Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008--Continued
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful for Members of the Senate to recount the history of this pilot program because it demonstrates that this pilot program was adopted as part of the treaty obligations of the United States, dating back to 1993. I know that seems like a long time ago. It was certainly long before I got in the Congress. But I do believe this is relevant to the debate.
Of course, in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was adopted. But, relevant to this amendment, it had the requirement that signatory countries--in other words, Canada, Mexico, and the United States--are to give each other access to each other's long-haul commercial trucks. There was initially a refusal to enact the provision with regard to Mexican trucks, and in 1995 Mexican trucks were to have been given full access to four U.S. border States.
In 2000, under NAFTA, this 1993 treaty obligation, Mexican trucks would have been given full access throughout the United States.
In 2001, this matter was taken to a NAFTA arbitration panel, which ruled that the United States is in violation of its commitments under NAFTA and must open up its highways to Mexican trucks.
In 2001, Congress passes the 2002 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, which set 22 safety-related preconditions for opening the border to long-haul Mexican trucks.
In 2002, the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, announced that all of the preconditions--those 22 safety preconditions--had been met and directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to act on the Mexican application.
In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed implementation of this provision. But then, in June of 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and ruled that Mexican trucks could operate in the United States pursuant to the 1993 NAFTA treaty.
In 2007, the administration announced a pilot project to grant Mexican trucks from 100 transportation companies full access to U.S. highways.
In May 2007, the Iraq war supplemental mandates that any pilot program to give Mexican trucks access beyond the border region cannot begin until U.S. trucks have similar access to Mexico and requires a report of the Office of the IG.
In September 2007, the Office of the IG issued its report. The next day, the administration issued its first permit to enter the United States under the program.
I wish to address the concerns many of my constituents have addressed to me regarding the Mexican truck demonstration program because I think we ought to be guided by the facts and not solely by fear. I understand, however, the fear people have of unsafe trucks coming into the United States. Frankly, I would not for a moment tolerate that, nor do I believe would any Member of the Congress. I firmly believe the American people must have confidence that their family's safety is not endangered by any truck, whether it be Mexican, American, or Canadian.
As my colleagues know, as I have just recounted, the United States is under a treaty obligation through NAFTA to open our interior to long-haul trucks from Canada and Mexico, just as they are required to open their highways to American truckers. I believe we should live up to our treaty obligations, and I say that even if I don't necessarily agree with them because they are, as a matter of fact, the law of the land, and whether I agree with it or the Senator from North Dakota agrees with it, once the matter is adopted as a treaty obligation of the United States, it is litigated not only by the NAFTA arbitration panel but by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, and I think his opinion or mine about whether it is something we prefer to happen becomes pretty much a moot point if we are to be a nation of laws and respect the judgments of the courts, even if we don't happen to like it.
I do believe we have a high obligation, however, to ensure that the trucks on our roads live up to the high standards of safety the American people demand. So I think it is important for people to understand what this demonstration program entails because there has been misinformation about it.
Under this program, 100 precertified Mexican trucking companies would be able to expand operations beyond the U.S. border zones. At the same time--and this is an important part of the deal--100 U.S. trucking companies would be allowed to operate in Mexico. This is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street when it comes to international trade and commerce. As required by Congress, Mexican trucks must have a U.S.-based insurance policy, must comply fully with hours of service regulations, must maintain vehicles to U.S. carrier standards, and drivers must be able to communicate in English so they can understand the instructions of law enforcement and other safety personnel. They must also pass drug and alcohol testing requirements.
Many of the safety provisions included in the program the Department of Transportation has adopted, in fact, go well beyond what Congress has required to date. I am here today to have a real debate about safety and what we in Congress can do to take concrete steps to ensure the highest standards of truck safety.
The solution to me is simple, and it is embodied in my amendment, which we will have an opportunity to vote on. My amendment, for the first time, will make it U.S. law that every truck participating in the demonstration program must be inspected every 3 months to the same standard as U.S. trucks. Every driver entering this country under the program will have to verify compliance with safety requirements, and they would have to do so every time they entered the United States.
The Department of Transportation's inspector general will be required to certify soon after the program is fully implemented that the Department has, in fact, inspected every truck and verified every driver. This is the Department of Transportation of the United States Government; no other government. They must verify every truck inspection and verify every driver. If the inspector general of the Department of Transportation fails to certify such, then funding for this program will be automatically suspended.
Under this approach, for the first time, we will statutorily enshrine in American law the principle that we inspect and certify every Mexican truck that enters the United States through this program.
It is also worth noting that this will be the first time in the history of the program that there will be an actual congressional requirement for the inspector general to certify the program. Previously, Congress has only required the inspector general to review the program.
Finally, my amendment will require the administration to provide 60 days' notice to Congress should they wish to extend or otherwise continue the demonstration project. Such notice will give this body ample time to consider the merits of the program as implemented and what modifications, if any, we want to make.
By moving forward on a conditional basis with a threat of a full shutdown if the inspector general finds the program is noncompliant, we will further incentivize the Department of Transportation to strenuously enforce the safety inspection and verification requirements under this new law.
It is also worth noting that the Department has already taken a ``go slow'' approach--I am glad they have--planning to allow only up to 25 carriers per month into the program in the first 4 months. Even at the height of the program, the Department expects a maximum of 500 to 600 trucks to participate, compared to the millions of domestic and Canadian trucks that currently operate on our roads.
I have heard the claim has been made that there are no site-specific plans for each point of entry to ensure compliance with new verification and inspection standards. The Department of Transportation did, in fact, develop site-specific plans for all 25 commercial crossings in full coordination with Customs and Border Protection, and other relevant agencies, although they did not finish them in time for the inspector general's data collection.
Furthermore, the inspector general raised concerns about training of State enforcement officials. Of course, any time a new policy is enacted, there will be challenges as personnel become accustomed to the new rules. That is why the Department has conducted and will continue to conduct rigorous training with State enforcement officials. And it is important we not look to training as a one-shot deal. Many of the lessons on how best to ensure the safety of trucks entering this country will be learned on the ground.
I believe that instead of trying to kill this program, which will violate the treaty obligations of the United States of America as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and international arbitration panels, we in the Congress have a duty to find workable solutions that ensure as much as humanly possible the safety of trucks on our roads and make sure, whether they be American trucks or Mexican trucks or Canadian trucks, that they are all held to the same high standard.
My amendment will do this, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and Ohio would take ``yes'' for an answer. I agree with them. Public safety is No. 1. That is what my amendment guarantees. It guarantees inspections of trucks whether they come from Mexico or domestic American trucks or whether they come from Canada.
The U.S. Federal inspectors perform and Mexican trucking companies must pass a preauthorization safety audit conducted in Mexico by Americans prior to granting authority to operate beyond the U.S. border commercial zones. This audit includes inspection of vehicles the company intends to use in long-haul operations in the U.S. and a thorough inspection of the company's records to ensure compliance with Federal safety regulations. Vehicles not inspected cannot be used for long-haul operations in the United States. Every inspector reviews Federal safety regulations with the carrier, including those governing driver hours of service, to ensure the carrier is knowledgeable of and comprehends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations.
This is not about safety, because we all agree that is nonnegotiable, and my amendment protects public safety. So what is it about? It is apparently about protectionism; it is apparently about fear of competition in the marketplace. It is fear of free trade, which, to my way of looking at things, provides new markets to American producers, new opportunities, more revenue, and creates more jobs right here at home.
Why in the world would we want to do anything that would discourage job creation and greater prosperity here at home by opening up new markets and new opportunities to American producers? We can try the way of protectionism versus free trade, but I guarantee you that is a net loser for the American worker.
So if this is about safety, then we certainly all agree. If this is about fear of competition and discriminating against Mexican trucks that are required to meet the same high safety standards as trucks that come from Canada, then I think that sends a very bad signal and not something the Senate should endorse.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment mandates that the Department of Transportation can inspect Mexican trucks, Canadian trucks, and American trucks by exactly the same high public safety standards.
If, in fact, under this pilot program those requirements are not met, it defunds this pilot program that is part of our compliance with our 1993 treaty agreements under NAFTA.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source