Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
August 1, 2001 -- Page: S8517
MRS. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think it is very important that we go back and look at what has happened on the issue of Mexican trucks, NAFTA, and the safety of American highways.
When NAFTA was passed, it was explicit in permitting the Federal Government and individual States to establish and enforce their own requirements for truck safety. It also said that there should be a single standard in every jurisdiction. So the standard should apply to trucks from the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
However, what I think has been missed in this debate is the ruling of the international tribunal in February which, it has been pointed out, did find the United States in violation because we actually had halted the truck safety rules in 1995 in this country, and so the United States had failed to meet the deadline.
But the other part of this Mexican tribunal ruling was that the United States does not have to treat applications from Mexican-based carriers in exactly the same manner as United States or Canadian firms. In fact, there are some differences in the treatment of Canadian firms because of different operating authorities in that sovereign country.
The panel also said that the United States is not required to grant operating authority to any specific number of Mexican applicants. I went back and looked at the makeup of the NAFTA tribunal because I thought it would be important to know. The tribunal was two Mexican citizens, two United States citizens, and the chairman was from Britain. The vote was unanimous because it was noted that there could be different rules for certain countries because of the significant differences in the country's safety regimes. So this was not a 3-2 vote, where the Mexican nationals voted differently from the United States and British nationals. It was a unanimous vote that acknowledged there would be differences that could be addressed.
The Bush administration, to its credit, is playing catchup because we have had 5 years of delays from the previous administration. Their proposed rule that came out of the Department of Transportation was a start, but it was not adequate to provide clear United States safety under any kind of term that would be considered acceptable.
The original Department of Transportation rule would require that, for the first 18 months of operation, Mexican carriers would be required to comply with documentary production, insurance requirements, and undefined safety inspections. The rule was vague and insufficient. That is why I sat down with officials from the Department of Transportation and I said: These rules are inadequate. We cannot allow trucks to come into our country that haven't either been certified or inspected, and the certification would only come from inspection. That would not be prudent. It would not be responsible.
The Department of Transportation authority agreed. We have been working all along--Senator Murray, Senator Shelby, Senator Gramm, and Senator McCain, along with myself--with the Department of Transportation to beef up those rules. I think it is fair to say that the Murray-Shelby language has part of the requirement for beefing up those rules, and Senators McCain and Gramm have suggested, in the form of drafts, other requirements. In fact, I have offered other requirements that are not in either bill, which I think are very important.
Yes, I think we can change some of the parts in this underlying bill. I think the discussion that has been going on for almost 2 weeks on this floor is really a process discussion, not a substantive one. I say that because I think we are very close to agreeing to the parts of the underlying bill that should remain, the parts that should change; and I think all of us are in agreement that the House version is unacceptable because the House version does what has caused us to get in trouble under the NAFTA agreement, and that is shut down the regulations and act as if we are just not going to comply. That is not responsible. The House position is not tenable.
On the other hand, I think we are very close to significant changes in the original Department of Transportation regulation because they were totally inadequate and they now have stepped up to the plate and agreed, working with Senator Murray, myself, and with Senators Gramm and McCain, to come up with good safety regulations.
The bottom line for all of us is that we must have inspections of every truck. When we talk about whether we go into Mexico to the site of the trucking company to make the inspection, I think we should do that if we have the permission to do it. And it will be in the interest of the trucking company in Mexico to allow the inspectors in, because if you get the certification stamp on your truck as a result of being inspected onsite, then your truck will not be stopped at the border. It will have been inspected and certified, and you will be able to operate it under the same rules as a U.S. truck operates. And if the Mexicans agree that it is in their best interest--and I think they will--then that is going to alleviate a lot of problems, and it is going to ensure the inspections that will ensure the safety.
Secondly, the Murray language in the underlying bill does something very important to implement this regulation, which the House failed to do, and that is, it has the $103 million that has been requested by the President to finance the infrastructure to hire and train the inspectors at the border and to provide aid to States to inspect trucks along the United States-Mexico border.
Now, I cannot imagine anything worse than saying we are going to have all these regulations, but we are not going to have any inspectors. One of the reasons so many of my border constituents are concerned about the Mexican truck issue is because we have had Mexican trucks within a 20-mile limit through the border, and they have not all been inspected; they have not all met the requirements that would make people on our highways feel safe. In fact, I will quote from the AAA Texas Chapter press release in which it says:
The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that more than 35 percent of trucks from Mexico, under this 20-mile rule, were taken out of service for safety violations in 2000. That compares to 24 percent for U.S. trucks and 17 percent for trucks from Canada.
It is very important we look at the people who are living with this problem the most right now. We have had a lot of editorials read into the RECORD, and I will read two editorials from Texas newspapers, one from the El Paso Times. The heading is: "It Is About Safety. No ifs, ands or trucks--unless they pass the test.''
Just as the U.S. Senate was voting in favor of tough safety standards for Mexican trucks crossing into the United States, a new truck-inspection site sprang up at Delta Drive and Hammond Street, near the Bridge of the Americas.
It was a welcome surprise, given the extreme level of concern about the safety of Mexican trucks coming into the country and driving through El Paso.
The new inspection station near the Americas Bridge should furnish a clearer picture of how bad the safety problems with Mexican trucks are or are not. Between January and June, inspectors at international bridges placed 132 American trucks out of service, and 944 Mexican trucks. This indicates a severe problem exists.
So it is very important.
I ask unanimous consent the editorial from the El Paso Times be made a part of the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Just as the U.S. Senate was voting in favor of tough safety standards for Mexican trucks crossing into the United States, a new truck-inspection site sprang up at Delta Drive and Hammett Street, near the Bridge of the Americas.
It was a welcome surprise, given the extreme level of concern about the safety of Mexican trucks coming into the country and driving through El Paso.
State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, said the information gleaned from the inspections would be forwarded to President Bush to let him know ``what kind of trucks are coming through.''
Bush is currently engaged in a bitter fight with Congress over how tough safety standards should be for Mexican trucks entering this country. Bush has threatened to veto the tougher rules the Senate is advocating.
The new inspection station near the Americas Bridge should furnish a clearer picture of how bad the safety problems with Mexican trucks are or aren't. Between January and June, inspectors at international bridges placed 132 American trucks out of service--and 944 Mexican trucks. That indicates a severe problem exists.
Pickett said the state isn't planning to make the new inspection station a permanent fixture. But during its lifespan, it should be able to furnish much pertinent information to the discussion over truck safety.
Meanwhile, the president and Congress have to meet at some middle ground concerning Mexican trucks. The North American Free Trade Agreement mandates allowing Mexican trucks access to all parts of the United States.
That, of course, should be honored.
But both Congress and the president must also look out for the safety of American highways and American motorists.
MRS. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will also read from the Austin American Statesman of July 31, 2001; the headline, "No Matter Their Origin, Trucks Must Be Safe.''
For Central Texans, the fight over Mexican trucks on America's roads and highways is more than just an inside-the-beltway partisan political battle. Austin is ground zero for trucks coming across the border and up Interstate 35. I-35 from San Antonio to Dallas is already one of the most dangerous stretches of interstate in the Nation. Adding thousands of unsafe trucks to the mix increases the threat to accidents, injuries and fatalities. What is spirited debate and hardball politics in Washington is deadly reality in Austin. In fact, both sides may be right. A NAFTA panel said as much earlier this year when it found the United States in violation of the treaty for restricting Mexican trucks but then added, the safety of trucks crossing the border is a legitimate issue and an important responsibility of the Federal Government.
That is the tribunal that was unanimously speaking with two Mexican members, two United States members, and a British chairman.
It goes on to say:
Congress should not abrogate NAFTA for purely political purposes and force Mexican trucks to meet stiffer standards than the American-Canadian fleets. If the Mexican trucks do not meet the standards, however, pull them off the road. It should, as President Bush suggests, step up inspections and increase enforcement of the safety standards already in place. That is exactly what the bill before us today does. It beefs up inspections.
This is common sense. Of course we must beef up inspections. The Murray language does that. Of course we must pay for it. The Murray language makes it a priority.
After the House passed the amendment that would shut down the inspections at the border and take the money away, I went to Senator Murray and said, this is not responsible governing. She agreed, and she has worked with a lot of different interests to try to forge what is right. Maybe it is not perfect. I do not agree with every single part of it. I think Senator Gramm and Senator McCain have made a few good points, but I do not think holding up the bill and keeping progress from going forward is the right approach. They certainly have the right to do that, as any Member of the Senate does, but I do not think we are going to get to the goal they want by holding up the bill.
We have a workable bill before us. We can make some changes, and I think Senator Murray will work with us to make those changes.
The Department of Inspection and President Bush have made very solid suggestions on what we need to uphold NAFTA and to uphold the integrity of safety on the U.S. highway system.
I hope the games will end. I hope we can go forward with a very good start on this problem so we will be able to immediately begin the process of putting those border inspection stations in place, because without the inspections, none of this is going to make sense. I assure my colleagues, we will not have safety if we do not have the capacity to inspect, and that is the most important goal we should all have.
I agree with the Austin American Statesman and the El Paso Times. These are two cities. Austin is our State capital. El Paso is the largest Texas border city with Mexico. The largest Mexican city on the entire border is Juarez. We know safety is important for every person who is on our highways: Americans, Hispanic Americans, Black Americans, Asian Americans, and foreign people traveling on our highways. We have a reputation for safety. We must uphold that reputation for the sake of our families and our children.
I do not want unsafe American trucks. I do not want unsafe American cars. That is why we have inspection requirements because people traveling on our highways feel safe, and we must assure they stay that way.
We are close to a compromise. I do not really think we are talking substance anymore. We are talking process. We have a solution the Department of Transportation, the President of the United States, and every Member of the Senate is going to agree is the right solution. The real donnybrook is whether we put it on the bill now or we hammer it out in conference with all sides at the table. We can do it in conference with all sides at the table.
Reasonable minds can disagree on this. I certainly think every Senator has the right to hold up progress, but inevitably we are going to sit down at the table in conference and work this out. I hope that does not mean September because we will have lost a month of setting up those inspection stations and starting the process of getting our house in order to have inspections of every truck coming into our country, from Canada or Mexico.
If we wait until September, because of the process initiatives that have been going on for over a week on this bill, we are not serving the best interests of our constituents and the people who depend on us to make the right decisions. I hope we will listen to the tribunal that spoke out and said we have the sovereign ability to keep our roads safe. We can come to an agreement that will do that and comply with our responsibilities under trade agreements as well.