Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11304-S11313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

Vote on Amendment No. 2792

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe a vote will now occur on an
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),

[[Page S11305]]

the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 33, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--33

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--7

Biden
Clinton
Craig
Dodd
Hagel
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 2792) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The underlying amendment is agreed
to.
The amendment (No. 2791), as amended, was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we
are hoping to shortly get an agreement on an amendment that will be
considered, we believe, with an hour time agreement, equally divided,
and a vote in about an hour from now. It is the amendment that will be
offered by Senator Dorgan. I believe the minority is looking at the
amendment right now. We hope to get an agreement in just a minute.
I will suggest the absence of a quorum, but Members should know that
we hope to get an agreement and move to that vote in about an hour. We
should know in the next several minutes.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 2797

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have previously described an amendment I
wish to offer. I believe I have filed the amendment. It is an amendment
that deals with Mexican trucks. I wish to offer it at this point on
behalf of myself and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania and other
cosponsors. It is amendment No. 2797.
I ask that we consider that amendment. I believe there is no
amendment pending at the moment, so I do not need consent to set an
amendment aside. I ask for the immediate consideration of the amendment
I just described.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Specter, proposes
an amendment numbered 2797.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the establishment of a program that allows
Mexican truck drivers to operate beyond the commercial zones near the
Mexican border)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to establish a cross-border motor carrier
demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the
international border between the United States and Mexico.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, I am offering the
amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and
others. I believe my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, is
working with the ranking member of the subcommittee for a time
agreement. I don't believe a time agreement exists at this point.
With consent, I ask that Senator Specter from Pennsylvania be
recognized. He has a time commitment. He was asking to be recognized
now. I previously said a few words about this amendment. I will speak
about it in greater detail in a bit. I ask unanimous consent for
Senator Specter to be recognized for as much time as he may consume. If
he is not ready, Mr. President, I will continue for just a moment to
describe the amendment.
I will be happy to yield to my colleague from the State of
Washington.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask if we could set up a time agreement
on this amendment so Members know when the vote is going to occur
tonight. I ask unanimous consent for 60 minutes of debate prior to the
vote; that no second-degree amendment be in order to the amendment
prior to the vote; that the time be equally divided and controlled in
the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the
Senate proceed to vote in relation to this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, I regret we have not been
able to clear this request on this side. As much as we would like to, I
have to object at this point.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to recognize my colleague from
Pennsylvania in a moment, but let me describe very briefly what this
amendment is.
Over this past weekend, a pilot project was initiated by the
Department of Transportation dealing with long-haul Mexican trucks
coming into this country. My contention is, and I think it is
buttressed by the inspector general's report that was issued on this
subject, that they are nowhere near having the information that would
give them the opportunity to initiate long-haul Mexican trucks coming
into this country. We have, since the advent of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, allowed Mexican trucks to come in within a 25-mile
radius of the Mexican border.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a brief
statement to the Senate?
Mr. DORGAN. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, based on my conversation with the Republican
leader, there will be no vote on this amendment this afternoon. That
being the case, I think it is a fair statement to say there will be no
more votes today. I had indicated already we would not have any votes
after 5 or 5:30 today. We have at least an hour's debate on this, and
the Republican leader said we would not vote on this amendment today.
This means we will have votes in the morning, unless there is
something untoward. So everyone should understand we will have votes in
the morning, we will have our caucuses between midday, and there is a
White House meeting, I know for a few people, but that doesn't mean we
could not go forward tomorrow. But we have a lot of work to do on this
bill. It is to the Senate's advantage to finish this bill this week.
That would mean we will have finished one-third of our appropriations
bills, if we finish this bill.

[[Page S11306]]

In my brief conversation in the well with a number of Senators a few
minutes ago, we have Senators wanting to move the Labor-HHS bill and
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Those are my only two
conversations today. We, of course, have to deal with the Defense
Appropriations bill in the near future. So the sooner we finish this
bill, the better off we will be. There is a lot of work that needs to
be done before the end of the fiscal year, which is in a few weeks. I
hope everyone understands that if we are going to maintain some degree
of financial integrity, we are going to have to finish these
appropriations bills. The Republican leader has told me on more than
one occasion that the minority is interested in finishing the
appropriations bills, and we have had some good cooperation in the last
several weeks. So I do hope we can finish this bill.
There will be votes more than likely in the morning, though.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, again, this is an amendment that deals
with the issue of a pilot project on long-haul trucking into this
country. The House of Representatives has already passed a piece of
legislation that would prohibit that pilot project, and this amendment
would do the same for the Senate.
I will describe in some detail the reasons for the amendment, but I
am pleased a cosponsor, Senator Specter, wishes to make a statement. I
know he has a time constraint, so I will relinquish the floor so
Senator Specter can make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Louisiana has
asked for 2 minutes to precede my comments, and I am prepared to yield
to her for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for yielding
because of time constraints.
I came to the floor to thank Senator Murray for her extraordinary
work on the bridge replacement amendment and for the colleagues--60--
who joined her in supporting this amendment. It is important to all of
our States, but particularly for Louisiana, that is struggling, like so
many of our other States are, to find funding for critical
infrastructure. We, of course, 2 years ago, had the collapse of an
infrastructure, of our levees. We have great impacts on many of our
highways. Of course, the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota has caused
us all to refocus on the importance of this issue.
Mr. President, I will submit my longer statement for the Record, but
we have over 4,000 bridges in the State of Louisiana alone, that is
including overpasses over highways. Nearly 30 percent of the total are
categorized as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In
fact, one of the bridges I have outlined in my statement is the Red
River Bridge that was built in 1936. It alone will cost $100 million.
This U.S. 71/165 bridge is in a very small parish in Louisiana. We are
straddling the great Mississippi River, and it causes a great deal of
strain on some of our poorer parishes that need to find ways to cross
but have very little capacity.
The backlog of bridge replacement needs for bridges that are either
structurally or functionally deficient and have a sufficiency rating of
less than 50 in Louisiana is $2.1 billion. The I-35 West Bridge in
Minneapolis was given a sufficiency rating of 50 in 2005.
A total of almost 4,000 bridges, or nearly 30 percent, of the total
bridges in Louisiana are categorized as either ``structurally
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.''
If all bridges categorized as ``structurally deficient'' or
``functionally obsolete'' in Louisiana were to be replaced, the total
projected cost would be more than $10.5 billion today, not fully
including other costs such as rights of way, engineering or utilities.
Louisiana is not unlike most other states with a backlog of
transportation projects. The Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development alone has a total transportation backlog of over $14
billion. The funding in this amendment will help address a critical
piece of that backlog by providing additional funds for bridges in the
State.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator Murray and
this critical amendment for our Nation's bridge infrastructure.
Specific examples in Louisiana are:
The I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles, built in 1952, is
now functionally obsolete, with additional capacity needed in the
corridor and estimated replacement cost several times the current
annual funding of the entire bridge replacement program. This bridge is
nationally significant because it is part of Interstate 10, a
``Corridor of the Future'' as designated by the Department of
Transportation.
The Red River Bridge at Fort Buhlow, US 71/165, built in 1936, is
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, with an estimated
replacement cost of greater than $100 million, a significant portion of
our current annual funding of the entire bridge replacement program.
I thank Senator Murray, and my colleagues for yielding before we go
on to the next debate, which is on trucks and trucking, and I am happy
to cosponsor their amendment as well.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the Department of Transportation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

September 10, 2007.
Dear Senator Landrieu: Your inquiry regarding the condition
of bridges in Louisiana, comes at a time where the citizenry
and leadership in this State have recognized the criticality
of our infrastructure and have opened a serious discussion of
the needs for better roads and bridges, especially the types
of funding levels which are needed to make improvements to
our overall transportation systems. We welcome the
opportunity to provide you the information you require to
assist in your capacity as a member of the United States
Senate.
This letter and attachment should provide answer to help in
preparation of remarks for the floor. It includes information
pertinent to our bridge programs, current status of our
bridge system and important nomenclature and rationale for
the replacement, rehabilitation and repair of our critical
infrastructure.
The backlog of bridge replacement needs in Louisiana is
$2.1 billion. These are bridges that qualify for federal
bridge replacement funds. They are either structurally or
functionally deficient, and have a sufficiency rating of less
than 50 (on a scale of 1-100).
If there was $1 billion additional bridge funds nationwide,
that would only equate to approx. $20 million +/- for each
state on average. That would only address about 1% of our
needs.
As a starting point for this discussion, we would like to
assure a common understanding of the utilization of the terms
``structurally deficient'' and ``functionally obsolete''.
These phrases portray a dire description of a structure which
is normally unwarranted, as they are specifically used to
define structures as qualifying for rehabilitation or
replacement based on structural repair and traffic safety
related needs, respectively. For federal bridge funding to be
distributed in accordance with the regulations, bridges must
be so defined to qualify for this funding. Using these terms
literally generally causes trepidation amongst motorists
regarding specific bridges which are quite able to safely
carry traffic.
We trust that this reply provides information which will
assist you in your upcoming committee hearings. As always, if
I may be of further service in this matter, please notify me.
Sincerely,
Johnny Bradberry,
Secretary.

The Federal Bridge Program in Louisiana

The Highway Bridge Program in the DOTD is separated into
three distinct subsets: Bridge Preservation On-System, Bridge
Preservation Off-System and Bridge Preventative Maintenance.
Bridge Preservation On-System projects are selected based on
eligibility for funding, District priorities and additional
factors such as truck routes, average daily traffic, route
continuity, structure age, material and condition, crash
data, construction cost estimate, constructability and
available program funds. Rehabilitation and replacement under
this program require that the structure meet current
standards when construction is complete. Funding of this
program has historically been $60 million to $73 million per
year until last year, prior to the collapse of the I-35 West
Bridge in Minneapolis, when a decision was made to fund the
program starting in FY 07-08 at $125 million for at least the
next 5 years.
The Bridge Preservation Off-System projects are selected
based on eligibility for funding and availability of funds,
utilizing similar methodology as with the Bridge Preservation
On-System Program. Local governments are allowed to
prioritize the projects in their parishes in order to meet
their specific needs and priorities. Program funding has
historically been $13 million to $15 million per year and is
limited by the amount of funding allocated in capital outlay
to match the federal funds.
The Preventative Maintenance Program, which allows us to
repair rather than replace

[[Page S11307]]

or rehabilitate structures, is currently funded at $3
million. The primary difference between this program and the
aforementioned programs is that funds are allowed to go
towards maintenance work that prevents the structure from
deteriorating, provided an approved systematic approach is
used to select projects. This maintenance work does not
follow the caveat that the structure be constructed to
current standards, allowing us to more economically repair
structures in limited specific cases.
The term ``Structurally Deficient'' is used to identify
structures that could qualify for rehabilitation or
replacement because of structural-related problems. Such a
problem could include a particularly low rating of a bridge
deck, superstructure or substructure element (girder, pier,
etc.). This does not amount to a declaration that the bridge
is unsafe, just an indication that the bridge could qualify
for federal bridge funding for rehabilitation or replacement.
The term ``Functionally Obsolete'' is used to identify
elements of the structure which are not currently up to
current standards. A bridge over an Interstate highway with
15 feet of vertical clearance is obsolete by AASHTO
standards, but may service quite well. Another example is an
Interstate Highway bridge with 4-foot outside shoulders;
again, full shoulders are not provided, but the bridge
functions quite well.
The term ``Sufficiency Rating'' is a way of evaluating a
bridge, based on a structural inventory of the bridge's
geometry, clearances, load rating, traffic and other
criteria. It is a score from 0 (completely deficient) to 100
(totally sufficient). Bridges with a sufficiency rating of
50-80 qualify for rehabilitation under Federal funding
regulations, while a rating of 50 or less qualifies a bridge
for replacement.
The table below demonstrates the status of Bridges
Categorized ``Structurally Deficient'' or ``Functionally
Obsolete''.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridges Bridges Replacement/
Total Categorized Categorized Bridges Bridges Rehabilitation Replacement/
Program Number Structurally Functionally Under Currently Cost Rehabilitation
of Deficient Obsolete Construction Programmed (Currently Value (All SD
Bridges (SD) (FO) Programmed) or FO Bridges)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-System............................................... 7694 664 1562 124 304 $1.003 B $6.185 B
Off-System.............................................. 5259 1071 645 51 328 189 M 4.370 B
Total............................................... 13223 1735 2207 175 632 1.192 B 10.555 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A total of 3942, or nearly 30%, of the total bridges in
Louisiana are categorized as either ``structurally
deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete''. There are currently
175 bridges currently being rehabilitated or replaced and
under construction. There are 632 bridges currently
programmed for rehabilitation or replacement within our 6-
year program with a replacement cost of $1.192 Billion; the
figure in the table for on-system bridges ($1.003 Billion)
includes estimates of real estate acquisition, engineering
and utility relocation. If all bridges categorized as
``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete'' were
to be replaced, the total projected cost would be $10.555
Billion today, not fully including other costs such as real
estate, engineering or utilities.
There are currently 202 bridges closed which are classified
either ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally
obsolete''. Of these closed bridges, 199 (12 on-system, 187
off-system) are classified as ``structurally deficient'' and
3 (all off-system) are classified as ``functionally
obsolete''. Of this total, 86 (1 on-system and 85 off-system)
are currently not programmed for rehabilitation or
replacement. It should be noted that these numbers do not
include detour bridges for bridges in these categories
currently under construction, which are considered ``open''
to traffic.
Based on the funding limitations and other programmatic
restrictions as regards the federal bridge program, there are
several bridge projects which we need to point out as
problematic in their implementation:
I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge in Lake Charles, built in 1952,
functionally obsolete (narrow shoulders) and additional
capacity needed in the corridor, estimated replacement cost
several times the current annual funding of the entire bridge
replacement program.
I-310 Hale Boggs Memorial Bridge in Luling, built in 1984,
does not qualify based on sufficiency rating, though it has
fallen significantly in a short period of time, need to
replace cables ($30 million), does not fit into program well.
Red River Bridge at Fort Buhlow, US 71/165, built in 1936,
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, estimated
replacement cost (greater than $100 million) a significant
portion of our current annual funding of the entire bridge
replacement program.
US 190 Mississippi River Bridge at Baton Rouge, built in
1940, preventative maintenance required--cleaning and
painting ($68 million) to preserve structure from further
deterioration and to protect investment to widen roadway
(1989).
Consequently, it is very difficult to provide to you a list
of specific structures most in need of replacement or
rehabilitation. There are numerous considerations we make in
the programming of bridges for replacement, rehabilitation or
repair, including eligibility for funding, District
priorities and additional factors such as truck routes,
average daily traffic, route continuity, structure age,
material and condition, crash data, construction cost
estimate, constructability and available program funds.
However, the list above is illustrative of projects which are
problematic to fit into the existing bridge program, though
it is clear that repair, rehabilitation or reconstruction is
needed on these structures immediately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring the amendment offered
by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota because I believe there
are very serious safety issues involved here which have not been
answered sufficiently by the Department of Transportation.
Here we have a situation where the Secretary of Transportation
announced a pilot program on February 23 of this year to allow up to
100 Mexican trucking companies to ship goods to and from the United
States. The Iraq supplemental appropriations bill delayed
implementation of this program until there was a report by the
inspector general and a response by the Department of Transportation.
The inspector general released his report and the Department of
Transportation submitted responses on the same day--on September 6. As
I read these documents, it is insufficient to have the requisite
guarantees of safety. And of no little concern to me is that all of
this should be done on the same day, without taking into account some
very serious underlying problems.
There are safety concerns here which include the database
deficiencies that prevent the Department of Transportation inspectors
from being able to accurately gather information on truckdriver
convictions and driving violations, vehicle accident reports, and
insurance records. The inspector general confirms that these databases
are still under development. The Department of Transportation report
does not respond to these issues.
The inspector general report also states that the Department of
Transportation has not developed and implemented adequate plans for
checking trucks and drivers participating in the demonstration project
as they cross the border. The DOT report responded by stating they
created border-crossing plans with the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. Well, that is hardly an assurance of safety.
We do want to have good relations with Mexico. We do not want to
impede legitimate commerce. But safety is a very vital factor, and
there are good reasons to insist on safety and verification before we
permit this pilot program with 100 trucking companies, which we can
obviously expect to be supplemented in a very substantial number. When
you are dealing with issues on truckdriver convictions and driving
violations and vehicle accident reports, you are talking about
something which is very probative on whether it is a safe program. When
you are talking about insurance records, those are necessary in order
to be sure that if there are accidents, and there is liability, there
is adequate insurance to protect Americans from these trucks which are
coming into our country.
We have had a fair amount of experience here. I believe there is
ample time to reevaluate this program if and when this database is
updated and there is sufficient record documentation to guarantee the
requisite safety. But on this date of the record, it seems to me this
program ought not to go forward, and the amendment which Senator Dorgan
has advanced is very sound. I

[[Page S11308]]

intend to support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding me
time at this stage of the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
The statements he made represent the crux of the matter, the issue of:
Are there equivalent standards and is there equivalent enforcement with
respect to trucking in Mexico, and would that then allow us to feel
assured that long-haul Mexican trucks entering this country all across
the United States would give us the same notion of safety we have with
respect to the kinds of restrictions, the kinds of regulations we have
in the United States?
Mr. President, I am going to get some charts I will make a
presentation with in a couple of moments. It will take me a minute to
get the charts I want to show my colleagues.
Let me, for the moment, 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. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Pennsylvania said it
well, I believe. Look, Mexico is a neighbor of ours to the South. We
don't come to the floor, none of us would come to the floor of the
Senate, under any condition, whether it is a trade debate or a debate
about Mexican trucking, in a way that is pejorative with respect to our
neighbor. But it is important to understand that we are two different
countries and, in many ways, have very different approaches to some of
these issues.
With respect to trucking, we have not previously allowed long-haul
Mexican trucking into this country. We have allowed a 25-mile
periphery, or 25-mile diameter from the border, but we have not allowed
long-haul trucking in this country from Mexico. The reason: There has
not been a demonstration that there are equivalent standards and
equivalent enforcement with respect to Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks.
Now, we have built, over a long period of time, very significant and
stiff requirements for long-haul trucks in this country. We require
certain things of drivers. There are hours of service they can't go
beyond, there are logbook requirements that are significant, there is
equipment inspection that is very significant, there is reporting of
accidents, and a whole series of things we have done in this country to
try to understand and make certain the trucking is safe. Are there
accidents from time to time? Sure. But it is not because we don't have
in place significant regulatory capability, and it is not because we
don't enforce it. We have regulations and we have enforcement.
Now, I want to show my colleagues what happened last Thursday night.
Last Thursday night, at 7:30 in the evening, the Department of
Transportation received what is called the Office of Inspector
General's Report. They have always wanted down at DOT to do a pilot
program for long-haul Mexican trucks, but they have been prevented from
doing that because I and others put a provision in law that says you
can't proceed with this pilot project until you get the inspector
general's report and see what the situation is.
Well, they got it Thursday night. It is 42 pages. I have a copy of
it, or we are getting a copy of it--42 pages. At 7:30 at night they
received the inspector general's report, and at 8:30 at night they
triggered the pilot project.
I tell you what, I took Evelyn Woods' speed reading course in
college. I remember taking that, and all of a sudden I was galloping
along. I started at about 300 words a minute and pretty soon I was
reading at about 1,200 words per minute. It was remarkable. But that is
nothing compared to what they do at the Department of Transportation,
apparently. This is speed reading par excellence. In 1 hour, they
digested the inspector general's conclusions in the inspector general's
report. Or maybe there is another answer. Maybe they had already
decided what they were going to do, and it didn't matter very much.
Let me tell you what the inspector general's report says. It says:

While Department of Transportation officials inspecting
Mexican truck companies took steps to verify the on-site
data, we noted that certain information was not available to
them.

What kind of information wasn't available? Well, little things,
apparently. They say:

Specifically, information pertaining to vehicle
inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.

Excuse me, I am sorry, that represents the entire guts of what you
need to know if you are going to assure the safety of the American
driver as we begin to see long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this
country--vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations.
Now, this morning I showed a news report of a tragic accident, an
almost unbelievable accident that happened in Mexico. It is
heartbreaking to understand the consequences of this. Two trucks
collided. This is in today's paper. Two trucks collided. Thirty-seven
died and 150 were injured. There was a blast, because one of the trucks
was carrying explosives. This was in a mining area. One truck loaded
with explosives crashed into another. It caused a crater of 65 feet,
with 150 people injured and 37 people killed.
Now, I don't know the specifics of this. I am only saying that at a
time when we are speaking of safety issues, this was in the paper this
morning. My guess is when you move explosives around in this country,
particularly on our roads, we have very specific standards--vehicles in
front with warning signs, vehicles behind. My guess is--and I don't
know what those standards are--that we have very specific standards
about the conditions under which you would do that.
I don't know whether those standards exist in Mexico. I suspect we
will learn about that. But I think the questions of the maintenance of
the vehicles, these heavy, 18-wheel vehicles that come moving down our
highways, are very important questions. They are not resolved.
Let me go to page 2 of the inspector general's report. You don't have
to go further than page 2. It says the following, that the Federal
Motor Vehicle Group down at DOT ``agreed to develop a plan to check
every truck every time.''
So they are going to check every truck every time in this pilot
program, and they have certified 100 trucking companies to be able to
come in, but the inspector general says, ``as of July, 2007,'' a month
and a half ago, ``no coordinated site-specific plans to carry out such
checks were in place'' and they stated they would have the plans then
outlined by August 22, but we have not received any outlines or
completed plans. ``In our opinion,'' they say, ``not having site
specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating this project
will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid
the required checks.''
All of us have heard these things from the Federal agencies: Trust
us; we are going to do it; we promise; we pledge. Somehow it does not
get done.
We have an inspector general's report that came out on Thursday
evening at 7:30, and on Thursday evening at 8:30 the Department of
Transportation wanted to trigger this report.
I have found some things in this report that would give the
Department some comfort. They are there. But you cannot avoid page 2.
That provides no comfort at all. They say they are going to inspect
every truck every time. They are not and cannot. You cannot avoid this:
that the only information they have is information that comes from the
trucking companies that wish to give it to them. Otherwise no
information was available. No database was made available to them, and
no information on these three critical issues: vehicle inspections,
accident reports, and driver violations.
That is the ball game. So the U.S. House of Representatives has
already passed by voice vote a provision that says ``no money in this
appropriations bill shall or can be used to continue this pilot
project.'' With my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and
others, I propose we do exactly the same thing. This amendment is
identical to that which the House has

[[Page S11309]]

passed. It makes sense to me. Will there be, at some point, because we
have a trade agreement called NAFTA with Mexico, homogenization of
rules and standards and so forth with respect to trucking? Maybe. Will
at that point there be long-term trucking in this hemisphere from
Canada to the United States to Mexico? Maybe. But there will not be, in
my judgment, until we are satisfied as a country that the standards and
enforcement of those standards, which is the most important issue--the
enforcement of those standards with respect to Mexican long-haul
trucking are at least equivalent to that which we have in this country.
When an American citizen pulls up at a four-way stop sign or drives
down a road, a two-lane or a four-lane road, it doesn't matter, and
comes next to an 18-wheel truck, I believe most of them want to be
assured that the inspections on that vehicle, the requirements on that
driver, are the equivalent--if they are not from this country--are the
equivalent to the standards we have already imposed.
When that is the case, I think the consumers, the drivers, the
American people will not have additional risk. Until that is the case
they most certainly will have additional risk.
Again, one can argue, I suppose--one can debate at great length this
issue and talk about what has been done--the improvements, the
progress. But one cannot ignore the fact that what we know about
Mexican trucking with respect to vehicle inspections, with respect to
drivers' records and accident reports, we are getting only from
voluntary compliance from those companies that wish to provide it. That
is the case.
My amendment is very simple. I have more to say, but I think there
are others who wish to speak. I will defer to them and then speak
following that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am under no illusion that I can change the
mind of my good friend from North Dakota, but maybe I can ease his
concerns, at least in several areas, because he did raise some things
that I think should be noted.
Prior to 1982, Mexican trucks did operate throughout the United
States without restriction. Since then, Canadian trucks have continued
to operate through the United States. Surprisingly, even some of the
Mexican carriers who were authorized to operate beyond the commercial
zones in 1982 have continued to operate in the United States. As best
we can tell, they have as good a safety record as the U.S. drivers.
But, obviously, there are lots of arguments in terms of efficiency, in
terms of commitments made under the North American Free Trade Agreement
for carrying this out. But I want to focus just a minute on a couple of
items of concern about meeting safety standards.
Mexican trucking companies, drivers, and vehicles participating in
the demonstration program have to abide by stricter safety standards
than U.S. and Canadian trucking companies, drivers, and vehicles
operating in the United States. These safety standards include they
have to have a U.S.-based insurance policy, full compliance with hours
of service regulations, vehicle maintenance, driver qualifications,
including the ability to communicate in English, and drug and alcohol
testing. Every carrier satisfactorily completing the test has to have
its drivers drug tested by U.S. labs.
In addition, as many of us would be concerned about the tremendous
accident with hazardous materials, these carriers are prohibited from
transporting hazardous materials in the United States. They cannot
transport passengers, and they cannot pick up domestic freight going
from point to point.

Every Mexican truck participating in the program has to pass a
rigorous 39-point, front-to-back inspection and is required to display
a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance--CVSA--inspection decal that
indicates it has passed this inspection. The decals are valid only for
3 months and can be renewed only by passing another inspection.
As far as who is going to verify that the trucks are following U.S.
regulations, U.S. Federal inspectors perform, and Mexican trucking
companies must pass, a preauthorization safety audit to get into the
program, conducted in Mexico prior to granting the authority to operate
beyond U.S. commercial zones.
The audit includes inspections of vehicles the company intends to use
in long-haul operations in the United States and a thorough inspection
of the company's records to ensure compliance with Federal safety
regulations. Vehicles not inspected by the U.S. Federal inspectors
cannot be used for long-haul operations in the United States.
Every inspector reviews Federal safety regulations with the carrier,
including those concerning driver hours of service, to ensure the
carrier is knowledgeable of and comprehends the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations.
All the motor vehicles and drivers in the cross-border demonstration
program will be subject to roadside inspections, just like U.S. and
Canadian vehicles and drivers, and will be placed out of service, as
any carrier would be, if they fail critical portions of the inspection.
I thought that might be of some comfort to my colleague who raised
questions about safety inspections. I suggest that be taken into
consideration as we review the appropriateness of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to wind the clock back to 1994.
I had the occasion of voting twice against NAFTA, once when I was in
the House and once when I was in the Senate, in the same year because I
came in in a special election. I remember at that time we had a
delegation of six, four House Members and two Senators from Oklahoma,
and I was the only one out of six who voted against NAFTA.
Ironically, the very arguments I made in the House and Senate back in
1994 are the same things we are hearing now. I said at that time I
could see what was going to be happening in the future; that we would
be having Mexican truckers coming in; that they would be competing in a
way where they would not have to qualify with all of our environmental
standards, our safety standards, our wage and hour standards. It
appears to me that is the case.
I listened very carefully to my good friend from Missouri, but I have
not seen--and having reviewed the IG report--that all of these
questions have been answered. I have to say I am inclined to agree with
the Senator from North Dakota that the problem that existed in 1994
still exists today, and I would probably oppose this amendment.
I would like to also make a comment, a request. When I have a chance,
after the disposition of this, I would like to bring up amendment No.
2796 for its immediate consideration. I will wait and see if I can get
in the queue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. First of all, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I think
it is the case that the Department of Transportation--and I think this
is true under most administrations--that whatever they want to do they
will give you words of assurance that whatever they want to do they
will do it right and make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are
dotted, but it is the case that the inspector general describes for us
what the Department of Transportation says it will do, it is not doing.
We do not have to debate that. It is a circumstance--let me go back
to this chart, if I might, to describe what the inspector general says.
It seems to me the key issue, as my colleague from Oklahoma suggests,
if we have long-haul Mexican trucks on the roads in this country, the
question is, when you are driving beside one or coming to a four-way
stop and meeting one, does that 18-wheel truck have the same vehicle
inspection, the same level of safety? Does the driver have the same
hours of service, the same requirements that our drivers do? Do we have
the same accident record and reports on that driver?
The answer is no. So that in itself obliterates the question of are
we ready to integrate that Mexican long-haul trucking experience into
this country.
It is true the Canadians are here. We have similar, nearly equivalent
standards and enforcement with respect to

[[Page S11310]]

Canada. Of course, an added issue with respect to Mexico is the
language issue, and there is an English requirement. But the Department
of Transportation folks, who really do this sort of thing, kind of roll
their eyes, saying: That is fairly hard to enforce.
But I do want to make this point. What the inspector general's report
says, on two pieces--No. 1, on page 2, again, he said ``DOT said they
will check every truck every time.'' That is part of the assurance.

[B]ut in July 2007, no coordinated site-specific plans to
carry out such checks were in place.
FMCSA stated that it would have plans outlined by August
22, 2007, but [the inspector general said] we have not
received any outlines or completed plans. In our opinion, not
having site-specific plans developed and in place prior to
initiating the demonstration project will increase the risk
that project participants will be able to avoid the required
checks.

That is the dilemma.
Also, in addition to that, the inspector general says:

The DOT officials inspecting Mexican truck companies took
steps to verify the on-site data. We noted that certain
information was not available to them. Specifically,
information pertaining to vehicle inspections, accident
reports, and driver violations--

That is the ball game. If you do not have those, you don't have a
base of information on which to make a judgment that this is going to
be safe for the American people.
My point is we have developed certain standards in this country. I
know in some cases we have developed those standards after great
debate. They represent regulations, and no one likes regulations. But
in many cases these regulations are necessary in order to assure us of
the kind of safety we would expect on the roads. We license drivers, we
inspect trucks, and require certain things of trucks. We have certain
standards which you are required to meet when you haul certain kinds of
products. We do all those things.
Is it perfect? No, not at all. But are they standards we understand,
and are they standards we try to enforce in every case in every State?
They are. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes the enforcement fails a
bit, but that is a very different set of circumstances than trying to
integrate that system with a country that while it has standards, does
not have the same kind of enforcement.
You do not have to take it from me, there are volumes of testimony in
the Congress from previous hearings about the circumstances of the lack
of enforcement of these standards in Mexico.
Now, when these issues are resolved, you will not have amendments
such as this on the floor of the Senate. But I do not see them resolved
any time soon. I think the inspector general's report itself says they
are not resolved. When you say, as they have said in the report
released last Thursday night, the only information available was in the
company records when the records were volunteered to them, otherwise
there is no base of information.
There is no base of data with which to judge these central questions:
Are the trucks safe? Is the inspection standard rigorous? Does it meet
anything near our standard? Do we have drivers who are going to enter
this country with the same rigorous requirement with respect to hours
of service, recordkeeping, logbooks, accident reports, all of those
issues? The answer to that is no. It is clearly no.
The answer to that is embedded in the inspector general's report. I,
for the life of me, do not understand why, before the ink was dry
Thursday night, 1 hour later the Department of Transportation decided
we have to now have assimilated, apparently through some kind of speed
reading of this IG's report, we now have to implemented this program
which the House of Representatives, by voice vote, said: No funds
should be allowed to be used for the program for the reasons I have
described. I believe the Senate should take similar action.
Finally, let me say this, I tried to say it earlier: Mexico is a
neighbor of ours. Always we should treat neighbors with respect. We
have a lot of things we do with Mexico. There are many areas in which
we cooperate and agree. We have a trade agreement. I happen to agree
with my colleague from Oklahoma. I did not vote for the trade agreement
either. I think the trade agreement has been a horrible mistake.
I am talking about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. We
turned a very small surplus with Mexico into a very large trade deficit
with Mexico. We turned a moderate trade deficit with Canada into a very
large trade deficit. So by any standard I think this has been a
failure.
But aside from the fact it is a failure, it does have a requirement
to homogenize the standards and the ability to allow long-haul trucking
into this country; but it does not do so in a way that allows us or
requires us to obliterate our determination for what is safe for
American drivers. That is why I am on the floor of the Senate hoping we
will do what the House of Representatives has already done by voice
vote and pass this amendment.
It will come back. There will be another day. There will be a time,
my guess is, when there will not be objection to this because the
standards are homogeneous, the standards Americans have are the same
and the enforcement is reasonable. We believe the enforcement to be
significant enough to provide significant safety without additional
risks to American drivers. That is not the case today.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BOND. Through the Chair, I would ask my colleague if he wants to
apply these same standards to Canadian truckers. Because it is my
information, I do not have it documented, that the standards required
of Canadian truckers are less than the standards required of Mexican
truckers. The Canadian truckers coming into the United States, into
North Dakota and beyond, do not have to have U.S. insurance.
I would ask my colleague if he is concerned about the Canadian trucks
coming in as well and what he plans to do about those.
Mr. DORGAN. Well, it is interesting to me in trade discussions. For
example, Mexico has pretty decent environmental standards. Someone
said: Well, you have big environmental standards in Mexico. Yes, the
problem is they are not enforced at all.
So it doesn't matter to me what the standards required are, that is
why I have emphasized enforcement. What are the standards and are the
standards enforced? In most cases the answer is, with respect to
Mexico, they are not enforced to the same degree we enforce the
standards in this country.
I do not believe you can make the case that there is similarity
between the Canadian enforcement of good standards with respect to
truck safety and the Mexican lack--I don't think you can make the same
case it exists in identical fashion with Canada or Mexico. I think the
evidence is quite clear the standards, with respect to Mexico, are
lower, especially with respect to its enforcement.
The reason I say that is this: If you had standards in Mexico that
were enforced, and therefore you had knowledge of the issue of vehicle
inspections, you had knowledge of accident reports and driver
violations, there would be a database in Mexico by which you could
access the data and make an evaluation of the data.
Our inspector general has already determined no such database exists.
Mr. BOND. May I ask my colleague another question?
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to respond.
Mr. BOND. It relates to the fact that the U.S. Federal inspectors
will be going to Mexico and making those inspections with Mexican
trucks would satisfy his concern about the enforcement. Before the
trucks can come in, U.S. Federal inspectors go to Mexico and make the
inspections.
Does he think we ought to be doing the same thing in Canada, for
example? What about requiring Canadian trucking companies to have U.S.
insurance as well?
Mr. DORGAN. Well, it is interesting. We have some experience in that
as well. Let me use the experience of meat; meat from Canada and meat
from Mexico. We allow, because they have equivalent standards and
equivalent inspections, we believe, for meat to leave a Canadian plant
and to come into this country uninspected at our border.

[[Page S11311]]

We allow that because we believe there are standards and enforcement
that are equivalent to the standards of this country. I have spoken on
the floor, and my colleague, I think, was not here at the time, but I
held up a, I think a 2-pound piece of T-bone steak one day and said:
Can anybody tell me where this came from? Because meat is not labeled,
it should be, but it is not. I said: Can you tell me if it came from
the processing plant, the slaughter plant in Hermosillo, Mexico.
Because if it did, I wish to read to you the one time an inspector went
there. It was a plant that was allowed to slaughter cattle and produce
meat shipped into our country. One inspector showed up one time. I read
the report of the inspector on the floor of the Senate. Sufficient to
say, no one would want to purchase meat from that plant.
It was promptly closed down, the ownership changed, the plant is now
sending meat back into this country. I do not believe it has been
inspected again. My point is the requirement to inspect, with respect
to slaughterhouses in Mexico, is one example. My colleague says: Well,
if we would send people down to inspect in Mexico, would that give you
comfort?
Well, we are told by the Department of Transportation what will give
us comfort is this, that they will check every truck every time. The
problem is, we are told this by the inspector general: They are not
going to inspect every truck every time. Yes, they tell you that. That
is what they claim. But here is the reality. They have no plans, no
outlines to inspect every truck every time. They have no site-specific
plans developed and in place prior to initiating this project. The risk
is, the project participants will be able to avoid the required checks.
So you know, once again, there is a great variation between what the
Federal agency says and what it is willing to do. So my colleague and
others might be comforted by the fact that say: We will go there, we
will do those rigorously. I am not so comforted because we have had
plenty of experience with that.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask another question? We are not
talking about packing houses where there was obviously a failure of
sanitation. We are talking about a situation where U.S. Federal
inspectors go down, conduct a pretest, a preinspection of the Mexican
trucking operations, the vehicles coming in have to go through a U.S.
overseen or implemented safety inspection every 3 months.
Now, I do not think we require Canadian trucks, and certainly we do
not require U.S. trucks, to be inspected every time they travel on our
roads. But we do have inspections, random inspections that will apply
to United States, Canadian, and Mexican trucks.
What I am asking, if U.S. Federal inspectors are doing this--nobody
ever said they are going to do it every time. Nobody expects to have
inspectors inspecting every truck. But what is the difference, I would
ask my colleague, between having U.S. inspectors every 3 months in
Mexico and having random safety inspections--in what situation do
either the Canadian or the U.S. trucks get the same degree of
inspection?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague is not accurate. They, in
fact, did say they were going to inspect every time. Let me read the
inspector general's report. After our visit to Federal--it is the
FMCSA, one of these other acronyms in Government again. The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. It is in DOT.
So the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration agreed to develop
a plan to check every truck every time. So that is exactly what they
said. But the inspector general says: They are not going to do that. He
says, as of July, there is no coordinated site-specific plan to carry
out such checks. Then they said: Well, we will have it done by August
22. They said: We have not received any outlines or completed plans. In
our opinion, not having site-specific plans in place prior to
initiating the project will increase the risk project participants will
be able to avoid the required checks.
I would say to my colleague, I do not always dismiss this issue of
inspections because I think sufficient inspections can be very helpful.
But having been on the floor of the Senate now speaking about the issue
of tainted products coming into this country, understanding whether it
is trinkets or toys or shrimp or catfish or tires, car tires, or any
number of pet foods, having spoken about them at some length and
understanding that we inspect 1 percent of them.
We inspect 1 percent, 99 percent of the vegetables and the trinkets
and toys come in here without any inspection. Now we are told, if we
would allow the Department of Transportation to proceed with this
project, which they announced late at night with 1 hour of review of
the inspector general's report, if we would only allow them to proceed,
boy, they guarantee they will inspect.

I am sorry. I think the evidence, with respect to the Federal
Government, would suggest a different conclusion and a different
result. I hope at some point we do not have these issues. You know, I
mean I can give you lots of examples of what has promised to have been
homogenized between the United States, Canada, and Mexico because of
the trade agreement. But promises are cheap.
I mean, there are lots of promises, and very few are kept with
respect to these trade agreements. The trade agreements are similar to
Swiss cheese, riddled with holes.
This, in my judgment, is a circumstance where, if we decide to
proceed to say: Under these conditions, we will allow immediately the
Department of Transportation to move to this pilot project, I think we
will make a mistake. We will make a mistake on behalf of those who are
traveling on America's roads, who at some point, coming up to a four-
way stop or a stoplight or meeting on a four-way highway, some vehicle
that was not subject to the same rigor and the same inspections that
exist in this country because they did not have the same enforcement, I
think someone will be injured. That risk ought not be borne by the
American consumer or the American driver.
We ought to decide what is fair. You know, we have spent a century
lifting this country's standards and demanding in this country. Upton
Sinclair wrote that book and described at the start of the century,
start of the last century, in Chicago, IL, at the big packing houses,
how when they were slaughtering cattle and trying to control the rat
population in the slaughterhouses, they put poison on bread loaves and
things.
They would kill the rats, and they would shove the dead rats and the
bread loaves and the meat down the same chute, and out the other side
of the chute would come some sausage and some steak and some meat, and
off to the consumer. Well a tremendous public outcry resulted from
that, and we developed regulations.
So we have standards and regulations in a number of areas. This is
but one area in which we have standards and regulations. They can be
standards and regulations that are the difference between life or
death. Because, when you are on America's roads and highways, safety is
very important.
My own view is, I think the Department of Transportation is making a
mistake. I think all the promises and all the assurances will fall far
short of what the American consumer and the American driver should
expect to minimize risk and to maximize safety on America's roads.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are working our way through the
Transportation appropriations bill. We have one amendment pending. I
see the Senator from Oklahoma is here, and he shortly is going to ask
to set aside this amendment in order to call up an amendment. I ask any
other Members who have amendments they wish to offer during this debate
to come to the floor, offer their amendments, and we will work our way
expeditiously through as many as possible. I remind all colleagues that
the majority leader has been very clear that due to the Jewish holidays
we will be finishing by midday on Wednesday; therefore, Members should
expect a very long night tomorrow night as we work our way through
these amendments. It will work a lot better if Members come to the
floor and offer their amendments so we know what order we have and how
we can work through them. I ask Members who have been calling us and
letting us know they have an amendment to come to the floor this
evening

[[Page S11312]]

or tomorrow morning at the latest and get those amendments up so we can
go through them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. I join with my colleague from Washington, the chairman of
our committee. I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to bring
in their amendments. Because of the timeline we are working under, we
will be much more willing and able to work out the amendments that come
in early. We may be able to cut off the time for filing amendments, I
would hope, as early as sometime tomorrow afternoon. But I suggest that
in case that happens, people come forward with their amendments as
early as possible because we are facing a time deadline and need to get
this bill amended, if desired, and passed. I would appreciate the
cooperation of colleagues on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2796

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending
amendment aside for consideration of amendment No. 2796.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment No. 2796.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to implement the proposed Air
Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution of the Federal Aviation
Administration)

On page 147, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
transfer the design and development functions of the FAA
Academy or to implement the Air Traffic Control Optimum
Training Solution proposed by the Administrator .

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the test
language, the IG said, apparently has been corrected. I only remind my
friend from North Dakota and my friend from Missouri that when I had
the English language amendment up, we used the same definition I
believe they are using right now in order to make sure there is
adequate knowledge of English language by Mexican truckers. I will read
what it said: Applicants have up to three chances to read and write one
sentence correctly in English. That is the test, which doesn't give me
a very high comfort level.
The amendment I am offering, No. 2796, would prohibit the FAA from
using any money in fiscal year 2008 to implement their proposed new ATC
training system. It is called the ATCOTS. The FAA has sped up the
schedule for transition without giving sufficient attention to the
transition from the old to the new. By prohibiting the FAA from using
fiscal year 2008 funds to implement this new training system, there
will be additional time to plan for the transition, if we decide the
transition at that point is something we want to do.
Finally, there has been no explanation on why the existing system
does not work. This additional time can be used to examine the current
system and determine where it needs to be changed, if it needs to be
changed.
This is how the current system works. This is how the FAA wants to
change it. Currently, candidates must enroll in an FAA-approved
education program and pass a preemployment test which measures his or
her ability to perform the duties of a controller. Let's keep in mind,
we are talking about controllers who have our lives in their hands. It
happens that I am in my 51st year of aviation. Just as recently as 2
days ago, I was flying, and I have a great deal of respect for these
people. To me, the training must absolutely be perfect. The candidates
currently must enroll in an FAA-approved education program and pass a
preemployment test which measures their ability to perform the duties
of a controller. Then the FAA has designated 15 institutions around the
country for preemployment testing. The candidates must also have 3
years of full-time work experience and have completed a full 4 years of
college. These have to be people who have a college education, have to
have 3 years of on-the-job training. Then they have to, of course, have
gone through this preemployment test. Then if the candidate
successfully meets those three tests, they are eligible for employment
as an air traffic controller.
Successful candidates attend the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for 12
weeks to learn fundamentals of the airway system, the FAA regs,
controller equipment, and aircraft performance characteristics. Upon
graduating from the academy, the candidates are assigned to an air
traffic control facility as ``developmental controllers'' where they
receive training on specific controller positions. Generally, it takes
2 to 4 years, depending on the facility and the availability of
facility staff or contractors, to provide the on-the-job training.
Currently, there are two separate contractors that provide training
for potential controllers: one contractor at the academy and one
contractor for on-the-job training at the facility. What the FAA wants
to do is to combine these two contracts into one, thereby speeding up
the training, they believe, and getting more controllers to train
faster.
Because controllers hired--and most of us have been around long
enough to remember this--after the PATCO strike are now eligible for
retirement, the FAA estimates they need to hire and train approximately
15,000 new air traffic controllers over the next 10 years. They believe
the air traffic control optimum training solution, which is called
ATCOTS, will accomplish this because it will, No. 1, leverage current
industry best practices to develop innovative training services
delivery solutions; No. 2, achieve efficiencies by reducing time and
the cost it takes to certify professional controllers; No. 3, institute
continuous improvement within the training program; and No. 4,
establish a performance-based contract management system. That is what
the FAA hopes to achieve, but I have yet to understand how.
Recently, the FAA announced that they plan to issue a request for
proposals for this new single controller training contract in January
of 2008, with an expected award in June of 2008. That is less than a
year from this month. This is despite assurances to the Oklahoma
delegation that there would be a multiyear transition to ATCOTS. In
other words, it is going to take several years to make the transition,
if it is desirable. Now it appears ATCOTS could be fully implemented
within 1 year, although there is no clear transition plan. The winning
bid is supposed to provide the transition plan.
Furthermore, there is no clear assurance that the millions in
taxpayer dollars already invested in the FAA training academy in
Oklahoma City will continue to be used. Per the documents I have seen,
if the winning bidder should choose to conduct the initial classroom
instruction elsewhere, they have that option. I question why we would
abandon the academy and our Federal investment there.
Finally, I do not believe there has been sufficient examination of
the cost benefits of this new training program. Rather, there has been
a rush to fix a system that no one has been able to explain, at least
to me, how or if it is broken.
My amendment merely slows down the process so Congress can have more
time to examine what are the shortfalls of the current training system
and how the proposed ATCOTS system will improve the training. This is
like so many things we rush into. We lay out the predicate that we are
going to spend all this time and be deliberate in making sure we are
not getting into something that is not, in fact, a lot better than the
old system, when we have yet to see anything to at least convince me or
any plausible argument that there is a problem with the existing
system.
While I could have introduced an amendment to stop this, I didn't
want to do that because I thought if it is more efficient, then it
might be something we may want to consider. But I can assure my
colleagues that nothing has been done so far that would convince me
that it is a better system. I don't think we should be using 2008

[[Page S11313]]

funds. My amendment would give us another year to determine whether
this is the wise thing to do. I believe it is a reasonable approach.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for coming to offer
his amendment. He has my commitment that we will take the time to
review it. We have not had a chance to do so as yet. We want to know
what the impact is on the FAA budget, as well as the training needs we
have, but we will evaluate it as quickly as possible and work with him
in order to dispose of it.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. MURRAY. I encourage, again, Senators to come to the floor and
offer their amendments so, like the amendment we are currently looking
at, we have time to review it and get it done in a timely fashion. I
remind all Members that if they wait until the last minute to get their
amendments here, they may likely not be considered or adopted simply
because of time. Again, if Members are here, come tonight quickly, get
your amendments up. We will have a chance to review them and hopefully
be able to dispose of them.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________