whereby the big G8 countries were talking about
sharing the wealth with the rest of the world, forgiving some of the
debts that Third World nations have, turning loans into grants,
outright grants to help some of the developing countries.
She said: Why aren't we looking at this airport issue the same way in
the State of Illinois? Why do we allow such a great concentration of
wealth in one tiny 7,000-acre site and not worry about it anywhere
else? She is absolutely right on that and, in addition, those wealthy
communities around the airport have said enough is enough. Their
quality of life is now negatively impacted by the continual cramming of
everything into O'Hare. The idea of dramatically increasing the number
of flights at O'Hare beyond what they are now presents a real dilemma
to the Chicago area. People do not know how they can get there now.
They cannot imagine what O'Hare would be like if the airport was
expanded further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, I thank you for this time, and I
thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I hope to be
working with Senator Durbin and my other colleagues to solve the
aviation crisis in the country, beginning in Chicago.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Florida is recognized.
Amendment No. 1030
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise in support of the
Murray-Shelby version of the question of Mexican trucks on American
highways that is in the Department of Transportation appropriations
bill.
I support free trade, but free trade does not mean sacrificing the
safety of Americans on our highways.
If you will just look at the comparison of safety standards for
American trucks and Mexican trucks, the hours of service that a driver
can perform are unlimited under Mexican standards.
There are no random drug tests.
A medical condition that will disqualify in America does not
necessarily do so in Mexico.
The age for drivers of these trucks established in America is 21 and
only 18 in Mexico.
The maximum weight on our highways in America is 80,000 pounds. In
Mexico, it is 135,000 pounds.
As to vehicle safety standards, such as antilock brakes, in Mexico
they do not even have to have brakes on the front wheels.
And then as to the question of cargo, carrying of hazardous
materials, we have very strict standards in this country. In Mexico,
they are very lax. There are fewer identified chemicals and fewer
licensure requirements.
If ever there has been a case where the commonsense standards, the
desires, and the wants of the American people are quite apparent, it is
the Americans who get behind the wheel and drive on our highways and on
the interstates and encounter huge trucks. How many times have we had,
as a driver of a smaller vehicle, a concern about the safety of that
big truck that was in front of us or passing around us or that was
cutting from one lane to another in front of us.
We have in the interest of free trade in America a proposal to
severely lower the standards of trucks coming from
[[Page S8100]]
Mexico that we, as the consuming American public, as the driving
American public, will have to encounter.
This is not even speaking on the question of the environment. I have
been speaking only on the question of safety. On the question of the
environment and emission standards, we clearly have in the various
States different emission standards. In Mexico, those are much less.
I simply ask the question, Do we want to drive on our highways and
encounter trucks with a driver who could be driving with no sleep; that
because there was not a random drug test, that driver may be on drugs;
he may have a medical condition that impairs his safety; he is less
than 21 years of age; he is driving a truck of 135,000 pounds instead
of 80,000 pounds; he does not have antilock brakes--indeed, no brakes
on the front wheels; and that truck is carrying significant hazardous
materials, not even to speak of the fact he is spewing all kinds of
pollutants in that acrid smoke we all detest when we are behind a big
truck.
The case is quite compelling. I would even be for a more stringent
standard than the Senator from Washington has inserted into this bill,
but her compromise, along with Senator Shelby, is a good start in
protecting the American people on their highways.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Missouri is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers of this bill, the
Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby for an outstanding bill. It
is my pleasure to serve on the committee with them and to support this
bill.
Senator Murray has been willing to accommodate many of the very
important priorities submitted by the Bush administration, including
$325 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Deep Water Systems Program, full
funding of the President's request for Coast Guard retired pay and
Reserve training, and certainly, as far as my State of Missouri, which
is a very transportation- dependent State, we are very grateful for the
recognition in our State of the needs in transportation, whether it be
transit, buses in the metropolitan areas, transportation for the
elderly and the disabled in rural areas, light rail, or a critical road
project in southwest Missouri on U.S. Highway 71.
These are all things that are extremely important, and we are,
indeed, grateful for the careful attention the Chair and the ranking
member have provided to the needs of all of us in this body.
I have, however, raised a question at the subcommittee and full
committee level at the request of the Secretary of Transportation. I
raise this issue of the Mexican truck treatment. As we all know, in
1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect
following congressional approval the previous year. I was here in 1993
and voted for this critically important trade agreement. Though I
recognize not all of my colleagues were here, and some who were here
did not support the agreement, the simple fact remains that NAFTA did
pass. It is now the law of the land. The result is we, as Members of
this body, have the responsibility to uphold the law and assure we take
no deliberate action to violate it.
Unfortunately, we have received a Statement of Administration Policy,
dated July 19, which, No. 1, commends the work that Senator Murray and
Senator Shelby, the Chair and ranking member, have done to address
these many critical issues. They say the administration is pleased the
Senate committee has provided necessary funding and staff to address
critical motor safety issues. It repeats that the administration is
committed to strengthening the safety enforcement regime to ensure all
commercial vehicles operating on U.S. roads and highways meet the same
rigorous safety standards. However, the Statement of Administration
Policy goes on to say, the advice from the administration is that the
Senate committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United
States to violate commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to
the Senate bill, the President's senior advisers will recommend the
President veto the bill.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves. This is too good a
bill to be lost. We want to work together to make sure we do not lose
the benefits of this bill or violate our agreements under NAFTA. We
know for a fact that the NAFTA international tribunal has already
issued a decree we violated obligations and are subject to sanctions
ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion per year for continued
violations. These sanctions could certainly lead to multiple
problems, particularly in manufacturing, which has already seen three-
quarters of a million jobs lost since 2000. The real fear in terms of
trade is that if the sanctions continue with alternative suppliers
being found from the European Union or elsewhere, the job losses could
become permanent.
To set the context for the Senate bill, our colleagues on the other
side of the Capitol took a very stringent view that would prohibit the
use of any funds in the appropriations bill pending to process
applications by Mexico domiciled motor carriers for conditional or
permanent authority to operate beyond the commercial zone adjacent to
the border. In other words, the House-passed language, as amended on
the floor, effectively closes our borders to trade with Mexico while
providing no money to address any of the concerns noted by those
supporting the amendment. That is to assure safety for all trucks on
the highway.
This action not only constitutes a direct violation of NAFTA, but it
does not do anything to address the safety issues associated with the
status quo on the United States-Mexico border.
A few moments ago we heard questions raised about the weight of
trucks in Mexico, their brake systems, and other things. Let me go back
to point out that under NAFTA and under the administration's policy,
the inspection regulations would require that the trucks coming in from
Mexico meet our standards. Whether it is weight, whether it is brakes,
all of the safety standards that we impose on our trucks, that we
impose on Canadian trucks, would be imposed on Mexican trucks.
As I mentioned earlier, the provision in this bill, headed by the
Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby, made very significant
improvements in the legislation and added the money necessary to
protect others who travel on the highways. That has to be our first
responsibility. Everybody wants to make sure our highways and roads are
as safe as possible. We are going to do that. What we need to do is
figure out how to do that.
I raise a concern that some of the provisions in this bill could
effectively close our border to Mexican trucks. I am very pleased to
say we are expecting very shortly to be able to meet with the
administration to find out precisely the kind of language changes that
are needed. I trust and I believe the leaders of this committee, the
Chair and the ranking member, will be able to work to find solutions to
the language problems and the practical problems that cause the
administration to believe this is a NAFTA violation. We do need to
maintain our standing in the international community and make a good-
faith effort to live up to our trading obligations. Certainly the
obligation to open our borders to other countries that want to bring
goods into our country in exchange for opening their borders to allow
us to take goods into their countries is very important.
Whether or not my colleagues supported NAFTA at its inception, there
should be no question that we should not do something in this body or
in conjunction with the other body that would cause us to be in the
position of breaking our agreements. That, I am afraid, is the major
problem. We cannot and must not violate our agreements. The practical
impact of the provisions, unless we can work out a change before it is
sent to the President, would be a veto of the whole bill. Senator
Murray and Senator Shelby have worked too long and hard to get this
bill together to lose it. Our agricultural exports, our manufacturing
exports, the jobs for our farmers, the jobs for our workers, require we
do this job properly.
If you have, as I have, listened to the congressional debate on
letting Mexican trucks travel U.S. roads, you might think the United
States is an unequipped, underdeveloped country. I pointed out that
NAFTA permits us to require the same safety standards for trucks on
highways. We have had more
[[Page S8101]]
than 7 years to prepare for the inspection of trucks to ensure they
meet U.S. safety standards as required by the North American Free Trade
Agreement and as repeatedly requested by Mexico. Yet it appears the
Teamsters Union and others with straight faces tell us that the world's
wealthiest and most advanced nation does not have the resources to
perform this relatively modest chore. That is the heart of their
argument--U.S. inadequacy--and we should be ashamed of it, just as we
should be ashamed of other arguments being made: we cannot inspect
trucks coming across the border, not 7 million trucks; at maximum
180,000, or 300,000 trucks might be the most.
We have the right and the obligation to inspect these trucks. We
should be ashamed of saying that we cannot inspect them. We have a lot
of evidence already of trucks traveling on our highways. A Mexican
trucking fleet has long been allowed to traverse this country en route
to Canada with no notable safety hazard resulting. Only if the Mexican
trucks want to stop to deliver goods throughout the United States do we
want to bar them. Maybe it is a question of whose jobs are being
impeded.
Mexican trucking firms can already travel throughout the United
States so long as the firms are U.S. owned and no serious issues have
been raised about that. Only if the Mexicans own the companies do we
prohibit their trucks. Something to do with competition maybe. That
raises questions.
Older Mexican drayage trucks, those long allowed to make short hauls
in the 20-mile ``commercial zones'' on either side of the border, are
as safe as similar U.S. trucks. As the American Trucking Association
has noted, the Mexican vehicles are taken out of service for safety
reasons at rates that are virtually identical to those at drayage
operations at ports and intermodal facilities all across the United
States.
If we need more proof, we only need to look to California, the only
State that inspects every Mexican vehicle crossing its border. The out-
of-service rate for Mexican trucks there is virtually the same as that
for U.S. trucks. The president of the Teamsters, Mr. James Hoffa, calls
California's program, which we propose for the rest of the border, ``a
model of what a proper inspection program can achieve.''
What it has achieved is to show that we can, indeed, inspect Mexican
trucks. California does it in two modern facilities, built mostly with
Federal funds, with inspectors chiefly paid with Federal dollars, and
those vehicles are as safe as U.S. trucks. How, then, can critics make
the claims about dangerous Mexican trucks?
First, they mix apples and oranges, comparing older drayage trucks,
which have a higher out-of-service rate in both our nations, with all
U.S. trucks. Thus, when critics say the out-of-service rate for trucks
at the border is 36 percent, or half-again higher than the 24 percent
for all U.S. trucks, they are engaging in a little statistical sleight
of hand. This, I find, is misleading.
In addition, there is a contention that under the administration's
plan it would take 18 months to take any unsafe Mexican trucks off the
road. But that is how long it would take to go into Mexico and audit
Mexican firms' paperwork, maintenance records, drivers' logs and the
like, not to inspect their trucks.
What we are seeking funds for in this bill, and what the
administration has sought, is money for roadside truck inspections.
Similarly, as I said, many House Members signed a Teamster-generated
letter that under NAFTA, 7 million Mexican trucks would be riding
American highways, while only 180 Mexican firms have applied, and there
are only about a total of 300,000 commercial trucks in all of Mexico.
The chief danger in this debate is not Mexican trucks but U.S.
protectionism, which is already costing businesses and consumers
dearly. About 75 percent of United States-Mexico trade, or about $195
billion of goods moves by truck with cargoes transferred from long-haul
trucks to drayage trucks at the border and back to long-haul trucks for
nationwide delivery. It is a senseless and expensive system that must
be ended--not for the least reason that it keeps the older, more
dangerous drayage trucks targeted by critics on the road.
As one who comes from an agricultural State, and 75 percent of our
exports go into Mexico by truck, we depend upon trucking because 12.5
percent of the American agricultural exports go to Mexico. That gives
us a trade surplus in agriculture of over $1 billion.
If we put these barriers up to Mexican trucks as Secretary Mineta,
the Secretary of Transportation has noted, Mexico could impose
compensatory tariffs of $1 billion on U.S. goods. Many U.S. workers and
companies would feel the pain if Mexico were to exercise this right.
Perhaps more costly, however, would be the damage to our U.S. drive
to get other nations to keep their borders open and to keep their trade
commitments. As the world's largest exporter, we have the most at stake
in this issue. Our case will be impossible if we violate our own word.
I think it is past time. I hope we can very shortly work out something
that the President has suggested, the Teamsters endorse, many on this
floor have endorsed, and that is adopting the California model for all
border States to provide the funds for facilities and inspectors, to
make sure our highways are safe. That is No. 1. Every American has a
right to demand that we ensure the safety standards for all the trucks
on our highways.
I encourage all my colleagues to work with the Chair and the ranking
member to ensure safety on America's highways while opening our borders
to foreign trade, to assure compliance with our treaties, and to avoid
a veto.
People in my State want to trade with Mexico just as the people in
the rest of the country want to trade with Mexico. We can achieve safe
highways while maintaining open borders and avoiding trade sanctions by
applying universal inspections and standards across the board. We can
get the job done. I look forward to working with the Chair of the
Committee, Senator Murray, and Ranking Member Shelby in the coming
hours and days in an effort to see that we can attain these very
reasonable goals for all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator has
expired. Who seeks time? The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I hope to clear the air somewhat with
respect to comments made by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I
serve with him on the Appropriations Committee. We both voted to report
out this particular Transportation appropriations bill with the Murray
amendment. We reported it out unanimously.
The reason we did that is because the Senator from Washington, Mrs.
Murray, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, in a bipartisan
manner, went about this particular task in a very deliberate, studied
way. In other words, they went to the Department of Transportation and
they went to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
For example, the particular provisions I heard Senator Gramm of Texas
point out, there are two of them, relative to the leasing issue and the
disqualification of vehicles operating illegally. They are both
suspended upon implementation of the motor carrier provisions of NAFTA.
That says ``upon implementation.'' What the Senator from Texas was
talking about as an extreme, terrible thing and everything else, is
actually required. These provisions are required under the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 that passed this Senate by 99
votes. Of course, I voted for it. The Senator from Texas and the
Senator from Arizona voted for it, also.
It is talking of two particular provisions where, if you are found in
violation, for example, you cannot then go lease your equipment for
some other person to come in and do the job. That is provided for in
this Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. I have it here in my
hand, should there be any question.
Otherwise, the Senator from Texas was correct in a sense about
leasing and domicile. When we drew up this provision, we checked with
the Transportation Safety Department. In fact, I thought I was
correcting Secretary Mineta in our hearing last week when he attested
to the fact it never should be required that it be domiciled. And I
[[Page S8102]]
said: Mr. Secretary, we got that from your Department.
Now the Department of Transportation says: Not quite. What they
really meant was license in the sense of domesticating, having an
individual in some State to be subject to service. In other words, if
there is an accident and some aggrieved party wants to serve the
particular--let's say Mexican truck--they have to have the State and an
office and an individual to be served, subject to service that we all
know about in the practice of law.
That could be corrected, as the Senator from Washington said, by
amendment. True it is that, yes, Vicente Fox, the new President of
Mexico, has given us hope with NAFTA. There is no doubt we have NAFTA.
I opposed it as vigorously as anyone, but now we have to see that it
works.
In all candor, this is the first chance I have seen that we can make
it work under the new President, particularly with his Foreign
Minister, Jorge Castaneda, who has taught up here in the United States.
He has worked on this and I have talked to him about safety. Mexico
does not really want to get embroiled in this. They are mostly
interested in immigration and industry and economic expansion and
everything else, and they don't want to cross wires with the United
States on the matter of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act Of
1999.
He said that to me several times. I understand that. Neither do we,
because this is a reciprocal thing. If we required something up here in
the United States that was untoward or discriminatory, they would
require the same thing of us down in Mexico.
We are working this treaty out. These provisions under the Murray
amendment are all in conformance with NAFTA--and are required by the
U.S. motor carrier act. I can tell you that right now.
Senator Murray and Senator Shelby should be commended for their
thoughtful process. The President said we are going to license, and the
trucks can come over January 1st. The confrontational Sabo amendment in
the House said there will be no money to process applications and the
trucks would not be eligible to come over. It said we are going to save
money by cutting funding off for the fiscal year 2002. That doesn't get
us anywhere. If we take up Representative Sabo's legislative proposal,
it will be another year and a half before we can address the issue.
Nothing would happen until October of next year.
Everybody wants to move along on this particular score. Jimmy Hoffa
testified at the hearing for this Murray amendment. We asked him about
these particular amendments because we wanted to be sure it was
deliberate and nondiscriminatory in the sense that it was required of
the U.S. motor carrier act. That is the way it has been provided.
The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was correct in saying that
we have every bit of hope and we are all working. But to say that it
looks like partial discrimination and that we were trying to get some
tricky kind of things on behalf of the Teamsters, or that these
requirements cannot be complied with--it is totally out of whole cloth.
I have never seen anybody work harder and give better leadership than
the Senator from Washington with this Murray amendment. It is the
Murray-Shelby amendment. It is bipartisan. It should remain so. All of
this running around, I don't want to talk, or you don't want to talk,
or whatever--that is nonsense. Put up the amendment so we can vote on
the amendment and move on.
I think the Senator from Washington ought to be commended for the
very studied way in which she has gone about this particular amendment
and these requirements. Certainly once that gate is opened and the
trucks are coming over, then they are coming over in some 27 particular
spots, and we have to provide checkpoints and personnel, training, and
everything else ourselves. So it is not just the Mexicans preparing
themselves and so forth by January 1st, but us, too.
We don't make January 1st the drop-dead date under the Murray
amendment. We say all of these things cannot be licensed; the border
cannot be opened until A, B, C, or D in the Murray amendment are
complied with. That is the studied, deliberate way to go about
regulating at this particular point on the appropriations bill. It is
important that it be done that way rather than overall on the House
side.
We are not looking for the President to veto it. President Bush is
smart. He is not going to veto safety. There is nothing in this
particular measure that would require a veto. Let's get on with
legislation in the particular appropriations bill.
I vetoed, like the distinguished Presiding Officer, for 4 years as
the Governor. You wake up, and you want to read that veto message very
clearly so it can not only be sustained legally but in the public
domain. I can tell you that neither legally nor in the public domain
the veto of the Murray amendment will be sustained. Nobody is trying to
say we are going to stick it to you and we hope you veto it. None of
that is in here. It unfortunately has gotten way off track.
I am not a party or even a member of the Subcommittee on
Transportation in the Appropriations Committee, but I have watched how
it was done. Yes, our committee, the Committee of Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, had a hearing with Secretary Mineta. Those kinds of
things were pointed out. I could go on at length about the hearings we
had.
For example, the Comptroller General said:
Strong enforcement will be needed for the minority of
carriers that are egregious offenders and a risk to public
safety. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999,
section 219, provides fines and disqualification sanctions
for Mexican carriers operating without authority or beyond
the authority in the United States. These fines range from
$10,000 to $25,000. However, the act's provision has not been
implemented, and this provision will expire when NAFTA's
cross border trucking provisions are implemented.
These are the kinds of things we had before us at the hearing of
Commerce, Science, and Transportation with Secretary Mineta. It was an
excellent hearing.
We are ready to move on. I am convinced that we could report out a
similar authorization bill this afternoon, if the committee met,
similar to the Murray amendment. It would be right there, because we
made our suggestions as to changes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________