[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14226-14229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call now for 
several hours. As I understand it, there are still negotiations ongoing 
with regard to the trucking amendment. In order to accommodate further 
discussion, I would like to ensure that other Senators know I will be 
filing cloture tonight, and it will be very important during this 
negotiation period for other Senators to come to the floor to offer 
their amendments.
  I expect there will be additional rollcall votes later on tonight. We 
know of two amendments that will be offered. We will expect rollcall 
votes on those amendments sometime after 6:30 this evening. Beyond 
that, there may be other amendments as well. But we will have 
additional votes tonight.
  Senators ought to come to the floor. As I say, I reluctantly will 
file cloture with the hope that perhaps it could be vitiated if we can 
reach some agreement. But barring that, we will expect a cloture vote 
on Thursday. We would expect, as well, that Senators who have 
amendments that may not be germane postcloture can come to the floor, 
offer them, have them debated, and certainly have a vote on them as 
well.
  So tomorrow we will be devoting time to amendments. If amendments are 
not offered, it would be my expectation that we would take up at least 
one, if not more, of the controversial nominations that might require 
some debate time. But we will address that in greater detail at a later 
moment.
  At this point, I encourage Senators to come to the floor because we 
are entertaining amendments. We expect to offer a couple. As I said, we 
will have rollcall votes later on this evening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). We are in a period of morning 
business.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray. I commend her for 
the excellent job she has done on this bill. This is an extremely 
important measure. She has done a first-rate job handling it. We 
appreciate it in the Pacific Northwest and across this country.
  I want to take a few minutes tonight to discuss the situation that 
the flying public is facing as they look at using our airlines and our 
system of aviation this summer. Unfortunately, so many Americans are 
going to face long and tedious hours stranded in overcrowded airports. 
In many instances, they are not even going to have the basic courtesy 
of straight information about their flights, cancellations, and 
important details that are so essential to them when they make their 
plans.
  It seems to me the central aviation problem today is that there are 
no consequences for this flagrant mistreatment of passengers. There 
really is no accountability. While this problem is extremely 
complicated, clearly demand exceeds supply in this country. We need 
more runways. We need better air traffic control. But you do not have 
to pour more concrete to start telling passengers the truth about their 
travel options in the United States.

[[Page 14227]]

  Again and again we find that passengers are kept in the dark. They 
are not told when a flight is overbooked. For example, I have no 
problem with the airline selling a ticket to a passenger on an 
overbooked flight, but I think the passenger has a right to know that 
flight is overbooked. The inspector general found repeatedly that the 
airlines would know hours ahead of time that a flight was going to be 
significantly delayed by 2 or 3 hours. Yet the airlines would not go 
out and change the departure board.
  It seems to me what we ought to require, in an area that is extremely 
complicated, is that passengers at least have a right to know what 
their travel options are. Senator Reid and Senator McCain and I have 
been working together very closely for several years now. A bill has 
cleared the Senate Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman 
Hollings and Senator McCain. Under normal circumstances I would offer a 
measure that would ensure passengers have these basic rights as they 
fly this summer in what proves to be a pretty exasperating travel 
season for millions of Americans. But, frankly, I do not like to 
legislate on an appropriations bill.
  I think Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain and Senator Reid, our 
bipartisan group that has worked in this area, has put together a very 
good bill. It has passed the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously.
  Suffice it to say, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee 
has enough headaches in handling this legislation right now as to not 
put yet another challenge on the bill. But I will tell you my patience 
with respect to this matter is growing pretty thin.
  Senator McCain and I introduced the first bipartisan passenger rights 
legislation back in 1999. The airlines then said there really was no 
problem. They said this was just an anecdotal situation and there 
really was not a problem.
  Then, as the evidence began to pour in that this problem was 
systemwide, they said the answer is a voluntary approach. Just keep the 
U.S. Congress out of it and everything is going to be fine. The 
inspector general came forward and did an analysis of the voluntary 
approach and saw that was not working particularly well. Then the 
airlines said it was the FAA's fault, the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  The fact is, it has been a bottomless pit of excuses with respect to 
this question of improving passenger service in this country. Now the 
airlines have basically said that if passengers want any rights, they 
should basically go to court to try to get them. They will have a 
voluntary program, but if the passengers want any rights they should go 
out and try to find somebody in the trial bar to get interested in a 
lawsuit.
  Suffice it to say, this country needs a straightforward, enforceable 
package of rights to protect the passenger.
  I want to make it clear, I am not calling for a constitutional right 
to a fluffy pillow on your airplane flight or a legal right to a jumbo 
bag of peanuts. But I do think you ought to have a right to basic 
information such as when your flight is chronically delayed.
  One of the areas the inspector general has felt most strongly about 
is a situation that would require airlines to inform a prospective 
passenger when a flight is going to be 2 or 3 hours late and has a 
track record of being that late 30 or 40 percent of the time.
  I also think disclosing that information to the flying public would 
inject a bit of competition into the system because, if consumers could 
have that kind of information, then they might choose another flight, 
say, that was only late 10 percent of the time or they might choose 
another travel option altogether. You could begin to hold the airlines 
accountable. You could begin to have some consequences for this shoddy 
service to which the passengers are so often subjected.
  The passenger bill of rights is really about the public's right to 
know. It is about giving passengers information. I was told early on 
that somehow giving passengers these rights was going to jack up the 
bills of consumers. It seems to me it only can be a force for holding 
costs down because when you give passengers information about their 
options, that helps to make the system more competitive and serves as a 
force to drive prices down.
  I hope we will not have to wait much longer to get an enforceable set 
of passengers' rights in place.
  I do not quarrel in the least with the airlines' argument that we 
need more funding for runways and air traffic control and 
infrastructure. The airlines are absolutely right. Today, demand 
exceeds supply with respect to American aviation, but I will tell my 
colleagues and the Senate that all the concrete in the world is not 
going to do it if the airlines are not required to give the passengers 
basic information about their flight options that is now in their 
possession. I am continually struck how it can be that this industry, 
which has performed such technological miracles in so many other areas, 
cannot devote just a tiny bit of that talent and ingenuity to making 
sure that passengers are kept well informed.
  It seems to me it is a basic sort of proposition of industry in this 
country that you try to treat the customer properly, that you tell 
someone what their options are. But essentially aviation is one of the 
few industries--perhaps the only one--where you consistently can't get 
the product for which you contracted. If the local movie house doesn't 
have enough people for the 3 o'clock showing, the local movie house 
doesn't go out and cancel the 3 o'clock showing. It has been found 
again and again that is what airlines do when they don't think they 
have sufficient people on a particular flight.
  I am not going to offer the passenger bill of rights as an amendment 
on Senator Murray's appropriations bill, but I wanted to come to the 
floor and say this is an area where I think the Senate is ready to go 
with the good work of Senator Reid and Senator McCain, and particularly 
Senator Hollings, who pulled together a bipartisan bill in the Senate 
Commerce Committee.
  I think we are on our way to passing legislation that could make a 
real difference. Given the fact that it will take some time to get that 
new infrastructure which is needed in place--it is going to take time 
to get additional runways and improvements in air traffic control and 
other basic purposes--that is all the more reason to pass a passengers' 
rights bill now so that passengers, as we are building the additional 
infrastructure, can know what their travel options are and know how to 
plan what is best for them and their families.
  I again thank Senator Murray for the excellent job she has done on 
this bill. I see Senator Shelby and others are here as well. Senator 
Shelby was very involved in passing and supporting passenger rights as 
well. I thank him for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the majority leader announced, we are 
moving towards an amendment that will be voted on shortly. I understand 
the Senator from New Jersey would like to speak for 12 minutes. I yield 
to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
for yielding the time.
  I rise in opposition to efforts by Senator Gramm and Senator McCain 
to strike the Murray language regarding access by Mexican motor 
carriers to United States highways. In fact, while I commend Senator 
Murray for her efforts to reach compromise with regard to access to 
United States highways by Mexican truck companies--I am indeed even 
opposed to her compromise--I believe that any compromise is going to 
result in danger to American motorists and believe the better course is 
for the Senate to follow the leadership of the House of Representatives 
and ban these trucks unless and until we are certain that American 
motorists can be safe.
  Senator Dorgan and I have prepared such an amendment and are 
considering offering it. Obviously, that can only be done if, indeed, 
we begin by defeating Senator McCain's efforts.

[[Page 14228]]

  While serving in the House of Representatives, I opposed the NAFTA 
treaty. I believed then, as I believe now, that for all of the 
advantages of integrating the economies of North America, NAFTA was a 
missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity to establish regulatory 
environmental and labor requirements that would protect both our 
natural environment and also our human resources. Now we are about to 
make the same mistake again at an enormous price.
  I do not believe NAFTA or any international law imposes on the United 
States an obligation to lower or ignore safety standards for our 
citizens in the name of free trade. I believe in free trade. I have 
often voted for free trade. I believe its economic advantages to our 
Nation are overwhelming. But our first obligation is always to protect 
the health and well-being of American citizens.
  If there is a question as to whether allowing Mexican trucks 
immediate and unlimited access will endanger American citizens, one 
need look no further than developments along our southern border in the 
last decade.
  Since the enactment of NAFTA, the number of Mexican commercial trucks 
crossing between our countries has increased by 324 percent. There are 
over 4.5 million commercial truck crossings a year into our Southern 
States. Only 1 percent of these vehicles are inspected by U.S. 
personnel. Thirty-six percent of those trucks inspected failed basic 
safety standards for such things as faulty brakes, broken lights, 
unsafe transportation, or dangerous cargo.
  As this chart illustrates, the percentage of trucks ordered off the 
roads because of faulty brakes or hazardous and dangerous or toxic 
cargoes is 50 percent higher in Mexican trucks than in America trucks 
and nearly four times as high as with Canadian trucks. If you were to 
extrapolate this number on the basis of actually inspecting all those 
trucks crossing the American border, 1.5 million truck crossings would 
pose a safety hazard, the vast majority of which are obviously 
undetected. Public Citizen estimates that were we to do nothing, there 
would be an additional 3 million truck crossings.
  Using this 36 percent failure rate, that means, incredibly, that we 
could expect 1 million hazardous truck crossings per year from Mexico 
to the United States. Based on our current experience, 1 million trucks 
are going to enter into the States that Members of this Senate 
represent with faulty brakes, hazardous cargo, unsafe lighting, and 
unsafe design.
  How many lives will be consumed by 1 million faulty trucks on 
America's highways? It is a question no one can answer. But every 
Senator can agree upon this: It is going to cost lives--not maybe, not 
perhaps. People will lose their lives. This problem is driven by 
systemic flaws within the Mexican regulatory system which result in low 
compliance, lax enforcement, and little or no sanctions for violations.
  The chart on my left demonstrates the stark difference between 
American and Mexican truck regulations, beginning with driver fatigue.
  In order to assure that drivers are alert on American highways, 
American truckdrivers are limited to 10 hours of consecutive driving. 
Even with this American limit of 10 consecutive hours on the road, 
driver fatigue still causes one-third of all truck accidents in the 
United States.
  Only months ago, Mexico instituted its first limitations on hours of 
service. But most trucks in Mexico are exempt from the limitation. 
Imagine American highways with Mexican truckdrivers who have no 
experience with these limitations and who lack compliance with driving 
for limited hours. Truckdrivers from Mexico earn, on average, $7 per 
day driving these truck rigs across the United States.
  I can tell you this about a truckdriver who earns $7 a day to feed 
his family. Having him stop driving after 10 hours when he lives in 
those economic circumstances, not being accustomed to these 
regulations, having no history of them, with questionable enforcement--
these trucks are going to be driven for hours and hours past current 
regulations.
  Second, logbooks: In the United States, all truckdrivers are required 
to keep detailed logbooks of their driving time, cargo, and destination 
and to present them, on demand, for safety.
  In Mexico, the law for keeping logbooks is not enforced, and border 
inspectors have reported that virtually none of the Mexican drivers 
entering the United States uses these logbooks--virtually none.
  Weight limits: American trucks cannot exceed 80,000 pounds and are 
often inspected by weigh stations throughout the Interstate Highway 
System. Eighty-three percent of the fatal truck accidents in the United 
States involve trucks that are over 26,000 pounds, clearly establishing 
that heavier trucks are the cause of most fatal truck accidents.
  In Mexico, the weight limit is an incredible 135,000 pounds, or 28 
tons higher than the American limit. Equally as disconcerting as this 
higher weight limit is that even should the limit be reduced, there is 
inadequate infrastructure or even space along the border to perform 
weight compliance checks. Seventy percent of inspection sites in the 
United States have room for only one or two trucks. Not only are these 
trucks out of compliance, not only are they dangerous, but even if we 
were requiring compliance, we do not have the infrastructure to do it.
  These trucks are coming to American roads. It is a safety problem, to 
be certain, that is going to cause loss of life. It is also an 
invitation to massive damage to American highways, massive damage to 
highways and bridges that are not designed for these kinds of 
extraordinary weights.
  Hazardous materials: In the United States, all hazardous materials 
must be clearly marked with an official placard when transported, and 
all truckdrivers transporting hazardous materials must be specifically 
licensed. This has been done to ensure safety that when hazardous 
materials go through our neighborhoods and our cities and our States, 
we know the driver is competent, but we also know that driver is 
traceable and responsible if those toxic or hazardous materials are 
dumped in water supplies or streams or neighborhoods because of a long 
problem of criminal and even organized criminal activity in dumping 
these hazardous materials.
  Nearly a quarter of all trucks entering the United States from Mexico 
are transporting hazardous materials but only 1 out of 14 is properly 
identified.
  Age: The average age of a commercial truck in the United States is 
4\1/2\ years. In Mexico, the average truck is 15 years old. There are 
few truck companies in America that operate any trucks that are 15 
years old. ``Average'' or ``median'' age means a significant portion of 
Mexico's trucks is 20, 25, and 30 years old. By definition, such a 
truck is not safe to be operating on the American Interstate Highway 
System.
  Lest anyone think my concerns are solely on the Mexican side of the 
border, let me discuss for a moment the failure of the United States to 
properly prepare for an inspection program.
  On the assumption that Senator McCain's efforts will fail, we are 
left with Senator Murray's efforts to reach a compromise on this to try 
to improve this system. We hope she succeeds. But if she does, it will 
require a Federal inspection system.
  Today, Federal and State inspectors are on duty 24 hours a day at 
only 2 of the 27 border crossings with Mexico. If a Mexican truck 
enters a border crossing when no one is there, it is not subject to 
inspection.
  The Department of Transportation, under these proposals, is going to 
issue operating certificates to Mexican firms based on their answers to 
questionnaires. The Department will have 18 months to perform a safety 
audit on the firm. But the firm's trucks can freely travel throughout 
the United States during this 18-month period when the questionnaires 
are being reviewed.
  Second, the inadequacy of the U.S. inspection infrastructure is an 
invitation to problems. Many State inspectors who augment Federal 
inspectors do not even routinely check for licenses and documents. Most 
border crossings lack any telecommunications, so the inspection 
personnel

[[Page 14229]]

cannot even check on the validity of licenses and registrations being 
offered at border crossings.
  I make these points to demonstrate that the Mexican trucking industry 
as well as the American inspection system are not ready to protect the 
American driving public. There is no infrastructure. There is 
inadequate personnel. There are not weigh stations. There are not even 
telephones. There are not parking spaces. There is an avalanche of old 
Mexican trucks, without requirements for safety or background or 
design, that are coming to the United States.
  This Nation has spent more than 50 years modernizing its trucking 
industry, learning about safety, training drivers, ensuring that they 
understand how to operate these rigs. After 50 years of experience, and 
lowering mortality rates, we are now opening our borders to Mexican 
trucks.
  I recognize that this issue is difficult because of our close 
relations with Mexico and our obligations under NAFTA. Indeed, on 
February 6 an international arbitration panel ruled that the United 
States cannot bar all Mexican applicants from entering the United 
States. The United States wants to comply with its international 
obligations. But the arbitration panel also found that because of vast 
differences between the two regulatory regimes, the United States did 
not have to treat Mexican applicants the same as it did United States 
or Canadian applicants.
  The panel indicated that NAFTA did not restrict the ability of the 
United States to implement measures to ensure that Mexican trucking 
companies and their drivers meet United States standards. I quote:

       Nor does it (NAFTA) require that Mexican-domiciled firms 
     currently providing trucking services in the U.S. be allowed 
     to continue to do so, if and when they fail to comply with 
     U.S. safety regulations.

  Later on the panel added:

       U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operation of 
     trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is American, 
     Canadian or Mexican.

  I believe the authority of the U.S. Government in this area is clear. 
We have the right--indeed, we have the obligation--to ensure that our 
citizens are safe and our highways are operated to the very highest 
standards. The record in the United States, for all of our efforts, is 
not overwhelmingly positive. Despite 50 years of efforts, the highest 
design requirements in the world, the best training in the world, over 
5,000 Americans are killed every year and over 100,000 people are 
injured on American highways because of accidents with heavy trucks.
  There is no one in the Senate who can credibly argue that if Mexican 
trucks are allowed in the United States without adequate inspection, 
without modernizing the infrastructure, without a tremendous change in 
the operating performance of these old Mexican trucks, with poorly 
trained drivers, and no experience with modern regulations, these 5,000 
deaths are not going to be increased and the loss of life will not be 
considerable.
  Mr. President, I believe this case is compelling. There are few times 
Members of the Senate can cast a vote knowing that the results are 
potentially so dramatic. The citizens of our States are already 
frustrated with crowded highways that are deteriorating under heavy 
use. The loss of life from accidents is inexplicable--100,000 injured 
Americans.
  To now open American highways to Mexican trucks, given their record 
of compliance, the failures of infrastructure, is to guarantee an 
increase in this dangerous situation.
  I urge defeat of Senator McCain's efforts. Then the Senate needs to 
seriously consider whether the compromise that is in the legislation is 
sufficient to protect American families.

                          ____________________