[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24021-24030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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


                       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), 
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

[[Page 24022]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 24023]]

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, U.S. 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 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''.

[[Page 24024]]



 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       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, U.S. 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.
       U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 24025]]

  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 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

[[Page 24026]]

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 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.

[[Page 24027]]

       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.
  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

[[Page 24028]]

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 24029]]

 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

[[Page 24030]]

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 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.

                          ____________________