SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
74–387 PS
2001
NAFTA: ARBITRATION PANEL DECISION AND OPENING OF THE U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER TO MEXICAN MOTOR CARRIERS
(107–35)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 18, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
STEPHEN HORN, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JOHN COOKSEY, Lousiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
(ii)
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota, VICE-CHAIR
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(ex officio)
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P.McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Acklie, Duane W., Chairman, American Trucking Associations
Allgeier, Hon. Peter F., Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of U.S. Trade Representative
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cuellar, Hon. Henry, Secretary of State, State of Texas
Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation
Mathis, Michael E., Director, Government Affairs, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
Vaughn, Capt. Steve, President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and Commander, California Highway Patrol
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois
Otter, Hon. C.L. ''Butch'', of Idaho
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, of West Virginia
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Acklie, Duane W
Allgeier, Hon. Peter F
Cuellar, Hon. Henry
Gillan, Jacqueline S
Hoffa, James P. (submitted by Michael E. Mathis)
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mead, Hon. Kenneth M
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y
Vaughn, Capt. Steve
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Allgeier, Hon. Peter F., Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of U.S. Trade Representative, responses to questions
Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, responses to questions
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
AAA, Susan G. Pikrallidas, Vice President, Public Affairs, statement
Amalgamated Transit Union, Jim LaSala, International President, statement
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, statement
City of Laredo, Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, statement
NAFTA arbitral panel final report, recommendations, February 6, 2001
Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Jim Johnston, President, statement
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, statement
U.S. Department of Transportation, Form OP-2 Application for Mexican Certificate of Registration for Foreign Motor Carriers and Foregn Private Carriers Under 49 U.S.C. 13902
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77R 06487, Memorializing Congress to recognize the impact on Texas of the federal policy of opening the border to mexican trucks in accordance with provisions of NAFTA, Texas Legislature, Bill History and Senate Concurrent Resolusion
Transportation Trades Department, Edward Wytkind, statement
NAFTA: ARBITRATION PANEL DECISION AND OPENING OF THE U.S. MEXICAN BORDER TO MEXICAN MOTOR CARRIERS
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee's meeting today to receive testimony on the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, arbitration panel decision of February 6, 2001, which determined that the United States was in breach of its obligations under NAFTA with regard to permitting cross-border motor carrier services across the U.S. and Mexican border and with regard to allowing Mexican investment in U.S.-based companies. The decision will also provide recommendations for the United States to achieve compliance with the NAFTA requirements.
Prior to 1982, the U.S. made no distinctions between Canadian, Mexican or U.S. applicabilities when granting motor carrier applications for authority to operate within the United States. However, this practice came to an end pursuant to a 2-year moratorium imposed by the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, which was extended indefinitely by the ICC Termination Act of 1995. The basis for the moratorium was to encourage both Canada and Mexico to lift their trade restrictions on market access for United States firms. NAFTA was designed to be a trilateral economic agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States, and was intended to phase out barriers to trade and services throughout North America. It was signed on December 17th, 1992 and took effect on January 1, 1994.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Among the many provisions to facilitate trade between the three North American countries were provisions liberalizing cross border, motor carrier and bus services. However,
Annex 1 of NAFTA effectively allowed for the continuation of the moratorium until 1995. Yet in December of 1995, after the United States Department of Transportation had been preparing to accept Mexican applications for operating authority, the Secretary of the Department announced that submitted applications would not be finalized, thus continuing the moratorium.
Over the past 6 years, the United States and Mexican governments continued to debate this action, which resulted in the arbitration panel decision of February 6, 2001. Following the arbitration panel distribution, the President announced his intention to comply with the decision and directed the administration to take several steps in preparation for opening the U.S.-Mexican border. First, the 2002 Department of Transportation budget request included an $88 million Mexican border initiative. These funds were intended for infrastructure construction, hiring additional Federal personnel and grants for border states to hire additional personnel. And although this funding was struck from the department appropriations bill in the House on a point of order by the chairman of this committee, due to the source of the funding, I, for one, am hopeful that the House, Senate and the administration working together can resolve this issue and provide the necessary resources along the border.
Second, on June 6th, in response to an executive memorandum, Secretary of Transportation announced modifications to the memorandum, allowing Mexican carriers to fully own and operate U.S. companies in the U.S. for purposes of transporting international cargo and to provide bus services between points in the United States.
Third, an May 1st, 2001, the Department of Transportation proposed three rulemakings in anticipation of accepting Mexican applications to obtain operating authority in the United States by the end of this year. The purpose of today's hearings is to review the arbitration panel decision and to determine the repercussions for the United States, as well as to review the actions taken by the administration in the event that the U.S. Mexican border is reopened to Mexican carriers. We are particularly interested in assessing whether the rules proposed by the department and the resources requested are sufficient to ensure the safety of the public travelling on U.S. highways and to ensure the compliance of Mexican carriers with all applicable U.S. laws, regulations and procedures.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the years, this subcommittee has made several trips to the border to inspect and see firsthand border infrastructure, staffing and general operations. It is clear that there are differing levels of facilities along the border, and I look forward to hearing what the border State's plans are for continuing to develop border infrastructure and staffing.
I also wish to hear ideas on what should be done on the Federal level in partnership with the states. However, there are a number of other issues I hope to explore during the course of this hearing. We, undoubtedly, will hear statistics about the safety of the Mexican trucks currently crossing the border. Yet I am curious as to what those figures really tell us relevant to this discussion. These trucks essentially are drayage trucks that move back and forth across the border several times a day, shuttling freight in 10- to 15-mile trips.
Now, I have been told that should Mexican carriers gain access beyond the commercial zone, the population of trucks that will be on our highways will be entirely different from those that currently shuttle back and forth across the border on these short trips today. So are we comparing apples and oranges? Again, prior to 1982, when Mexican carriers had authority to engage in cross-border service, Mexican carriers were not receiving the outpouring of criticisms that they are receiving today. And I hope witnesses will address this issue.
Also at times, there appears to be the perception that Mexican trucks in varying states of disrepair are lining up at the border ready to invade and clog our highways the minute the moratorium is lifted. Neither NAFTA nor the arbitration panel decision dictates that there be blanket access to U.S. highways for Mexican trucks. The Department of Transportation's issued proposed regulations to certify Mexican carriers who will be applying for operating authority. Each application will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Some may believe that this is inadequate, and I would like to hear from both sides on this issue. And I am interested in hearing the number of Mexican carrier applicants that we actually expected to seek access to the U.S..
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, many seem to have a perception of what a Mexican truck is, but we have also read reports that many Mexican carriers are buying and operating the exact same equipment as U.S. carriers.
I am interested in learning about the state of the Mexican trucking industry today and how it might impact these discussions. We clearly have an obligation under NAFTA, and we have an obligation to ensure that our roads are safe. I hope we can all work together to take the necessary steps to accomplish both of these goals.
Today's agenda provides the subcommittee an opportunity to expand on all of these interests by hearing from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on the arbitration panel decision and recommendations and the repercussions to U.S. American trade relations.
We will also hear from the distinguished secretary of the Department of Transportation, Norman Mineta, on the actions taken by the agency to prepare for reopening of the U.S.-Mexican border to Mexican border carriers.
Additionally, testimony on the decision to reopen the border will be provided by the Department of Transportation Inspector General, the Secretary of State from the State of Texas, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the American Trucking Association, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
And with that, I now recognize my colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Bob Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank you for scheduling these hearings on the safety of cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico. The subject of these hearings, the safety implications of the President's plan to open the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks is a matter of great concern to me and a growing number of my colleagues. I want to emphasize that this should not be a hearing on trade issues, but a hearing on truck safety and only truck safety.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In carrying out our treaty obligations, we must guarantee that we do so in a matter that assures the safety of the United States citizens.
I believe the President made an ill-advised, hasty decision in announcing his intention to open the border to Mexican trucks by January 1, 2002. It will be several years, in my opinion, before the necessary regulations are in place. The human and physical infrastructure is in place. The enforcement mechanisms are in place, and the information systems are in place to assure the cross-border trucking is safe. We are not anywhere close to being ready to open the border, and we certainly won't be ready to open the border by January 1, 2002.
Recently, Chairman Petri and I, along with other members of the SEC on Highway and Transit visited several border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. We witnessed firsthand the problems encountered by Federal and State officials as they went about the task of trying to assure the safety of Mexico-domiciled trucks, and drivers entering the United States.
With some rare exceptions, it was a losing battle.
At Otay Mesa in California, we saw an inspection system that works pretty well, a system that could serve as a model for the other 26 border crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border. California performs a comprehensive level 1 safety inspection of all trucks crossing the border, at least once every 90 days at its inspection facilities at Otay Mesa and Calexico. Every truck and trailer that passes inspection is given a sticker good for 90 days. Any truck or trailer crossing the border that doesn't have a valid sticker is pulled into one of several inspection bays, where a comprehensive safety information is performed.
If the system could work at Otay Mesa, where 15 percent of the truck traffic from Mexico crosses, it could work at other border crossings as well. And the system at Otay Mesa works. The out-of-service rate for Mexican trucks crossing the border at Otay Mesa is the same rate as U.S. trucks nationwide. Areas along the border that don't have good inspection programs—and we saw plenty—have out of service rates as high as 60 percent. One of the officers we talked to, Officer Cory Clayton of the Texas Department of Public Safety, gave us a memorable quote. He said, trucks that aren't inspected tend to be neglected, and he was right. The contrast in the out-of-service data from California where trucks are inspected every 90 days and the other border crossing areas where trucks are seldom inspected was all Officer Clanton needed to make his point.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, currently there are no permanent inspection facilities at border crossings in the State of Texas, and under the most optimistic forecast, none will be operational before early to mid 2003 at the earliest.
During our trip to the border, we also found big problems with the Mexican motor carrier and driver electronic information system. We made repeated checks at the Mexican database and were unable to find any information on drivers and carriers selected at random as they crossed the border. They simply weren't in the database. We found one, but the file contained no historical information on the driver or the carrier. Simply, the name of the company and the driver. Hardly a basis for judging the safety fitness of the company or the driver.
I am concerned about the speed of this process to open the border. A transition measure such as the Sabo Amendment in the House appropriations bill or the Berry amendment in the Senate appropriations bill will help us bridge the gap. More time is needed to put in place the necessary regulations, human and physical infrastructure, enforcement mechanisms and information systems that will assure safe cross-border trucking operations in the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Representative Young is the chairman of the full, which he is not here. Should he come, he may wish to place a statement in the record. Otherwise, his statement and that of all the other members of the subcommittee will be—if they have opening statements, will be made a part of the record, and I would at this point turn to the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Oberstar, for an opening statement if he wishes to make one.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate you holding this hearing and joining Mr. Borski in addressing this subject of—that is before us today that is of such great and overwhelming concern. I welcome Secretary Mineta. I am certain he is happy to be here, maybe not under these circumstances, but where his portrait smiles upon us all.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to choose my words carefully, because I want to make it very clear the hearing is not about trade, and the concern is not about trade. The issue is safety. Truck trade between the United States and Mexico is booming, 131 percent increase; $171 billion in the last 6 years. Whether you argue that NAFTA is good or bad for us, the facts are there. The trade has grown. The traffic is powerful, but no one can argue about the need to protect the health and safety and welfare of our fellow citizens by ensuring that trucks that roll on our highways, our city streets and our country roads meet adequate standards of safety.
We have major motor vehicle truck safety problem in this country. Three facts: Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 6 and 33 in America. In 1999, 5,380 people died in large truck accidents. Has the equivalent of a fully-loaded 737 aircraft crashing every two weeks. Third, every independent analysis of Mexico-domiciled trucks, whether the Inspector General at DOT, the Congressional Reference Service, or the General Accounting Office has found one, that the safety record of Mexico-domiciled trucks is much less than that of their U.S. counterparts, and, to question the ability of the U.S. to ensure compliance with our laws, that is the context.
Now, when we in the United States Government allows a foreign carrier, whether a truck, a ship, an airplane, a railroad to operate in the U.S., we have every right and we have every responsibility to ensure that the carrier complies with U.S. laws.
Now, airlines and railroads are different than trucks. Airlines have specific routes and specific designations, and so do railroads. But the truck should be held to a higher standard, because it can go everywhere and to every hamlet of every city, to every village, to every countryside in America. I-35, some would say, starts at Laredo, Texas. Others would say it starts in Duluth, Minnesota, but it goes 1,835 miles, and a truck that enters at Laredo can wind up in Duluth, and I don't want a truck without brakes in Duluth, because from the top of the hill to the waterfront, Lake Superior is three times the height of Niagara Falls and a truck without brakes is going to kill somebody and not on my watch.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, we have to conduct on-site compliance of reviews of Mexico trucks before we give them authority to operate in this country, and more importantly, than the inspection is the system within which they operate. Aviation is a good model. Before the United States allows a foreign carrier to operate in this country, we look at their aviation safety regime. The regime within which safety is conducted in that country, if that safety regime doesn't measure up, the airlines from that country don't get into the United States. That process involves inspection of the regulatory authority. It involves an on-site inspection of the country's airlines. It involves how they license their personnel, how they license aircraft, how they conduct airworthiness inspections to assess the effectiveness of their regulatory system, and that is what we need in place with respect to Mexican trucks.
If they don't measure up to those standards, they don't get into the U.S., and we have denied right now 13 countries the ability to fly into the United States, because they don't measure up to our aviation safety standards. We should have no less a standard for trucking. There ought to be the necessary border infrastructure and personnel in place. 25 of 27 border crossings account for 79 percent of the truck traffic, nearly 3.6 million border crossings. No permanent inspection facility; no State inspector on duty all hours. We have got a lot to do.
Now, the report that Mr. Borski and others made following their border inspection was compelling testimony, compelling statement. We introduced a resolution that requires—that urges the President to delay granting Mexico carriers operating authority until the President certifies that granting that authority will not endanger the health and welfare of U.S. citizens. And we provide a comprehensive list of safety initiatives to get to that point.
That is what we are going to consider today, and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the extra time you have granted me, but I feel very deeply about this issue, very strongly about it. I have spent a lot of time on it over many years and again, one final thought is there is often the comparison made, well, Canada is a different situation. You let trucks from Canada come in. They have a better safety record than we have. So let us take Canada out of the equation and bring this back down to the issue of safety. Thank you.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. Two of our colleagues who are not members of the subcommittee have asked permission to join us and sit in at this hearing, and so I would ask unanimous consent that our colleague, Ruben Hinojosa from Texas and our colleague, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, be permitted to sit with us for today's—this afternoon's hearing. And without objection, that is ordered.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND HON. PETER F. ALLGEIER, DEPUTY U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICE OF U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Now, the first panel we look forward to testimony from a former chairman of this committee, whose picture is on the wall right behind us, who we are watching. And he hasn't aged despite the passage of a few years. That is the Secretary of Transportation, the Honorable Norm Mineta. And he will be followed by Peter Allgeier, who is the Deputy Trade Representative of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary MINETA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great pleasure to have this chance to appear before all of you today and to have this opportunity to explain our plans for the safe admission of commercial trucks and buses to the United States from Mexico. Approved by Congress in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement was based on a single premise, that all of the countries in North America would be integrated into one free trade area. However, NAFTA's requirements that all countries in North America open their borders to commercial vehicle traffic still has not been implemented 8 years after ratification.
Last February, a NAFTA arbitration panel determined that the United States had violated its legal obligations to Mexico under NAFTA. It authorized Mexico to impose very significant economic sanctions. President Bush has assured President Fox that the United States would move in a timely manner to meet our NAFTA obligations. I acknowledge the very significant concerns that Members of Congress and the statements I have heard this afternoon and the public have expressed as being real. Recent votes by the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee on this matter have sent a very clear message. That is, that Congress will insist that the United States have a vigorous, effective safety program in place prior to implementing the truck and bus access provisions of NAFTA.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as all of you know, I have been Secretary of Transportation since the 25th of January of this year, and I will match my credentials in terms of safety with anyone, and that kind of personal commitment has not lessened any since being a Member of Congress or since becoming Secretary of the Department. And I share this very similar commitment that all of you have about safety.
The Bush administration wants to work with Congress to reach consensus on a plan to meet our NAFTA obligations without sacrificing safety. I am disappointed, therefore, that the House voted to bar the use of any Department funds in the next fiscal year to process applications for Mexican carriers that seek to operate outside the commercial zones in the United States.
As the administration has formerly stated, on at least one previous occasion, President Bush's senior advisers would recommend that he veto any bill containing provisions that foreclose the pocket of meeting our NAFTA obligations. Now, while I am grateful to the Senate Appropriations Committee for providing funding for inspections and improvements described later in this testimony, I have serious concerns that the numerous conditions that the Senate has at this point placed on actions for the Department will impinge on our ability to do the job.
Let me state four core principles that I believe must guide our efforts to implement the NAFTA truck and bus access provisions. First, safety is the Department of Transportation's highest priority, and we will not sacrifice safety to implement NAFTA's trucking and bus provisions. With the support of Congress, Mexico's government, Federal and State enforcement officials and the industry, I think that we can't implement an effective safety enforcement program and meet our NAFTA obligations by January 1, 2002. The President's budget lays out requirements to do that.
However, if our ongoing work should prove that we need more time, we will take it. If we need more resources, we will insist upon them. The bottom line is, we want to do the job right.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, every Mexican firm, vehicle and driver that seeks authority to operate in the United States at the border or beyond must meet the identical safety and operating standards that apply to Canadian and U.S. carriers. Nothing less than that is acceptable.
Thirdly, the United States must comply fully with our NAFTA obligations. Not everyone on this committee supported approval of NAFTA in 1993. As a Member of Congress, I did, but only after careful consideration of the possible impact on a wide range of issues, including safety, I concluded then and I continue to believe that the free and open trade fostered by NAFTA is in the best interest of the people of this Nation and of our economic future.
The Mexican government has assured the United States that it will allow U.S. trucks access to Mexico, and as Secretary of Transportation, now my task is to work with the Congress to decide how to meet our existing and very real international, legal obligations.
Fourthly, Mexican carriers lawfully operating in the United States must be guaranteed the same high standards of fairness and protection that we offer Canadian and U.S. carriers.
There is a technical term in NAFTA that gives Canadian, Mexican and U.S. carriers operating in one of the other countries so-called national treatment. That means that we must provide a level playing field for competition. Because Mexico's safety enforcement regime differs in significant ways from that of Canada and the United States, the arbitration panel granted us reasonable flexibility in choosing the best way to ensure a Mexican carrier's compliance with our safety regulations. There can be some discussion about what constitutes reasonable flexibility.
I must say, however, that I am concerned about the tenor of some of the debates. Some seem to argue that a Mexican carrier precisely because it is from Mexico, cannot or will not comply with our laws. In implementing NAFTA, President Bush and I will insist on full compliance with our safety laws, but we will not accept enforcement requirements that create a de facto system that unfairly discriminates against Mexican drivers and Mexican carriers.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result of decisions taken by the previous administration, the Department of Transportation did not, on the 20th of January of this year, have a program that would allow us to open our southern border to commercial traffic, nor did we have an adequate plan for developing one.
Today we are well on the way to having the effective safety enforcement program that will allow us to move forward with NAFTA by year's end. In May, the Department of Transportation proposed several rules relating to the carrier application process that we need to implement for border opening. The public comment period on the draft rules closed two weeks ago, and we anticipate issuing this final rule sometime in October.
Now, these rules represent only one part of the Department's comprehensive safety implementation plan. The actual safety considerations in implementing our NAFTA obligations are, in fact, very different from the picture painted by some opponents. Our plan places heightened requirements on Mexican carriers currently operating in the commercial zone along the border. More scrutiny than currently exercised, and it means a new stricter system outside the commercial zone.
My written testimony provides details of our implementation plan and the resources the Department needs to carry it out.
Of course, none of us can guarantee that a Mexican truck, a Canadian truck, or for that matter, a U.S. truck, will never have a catastrophic accident somewhere in the United States, but I can guarantee that the Department of Transportation directs and will continue to direct its full efforts on a daily basis to preventing that accident. Our NAFTA safety implementation plan will place greater resources and a substantially enhanced effort on enforcement.
Opening the border to Mexican trucks and buses by the beginning of this next year will require considerable efforts, but I am thoroughly convinced that we can fulfill our NAFTA obligations while putting in place an effective safety enforcement program.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I close, Mr. Chairman, by reiterating my personal commitment and that of the Bush administration to work with the Congress to find an acceptable plan for NAFTA implementation, a plan that allows us to meet the four principles of safety and equity that I have outlined today. I ask, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous consent to submit my written testimony for the record, and we will be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, your full statement will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Allgeier?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my appreciation to you and to the members of the committee for this opportunity to discuss this important subject of cross-border access and safety for motor carriers.
First, I would simply like to say that I am testifying here today to express the administration's support for the twin goals of, first, ensuring that Mexican trucks fully meet U.S. highway safety standards and, two, fulfilling our international obligations. We think that we can meet both goals. USTR attaches the utmost importance to ensuring the safety on our highways. However, recent action by the House to impose an across-the-board ban on new licensing authority for Mexican trucking companies goes well beyond and is not justified by safety concerns. Moreover, if enacted into law, that action could jeopardize our relations with Mexico and impede President Fox's efforts to promote openness and reform and good governance in Mexico. It also would violate our international obligations under NAFTA.
Now, this is not a hearing on trade, as a number of members have said, and so I don't plan to talk in length about the NAFTA. However, I would simply point out that it has been a very large success and that there are substantial stakes involved as a result of that, and would be consequences if we were not to abide by our obligations under the NAFTA.
At this point, nearly a half a million dollars in trade between the United States and Mexico crosses our border every minute. The overwhelming amount of that trade is, of course, moved by trucks. So this is an important element in the implementation of the NAFTA. And as we know, there are nearly 1.2 million jobs in America supported by exports to Mexico. This is almost double what it was when we first started implementing NAFTA.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, until 1982, the United States allowed Mexican firms to engage in international transportation service in the United States. Mexico did not provide reciprocal access for our trucking firms and our drivers. As a result, Congress limited Mexico's access to a narrow border zone until such time as Mexico agreed to provide us with reciprocal access. As you pointed out, that means that the current situation is a long-hauler—long-haul truck from Mexico brings the cargo into the Mexican side of the border zone, the commercial border zone, a drayage truck then takes over, takes it across the border to the U.S. side and then a U.S. truck takes it from there to its destination wherever in the United States.
Imagine if we had insisted upon such a system in interstate transport in the United States. The obvious inefficiency and waste of resources would be protested both by business and by consumers. In the NAFTA negotiations, we did succeed in including reciprocal cross-border trucking provisions in the agreement, and those provisions authorize U.S. trucks to carry cargo to and from Mexico and Mexican trucks to carry cargo to and from the United States, beginning in December of 1995.
Under the NAFTA, the United States may apply all of its own safety standards to Mexican trucks operating in the United States, and as the Secretary said, we may take reasonable measures to enforce those standards. In 1993, of course Congress approved the NAFTA, including the cross-border trucking provisions, and now more than 5 years later, we have yet to comply with those commitments that we ourselves ask to be included in the agreement. As a result, Mexico has taken us to a dispute settlement panel. The panel has ruled basically what we knew, that we are required to evaluate on a case-by-case basis applications to operate Mexican trucks in the United States, but in evaluating those, we are able to insist that they meet U.S. standards of safety.
Moreover, we can take what reasonable steps are necessary to enforce these standards. However, if a blanket ban on processing licenses were to take place, we would be in direct and willful breach of our obligations to Mexico. The implications of this are that Mexico, under the agreement, would be entitled to withdraw comparable concessions from us. They would be able to withdraw benefits from that trade that I mentioned earlier, the 1.2 million Americans are involved in on the export side.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Moreover, NAFTA has been a key element in Mexico's success, particularly in President Fox's success, in trying to open up Mexico to the kinds of rules—of procedure and good governance that we in the United States have been promoting in our relations with Mexico. Now is not the time to say to President Fox and to the Mexicans that we should not be abiding by international obligations. It will be very logical for them and for people in Mexico who don't like certain obligations of the NAFTA to say, why should Mexico abide by its obligations?
I started by saying we have two objectives, the first being to ensure that there is compliance with U.S. highway safety standards. The second is to meet our obligations under the NAFTA. We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you, the members of this committee and other Members of Congress, to craft legislation that ensures that in implementing this part of the NAFTA, we meet both of those objectives. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and we do look forward to working with you and with the Department of Transportation as we move forward on this issue.
I will now turn to questions, and hopefully we will do a better job on our side of sticking with the 5-minute rule, and Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And. Secretary and Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your presentation. I find some comfort in the Secretary's presentation. And knowing his long standing not only commitment but act of work on safety and aviation and rail and trucking when he chaired this committee is unquestioned.
I do take issue with the repeated administration insistence that debate in the U.S.—in the U.S. House has emanated from a principle that we are discriminating against trucks from Mexico precisely because they come from Mexico. There was no reference until the debate. There was no suggestion in the floor debate, in the committee or in any other forum of that tenor. Quite the opposite. Our emphasis has been on safety.
Ambassador, let me ask your reaction. The reasons that U.S. treats Canada and Mexico differently, one, the United States has had a long-standing truck access memorandum of understanding with Canada that includes compliance review of Canadian trucking companies. For more than 4 decades—it has been in place since 1960, and a mutual recognition agreement. But NAFTA itself does not even address the issue of Canada's truck access to the U.S. because of that long-standing agreement. Do you agree with that?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, the United States and Mexico do not, in contrast, have a longstanding truck access relationship. Congress imposed a moratorium on Mexico-domiciled trucks entering the U.S. in 1982, and every President since then, until this President, has upheld that moratorium: Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, Bush 1. Do you agree with that?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Yes. I believe that is accurate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The third is the arbitral panel ruled specifically that the United States could treat the application of Mexico-domiciled trucks to operate in the U.S. differently from U.S. or Canada, and you have said so in your statement?
Mr. ALLGEIER. That's correct.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Four, the rate of out-of-service findings on Canada—Canadian trucks is far better than U.S., 17 percent Canadian trucks are found out of compliance, versus 24 to 25 percent for U.S. trucks. Are you aware of that failure?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Well, as a result of your—yes. I take your word for that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. So with those facts, I mean, why do you dispute that we should be concerned about this issue?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Mr. Oberstar, I was not trying to imply that any of us in this room should be unconcerned about the issue. The point is simply to say that there is an across-the-board ban on processing licenses puts us in breach of our international obligation—.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me explain why that happened, because Mr. Sabo, who proposed to the rules committee a more carefully-crafted provision that would have required U.S. DOT compliance review of Mexican-based trucking company before entering the U.S., was disallowed by the rules committee. He could not offer that language, and the only option available to him was to offer an across-the-board ban under the floor rules on appropriation bills. That is why, not because we don't like Mexican trucks. This was the only option available. There is more detailed language being crafted in the other body to deal with this issue. I just want to get the record straight.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will have further questions for Secretary Mineta later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Coble.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, given the generous expressions of salutation extended to you, each time you come here, I think it is apparent the great respect and affection you enjoy from members of this committee.
Mr. Ambassador, that is not to say that we don't like you. We like you as well, but we know our colleague a little better. It is good to have both of you here.
I want to emphasize three points to each of you. Some of it has already been discussed, liability, and insurance. I think it is imperative that we know for certainty that these Mexican trucks are going to be adequately insured by carriers readily identifiable and that are obviously solvent, and my good friend from Minnesota expressed concern about that truck with defective brakes headed for the waters of Lake Superior.
Now, I am just concerned about that truck headed for a tobacco field in North Carolina and what compounds these two illustrations is the fact that someone may be in the path of that truck. So these issues must be—and perhaps each of you and your staffs may be on top of this.
Secondly, drugs. I have the fear that when these trucks coming over from Mexico, I guess, believe that the accessibility for illegal drugs finding their respective ways into this country, I am afraid that the gates are going to be not just ajar but wide open, and I am sure that you all—or I hope you all have hammered out some sort of strategy to address what I believe are certainly potential problems.
Three, environment. I am hoping that the vehicles from Mexico are going to be able to satisfy the environmental standards that we impose against our motor vehicles. Now, those three issues have caused me to sleep with one eye open at night. So if you all want to address those either now or subsequently, I am all ears.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question posed by Mr. Coble, in the arbitral panel's decision, what they said was, the United States, you have violated the NAFTA provisions. However, they said, Mexico, you must observe all the rules and regulations and laws of the United States with regard to driver and vehicle safety.
So whether it is in terms of the liability insurance requirement, that is there. In terms of environment, their trucks must meet our requirements, and in terms of the drugs, that really is more in the hands of the DEA and—although we work cooperatively with them, in terms of these combined Federal inspection service stations. The DEA is really responsible for the drug portion of it. But in terms of the insurance requirements, in terms of their meeting our environmental requirements, those are all the same.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Ambassador, do you want to weigh in on that?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Just to say we have been extremely and repeatedly clear with Mexican authorities that these are the standards that we would require.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you both for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FILNER. Will you yield, Mr. Coble?
Mr. COBLE. Sure.
Mr. FILNER. Because I think you hit on some very important issues—.
Mr. PETRI. You can have your own time.
Mr. FILNER. Well, he still has time, and he yielded to me.
Mr. PETRI. Okay. Very good.
Mr. FILNER. The questions were very important, Mr. Secretary—and, again, as Mr. Oberstar said, no one questions your personal commitment--but you said the standards would be met. I have a border district, as you know. I have 3,000 trucks crossing into my district. I would like you to tell Mr. Coble and this committee in more detail how can you assure us that you can inspect them all? How do you know that those requirements are met? I have seen those papers exchanged. There is no way to check them. I have seen the driver's licenses. There is no way to deal with those driver's licenses. You do not have the manpower. You do not have the technology. You do not have the resources to assure my constituents that those answers to Mr. Coble are true.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yes, the requirements are there, but there is no way to inspect them. There is no way. You have to have so much more resources than you have, or even have projected here, and I live in a district where we have a state-of-the-art inspection station. I sit there and watch what they inspect, and I will tell you, not only do they only inspect a few percent of the vehicles, but they cannot inspect for insurance. They cannot inspect for safety. They cannot inspect the logs. They cannot inspect anything for which you are assuring us that they have to comply.
Mr. PETRI. You are on your own time, now.
Secretary MINETA. First of all, you are right. They don't have the resources. They were knocked out by the House. We requested 88.2 million, but they were knocked out. And then the Sabo amendment went further, to prohibit the use of any DOT funds for the processing of—.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Secretary, can you pull that mike a little closer to you or activate it?
Secretary MINETA. Again, in terms of the 88.2 million that we had requested in our budget, that was knocked out by this committee, as well as the—by the vote on the floor, the Sabo amendment that prohibits the use of any DOT funds from our processing motor carrier applications. What we were doing was a twofold exercise, one as it related to putting out the rules and regulations on how to apply to the United States for motor carrier authority, operating authority. The other piece of it was in terms of the inspection, and we asked for 88.2 million, as I recall the figure.
About $56 million of that was for physical facilities, about 54 going to the States for construction of inspection facilities, and some $2.6 million going to Federal agencies for Federal facilities. 18 million of it was for inspectors. The Inspector General had said that we needed at least 139 inspectors, and so we originally had 60 in the budget, and so I layered it with an additional 80 to get up to 140, and that was going to be some $18 million. And then on top of that, we put in some $13.6, $13.7 million for assistance to the States under the mix program to do—for States to do inspection as well.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, this is a total of something like 496 inspectors, and my objective was to make sure that in terms of inspecting drivers and trucks when they came across the border, they were going to be looked at. Now, if you look at the scope of all of the traffic at the borders, there is roughly about 4-1/2 million trips back and forth across the border. They are done by a total of 80,000 trucks. About 63,000 Mexican trucks, 17,000 U.S. trucks, back and forth across the border. And of the 63,000 Mexican trucks, we inspect 47,000. Now, my intent is to make sure that when there is a border crossing that is open, that there will be an inspector on duty.
Secretary MINETA. Now I don't know what it is I have to do to try to convince people that we are earnest about what we are doing.
In terms of commercial driver license, Mexico is instituting their own program. We will have the ability at our inspection stations to go on-line into their computer system to check on the driver system. Now admittedly, they are new at the game. They are not as experienced as we are, as Canada is. But in my conversations with their Department of Transportation, their Secretary of Transportation as well as their Secretary of Commerce and Industry, we are trying to make sure that they are in fact complying with the Arbitral Panel of NAFTA, which said, ''Mexico, you've got to observe all the rules, regs and laws of the United States relating to drivers and to trucks.'' .
And so I am trying and our department from top to bottom, through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, is trying to put in place a program to assure the American public that we are in fact trying to make these vehicles that are going to be in the United States to be safe and compliant with U.S. Laws.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Quinn?
Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Welcome back again.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Allgeier, I don't think we have met before, but it is nice to see you here, and welcome. I don't want to repeat everything that has been said here this afternoon because many of us have heard it before. Indeed, in a bipartisan way, we have stood, Democrats and Republicans, with unions and management here in this room, I with Mr. Oberstar, on more than three or four occasions, to highlight this serious, serious problem.
It shouldn't be about trade, Mr. Ambassador, but you talk about that. So I want you to know where I am coming from. I voted against NAFTA. It is a disaster in my part of New York State if you ask me about jobs and plants that have shut down. So you have got to convince me it has been a success to start off with. I don't think we went beyond where we should have gone with the vote on Mr. Sabo's amendment. We didn't have much of a choice that day. And I think I heard you say in your opening remarks, Peter, that we need to promote openness and good government in Mexico. Give me a break. What about openness and good government in the United States of America? I am not against trade, but it needs to be fair. And fair is, if our truck drivers have to pass licensing and inspections, then so should everybody else.
I was on a C-SPAN show this morning and fielded half a dozen or eight calls from people all across the country, who pointed out to us instances where this was occurring. They also pointed out an angle if we are going to talk about trade, that it really gives an unfair advantage to some of these truck-driving companies from other countries if they don't have to comply with some of these licensing and inspection procedures. And I didn't want to talk a lot about trade, but I need to have you know where I am coming from. And I am not like everybody else who is here, but that is my perspective on this whole thing.
Now we had to vote with Mr. Sabo's amendment, and that is over. And I think Norm is correct when he says, ''I need some direction.'' What do you want us to do? We are earnest, and I think you are. Maybe what we need is an opportunity, instead of us holding news conferences as we think we have to do or some of us voting the way we did to get everybody's attention, maybe we need an opportunity to have us sit down together.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You are going to hear people on the second panel and third panel later today, the Teamsters and others, who are going to talk about some of these specific instances. We have Members who have visited there. We are not making this stuff up. I trust my colleagues who have been there and have seen it and have reported back on it. So—and I am not interested in trying to make life more difficult for either of you. I am interested in making life safer and better for the people who live in my district, and these truckers and trucks are making their way up to New York.
And so maybe, Mr. Chairman, out of hearings come some good ideas and some suggestions. Maybe we need to get some members who are interested on the subcommittee, members of the administration together with some people on the panel later today and come to grips with the funding problems that you all have. You can only do what we give you money to do.
Mr. Filner is correct. We want you to be staffed. We want you to be funded. I feel sometimes as passionate as Mr. Oberstar and frustrated sometimes that it is our responsibility to help you do your job. I for one want to do that. And to the extent that the leadership that Mr. Petri and Mr. Borski provide on the subcommittee, I want to help them do that.
That is not in the form of a question. I know that. But I don't know if we are going to get a chance to let you know where this Member is coming from, and I would give you whatever time I have left for reactions from either of you.
Mr. ALLGEIER. Thank you very much. I would simply say that neither for safety reasons nor for commercial reasons should we allow Mexican drivers or any other drivers to have any standard other than the ones that we apply to our own drivers and trucks, and that should be our guiding principle.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Lipinski, any questions?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Coble
yielded his time to me. So I thought I still had my time.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. We continued the time.
Mr. FILNER. I wasn't informed of that because Mr. Mineta took all my time. I ask for just 2 minutes before we go on.
Mr. PETRI. Ask Mr. Lipinski to yield. There are a lot of other members—.
Mr. FILNER. Each one of the members is interested and that is why they are here. So I don't want to take their 5 minutes.
Mr. PETRI. We will allow another round.
Mr. FILNER. I am the only member of this committee whose district is on the southern border.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Filner, I will yield you 1 minute of my time. Mr. Chairman, would you please let me know when his time is up?
Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. Mr. Mineta, no one is questioning your personal commitment here. My constituents who see 3,000 trucks go by from Mexico are the experts on this, and they have been in accidents with trucks who don't have brakes and they have been in accidents with trucks that aren't insured and they have been in accidents with teenage drivers. So we are very concerned about what occurs.
I will tell you, I watched that state-of-the-art inspection station in Otay Mesa being built. It took almost a decade to get that in place. Twenty-five out of our 27 crossings do not have inspection stations. How long is it going to take them? When they get to Texas, they haven't even agreed on what kind of inspection station. I have watched those trucks being inspected. A couple percent are being inspected. There is no way to know the insurance. There is no way to know the safety record of the driver. There is no information in those computers. I have watched that every day for week after week.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Are you using my time, Mr. Filner?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. Please, don't let this happen.
Mr. LIPINSKI. The Secretary can answer on his own time. You want to answer now on your time, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary MINETA. Yes, if I might. First of all—.
Mr. LIPINSKI. It is his time, right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. PETRI. Both of your time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Talk fast, Norm.
Secretary MINETA. I am not sure where you get this couple of percent that Otay Mesa is being inspected. There is a lot more than a couple percent.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.
Mr. FILNER. Three thousand trucks a day come through. Only about 60 of them are inspected.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Secretary, it was my understanding that this money that the House has now at least temporarily stopped was going to be used for additional inspectors and for additional facilities. But it was also my understanding that that really would not be operational for 18 months after the beginning of the year. And it was my understanding that we were going to start allowing the Mexican trucks to come into this country unfeathered in January of next year. Is that a misunderstanding I have?
Secretary MINETA. Not true at all.
Mr. LIPINSKI. When is the United States Government now prepared to allow the Mexican trucks to come into this country unfeathered, totally, completely; any State in the Union?
Secretary MINETA. We have a—what do you call it— conditional authority for an 18-month period, and then after that there would be permanent authority being given.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIPINSKI. When does the conditional authority start?
Secretary MINETA. From the time permission is given for them to enter into the United States.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Okay, well, we are talking about the President, the administration giving permission, correct?
Secretary MINETA. That is right. But that doesn't mean at that point that we have not done any of the checks relating to that carrier.
Mr. LIPINSKI. But right now, there is no time that that would go into effect. We are still in a state of suspended animation.
Secretary MINETA. Yes, because the rules that we put out there, the comment period for it ended 2 weeks ago. We will probably have our final rules hopefully, as I said, sometime in October. So we don't have that finalized yet. But we set out the rules in May as to what—what do you call it—in our proposed notice of rulemaking on what our intentions were.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Wouldn't it be more practical, though, since there is such great concern in this country about unsafe trucks from Mexico on our highways and byways, to have all the inspectors trained, in place, all the facilities built, in place, before we start allowing these Mexican trucks to come into all the other States in the Union, move beyond the 5-mile economic zone that we have at the present time?
Secretary MINETA. We are recruiting people right now. Those who are on board are either already trained as inspectors or going to be trained. But we are recruiting for the additional group that we hope to have in place by the beginning of the year, and so we are trying to gear up to a January date.
After President Bush and President Fox met in February, a week after the Arbitral Panel came out with their decision, I sent a team down to Mexico on March 22 and 23. Now they wanted us to open up the border in September, and I said, ''there's no way we can do it in September.'' so through the negotiations process, we decided on January 1, 2002. So that is what I geared everything to, to comply with the January 1, 2002 date and then put our team together in terms of how many inspectors and the procedures by which the Mexican truck operators are going to have to apply to the United States.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LIPINSKI. And at that time, you felt you would be sufficiently up and running to allow this to occur, the Mexican trucks coming in here in January, 2001?
Secretary MINETA. 2002.
Mr. LIPINSKI. 2002, excuse me.
Secretary MINETA. Again, remember that the traffic that we have right now is mostly drayage, and I don't really anticipate all of a sudden on the 1st of January, 2002, a lot of trucking companies are going to want to go to Cleveland, to Superior, Minnesota, to New York, Miami or wherever. It is still going to be very largely a drayage operation.
Mr. PETRI. Your time. Mr. LaTourette.
Secretary MINETA. You realize that at some point—and to me, the Class I carriers in Mexico, frankly, are not much different than U.S. Carriers.
Someone was talking about out-of-service rates. In California, the out-of-service rates are very similar for Mexican trucks as they are to run-of-the-mill California trucks running back and forth.
In Texas, that is not the case. There is a difference. But it is also a function of inspections. The more inspections you do, the out-of-service rate tends to go down. And that is what makes the California program so effective.
But California, above their $8 million that they get on NCCP, they put in another 35, $40 million of their own money in order to do the construction of the facilities and those additional inspectors there at Otay Mesa and Calexico. That is not the case with other States, and that is part of the problem with the whole NCCP program. It is just not as it relates to NAFTA. But look at the number of States that only have an NCCP program constituted by the dollars they get from the NCCP program. And very few States add their own money to the NCCP program that they get by formula. California adds another 35 million. And that is why their program in terms of CVSA decals on their trucks and inspecting them every 90 days is something that we want to adopt as our procedure. So that when that truck is—what do you call it—getting its license to operate, it sticks a decal on there, that CVSA decal. So that they are going to be, to me, adequately inspected and they are not going to be given a break of any sort, because that is, you know, in terms of the safety commitment that everyone talks about here. We are geared to that.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Secretary, nice to see you again.
Secretary MINETA. Nice to see you again, Steve.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Following up where Mr. Quinn left off for just a minute, it is not only a jobs issue, but also the safety issue that is on everybody's mind. But I just had a fellow in my office who imports or brings in a filament for his product. And because we are located in Cleveland, he gets the filament from Vermont. His competitor gets it in Mexico. And because of the freight differential that exists, it becomes a trade issue. This fellow from Cleveland, Ohio is at a disadvantage because his competitors use carriers that don't have the same safety considerations and training considerations as the folks that bring his stuff to Cleveland.
So I appreciate all of the attention that you are going to give to it. And I, for one, trust the Secretary to do what he says he is going to do.
But I would ask you this, Mr. Secretary. It looks like the Congress has put you in a tough spot and that is over here in the House, we have asked you—or you are expected to do something under the country's NAFTA obligations and then we haven't given you the money to take care of it.
Over in the Senate, they have given you some of the money to take care of it, but they have imposed a list of conditions that you are expected to comply with. And that is what I wanted to focus on. And perhaps—and you know why the Sabo amendment came about. That is because of the rules that we have. We are not supposed to legislate on appropriations bills. And so instead, we have a denial of funds for a specific purpose.
But the question I have for you, Mr. Secretary, on the last page of your testimony you have indicated that you are grateful to Senator Murray and the Senate for restoring the funds, but that you have serious concerns about the numerous conditions. And as I understood those conditions, they are designed to do a lot of the things that you have been talking about. So I am wondering that if in the short time that I have that you could outline what it is—as we have to move forward with the conference with the Senate—what it is that you are concerned about relative to Senator Murray's conditions.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. There are specifics, and I don't know the details on all of them. I do recall that there were something like 22 concerns that we had about the Murray amendment.
One of them is, for instance, a requirement that all border crossings must be equipped with both weigh-in-motion devices and static scales. Now, frankly, I don't know why this requirement is in there for both the weigh-in-motion device as well as scales. And if we are required to put in weigh-in-motion devices, that is another $750,000 cost, and with the 27 crossings, it would be just about out of sight. And yet a number of the crossings, including Otay Mesa, Calexico, Laredo, and a number of others, do have static scales.
So just that portion would then mean an additional $13 million in costs to the Department of Transportation. They require insurance and that it be based on, I believe it was U.S. insurance companies. Generally, we don't say U.S. companies. We say companies that are licensed to operate in the United States.
And so—but in any event, there are a number of these. There are a couple of certification issues as they relate to what—what do you call—the IG has to do. I think it takes away from our departmental responsibilities. But in any event, I can get the details of that to you. In fact, I will submit it to the committee for the record.
Mr. LATOURETTE. That is what I was going to ask you. If you have the list of 21 or 22 concerns, if you would submit that in writing, we would appreciate it very much. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Mascara, do you have any questions?
Mr. MASCARA. I do not have any questions, but I would like to welcome Mr. Mineta. It is always good to see you, and I hope that we can get the Congress working in cooperation with you and the White House to effectuate those conditions that we have all agreed to under NAFTA.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I agree with our ranking member Jim Oberstar that this is not about trade. This is about safety. And all of us spend a lot of time on our Nation's highways. And when we expect those people in this country who operate tractor trailers to live up to certain rules and standards, we should expect that also of our counterparts in Mexico.
So I am hoping that we can all come together to resolve this problem. It is a serious problem.
Secretary MINETA. You are absolutely correct. I mean Mexican trucks we know can carry 135,000 pounds. Canadian trucks can carry 118,000 pounds. The U.S. is 80,000 pounds. Trucks coming into the United States have to observe the 80,000-pound limitation.
So, again, you are absolutely right. These are the kinds of rules and regulations that countries are going to have to adhere to in order to be operating in the United States.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you, our briefing papers say that in 1999, there were approximately 8,400 Mexican companies that had permission or authority to operate in the United States. And also, we are told that there is 4-1/2 million northbound crossings in 2000. And I am curious, is the 8,400 number still fairly accurate? And also, I am curious also about the 4-1/2 million crossings. Is that a number that has gone way up, say in the last 5 years? Is this something that is really growing rapidly where there are half that many crossings 5 years ago or do either of you have any information like that?
Secretary MINETA. First of all, Congressman, on the 8,400, roughly that is correct. It may be a little higher, in the 8,700, 8,800 range, but you are in the ballpark.
On the number of crossings, that has not—it has gone up on—let's say, about a 6 to 8 percent increase. But it has not been a dramatic increase. And again, those are all—most of those—in fact, all of those have been just drayage crossings within the 20 miles in the commercial border area.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUNCAN. I apologize if I missed this, but do you have any figures as to how many accidents Mexican trucks have been involved in in the past year?
Secretary MINETA. In the commercial zone, it is .07 percent is the accident rate.
Mr. DUNCAN. What do you mean in the commercial zone?
Secretary MINETA. Within the 20 miles of the border.
Mr. DUNCAN. I am talking about nationwide.
Secretary MINETA. As far as I know, I believe—if I can remember correctly, I believe it was 56—there was one accident outside the commercial zone.
Mr. DUNCAN. Only one?
Secretary MINETA. There may be other trucks where the driver just says, ''I am off to Cincinnati,'' and drives off. But from our Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, they say one recorded accident.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I find that—and I don't—you know that I respect you more than almost anybody, Mr. Secretary. But I find that a little hard to believe that you could have 4-1/2 million northbound crossings and you only have one reported accident.
Secretary MINETA. Again, those crossings are only within the commercial zone. That is all we can do.
Mr. DUNCAN. So we don't allow Mexican trucks to come beyond the commercial zone; is that right?
Secretary MINETA. That is correct.
Mr. DUNCAN. You know—well, okay. I didn't understand that. And are those—Mr. Filner asked—he said something about these uninsured trucks hitting his people. He said 3,000 crossings. Is there any requirement that these Mexican trucks have insurance?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. Absolutely.
Mr. DUNCAN. Do they have to have insurance with U.S. insurance companies or—.
Secretary MINETA. If that is a specific requirement within the Murray amendment that says the insurance must be with a U.S. insurance company. There is some thought—and Peter would maybe be in a better position—but there is some thought that that may be a WTO violation.
But Mr. Ambassador?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Duncan, would you yield for just 1 second? The question is not whether they are required to have the insurance. Ask how do you inspect and verify that they have it. That is the issue. The requirement is there. And that is what the Secretary keeps saying. The issue is you cannot verify that they have it. The papers are so haphazard. There is no way to verify it.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, what do you say about that?
Secretary MINETA. On my own time, let me answer. We checked with the insurance company.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FILNER. With which insurance company?
Secretary MINETA. The insurance company they tell us they are with. If they tell us we are with Great American Insurance Company, or with Travelers, we then check with Travelers Insurance Company.
Mr. FILNER. They verify that.
Secretary MINETA. If the insurance is there with them, they verify to us that, in fact, the motor carrier is insured with Travelers, or whomever it is.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Pascrell.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, Honorable Secretary, you have an impossible task. Most of these trucks that we are talking about, we not only don't know the condition of the trucks, we don't know what is in the trucks. In the name of trade—in the name of trade, in the name of quote, unquote, ''better relationships,'' in the words of Woody Allen, ''this is a travesty of a disaster,'' in every sense of the word. And I have listened very carefully. And it is back to the videotape of the last 6 years of the response to Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Quinn and other members of this panel.
And with all due respect—because I have the greatest respect for you, as you well know—you have an impossible task. And when we look at what the mandate of the NAFTA Trucking Dispute Panel, which is a joke, they are threatening the United States of America because we are not complying. Well, let's go back to all of what NAFTA asked us to do and we will see who has responded appropriately and who has not. We have lost 900,000 jobs. You bet your life this is about trade. And, of course, we are talking about here specifically safety of not only those people who drive the trucks, but the people who are on the ground. You have a lot of explaining to do, both of you.
If you are going to defend the policy and the philosophy that what we want to do is get to a point where we will not have the borders and let the trucks come over the line willy-nilly, that is not acceptable to the American people, and I hope it is not acceptable to the Bush Administration. You have a lot of explaining to do about the commitments that were made 7 years ago on this trade policy now that we are going to be debating another trade policy tomorrow or perhaps the next day.
One percent of the several million Mexican motor carriers entering United States border are inspected. In fact, the life of the trucks coming over the border are between 10 and 14 years. Our trucks are between 3 and 5 years. We can't even sell our old fleet to them because of the agreements we made in the NAFTA agreement. This is a one-sided deal, not unlike any other trade deal we have made in the last 7 years. So we are consistent. This time, we are talking about trucks.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When I speak to the folks in my district, the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey, that have been displaced or thrown out of jobs because of what is happening in our trade agreements, somehow we talk about such things as trucks that are coming over from different parts, from different countries that have very, very different standards. We talk about different standards in the environment. We have talked in our trade agreements about who can work and who cannot work. We don't expect everybody to have our standards. We can't dictate those standards. But we should not surrender. And the Congress of the United States should not surrender its responsibilities so that the President, whatever party that President is from, can dictate to us what the trade policies will be. And that is what has happened in NAFTA. It got worse. It did not get better.
Do you hope some day that the borders will not be borders and that the trucks will be able to go anyplace in the United States beyond the 20 miles? Is that what you hope for, Mr. Ambassador? Is that what you wish? Is that what you wish upon us?
Mr. ALLGEIER. No. What we wish as a policy is that Americans, in the conduct of their commerce, whether they are truck drivers or manufacturers of trucks or whatever, that they will be treated in foreign countries, and specifically in Mexico and in Canada under the NAFTA, as fairly as we treat the other countries. We seek reciprocity and we seek no diminution in the standards that we apply. If someone wants to operate as a trucker or as any other career, they need to abide by our standards.
Mr. PASCRELL. To the Chair, if I may?
Mr. PETRI. We will be a little lenient, but it is unfair to the other members.
Mr. PASCRELL. Do you consider the NAFTA agreement to be a reciprocal trade agreement?
Mr. ALLGEIER. Yes.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PASCRELL. I am glad I don't have any more questions.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Secretary and Mr. Ambassador, good afternoon. Americans feel, of course, very strongly about truck transportation. They understand it is a vital part of our economic infrastructure and growing more important all the time. And I think rather than having a lot of explanation, what happened in the last 7 or 8 years, you are faced with the responsibility for trying to play catch-up on things that should have been put in place to make sure that we properly implemented NAFTA. I voted against the Sabo amendment, because I thought that was the wrong approach at that time. And I sympathize with the concerns that are expressed by members, but also your concerns of coming in here now and finding that many years have been wasted, in effect, on the lack of preparation for implementing the requirements of NAFTA related to Mexico and Canada.
Mr. Secretary, I want to use just a minute to tell you that I hope you will look at the pending hours of service issue that relate to a 1995 exemption for farmers and farm suppliers, because I feel that the proposed regulations are a violation of congressional intent. I was involved in that 1995 legislation. And I hope that you will look at it, Mr. Secretary, and see if, in fact, you may be headed, through your people, in the wrong direction in that respect and inconsistent. So I would appreciate if you would get back to me and look at that issue.
In the meantime, Mr. Secretary, I wish you well. And we need to play constructive roles, so that people who have concerns legitimately expressed, find some way for him to alleviate his concerns and for you to accomplish your responsibilities. And I think we all need to be helpful in that respect.
Thank you.
Secretary MINETA. Thank you very much, and I will respond to you on the ag exemption.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Holden.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Secretary, it is nice to see you again. Those of us who know you know that when you give us your word, it is as good as gold and we can take it to the bank.
But I have to give you a head's up, Mr. Secretary, because I was part of the delegation that went down to the border in California and in Texas, and there are many great hurdles ahead of you to meet what you say in your testimony that you are going to do.
My colleagues have raised a number of very important ones dealing with safety inspection and valid driver's license and valid insurance.
I just wanted to raise two other ones that were not really elaborated on, and I am sure you know this from your people, but your problems in Texas are about as fundamental as they can get. They cannot agree where the inspection facilities should be located. The officials in Laredo do not want them on the bridge because it backs up the traffic and the cash register doesn't run as fast as they would like it to run. Well, the treasury is not as important as the safety of the American citizens. So we need to have those inspection facilities on the border, so there is no opportunity for diversion of trucks once they cross the border.
And secondly, I would like to briefly follow up on a very important issue that Mr. Coble raised and that is dealing with the auto emissions testing and the standards for Mexican trucks compared to American trucks.
As you mentioned and Mr. Filner mentioned and many other people, the operation on the California border is much better than it is in Texas—much better, not even comparable. But I asked a question in California, ''What are you doing about auto emissions inspections?'' and quite honestly, the inspector laughed at me. It is not on the radar screen. It is not on their agenda. So we have an awful lot of work to do.
Mr. Secretary, I really don't expect an answer for the issues I raised right now. I just want you to know that we believe, we know you are sincere in what you say. I just don't know how you are going to get it done in the time period. And we want to work with you, but if it is not done, we are going to take every legislative opportunity that we can to see that unsafe trucks do not get into our country.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. You are absolutely right. As I said, if we are not going to be able to do it in time, then we will delay it. If we do not have enough resources, we will ask for it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Welcome. I have a sneaking suspicion, I think the vote on that amendment, although ostensibly the debate was about safety, was more about three surrogate issues, two of which have been raised and one has not, and I would like to raise them and then ask you to respond.
I think there is no question NAFTA was a part of that debate, and that has been addressed. I think drugs were a part of that debate. And I think what Mr. Coble raised is very important.
And the third issue which I haven't heard raised, but to me was a part of that debate was illegal immigration. When I voted on that amendment a few weeks ago, I voted against that amendment because I have the utmost confidence in you and the Department. I don't think the United States Government would ever intentionally have a double standard of safety, regardless who the carrier was in the Nation.
I got a lot of phone calls. Not a one of the phone calls was about safety. But the calls were about contraband coming in on those trucks or illegal aliens coming in on those trucks. And I would just like to suggest in answer to your question when you said a little bit ago, ''what is it I have to do,'' I don't think you have to do anything to improve upon the respect this committee has for your ability. We trust you and we believe you will do a good job on safety. I do think that if this issue progresses, there is not at least some discussion of cooperation with DEA and the immigration officials on the enforcement side, because you will have accessibility to vehicles that could carry either individuals or contraband into this country.
We have a tough time enforcing our borders now. I am a proponent of legal immigration. I have supported the H-1B, but that was a surrogate debate that day for those three issues in my opinion. I am not dismissing safety. Please don't misunderstand me. But the debate was really about NAFTA, drugs, and illegal immigration.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think as you develop and articulate how you are going to carry out these inspections, I would personally think it would be in the best interest of the Department and I think the best interest of the country to say how you are going to cooperatively interface with DEA and Immigration, so that when your inspections uncover violations, the public is sure that enforcement is taking place and that that is also a part of your mission, either in cooperation with those agencies or of your own volition.
Secretary MINETA. Thank you very much, Congressman. As you have indicated, drugs as DEA, immigration as INS, and there is an interagency task force working on these issues. And so that message I will take to them of the highest order.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Ms. Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Secretary, it is nice to see you again.
As you are aware, in 1995, Congress designated a priority trade corridor connecting Mexico and Canada as the CANAMEX Corridor. This route runs through five states, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana. In Nevada, the trucks come up through Boulder City and Henderson and then they go into Las Vegas, where they travel on two of the busiest arteries in my district, U.S. 93 and I-15, which, Mr. Secretary, you know well as the Spaghetti Bowl, one of the most crowded and busiest arteries in all of the State of Nevada if not the western United States.
Everyday, my constituents are going to be travelling side by side with Mexican trucks on our local roadways. The mayors of Boulder City and Henderson and the City of Las Vegas are almost apoplectic as time goes on, and I think they are reflecting the concern being expressed by their constituents that they are very worried that the CANAMEX Corridor is going to turn into a corridor where disaster lurks and our families are going to be compromised because of the lack of safety of Mexican trucks.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a few questions that I have been asked to ask you by my mayors, and I suspect when you come to Las Vegas in August you will hear this from them as well. But they are very concerned, especially at the Spaghetti Bowl en route to Apex, that the Mexican trucks are going to be transporting hazardous materials such as petroleum, chemicals or hazardous waste. How do we protect our roadways and our people from hazardous materials going across the most populous areas of the State of Nevada?
Secretary MINETA. Again, all of the HAZMAT rules that exist will have to be complied with. And so to me, again, there is no difference in a U.S. truck or a Canadian truck or a Mexican truck, if it is carrying hazardous materials, has to observe all of the rules and regulations that the Department has promulgated.
Ms. BERKLEY. Let me ask you something in conjunction with what Mr. Filner spoke of. Having the regulations in place are one thing. Being able to inspect them and make sure they are being enforced are quite another. How will we go about doing that?
Secretary MINETA. Well, that is what we are hoping to do with the inspector work force that we will have. The total work force, including State and Federal, we hope to be about 495 people along the border. Now once they go beyond the border area—let's say 2 years from now, after we are into the operating procedure in which long-haul trucks are going off to various locations—you know, State highway patrol, others will be doing the enforcement work as they do of any truck right now. I think the—.
Ms. BERKLEY. What if the funds are not available by the time—by January 1, 2002?
Secretary MINETA. Which funds are not available?
Ms. BERKLEY. The funds in order to hire the additional people to do the inspections.
Secretary MINETA. If we don't have the funds to hire people, I just won't be able to open up on the 2nd of January.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BERKLEY. I see. And let me ask you another question. Many of the States, especially those with highways that are part of the priority corridor, like the State of Nevada, will experience, obviously, an increase in truck traffic when the borders are open. Are there any additional resources being planned to be allocated to the States for highway maintenance, for hiring extra highway patrol? I know the State of Nevada is experiencing a little downturn and the legislature cut funding across the board in all areas, including transportation, including education. Where will they get additional funds to hire additional highway patrol and other agencies, groups?
Secretary MINETA. It is hard for me to predict what is going to happen under the 2003 budget. We are going through the throes of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process. And in the 2002 appropriations process, we have asked for increased funding for NAFTA implementation.
In other areas, there has been slight increases, not large increases. But in other areas of our transportation budget, we have received, I believe, about 4.3, 4.5 percent increase.
Ms. BERKLEY. Let me ask another question. I am personally a strong opponent of allowing triple-trailer trucks on our highways. Will trucks of this size be allowed to cross the borders?
Secretary MINETA. In the 1991 ISTEA legislation, we prohibited LCVs back to the June of 1991 date. And so, those are all frozen. And there are no LCVs that would be allowed to operate other than those that were operating in those States in June of 1991.
Ms. BERKLEY. And do you know if the Mexican government is going to be able to have enough funding to develop an accurate data base on safety records of trucking companies? I understand from what I have heard from my colleagues, there is a serious lack of data bases and computer knowledge, expertise? Is the Mexican government going to be able to share these burdens with us and be able to develop these data bases?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. They are developing the data base right now. And we will have on-line capability to access their data base. It is admittedly slow in coming. Their financial resources are limited, as ours are. It is just that we have had a longer experience period in which to build our data base. But I am confident that what they are building is a good data base.
Ms. BERKLEY. And did I hear from one of my colleagues that it took 10 years to build one of these things? Was that not what you heard?
Secretary MINETA. I missed that if there was some reference.
Mr. PETRI. We are over time. Mr. Kirk?
Mr. KIRK. Good to see you both and thank you for coming. You could imagine with no service restrictions and no logbooks and commercial drivers under the age of 21, we certainly have a lot of concerns.
But I am wondering if we could look outside the box for a moment, because as this hearing is plainly showing, we have problems with the data base. But there are other data bases. In Mexico, we have a very strong insurance industry that insures Mexican drivers and has to collect data on their performance and their background. Is there a way that we can enhance the data base by reaching out to the Mexican insurance industry to look up the records of these drivers and their rates? They certainly must calculate who is good and who is bad in the decision whether to insure each driver.
Secretary MINETA. That is an idea I think we ought to explore. In response to Mr. Filner's question, we do access—we do request information of U.S. carriers—the U.S. insurance carriers. Maybe that is what we ought to be doing of Mexican insurance carriers. We will explore that.
Mr. KIRK. I remember the controversy when Portuguese and Greek trucks were admitted into Britain. Is there any evidence that we can draw from the European experience?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ALLGEIER. I think we can certainly look at how other countries in free trade areas have handled these sorts of issues, and that might be a source of some of the creativity you were suggesting.
Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Matheson?
Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I certainly appreciate you taking the time to be here today and offer your thoughts on what I think is a very important set of issues.
I come from Utah. It is a State that you know well. You were there most recently to help open our rebuilt Interstate 15. And as Ms. Berkley said, I-15 is one of the CANAMEX Corridor routes. It runs the length of Utah. It goes across desert wilderness. It goes across high mountain terrain. Weather can change within an hour. You can go from sweltering heat to snow squalls to torrential rains within a short amount of time.
The Utah portions of Interstate 15 and Interstate 70 are my State's two most used thoroughfares and two of the most hazardous stretches of interstate in the continental United States. I, like many of my constitutes, am concerned with the lack of driver certification for Mexican truck drivers and with the Department of Transportation's potential willingness to agree to questionable certifications.
In my State, safe and certified drivers from out of State can become jittery when they encounter the change in terrain and weather they see in Utah. And I can only imagine what that would be for drivers who have never experienced that before in terms of those conditions.
Now many accidents that occur in our roads are, in fact, related to driver error. And in the past few months, I had the opportunity to become acquainted with technology that can very effectively simulate conditions of American roads and adequately test skill levels of drivers in terms of looking and responding to various situations.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the question I want to ask you today was if you would think that the Department of Transportation—how they are inclined toward the notion of testing and certification of Mexican drivers using driver simulation technologies as a way where the Department of Transportation could understand that there is a measurable way to see if drivers are adequately trained and have the skill levels to be on our highways.
Secretary MINETA. The only thing I would be able to respond on that is that I would have to take a look at the cost of doing that. And again, in terms of is this something that would be applicable to U.S. drivers, Mexican drivers, Canadian drivers.
Mr. MATHESON. This technology is used by many U.S. companies, whether it is for trucking companies, whether it is for airport incursions.
Secretary MINETA. I understand the technology. When I was at Lockheed Martin, we did the driver simulation program for the Army under a DARPA contract. At DOT we do it with the University of Iowa. So I know the technology.
Now whether we could do this in terms of—we could do it. The question is how much and in terms of applicability to all drivers.
Mr. MATHESON. I just wanted to raise the issue because I think it is a consideration. We talk a lot about the safety of the trucks. We also ought to be talking about the safety of the drivers as well.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Otter.
Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ambassador and Mr. Secretary, for your time in being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving this along on a timely basis. Being at the bottom of the political food chain here and also the time clock, I was beginning to get a little worried. And perhaps the first thing we have got to do is discipline ourselves to the 5 minutes.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. As you know, it is a very big subcommittee; 56 members is a little unwieldy.
Mr. OTTER. That was on your time, I hope, Mr. Chairman, and I guess more in the form of statements more than anything else, but I do have a few questions that I want to talk to you about.
But I feel that because I did engage in the debate a couple of weeks on 2299, which was the Transportation Appropriations Act, that along with Mr. Isakson I would like to characterize what the debate was on. Yes, it was on NAFTA. Yes, it was on drugs. Yes, it was on immigration. But it was also a very discriminatory—no matter what else has been said, as far as I am concerned—a debate in race profiling in trade. First time I had ever seen that. First time I ever heard that, because we concentrated our comments on one race, on one group of people without even directing our attention in any other direction.
And so, I would like to include that in my remarks as well, because we looked no place else. In fact, if the ranking member of the Transportation Committee is indeed correct that Canada has a better safety record than we do—I think he said 17 percent, 25 percent for the United States—36 percent, you know that is only 1 percent off and maybe Canada ought to think about not letting our trucks, who are more dangerous than their trucks, into Canada.
But having said that, I am not suggesting that that become part of our trade policy or part of our safety policy, but I do think that it shows that we are on a slippery slope here and that what we speak are probably not as from sincere a tone as we might otherwise profess.
In the 1930s, 682 miles of Highway 95 in Idaho going from Canada to the Canadian-Nevada border was designated as part of the Pan-American Highway, 26,000 miles, Anchorage, Alaska to Tierra del Fuega, Argentina.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is interesting that finally when we get some leadership that is going to make that a reality, which it has never been, that suddenly we want to throw in all kinds of extraneous problems and extraneous issues in order to stop that from going forward. I agree with some of the members who have talked about the disaster of NAFTA in the last 7 years. Conceived as it was, NAFTA was never meant to be as it has been enforced for the last 7 years.
As Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, my primary responsibility was trade. I visited 82 countries not only in my capacity as Lieutenant Governor and the head tradesman for the State of Idaho, but also as a member of an international development company which I was a president of —agricultural company. We sold french fries to all the McDonald's in the world. And that was a convenient and an easy thing to do, but it also taught me an awful lot about trade.
And you can't be a carpetbagger. And I find us today engaged in carpetbagging in international trade. We want it one way our way, and we want it the other way their way. We want to protect certain jobs and those in transportation. We don't discuss the fact that with 4,500,000 crossings, each going 20 miles each way, that is 190 million miles in the United States that these trucks have driven. And if the record is correct and if the Secretary is right, we had one accident in that time.
I guess one of the questions that I do have if we are not engaged in profiling only the commercial trucker, how many inspections were engaged in on the 78,000,000 cars that crossed last year on the Mexican borders? Could you answer that question for me, Mr. Secretary? We had 78,000,000 cars that crossed from the south into the north last year at the Mexican-American border. How many of those cars were inspected?
Secretary MINETA. We inspected none of the cars. As far as—in terms of their safety requirements or—.
Mr. OTTER. How about the smog devices that have been talked about, the environmental damage that may be done; all the other reasons we want to inspect 63,000 trucks. No inspections, no safety inspections, no environmental inspections.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary MINETA. Our agency, only as it relates to commercial trucks and buses.
Mr. OTTER. Hauling 210 million people back and forth across the border. So that is my problem that I am really having with this.
Mr. Secretary, can you tell me how many, what percentage of the Canadian trucks are inspected?
Secretary MINETA. Mr. Congressman, we have no U.S. inspection of Canadian trucks on the U.S. border. They are done on the Canadian side, and some of the requirements I know are done by self-certification, but in terms of our U.S. inspectors—we have no Federal inspectors along the Canadian border.
Mr. OTTER. Of the of the thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back, Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Ambassador. Just to take you back to the last question, the question was how many inspections were made by DOT of passenger cars, 87 million cars. I think the answer is correct that none of them were, because I don't believe that is your jurisdiction. It is INS that inspects and checks passenger cars at the border. Is that correct, or is DOT also responsible for passenger cars?
Secretary MINETA. We are not.
Mr. HONDA. So the question is irrelevant in terms of DOT. There is a distinction between passenger cars and the trucks that are crossing the DOT inspection areas.
I agree with some of my colleagues that the task you have before you is going to be great, and it sounds like from what I am hearing that there is going to have to be more cooperation as far as giving the appropriations so that you can do the job that you said you were committed to by 2002. That is one thing.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I guess the appropriation cycle is going to begin for us here.
So we have a chance to do well on the problems that we have identified, to come up with the monies to hire the 495 inspectors, and to come up with the cash to take care of the infrastructure at the inspection sites. I understand that of the 27 crossings, there are only two that have permanent inspection sites, and those are in California. We are lacking the infrastructure for inspections at the other 25 sites in Texas and Arizona.
It sounds like we are going to have to come up with the cash on our side in order for us to make sure that we have the kind of safety requirements that we want and the inspection sites that we want at the border.
Secretary MINETA. Mr. Honda, it is not that the other sites, that there is no inspection being done. It is just that the kinds of facilities that we have are probably not really conducive to the kind of thorough inspection that Mr. Filner or Mr. Oberstar would like to see. If you were to go to Otay Mesa or Calexico, the person could get in the pit, look under the truck from a regular inspection station that you might find on a typical California highway.
The problem is that in other areas, they don't have the facilities. So—I mean, they are on crawlers. They are doing other things to inspect the trucks. But trucks are still being inspected at the border crossings. What we are trying to do is to build facilities that will be efficient so that we can get the trucks inspected and through there, get rid of those 7- and 8-mile long lines where the trucks are waiting for hours to get through. And at the same time, make sure that we do a good job of inspecting the trucks that are crossing the border.
There was something that was a little disturbing that I heard a little while ago, Mr. Chairman, when someone mentioned 1 percent of the trucks I think were being inspected, and I don't know where this 1 percent comes from, because, you know, I am not too good at math, but I know we are doing a heck of a lot more than one percent, and I guess my question is one percent of what? But in any event, that is just sort of a question I have.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. Will you yield to me to engage in a colloquy here? I don't want to take it if you haven't finished your questions.
Mr. HONDA. Go ahead.
Mr. FILNER. You have been to Otay Mesa, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary MINETA. Pardon me?
Mr. FILNER. You have been to Otay Mesa?
Secretary MINETA. I have been to Laredo, Otay Mesa, Calexico and Nogales.
Mr. FILNER. And you are familiar with the way they inspect. How long does that inspection take roughly, a level one inspection?
Secretary MINETA. Oh, I would say a level one is probably, what, about 3 hours? I am sorry. Half an hour to 45 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Closer to an hour.
Mr. PETRI. We have worked out a way—she will have some extra time, and she will yield it to you, because I think we—if that is all right, we will return to that line of questioning.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, Mr. Ambassador, it is very nice to have you. Mr. Secretary, you look so natural in this room on this end, it is hard to question you as a witness. You know, this is a difficult situation for Texas, because Mexico is one of the best trading partners that we have, and they add so much to our economy, and yet constituents continue to complain about what they consider drug trafficking and safety. And unless we do have the on-site inspections, accident and carrier information and other elements of a safety regime will—we will not have sufficient information to identify the problem so that we can be a part of helping to solve them.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What position is the Department in at this time to facilitate some type of on-site information? Do you have any degree going on now?
Secretary MINETA. Well, in terms of inspections, yes, we do border crossing inspections right now. Again, these are commercial drayage operations that stay within the 20 miles of the border, and inspections are conducted on vehicles. Now, are they done on every vehicle that crosses? No, they are not done on every vehicle. But as I mentioned earlier, the grouping of vehicles is somewhere in the area of about 67,000 trucks that do the 4-1/2 million movements across the border. And of the 67,000 trucks, I believe we inspect about 45, 46,000 trucks.
Ms. JOHNSON. Do we keep any kind of record on the accident of carriers? We are talking about safety—.
Secretary MINETA. Within the commercial zone, yes, and I have been told that that accident rate is .07 percent.
Ms. JOHNSON. So it is really not that significant at this time, then.
You know, I know what it is like to be given responsibility and not be given the finance that goes with that responsibility, and I know that is the position that you are in, and that is really our responsibility to do that. I do think, however, that we need to put something in place that could be a part of helping them with compliance in terms of determining what is considered an unsafe truck, weight, what have you, and I know a lot of that is being done. It is somewhat troubling, because I think for a country that is still a part of the developing world, it is difficult to satisfy the demands that we have in buying our goods and they are trying to get them to us, and demanding the safety. And I know that that is important.
We don't hear about the trucks that get here and don't have a problem. Periodically, though, we read about where there was a big drug bust, and that is what gets the attention of the people most especially, since I am from a very large urban area that have problems with drugs and especially with young people. People really think that this is a major route of entrance for these drugs in the area where I am, and most of the hostility is in that area, because I-35 goes from Canada to Mexico, with most of it being through Texas.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Trucks are so heavy on that highway, that it is slow going from Dallas to Austin, to 3 to 4 hours, where it used to be a lot closer after I-35 was in there. But it is all traffic. I think about economy. But you can't ignore the fact that there is much concern about what citizens call illegal trucks, and they are not necessarily illegal, I don't think, but that is the eye of the beholder, and it seems to me that that is an area we are going to have to work together to try to correct and educate.
My time is up, and I really don't have any more questions, but I would like to be a part of any solution, if I am needed, to see if we could have some way of which we cannot interfere with the trade, not interfere with the goods that we demand from Mexico, and those that we sell to Mexico, but at the same time, see if we can improve the standards, probably on both sides of the border.
Secretary MINETA. And I pledge to work with you.
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I would like to get back to Otay Mesa and Laredo, because that is where we happened to visit not too long ago, and my understanding is in Otay Mesa, that every truck is inspected and given a sticker, a CB—.
Secretary MINETA. CBS 87.
Mr. BORSKI. —that is good for 90 days, and the out-of-service rate at Otay Mesa is similar to our experience in the recollection of the country, so that the trucks that are inspected on a normal basis have the same experience as we do. There is a permanent inspection facility there. They do a good job and I feel very comfortable with it.
Heard, on the other hand, the day we visited, happened to be a Sunday, and out of seven or eight trucks inspected, five were taken out of service. There are 4,000 trucks, more or less, that cross in Laredo today. There is no permanent inspection facility. There is a space, as I understand it, for two trucks to be looked at, and you have to virtually be a contortionist—perhaps you could reset the time, Mr. Chair.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You virtually need to be a contortionist to get under a truck to try and look at it. So I think part of the dispute is over how many trucks are inspected, looking at Laredo, you can see that very few can ever be looked at in a single day. And my theory is if we open the borders and have the same noninspection, if you will, facility at Laredo, 4,000 trucks can go anywhere they want in the United States.