[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14213-14219]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois was to be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted 
to proceed now for 5 minutes, and then return to the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, it isn't that this subject matter 
should be dealt with briefly, but I think I can express my concerns in 
5 minutes. I hope others are as concerned as I about this issue.
  Senator Murray is here on the floor. She is the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation. She has worked very hard to accommodate 
this bill through language with reference to Mexico and Mexican 
trucking and busing between our borders under NAFTA. She has worked 
very hard to get something much better than that which was passed in 
the House and she kept things from passing in our subcommittee that 
would be much worse than the arrangement we now have in the bill with 
her amendment.
  I would like to say that the United States should be quite pleased 
today that we have a new relationship growing between the Republic of 
Mexico and the United States. It is obvious everywhere you go in Mexico 
with everyone you talk to, and with everyone you talk to in the border 
States, that the arrival of President Fox has brought a whole new 
attitude between these two great countries.
  For instance, in the 29 years or so that I have been here, there have 
been four Presidents of Mexico, but not a single one was willing to say 
that the economic problems of Mexico are not America's problems, and we 
have to solve our own. President Fox is the first President to say we 
had better improve the permit system for people coming from his country 
to work here because he believes they should do this in a legal manner 
instead of a manner that leaves many Mexicans here in positions of 
hiding out while they hold jobs and they can't return home--some 
wonderful ideas about what should happen on our border in terms of 
cleaning up the border which has grown topsy- turvy. Law enforcement 
can now trust Mexican law enforcement for the first time in modern 
times. The litany goes on.
  I, for one, hope the Senators from both sides of the aisle will find 
a way to sit down and draft a provision on the busing and trucking 
access to the United States pursuant to the NAFTA arrangements. There 
are some who have said their trucks aren't safe enough, that they don't 
have the right kind of insurance--and a rather major litany.
  I suggest we had better be careful that we are not couching these 
things in a way so as to avoid what it really is. It appears to me it 
is borderline discrimination against Mexican enterprise. There has to 
be a better way to solve it than we have solved it in this 
Transportation bill, but in a way that will let Mexico and Mexico's 
leaders say we are equal partners with the United States, and that we 
are going to be treated the same way as Canada. Canada, America, and 
Mexico are the three partners. I believe to do otherwise is to say to 
the Mexican people and the new President: We don't care about you; we 
don't even care if we discriminate against you; we have a hot issue, 
and we are going to pass something; and maybe in a few years we can 
work something out with you, Mr. President of Mexico, as a NAFTA 
partner of the United States.
  I believe the time is now, on this bill. The President has said he 
will veto the bill with the Murray language in it. That is official. We 
ought to sit down and work out something for them so it won't be 
vetoed.
  There are great American transportation issues and problems for every 
Senator and for every State. We ought to get the bill passed. The way 
to get it passed is not to send it to the President with language he 
already said he will veto and offend Mexico unjustifiably. What we are 
doing is unjustifiable. Let's get it resolved.
  There is a simple proposition around. Let's come up with a California 
solution. I am pretty familiar with the various solutions. Let us in 
the Senate say we stand ready to help.
  I hope we can do this and pass the bill in due course--the full 
bill--and put some legislation in it that will protect Mexico against 
discrimination in trucking and busing and allow them to grow and 
prosper, but at the same time offer as much assurance as we can that 
their vehicles are going to be safe, and include whatever other 
requirements we need to ensure they are treated like trucks coming from 
Canada.
  Mr. President, I stand in strong support of permitting Mexican motor 
carriers full access to the United States in a safe, fair, and timely 
manner.
  The North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in January 
1994. The agreement calls on each country to apply national treatment 
to services of each of the trading partners. NAFTA required that 
Mexican trucks have full access to the United States by January 1, 
2001.
  Rather than prepare ourselves to meet this obligation, we foolishly 
prohibited our southern partner's trucks beyond 20 miles from the 
border.
  An arbitration panel ruled that the United States violated NAFTA, and 
today we face the possibility of trade sanctions in excess of $1 
billion per year of noncompliance.
  Some hope to completely bar Mexican domiciled motor carriers, 
assuming that because they are Mexican, then they are necessarily 
unsafe.
  I applaud Senator Murray's attempt to craft a balance to ensure that 
Mexican trucks are safe, while meeting our national obligation.
  As a Senator from a border state, I am deeply concerned about the 
safety of Mexican trucks. However, I do not believe that we should use 
safety as an excuse to inappropriately discriminate against Mexico.
  As such, I have some fundamental concerns about the language of 
Senator Murray's proposal.
  Principally, I am troubled that it seems to harbor a deep mistrust of 
Mexico.
  The United States and Mexico both agree that Mexico must comply with 
U.S. laws, and that it is the United States' right to enforce those 
laws. Why then, must we impose additional and unreasonable requirements 
before permitting Mexican motor carriers access?
  NAFTA requires that each member country give national treatment to 
the other member countries. That means that Mexico and Canada must 
abide by U.S. safety standards when in the U.S.
  Canada has been doing so for some time, and Mexico is prepared and 
eagerly awaits the opportunity to do so.

[[Page 14214]]

However, the current language contains a host of provisions requiring 
the DOT Inspector General to review the accuracy of Mexico's 
regulations and information.
  These requirements are not only wholly offensive and paternalistic, 
but fall far outside the purview of the IG.
  Furthermore, the Department of Transportation inspects Canadian or 
U.S. motor carriers' facilities only when there is evidence of 
impropriety or a record of safety violations. Yet, Senator Murray's 
provisions would require that DOT inspect every Mexican carrier's 
facilities before any permission is granted.
  In short, this is discrimination, plain and simple.
  The Administration recognized that the current Senate language is 
discriminatory and would violate NAFTA, and even issued a veto threat 
if such language is retained.
  I understand that many are concerned about the safety of Mexican 
trucks, particularly since some statistics show that they have greater 
out of service rates than U.S. trucks. I favor inspecting trucks to 
advance legitimate safety concerns, and recognize that a direct 
correlation exists between the condition of Mexican commercial trucks 
entering the U.S. and the level of inspection resources at the border.
  California is widely regarded as having the best inspection 
practices. As such, the out of service rate for Mexican trucks in 
California is commensurate to the rate for U.S. trucks.
  Even the International Brotherhood of Teamsters support the 
California inspection system. In a letter to President Bush, Mr. James 
Hoffa stated, ``Currently, California provides a model of what a proper 
border inspection program can achieve.''
  If we all agree that California's inspection system works 
efficiently, then perhaps we should model the Federal inspection 
program after it, and refrain from treating our southern NAFTA partner 
with such distrust.
  Mexico has not indicated that it is unwilling to abide by our laws. 
In fact, Mexico has stated that it will subject its trucks to 
inspections more intense and more frequent than our own.
  The issue is whether Mexican trucks on U.S. roads meet U.S. safety 
standards. Inspecting trucks should be the focus of an inspection 
program, rather than inspecting facilities in Mexico without just 
cause.
  Mr. President, I stand in strong opposition to language that would 
discriminate against our southern partners and support proposals that 
would ensure the safety of U.S. highways in a fair and timely manner.
  I am confident that an equitable solution may be reached that will 
ensure safe roads and meet obligations under NAFTA, and diffuse the 
threat of veto.
  I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for yielding me 5 
minutes, and also the Senators who yielded me their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair and appreciate the Senator from 
Washington giving me the time to speak on a matter of great importance 
to the city of Chicago, and actually it is probably of some interest to 
the Presiding Officer, as she grew up in the city of Park Ridge which 
is right next to O'Hare International Airport.
  I hate to say it, but since the Presiding Officer grew up in Illinois 
we have had problems at O'Hare. O'Hare has been at capacity since 1969. 
In fact, it was in that year that the FAA first put delay controls in 
at O'Hare Airport. Unadvisedly, I think 2 years ago, Congress lifted 
the delay controls at O'Hare and LaGuardia, and delays went up 
exponentially. That has kind of renewed and intensified the crisis we 
have in aviation in this country.
  Madam President, I have filed an amendment I will discuss later that 
I am continuing to work on with my colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Durbin. I hope we will be able to work out some arrangements, but my 
amendment would restore a Chicago supplemental airport to the National 
Plan for Integrated Airport Systems around the country, the so-called 
NPIAS list. For 10 years, Chicago had a supplemental airport on the 
NPIAS list. It was taken off in 1997 by the FAA. I think it is time we 
put the Chicago supplemental airport back on that nationwide plan for 
airports. There are several reasons that I say that.
  I want to first point out exactly where we have our airports in 
Illinois for those who are following this debate. I show you a map of 
the Chicago area. We have O'Hare International Airport on 7,000 acres 
on the northwest side of the city of Chicago. It is also bounded by the 
cities of Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Elk Grove, Wood Dale, and 
Bensenville. We also have Midway Airport that prior to O'Hare's opening 
in the late 1950s, early 1960s, was the world's busiest airport, if you 
can believe it. I think President Kennedy appeared at O'Hare's grand 
opening in 1963 and by 1969 O'Hare was at capacity.
  But if you look at where these airports are located, you see that in 
order to get more capacity to expand these airports we are confronted 
with a lot of problems. Midway Airport is right in the middle of a 
congested area within the city limits of Chicago. In fact, I have never 
heard the mayor of the city of Chicago suggest expanding Midway to have 
longer runways. The runways are only 6,000 feet at Midway, so it is 
very difficult to do a long-haul flight out of that airport.
  Recently, Southwest Airlines, and also ATA, have been doing very well 
at Midway. Midway is almost back to where it was in terms of capacity 
before O'Hare was built. It is pretty much full right now. Then, of 
course, we have O'Hare. O'Hare has seven runways.
  I will show you a map of those seven runways. This is a blowup of 
O'Hare Airport. All of this land in the interior shown on the map is 
filled with runways. In fact, O'Hare has more runways, as far as I 
know, than any other airport in the country. It has seven runways. It 
does about 908,000 flights a year.
  But when you get into expanding O'Hare, you are met with some real 
logistical challenges. There is the Tri-State Tollway on the eastern 
boundary of O'Hare. You have the Northwest Tollway on the northern 
boundary of O'Hare, and you have Irving Park Road to the south, and you 
have York Road--Route 83--to the west.
  So a lot of people have been saying to me: Why don't we just put down 
more runways at O'Hare? Many people think--and, in fact, some encourage 
the perception--that putting in new runways at O'Hare would be as 
simple as laying new sidewalks. But the fact is, it is very difficult 
to figure out how you get more capacity at O'Hare.
  I show you on this map the existing configuration of the runways at 
O'Hare. This 7,000-acre field goes way back. The planning was started 
in the 1940s. It came on line in the late 1950s. I gather that the 
airport has had this runway configuration for many years--at least 30 
years, maybe more. But there are seven runways at O'Hare. One of them 
is one of the largest runways in the country.
  I believe this runway--14R-32L--is one of the longest runways in this 
country, about 14,000 feet. The problem with these seven runways, 
though, is that they are not really laid out properly. In fact, in an 
optimal configuration that would be done today in a new airport, they 
would lay these runways out in a parallel fashion so they do not 
intercept. If you have a plane landing on this runway shown on the map, 
for example, then another plane cannot be taking off on that runway.
  So O'Hare's problem isn't that it does not have enough runways but 
that they are not laid out right. In fact, Atlanta's Hartsfield 
Airport, which only has four runways--they are trying to build more 
now--handles more flights now than O'Hare does, even though it only has 
four runways. That is because those runways are laid out in a parallel 
fashion, and you can have simultaneous departures and landings on those 
different parallel runways.
  In any case, Mayor Daley has recently proposed getting more capacity 
out of O'Hare essentially by tearing all of this up and rebuilding it. 
In fact, I think the mayor proposes tearing up three runways and 
building four new ones. One of these runways--I think this runway, the 
14,500-foot runway--

[[Page 14215]]

they would just tear up and demolish it. They would lay new runways all 
in a parallel fashion. But the problem is, this project gets very 
expensive, and it would take a very long period of time.
  This is a diagram of Mayor Daley's proposed modernization of O'Hare, 
which really amounts to a tearing up and rebuilding of the airport. He 
would eliminate this runway and this runway I show you on the map, and 
he would lay parallel runways. He would leave this runway shown here in 
place. You would essentially have six parallel runways here, and then 
two parallel in this direction shown here. Essentially, it is kind of 
like a quad-four runway system. I think mainly these four parallel 
runways would be the ones that would be used.
  In addition, the mayor would add a western access to the airport. The 
Presiding Officer would be very interested to know that when she grew 
up in Illinois, it was much easier to get to O'Hare than it is today. 
In fact, back in the 1950s and 1960s, there were just cornfields out in 
that direction. The Northwest Tollway was built in the late 1950s 
during the Eisenhower administration in 1958, and the development 
started occurring much later.
  But now it is very difficult to get into O'Hare because there is not 
enough access. In fact, coming from my home in Inverness, which is only 
12 miles to the northwest, sometimes it takes an hour to go those 12 
miles east on the Northwest Tollway because of congestion.
  So recognizing that congestion is a problem, the mayor would propose 
creating a western access to the airport with another major expressway 
coming into the west to relieve some of the bottleneck that enters now 
at the airport on the east.
  Also, he would add a new terminal. I think basically what they have 
now is the main terminals, which he would redo under a program called 
the World Gateway Program that would cost $4 billion, or actually $3.8 
billion, to be exact. They would give United terminals 1 and 2, and 
American terminals 3 and 4. My understanding of it is that most of the 
other airlines would be stuck at a desk out here on the west side of 
the airport.
  These are the various elements that would have to be done in order to 
accomplish Mayor Daley's expansion plan. They would close the 3 
existing runways, construct 4 new runways, make an extension of 4 
runways, construction of the west terminal, construction of western 
airport access, acquisition of 433 acres, acquisition of 303 homes, and 
acquisition of 240 rental units. The costs of this proposal have been 
all over the map. I think the mayor initially disclosed about $6 
billion. But that was pretty much just for tearing up and rebuilding 
the runways. He did not include the $4 billion he is spending now on 
the World Gateway Program. That brings it up, even by the mayor's cost 
estimates, to about a $10 billion reconstruction project.
  The fact is, when you add in the cost of all the ancillary projects, 
including road building projects, you would probably have to expand the 
Northwest Tollway and the expressway to accommodate more people. In 
fact, you can barely get into the airport right now, as I have said. 
Imagine what it would be like trying to get into the airport after 
twice as many people are being urged to go into the airport. So it 
would be a very costly project--probably somewhere in the $15 billion 
range, possibly up toward $20 billion. The Chicago Tribune has had 
estimates ranging from $6.3 billion to $18.9 billion.
  My thought is this: I believe we have an aviation crisis in Chicago 
because we lack capacity. We have far greater demand than we have 
capacity. O'Hare has capacity for about 908,000 flights a year. Mayor 
Daley's proposal of spending about $15 billion, and lasting at least 15 
years following the approval process, would get us up to 1.6 million 
operations a year. I favor, instead of going forward with that 
proposal, building a supplemental Chicago airport. The reason I favor 
that is because it would bring far more capacity, far more quickly, at 
far less cost.
  This is a chart that shows what would be involved in expanding O'Hare 
vis-a-vis what would be involved in building a third airport in the 
Chicago area. The cost could range from $13 billion to $26 billion for 
the O'Hare expansion. The estimated cost of the third airport, which 
would have six parallel runways and handle 1.6 million operations a 
year, would be only $5 billion to $6 billion--the same as Denver 
International Airport. Mayor Daley proposes adding 700,000 flights, or 
operations, a year for the money he proposes spending. For a third of 
the cost, you could get 1.6 million more operations a year.
  In contrast to the 15-years-plus it would take the city of Chicago to 
tear up and rebuild O'Hare--and God only knows what the delays would be 
like while they were tearing up and rebuilding O'Hare--the State has 
estimated it could have the first phase of a third airport done in 3 to 
5 years following the approval. That would only be with one or two 
runways to begin with; ultimate build-out would be six runways. There 
is great community support for the third airport. There is significant 
community opposition around the expansion of O'Hare.
  Also, competition. Surprise, surprise, but United and American oppose 
a third airport. Well, United and American have at least 75 percent of 
the operations. In fact, United and American oppose a third airport 
because they, right now, have 76 percent of the hub gates at Chicago's 
O'Hare Airport.
  If you look around the country, you will see that we have a tendency 
around the whole United States toward having a local air carrier that 
has a dominant position at a regional hub airport. If you look at 
Atlanta's Hartsfield, you have Delta with 62 percent of the hub gates. 
At Dallas-Fort Worth, you have American Airlines and Delta together 
controlling 84 percent of the gates. In Denver, a brand new airport, 
United is already up to 57 percent of the gates. At Washington/Dulles, 
United is up to 65 percent of the gates.
  So, surprise, United and American oppose a third airport. The reason 
for that is they would not control the third airport in Chicago. There 
would be new entrants that would be allowed to come in and compete with 
them. It seems to me that we should not let that detour us because we 
are not representing the shareholders of the big six air carriers in 
the Senate. We need to be worried about aviation consumers. Over the 
last 20 years--in fact, since deregulation of the aviation industry in 
the late 1970s--operations in aviation have gone up 80 percent in this 
country. Yet we haven't built a single new major airport, except for 
the Denver Airport, which was simply a replacement for the old 
Stapleton International Airport, which got shut down.
  As you look around the country, big airlines that have a dominant 
position in their market fight like the dickens to prevent another 
airport from being built because that would allow new entrants to come 
into their territory, and it would force them to lower costs and 
improve services or they lose new business to the new entrants.
  Because United and American don't want new competitors coming into 
their marketplace where they have a duopoly should not deter anybody. 
What I think would be best for consumers in the Chicago area is if we 
did have another major hub airport and we had other carriers coming 
into compete with United and American. They are both good airlines. 
They have wonderful employees and thousands of wonderful pilots, 
mechanics, and stewardesses; but I believe the consumers in the Chicago 
area would benefit by having new choices. I think there are 
possibilities, such as getting a wonderful new startup airline such as 
a Jet Blue, or even a Southwest Airways, which is competing at Midway 
Airport in Chicago, but might someday enjoy having the opportunity to 
run longer haul flights out of the Chicago area and compete more head-
on with United and American at O'Hare. To get one of those fine 
airlines in the new airport would be great for the Chicago area, and it 
would help decongest O'Hare for the rest of the Nation.
  Now, in the few moments I still have, I want to make one final point. 
In this regard, I want to associate myself with

[[Page 14216]]

my colleague from Illinois in the other Chamber, Jesse Jackson, Jr. For 
many years he has been a strong proponent of a third Chicago area 
airport. It is the south suburbs and the southern limits of the city of 
Chicago that he represents in Congress. He makes the point that we 
should not want all economic activity in our State concentrated in one 
7,000-acre site.
  That is perhaps why I disagree with Mayor Daley, the mayor of the 
city of Chicago. He has a different constituency than I. As mayor of 
the city of Chicago, he wants to keep as much economic development as 
possible in the city of Chicago, and Chicago is a mighty fine city, and 
I hope it remains always strong.
  Looking at this issue as a Senator with statewide responsibilities 
and concern for the whole State, I want other parts of Illinois to have 
jobs, economic development, and an economic engine, too. I want the 
Rockford area to have their airport used, I want jobs for the people in 
the south suburbs, and I want some convenience for the 2 million-plus 
people who live in the south suburbs who have to drive 2 hours or more 
to get to O'Hare on those crowded expressways.
  Yesterday, there was a good column in the Chicago Tribune by a new 
columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Her name is Dawn Turner Trice. She 
analogized this issue actually to the G8 economic summit that was just 
concluded in Europe whereby the big G8 countries were talking about 
sharing the wealth with the rest of the world, forgiving some of the 
debts that Third World nations have, turning loans into grants, 
outright grants to help some of the developing countries.
  She said: Why aren't we looking at this airport issue the same way in 
the State of Illinois? Why do we allow such a great concentration of 
wealth in one tiny 7,000-acre site and not worry about it anywhere 
else? She is absolutely right on that and, in addition, those wealthy 
communities around the airport have said enough is enough. Their 
quality of life is now negatively impacted by the continual cramming of 
everything into O'Hare. The idea of dramatically increasing the number 
of flights at O'Hare beyond what they are now presents a real dilemma 
to the Chicago area. People do not know how they can get there now. 
They cannot imagine what O'Hare would be like if the airport was 
expanded further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam President, I thank you for this time, and I 
thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I hope to be 
working with Senator Durbin and my other colleagues to solve the 
aviation crisis in the country, beginning in Chicago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Florida is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1030

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise in support of the 
Murray-Shelby version of the question of Mexican trucks on American 
highways that is in the Department of Transportation appropriations 
bill.
  I support free trade, but free trade does not mean sacrificing the 
safety of Americans on our highways.
  If you will just look at the comparison of safety standards for 
American trucks and Mexican trucks, the hours of service that a driver 
can perform are unlimited under Mexican standards.
  There are no random drug tests.
  A medical condition that will disqualify in America does not 
necessarily do so in Mexico.
  The age for drivers of these trucks established in America is 21 and 
only 18 in Mexico.
  The maximum weight on our highways in America is 80,000 pounds. In 
Mexico, it is 135,000 pounds.
  As to vehicle safety standards, such as antilock brakes, in Mexico 
they do not even have to have brakes on the front wheels.
  And then as to the question of cargo, carrying of hazardous 
materials, we have very strict standards in this country. In Mexico, 
they are very lax. There are fewer identified chemicals and fewer 
licensure requirements.
  If ever there has been a case where the commonsense standards, the 
desires, and the wants of the American people are quite apparent, it is 
the Americans who get behind the wheel and drive on our highways and on 
the interstates and encounter huge trucks. How many times have we had, 
as a driver of a smaller vehicle, a concern about the safety of that 
big truck that was in front of us or passing around us or that was 
cutting from one lane to another in front of us.
  We have in the interest of free trade in America a proposal to 
severely lower the standards of trucks coming from Mexico that we, as 
the consuming American public, as the driving American public, will 
have to encounter.
  This is not even speaking on the question of the environment. I have 
been speaking only on the question of safety. On the question of the 
environment and emission standards, we clearly have in the various 
States different emission standards. In Mexico, those are much less.
  I simply ask the question, Do we want to drive on our highways and 
encounter trucks with a driver who could be driving with no sleep; that 
because there was not a random drug test, that driver may be on drugs; 
he may have a medical condition that impairs his safety; he is less 
than 21 years of age; he is driving a truck of 135,000 pounds instead 
of 80,000 pounds; he does not have antilock brakes--indeed, no brakes 
on the front wheels; and that truck is carrying significant hazardous 
materials, not even to speak of the fact he is spewing all kinds of 
pollutants in that acrid smoke we all detest when we are behind a big 
truck.
  The case is quite compelling. I would even be for a more stringent 
standard than the Senator from Washington has inserted into this bill, 
but her compromise, along with Senator Shelby, is a good start in 
protecting the American people on their highways.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers of this bill, the 
Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby for an outstanding bill. It 
is my pleasure to serve on the committee with them and to support this 
bill.
  Senator Murray has been willing to accommodate many of the very 
important priorities submitted by the Bush administration, including 
$325 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Deep Water Systems Program, full 
funding of the President's request for Coast Guard retired pay and 
Reserve training, and certainly, as far as my State of Missouri, which 
is a very transportation- dependent State, we are very grateful for the 
recognition in our State of the needs in transportation, whether it be 
transit, buses in the metropolitan areas, transportation for the 
elderly and the disabled in rural areas, light rail, or a critical road 
project in southwest Missouri on U.S. Highway 71.
  These are all things that are extremely important, and we are, 
indeed, grateful for the careful attention the Chair and the ranking 
member have provided to the needs of all of us in this body.
  I have, however, raised a question at the subcommittee and full 
committee level at the request of the Secretary of Transportation. I 
raise this issue of the Mexican truck treatment. As we all know, in 
1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect 
following congressional approval the previous year. I was here in 1993 
and voted for this critically important trade agreement. Though I 
recognize not all of my colleagues were here, and some who were here 
did not support the agreement, the simple fact remains that NAFTA did 
pass. It is now the law of the land. The result is we, as Members of 
this body, have the responsibility to uphold the law and assure we take 
no deliberate action to violate it.
  Unfortunately, we have received a Statement of Administration Policy, 
dated July 19, which, No. 1, commends the work that Senator Murray and 
Senator Shelby, the Chair and ranking member, have done to address 
these many critical issues. They say the administration is pleased the 
Senate committee has provided necessary funding and staff to address 
critical motor safety issues. It repeats that the

[[Page 14217]]

administration is committed to strengthening the safety enforcement 
regime to ensure all commercial vehicles operating on U.S. roads and 
highways meet the same rigorous safety standards. However, the 
Statement of Administration Policy goes on to say, the advice from the 
administration is that the Senate committee has adopted provisions that 
could cause the United States to violate commitments under NAFTA. 
Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior 
advisers will recommend the President veto the bill.
  That is the situation in which we find ourselves. This is too good a 
bill to be lost. We want to work together to make sure we do not lose 
the benefits of this bill or violate our agreements under NAFTA. We 
know for a fact that the NAFTA international tribunal has already 
issued a decree we violated obligations and are subject to sanctions 
ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion per year for continued 
violations. These sanctions could certainly lead to multiple problems, 
particularly in manufacturing, which has already seen three-quarters of 
a million jobs lost since 2000. The real fear in terms of trade is that 
if the sanctions continue with alternative suppliers being found from 
the European Union or elsewhere, the job losses could become permanent.
  To set the context for the Senate bill, our colleagues on the other 
side of the Capitol took a very stringent view that would prohibit the 
use of any funds in the appropriations bill pending to process 
applications by Mexico domiciled motor carriers for conditional or 
permanent authority to operate beyond the commercial zone adjacent to 
the border. In other words, the House-passed language, as amended on 
the floor, effectively closes our borders to trade with Mexico while 
providing no money to address any of the concerns noted by those 
supporting the amendment. That is to assure safety for all trucks on 
the highway.
  This action not only constitutes a direct violation of NAFTA, but it 
does not do anything to address the safety issues associated with the 
status quo on the United States-Mexico border.
  A few moments ago we heard questions raised about the weight of 
trucks in Mexico, their brake systems, and other things. Let me go back 
to point out that under NAFTA and under the administration's policy, 
the inspection regulations would require that the trucks coming in from 
Mexico meet our standards. Whether it is weight, whether it is brakes, 
all of the safety standards that we impose on our trucks, that we 
impose on Canadian trucks, would be imposed on Mexican trucks.
  As I mentioned earlier, the provision in this bill, headed by the 
Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby, made very significant 
improvements in the legislation and added the money necessary to 
protect others who travel on the highways. That has to be our first 
responsibility. Everybody wants to make sure our highways and roads are 
as safe as possible. We are going to do that. What we need to do is 
figure out how to do that.
  I raise a concern that some of the provisions in this bill could 
effectively close our border to Mexican trucks. I am very pleased to 
say we are expecting very shortly to be able to meet with the 
administration to find out precisely the kind of language changes that 
are needed. I trust and I believe the leaders of this committee, the 
Chair and the ranking member, will be able to work to find solutions to 
the language problems and the practical problems that cause the 
administration to believe this is a NAFTA violation. We do need to 
maintain our standing in the international community and make a good-
faith effort to live up to our trading obligations. Certainly the 
obligation to open our borders to other countries that want to bring 
goods into our country in exchange for opening their borders to allow 
us to take goods into their countries is very important.
  Whether or not my colleagues supported NAFTA at its inception, there 
should be no question that we should not do something in this body or 
in conjunction with the other body that would cause us to be in the 
position of breaking our agreements. That, I am afraid, is the major 
problem. We cannot and must not violate our agreements. The practical 
impact of the provisions, unless we can work out a change before it is 
sent to the President, would be a veto of the whole bill. Senator 
Murray and Senator Shelby have worked too long and hard to get this 
bill together to lose it. Our agricultural exports, our manufacturing 
exports, the jobs for our farmers, the jobs for our workers, require we 
do this job properly.
  If you have, as I have, listened to the congressional debate on 
letting Mexican trucks travel U.S. roads, you might think the United 
States is an unequipped, underdeveloped country. I pointed out that 
NAFTA permits us to require the same safety standards for trucks on 
highways. We have had more than 7 years to prepare for the inspection 
of trucks to ensure they meet U.S. safety standards as required by the 
North American Free Trade Agreement and as repeatedly requested by 
Mexico. Yet it appears the Teamsters Union and others with straight 
faces tell us that the world's wealthiest and most advanced nation does 
not have the resources to perform this relatively modest chore. That is 
the heart of their argument--U.S. inadequacy--and we should be ashamed 
of it, just as we should be ashamed of other arguments being made: we 
cannot inspect trucks coming across the border, not 7 million trucks; 
at maximum 180,000, or 300,000 trucks might be the most.
  We have the right and the obligation to inspect these trucks. We 
should be ashamed of saying that we cannot inspect them. We have a lot 
of evidence already of trucks traveling on our highways. A Mexican 
trucking fleet has long been allowed to traverse this country en route 
to Canada with no notable safety hazard resulting. Only if the Mexican 
trucks want to stop to deliver goods throughout the United States do we 
want to bar them. Maybe it is a question of whose jobs are being 
impeded.
  Mexican trucking firms can already travel throughout the United 
States so long as the firms are U.S. owned and no serious issues have 
been raised about that. Only if the Mexicans own the companies do we 
prohibit their trucks. Something to do with competition maybe. That 
raises questions.
  Older Mexican drayage trucks, those long allowed to make short hauls 
in the 20-mile ``commercial zones'' on either side of the border, are 
as safe as similar U.S. trucks. As the American Trucking Association 
has noted, the Mexican vehicles are taken out of service for safety 
reasons at rates that are virtually identical to those at drayage 
operations at ports and intermodal facilities all across the United 
States.
  If we need more proof, we only need to look to California, the only 
State that inspects every Mexican vehicle crossing its border. The out-
of-service rate for Mexican trucks there is virtually the same as that 
for U.S. trucks. The president of the Teamsters, Mr. James Hoffa, calls 
California's program, which we propose for the rest of the border, ``a 
model of what a proper inspection program can achieve.''
  What it has achieved is to show that we can, indeed, inspect Mexican 
trucks. California does it in two modern facilities, built mostly with 
Federal funds, with inspectors chiefly paid with Federal dollars, and 
those vehicles are as safe as U.S. trucks. How, then, can critics make 
the claims about dangerous Mexican trucks?
  First, they mix apples and oranges, comparing older drayage trucks, 
which have a higher out-of-service rate in both our nations, with all 
U.S. trucks. Thus, when critics say the out-of-service rate for trucks 
at the border is 36 percent, or half-again higher than the 24 percent 
for all U.S. trucks, they are engaging in a little statistical sleight 
of hand. This, I find, is misleading.
  In addition, there is a contention that under the administration's 
plan it would take 18 months to take any unsafe Mexican trucks off the 
road. But that is how long it would take to go into Mexico and audit 
Mexican firms' paperwork, maintenance records, drivers' logs and the 
like, not to inspect their trucks.

[[Page 14218]]

  What we are seeking funds for in this bill, and what the 
administration has sought, is money for roadside truck inspections.
  Similarly, as I said, many House Members signed a Teamster-generated 
letter that under NAFTA, 7 million Mexican trucks would be riding 
American highways, while only 180 Mexican firms have applied, and there 
are only about a total of 300,000 commercial trucks in all of Mexico.
  The chief danger in this debate is not Mexican trucks but U.S. 
protectionism, which is already costing businesses and consumers 
dearly. About 75 percent of United States-Mexico trade, or about $195 
billion of goods moves by truck with cargoes transferred from long-haul 
trucks to drayage trucks at the border and back to long-haul trucks for 
nationwide delivery. It is a senseless and expensive system that must 
be ended--not for the least reason that it keeps the older, more 
dangerous drayage trucks targeted by critics on the road.
  As one who comes from an agricultural State, and 75 percent of our 
exports go into Mexico by truck, we depend upon trucking because 12.5 
percent of the American agricultural exports go to Mexico. That gives 
us a trade surplus in agriculture of over $1 billion.
  If we put these barriers up to Mexican trucks as Secretary Mineta, 
the Secretary of Transportation has noted, Mexico could impose 
compensatory tariffs of $1 billion on U.S. goods. Many U.S. workers and 
companies would feel the pain if Mexico were to exercise this right.
  Perhaps more costly, however, would be the damage to our U.S. drive 
to get other nations to keep their borders open and to keep their trade 
commitments. As the world's largest exporter, we have the most at stake 
in this issue. Our case will be impossible if we violate our own word. 
I think it is past time. I hope we can very shortly work out something 
that the President has suggested, the Teamsters endorse, many on this 
floor have endorsed, and that is adopting the California model for all 
border States to provide the funds for facilities and inspectors, to 
make sure our highways are safe. That is No. 1. Every American has a 
right to demand that we ensure the safety standards for all the trucks 
on our highways.
  I encourage all my colleagues to work with the Chair and the ranking 
member to ensure safety on America's highways while opening our borders 
to foreign trade, to assure compliance with our treaties, and to avoid 
a veto.
  People in my State want to trade with Mexico just as the people in 
the rest of the country want to trade with Mexico. We can achieve safe 
highways while maintaining open borders and avoiding trade sanctions by 
applying universal inspections and standards across the board. We can 
get the job done. I look forward to working with the Chair of the 
Committee, Senator Murray, and Ranking Member Shelby in the coming 
hours and days in an effort to see that we can attain these very 
reasonable goals for all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator has 
expired. Who seeks time? The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I hope to clear the air somewhat with 
respect to comments made by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I 
serve with him on the Appropriations Committee. We both voted to report 
out this particular Transportation appropriations bill with the Murray 
amendment. We reported it out unanimously.
  The reason we did that is because the Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, in a bipartisan 
manner, went about this particular task in a very deliberate, studied 
way. In other words, they went to the Department of Transportation and 
they went to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
  For example, the particular provisions I heard Senator Gramm of Texas 
point out, there are two of them, relative to the leasing issue and the 
disqualification of vehicles operating illegally. They are both 
suspended upon implementation of the motor carrier provisions of NAFTA. 
That says ``upon implementation.'' What the Senator from Texas was 
talking about as an extreme, terrible thing and everything else, is 
actually required. These provisions are required under the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 that passed this Senate by 99 
votes. Of course, I voted for it. The Senator from Texas and the 
Senator from Arizona voted for it, also.
  It is talking of two particular provisions where, if you are found in 
violation, for example, you cannot then go lease your equipment for 
some other person to come in and do the job. That is provided for in 
this Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. I have it here in my 
hand, should there be any question.
  Otherwise, the Senator from Texas was correct in a sense about 
leasing and domicile. When we drew up this provision, we checked with 
the Transportation Safety Department. In fact, I thought I was 
correcting Secretary Mineta in our hearing last week when he attested 
to the fact it never should be required that it be domiciled. And I 
said: Mr. Secretary, we got that from your Department.
  Now the Department of Transportation says: Not quite. What they 
really meant was license in the sense of domesticating, having an 
individual in some State to be subject to service. In other words, if 
there is an accident and some aggrieved party wants to serve the 
particular--let's say Mexican truck--they have to have the State and an 
office and an individual to be served, subject to service that we all 
know about in the practice of law.
  That could be corrected, as the Senator from Washington said, by 
amendment. True it is that, yes, Vicente Fox, the new President of 
Mexico, has given us hope with NAFTA. There is no doubt we have NAFTA. 
I opposed it as vigorously as anyone, but now we have to see that it 
works.
  In all candor, this is the first chance I have seen that we can make 
it work under the new President, particularly with his Foreign 
Minister, Jorge Castaneda, who has taught up here in the United States. 
He has worked on this and I have talked to him about safety. Mexico 
does not really want to get embroiled in this. They are mostly 
interested in immigration and industry and economic expansion and 
everything else, and they don't want to cross wires with the United 
States on the matter of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act Of 
1999.
  He said that to me several times. I understand that. Neither do we, 
because this is a reciprocal thing. If we required something up here in 
the United States that was untoward or discriminatory, they would 
require the same thing of us down in Mexico.
  We are working this treaty out. These provisions under the Murray 
amendment are all in conformance with NAFTA--and are required by the 
U.S. motor carrier act. I can tell you that right now.
  Senator Murray and Senator Shelby should be commended for their 
thoughtful process. The President said we are going to license, and the 
trucks can come over January 1st. The confrontational Sabo amendment in 
the House said there will be no money to process applications and the 
trucks would not be eligible to come over. It said we are going to save 
money by cutting funding off for the fiscal year 2002. That doesn't get 
us anywhere. If we take up Representative Sabo's legislative proposal, 
it will be another year and a half before we can address the issue. 
Nothing would happen until October of next year.
  Everybody wants to move along on this particular score. Jimmy Hoffa 
testified at the hearing for this Murray amendment. We asked him about 
these particular amendments because we wanted to be sure it was 
deliberate and nondiscriminatory in the sense that it was required of 
the U.S. motor carrier act. That is the way it has been provided.
  The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was correct in saying that 
we have every bit of hope and we are all working. But to say that it 
looks

[[Page 14219]]

like partial discrimination and that we were trying to get some tricky 
kind of things on behalf of the Teamsters, or that these requirements 
cannot be complied with--it is totally out of whole cloth. I have never 
seen anybody work harder and give better leadership than the Senator 
from Washington with this Murray amendment. It is the Murray-Shelby 
amendment. It is bipartisan. It should remain so. All of this running 
around, I don't want to talk, or you don't want to talk, or whatever--
that is nonsense. Put up the amendment so we can vote on the amendment 
and move on.
  I think the Senator from Washington ought to be commended for the 
very studied way in which she has gone about this particular amendment 
and these requirements. Certainly once that gate is opened and the 
trucks are coming over, then they are coming over in some 27 particular 
spots, and we have to provide checkpoints and personnel, training, and 
everything else ourselves. So it is not just the Mexicans preparing 
themselves and so forth by January 1st, but us, too.
  We don't make January 1st the drop-dead date under the Murray 
amendment. We say all of these things cannot be licensed; the border 
cannot be opened until A, B, C, or D in the Murray amendment are 
complied with. That is the studied, deliberate way to go about 
regulating at this particular point on the appropriations bill. It is 
important that it be done that way rather than overall on the House 
side.
  We are not looking for the President to veto it. President Bush is 
smart. He is not going to veto safety. There is nothing in this 
particular measure that would require a veto. Let's get on with 
legislation in the particular appropriations bill.
  I vetoed, like the distinguished Presiding Officer, for 4 years as 
the Governor. You wake up, and you want to read that veto message very 
clearly so it can not only be sustained legally but in the public 
domain. I can tell you that neither legally nor in the public domain 
the veto of the Murray amendment will be sustained. Nobody is trying to 
say we are going to stick it to you and we hope you veto it. None of 
that is in here. It unfortunately has gotten way off track.
  I am not a party or even a member of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation in the Appropriations Committee, but I have watched how 
it was done. Yes, our committee, the Committee of Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation, had a hearing with Secretary Mineta. Those kinds of 
things were pointed out. I could go on at length about the hearings we 
had.
  For example, the Comptroller General said:

       Strong enforcement will be needed for the minority of 
     carriers that are egregious offenders and a risk to public 
     safety. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, 
     section 219, provides fines and disqualification sanctions 
     for Mexican carriers operating without authority or beyond 
     the authority in the United States. These fines range from 
     $10,000 to $25,000. However, the act's provision has not been 
     implemented, and this provision will expire when NAFTA's 
     cross border trucking provisions are implemented.

  These are the kinds of things we had before us at the hearing of 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation with Secretary Mineta. It was an 
excellent hearing.
  We are ready to move on. I am convinced that we could report out a 
similar authorization bill this afternoon, if the committee met, 
similar to the Murray amendment. It would be right there, because we 
made our suggestions as to changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________