[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8109-S8112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call now for
several hours. As I understand it, there are still negotiations ongoing
with regard to the trucking amendment. In order to accommodate further
discussion, I would like to ensure that other Senators know I will be
filing cloture tonight, and it will be very important during this
negotiation period for other Senators to come to the floor to offer
their amendments.
I expect there will be additional rollcall votes later on tonight. We
know of two amendments that will be offered. We will expect rollcall
votes on those amendments sometime after 6:30 this evening. Beyond
that, there may be other amendments as well. But we will have
additional votes tonight.
Senators ought to come to the floor. As I say, I reluctantly will
file cloture with the hope that perhaps it could be vitiated if we can
reach some agreement. But barring that, we will expect a cloture vote
on Thursday. We would expect, as well, that Senators who have
amendments that may not be germane postcloture can come to the floor,
offer them, have them debated, and certainly have a vote on them as
well.
So tomorrow we will be devoting time to amendments. If amendments are
not offered, it would be my expectation that we would take up at least
one, if not more, of the controversial nominations that might require
some debate time. But we will address that in greater detail at a later
moment.
At this point, I encourage Senators to come to the floor because we
are entertaining amendments. We expect to offer a couple. As I said, we
will have rollcall votes later on this evening.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). We are in a period of morning
business.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray. I commend her for
the excellent job she has done on this bill. This is an extremely
important measure. She has done a first-rate job handling it. We
appreciate it in the Pacific Northwest and across this country.
I want to take a few minutes tonight to discuss the situation that
the flying public is facing as they look at using our airlines and our
system of aviation this summer. Unfortunately, so many Americans are
going to face long and tedious hours stranded in overcrowded airports.
In many instances, they are not even going to have the basic courtesy
of straight information about their flights, cancellations, and
important details that are so essential to them when they make their
plans.
[[Page S8110]]
It seems to me the central aviation problem today is that there are
no consequences for this flagrant mistreatment of passengers. There
really is no accountability. While this problem is extremely
complicated, clearly demand exceeds supply in this country. We need
more runways. We need better air traffic control. But you do not have
to pour more concrete to start telling passengers the truth about their
travel options in the United States.
Again and again we find that passengers are kept in the dark. They
are not told when a flight is overbooked. For example, I have no
problem with the airline selling a ticket to a passenger on an
overbooked flight, but I think the passenger has a right to know that
flight is overbooked. The inspector general found repeatedly that the
airlines would know hours ahead of time that a flight was going to be
significantly delayed by 2 or 3 hours. Yet the airlines would not go
out and change the departure board.
It seems to me what we ought to require, in an area that is extremely
complicated, is that passengers at least have a right to know what
their travel options are. Senator Reid and Senator McCain and I have
been working together very closely for several years now. A bill has
cleared the Senate Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman
Hollings and Senator McCain. Under normal circumstances I would offer a
measure that would ensure passengers have these basic rights as they
fly this summer in what proves to be a pretty exasperating travel
season for millions of Americans. But, frankly, I do not like to
legislate on an appropriations bill.
I think Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain and Senator Reid, our
bipartisan group that has worked in this area, has put together a very
good bill. It has passed the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously.
Suffice it to say, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee
has enough headaches in handling this legislation right now as to not
put yet another challenge on the bill. But I will tell you my patience
with respect to this matter is growing pretty thin.
Senator McCain and I introduced the first bipartisan passenger rights
legislation back in 1999. The airlines then said there really was no
problem. They said this was just an anecdotal situation and there
really was not a problem.
Then, as the evidence began to pour in that this problem was
systemwide, they said the answer is a voluntary approach. Just keep the
U.S. Congress out of it and everything is going to be fine. The
inspector general came forward and did an analysis of the voluntary
approach and saw that was not working particularly well. Then the
airlines said it was the FAA's fault, the Federal Aviation
Administration.
The fact is, it has been a bottomless pit of excuses with respect to
this question of improving passenger service in this country. Now the
airlines have basically said that if passengers want any rights, they
should basically go to court to try to get them. They will have a
voluntary program, but if the passengers want any rights they should go
out and try to find somebody in the trial bar to get interested in a
lawsuit.
Suffice it to say, this country needs a straightforward, enforceable
package of rights to protect the passenger.
I want to make it clear, I am not calling for a constitutional right
to a fluffy pillow on your airplane flight or a legal right to a jumbo
bag of peanuts. But I do think you ought to have a right to basic
information such as when your flight is chronically delayed.
One of the areas the inspector general has felt most strongly about
is a situation that would require airlines to inform a prospective
passenger when a flight is going to be 2 or 3 hours late and has a
track record of being that late 30 or 40 percent of the time.
I also think disclosing that information to the flying public would
inject a bit of competition into the system because, if consumers could
have that kind of information, then they might choose another flight,
say, that was only late 10 percent of the time or they might choose
another travel option altogether. You could begin to hold the airlines
accountable. You could begin to have some consequences for this shoddy
service to which the passengers are so often subjected.
The passenger bill of rights is really about the public's right to
know. It is about giving passengers information. I was told early on
that somehow giving passengers these rights was going to jack up the
bills of consumers. It seems to me it only can be a force for holding
costs down because when you give passengers information about their
options, that helps to make the system more competitive and serves as a
force to drive prices down.
I hope we will not have to wait much longer to get an enforceable set
of passengers' rights in place.
I do not quarrel in the least with the airlines' argument that we
need more funding for runways and air traffic control and
infrastructure. The airlines are absolutely right. Today, demand
exceeds supply with respect to American aviation, but I will tell my
colleagues and the Senate that all the concrete in the world is not
going to do it if the airlines are not required to give the passengers
basic information about their flight options that is now in their
possession. I am continually struck how it can be that this industry,
which has performed such technological miracles in so many other areas,
cannot devote just a tiny bit of that talent and ingenuity to making
sure that passengers are kept well informed.
It seems to me it is a basic sort of proposition of industry in this
country that you try to treat the customer properly, that you tell
someone what their options are. But essentially aviation is one of the
few industries--perhaps the only one--where you consistently can't get
the product for which you contracted. If the local movie house doesn't
have enough people for the 3 o'clock showing, the local movie house
doesn't go out and cancel the 3 o'clock showing. It has been found
again and again that is what airlines do when they don't think they
have sufficient people on a particular flight.
I am not going to offer the passenger bill of rights as an amendment
on Senator Murray's appropriations bill, but I wanted to come to the
floor and say this is an area where I think the Senate is ready to go
with the good work of Senator Reid and Senator McCain, and particularly
Senator Hollings, who pulled together a bipartisan bill in the Senate
Commerce Committee.
I think we are on our way to passing legislation that could make a
real difference. Given the fact that it will take some time to get that
new infrastructure which is needed in place--it is going to take time
to get additional runways and improvements in air traffic control and
other basic purposes--that is all the more reason to pass a passengers'
rights bill now so that passengers, as we are building the additional
infrastructure, can know what their travel options are and know how to
plan what is best for them and their families.
I again thank Senator Murray for the excellent job she has done on
this bill. I see Senator Shelby and others are here as well. Senator
Shelby was very involved in passing and supporting passenger rights as
well. I thank him for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the majority leader announced, we are
moving towards an amendment that will be voted on shortly. I understand
the Senator from New Jersey would like to speak for 12 minutes. I yield
to the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington
for yielding the time.
I rise in opposition to efforts by Senator Gramm and Senator McCain
to strike the Murray language regarding access by Mexican motor
carriers to United States highways. In fact, while I commend Senator
Murray for her efforts to reach compromise with regard to access to
United States highways by Mexican truck companies--I am indeed even
opposed to her compromise--I believe that any compromise is going to
result in danger to American motorists and believe the better course is
for the Senate to follow the leadership of the House of Representatives
and ban these trucks unless and until we are certain that American
motorists can be safe.
Senator Dorgan and I have prepared such an amendment and are
considering offering it. Obviously, that can
[[Page S8111]]
only be done if, indeed, we begin by defeating Senator McCain's
efforts.
While serving in the House of Representatives, I opposed the NAFTA
treaty. I believed then, as I believe now, that for all of the
advantages of integrating the economies of North America, NAFTA was a
missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity to establish regulatory
environmental and labor requirements that would protect both our
natural environment and also our human resources. Now we are about to
make the same mistake again at an enormous price.
I do not believe NAFTA or any international law imposes on the United
States an obligation to lower or ignore safety standards for our
citizens in the name of free trade. I believe in free trade. I have
often voted for free trade. I believe its economic advantages to our
Nation are overwhelming. But our first obligation is always to protect
the health and well-being of American citizens.
If there is a question as to whether allowing Mexican trucks
immediate and unlimited access will endanger American citizens, one
need look no further than developments along our southern border in the
last decade.
Since the enactment of NAFTA, the number of Mexican commercial trucks
crossing between our countries has increased by 324 percent. There are
over 4.5 million commercial truck crossings a year into our Southern
States. Only 1 percent of these vehicles are inspected by U.S.
personnel. Thirty-six percent of those trucks inspected failed basic
safety standards for such things as faulty brakes, broken lights,
unsafe transportation, or dangerous cargo.
As this chart illustrates, the percentage of trucks ordered off the
roads because of faulty brakes or hazardous and dangerous or toxic
cargoes is 50 percent higher in Mexican trucks than in America trucks
and nearly four times as high as with Canadian trucks. If you were to
extrapolate this number on the basis of actually inspecting all those
trucks crossing the American border, 1.5 million truck crossings would
pose a safety hazard, the vast majority of which are obviously
undetected. Public Citizen estimates that were we to do nothing, there
would be an additional 3 million truck crossings.
Using this 36 percent failure rate, that means, incredibly, that we
could expect 1 million hazardous truck crossings per year from Mexico
to the United States. Based on our current experience, 1 million trucks
are going to enter into the States that Members of this Senate
represent with faulty brakes, hazardous cargo, unsafe lighting, and
unsafe design.
How many lives will be consumed by 1 million faulty trucks on
America's highways? It is a question no one can answer. But every
Senator can agree upon this: It is going to cost lives--not maybe, not
perhaps. People will lose their lives. This problem is driven by
systemic flaws within the Mexican regulatory system which result in low
compliance, lax enforcement, and little or no sanctions for violations.
The chart on my left demonstrates the stark difference between
American and Mexican truck regulations, beginning with driver fatigue.
In order to assure that drivers are alert on American highways,
American truckdrivers are limited to 10 hours of consecutive driving.
Even with this American limit of 10 consecutive hours on the road,
driver fatigue still causes one-third of all truck accidents in the
United States.
Only months ago, Mexico instituted its first limitations on hours of
service. But most trucks in Mexico are exempt from the limitation.
Imagine American highways with Mexican truckdrivers who have no
experience with these limitations and who lack compliance with driving
for limited hours. Truckdrivers from Mexico earn, on average, $7 per
day driving these truck rigs across the United States.
I can tell you this about a truckdriver who earns $7 a day to feed
his family. Having him stop driving after 10 hours when he lives in
those economic circumstances, not being accustomed to these
regulations, having no history of them, with questionable enforcement--
these trucks are going to be driven for hours and hours past current
regulations.
Second, logbooks: In the United States, all truckdrivers are required
to keep detailed logbooks of their driving time, cargo, and destination
and to present them, on demand, for safety.
In Mexico, the law for keeping logbooks is not enforced, and border
inspectors have reported that virtually none of the Mexican drivers
entering the United States uses these logbooks--virtually none.
Weight limits: American trucks cannot exceed 80,000 pounds and are
often inspected by weigh stations throughout the Interstate Highway
System. Eighty-three percent of the fatal truck accidents in the United
States involve trucks that are over 26,000 pounds, clearly establishing
that heavier trucks are the cause of most fatal truck accidents.
In Mexico, the weight limit is an incredible 135,000 pounds, or 28
tons higher than the American limit. Equally as disconcerting as this
higher weight limit is that even should the limit be reduced, there is
inadequate infrastructure or even space along the border to perform
weight compliance checks. Seventy percent of inspection sites in the
United States have room for only one or two trucks. Not only are these
trucks out of compliance, not only are they dangerous, but even if we
were requiring compliance, we do not have the infrastructure to do it.
These trucks are coming to American roads. It is a safety problem, to
be certain, that is going to cause loss of life. It is also an
invitation to massive damage to American highways, massive damage to
highways and bridges that are not designed for these kinds of
extraordinary weights.
Hazardous materials: In the United States, all hazardous materials
must be clearly marked with an official placard when transported, and
all truckdrivers transporting hazardous materials must be specifically
licensed. This has been done to ensure safety that when hazardous
materials go through our neighborhoods and our cities and our States,
we know the driver is competent, but we also know that driver is
traceable and responsible if those toxic or hazardous materials are
dumped in water supplies or streams or neighborhoods because of a long
problem of criminal and even organized criminal activity in dumping
these hazardous materials.
Nearly a quarter of all trucks entering the United States from Mexico
are transporting hazardous materials but only 1 out of 14 is properly
identified.
Age: The average age of a commercial truck in the United States is
4\1/2\ years. In Mexico, the average truck is 15 years old. There are
few truck companies in America that operate any trucks that are 15
years old. ``Average'' or ``median'' age means a significant portion of
Mexico's trucks is 20, 25, and 30 years old. By definition, such a
truck is not safe to be operating on the American Interstate Highway
System.
Lest anyone think my concerns are solely on the Mexican side of the
border, let me discuss for a moment the failure of the United States to
properly prepare for an inspection program.
On the assumption that Senator McCain's efforts will fail, we are
left with Senator Murray's efforts to reach a compromise on this to try
to improve this system. We hope she succeeds. But if she does, it will
require a Federal inspection system.
Today, Federal and State inspectors are on duty 24 hours a day at
only 2 of the 27 border crossings with Mexico. If a Mexican truck
enters a border crossing when no one is there, it is not subject to
inspection.
The Department of Transportation, under these proposals, is going to
issue operating certificates to Mexican firms based on their answers to
questionnaires. The Department will have 18 months to perform a safety
audit on the firm. But the firm's trucks can freely travel throughout
the United States during this 18-month period when the questionnaires
are being reviewed.
Second, the inadequacy of the U.S. inspection infrastructure is an
invitation to problems. Many State inspectors who augment Federal
inspectors do not even routinely check for licenses and documents. Most
border crossings lack any telecommunications, so the inspection
personnel cannot even check on the validity of licenses and
registrations being offered at border crossings.
I make these points to demonstrate that the Mexican trucking industry
as
[[Page S8112]]
well as the American inspection system are not ready to protect the
American driving public. There is no infrastructure. There is
inadequate personnel. There are not weigh stations. There are not even
telephones. There are not parking spaces. There is an avalanche of old
Mexican trucks, without requirements for safety or background or
design, that are coming to the United States.
This Nation has spent more than 50 years modernizing its trucking
industry, learning about safety, training drivers, ensuring that they
understand how to operate these rigs. After 50 years of experience, and
lowering mortality rates, we are now opening our borders to Mexican
trucks.
I recognize that this issue is difficult because of our close
relations with Mexico and our obligations under NAFTA. Indeed, on
February 6 an international arbitration panel ruled that the United
States cannot bar all Mexican applicants from entering the United
States. The United States wants to comply with its international
obligations. But the arbitration panel also found that because of vast
differences between the two regulatory regimes, the United States did
not have to treat Mexican applicants the same as it did United States
or Canadian applicants.
The panel indicated that NAFTA did not restrict the ability of the
United States to implement measures to ensure that Mexican trucking
companies and their drivers meet United States standards. I quote:
Nor does it (NAFTA) require that Mexican-domiciled firms
currently providing trucking services in the U.S. be allowed
to continue to do so, if and when they fail to comply with
U.S. safety regulations.
Later on the panel added:
U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operation of
trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is American,
Canadian or Mexican.
I believe the authority of the U.S. Government in this area is clear.
We have the right--indeed, we have the obligation--to ensure that our
citizens are safe and our highways are operated to the very highest
standards. The record in the United States, for all of our efforts, is
not overwhelmingly positive. Despite 50 years of efforts, the highest
design requirements in the world, the best training in the world, over
5,000 Americans are killed every year and over 100,000 people are
injured on American highways because of accidents with heavy trucks.
There is no one in the Senate who can credibly argue that if Mexican
trucks are allowed in the United States without adequate inspection,
without modernizing the infrastructure, without a tremendous change in
the operating performance of these old Mexican trucks, with poorly
trained drivers, and no experience with modern regulations, these 5,000
deaths are not going to be increased and the loss of life will not be
considerable.
Mr. President, I believe this case is compelling. There are few times
Members of the Senate can cast a vote knowing that the results are
potentially so dramatic. The citizens of our States are already
frustrated with crowded highways that are deteriorating under heavy
use. The loss of life from accidents is inexplicable--100,000 injured
Americans.
To now open American highways to Mexican trucks, given their record
of compliance, the failures of infrastructure, is to guarantee an
increase in this dangerous situation.
I urge defeat of Senator McCain's efforts. Then the Senate needs to
seriously consider whether the compromise that is in the legislation is
sufficient to protect American families.
____________________