Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is another one of those amendments where the bureaucrats know best--don't ask, don't tell. These three projects are in Louisiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The International Peace Garden, built 75 years ago, is a national treasure between the United States and Canada. The buildings are in disrepair. The Government of Canada says: We are prepared to make some investments. There is a $450,000 earmark, congressionally directed spending, to make an investment. The Canadians say they will make investments, but we want the Americans to make investments as well. We would not want to invest in this national treasure; is that what we have come to? This makes no sense at all. My hope is that those who believe the bureaucrats will know best about spending will understand this amendment is not worthy. These three projects have great merit. I believe the Congress will want to fund these projects with modest funding. That is what we have done. I hope we will soundly reject the amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I could inquire of the Senator from Washington, my understanding is that from 6 to 7, there was to be debate on the two amendments, Senator Cornyn's amendment and my amendment, which will then be voted on as side-by-side amendments at 7 o'clock, and that I would be allotted half the time.

Mr. DORGAN. So let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the Coburn amendment that I believe he has spoken about already dealing with the Peace Garden outside of that block of time, and following that 5-minute presentation, the remaining time would be split between myself and Senator Cornyn or his designee. I am not asking that the vote be extended; I am just saying that between now and 7 we are splitting the time with respect to the truck amendments. If I have 25 minutes, that is fine. Might I ask with respect to the Peace Garden amendment, will there be 2 minutes on each side prior to the vote on that amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this issue of Mexican long-haul trucking into this country is an important issue, and I have offered an amendment that is very simple. It is an amendment that is supported by a number of groups: The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Public Citizen, the National Farmers Union, the Teamsters, the Transportation Trade Department of the AFL-CIO. In a newspaper article this morning, the American Trucking Association, which represents the trucking business, and which, by the way, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, said today it has ``grave concerns'' about the Mexican trucking pilot project. Here is the story: We passed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I didn't vote for it. It was a horrible trade agreement, and it has demonstrated over the years to be a trade agreement that does not represent our country's interests. We turned a very small trade surplus with Mexico into a huge trade deficit. But aside from that, in the passage of NAFTA, it was to harmonize at some point in the future the ability to do long-haul trucking across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but it was never anticipated that it would start in circumstances where there were not equivalent standards and/or enforcement with respect to safety. So I have very strong concerns because I don't think there is any evidence presented anywhere in this Chamber during this debate that we have equivalent standards and enforcement with respect to safety, and therefore I don't believe we ought to allow, at this point, the pilot project to go forward that will have long-haul Mexican trucks coming into this country now. Now, let me describe a couple of things. First of all, it is coincidental, perhaps, but yesterday, a great tragedy occurred in Mexico, and I will describe it with this story that I saw yesterday morning. A terrible truck accident occurred where 37 people were killed; 150 people were injured in the blast. It left a crater of up to 65 feet, and that was because one of the trucks was hauling explosives in Mexico. This is a great tragedy, this accident; so many people were killed. Here is the crater in the road in Mexico. One of the trucks was carrying explosives. This was in a mining area. According to newspaper reports, the driver of the truck that was carrying the dynamite was trying to overtake another truck carrying 25 tons of explosives in a trailer. The chief of police in the State where the accident took place said the truck was not equipped to carry explosives. The driver of the truck that was carrying the explosives fled the scene, and the bishop of the Catholic diocese in the area, the capital of the border State where the crash happened said: It's not possible to understand how a truck with 25 tons of explosives could drive on the highway with no type of protection. Now, we know what would happen in this country if you were driving a truck with explosives on board. We have safety requirements that are stringently enforced. You have to have vehicles in front and vehicles behind and proper signage. That was not the case yesterday in Mexico. I am not suggesting that is a circumstance which would exist in this country, but I am saying we don't have equivalent standards between this country and Mexico--not yet. Some day, when they exist, I will not complain about a pilot project, but today I will complain about it because those equivalent standards don't exist. Mr. President, the inspector general's report described the following. I mention that report because last Thursday, at 7:30 in the evening, the IG issued a report. The report was required because of an amendment I offered, and others, that said the Department of Transportation cannot move to begin a pilot project of having long-haul Mexican trucks come into this country until the IG has done a report. The IG did a report, and at 8:30 the Department of Transportation, 1 hour later that evening--apparently they had taken a speed-reading course--decided it was going to implement the pilot project right then. Here is what the IG report says: While the DOT officials inspecting Mexican trucking companies took steps to verify onsite data, we noted that certain information was not available to them. Specifically, information pertaining to vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations maintained by Mexican authorities . . . What does that mean? It means the most important information by which you would judge whether we ought to allow long-haul trucks to come into this country from Mexico is not available. They go on to say that they were able to get some if they were able to obtain it from the company's records by the generosity of the company. But no data bank was available. The information wasn't available. They were not able to get information about vehicle inspections, accident reports, and driver violations. I am sorry, that is the ball game, as far as I am concerned. This is about safety. We developed standards in this country to provide basic safety for the American people. If you want to obliterate those standards, go ahead, but it won't be with my support and vote. The Department of Transportation is making a mistake, in my judgment. I mentioned the three areas that we are taking on faith because we could not get the information, and there is no such data bank. Does that make you feel comfortable? It doesn't me. There are a whole series of questions and problems raised in the IG's report. Yet we are told that we have enough information, let's just proceed. I don't think it is wise to proceed. My colleague from Texas is going to offer an amendment that will say: No, no, let's let this proceed and see what happens. My colleague from Arizona said let's go ahead and try this and see what happens. We are going to see what happens? No, no. In my judgment, we ought to certify the ability to have long-haul trucking coming from Mexico into this country when we have decided there is safety for American drivers and safety on American roads and that we have been able to determine that equivalent enforcement and equivalent standards exist. That is not now the case. The IG's report demonstrates that. So I don't understand the rush. What is the requirement for speed and why the urgency? Why not stand up for the standards we have created in this country? If I might, I believe I have a copy of the IG's report. I will read something else. On page 2, it says that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation, agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. They are saying: No, it is going to be fine; we are going to check every truck coming across the border every time. But they say that as of July 2007, no coordinated, site-specific plans to carry out such checks were in place. They say they would have the plans by August 22, 2007, but we have not received any outlines or any completed plans. They say this: In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid the required checks. Once again, they say that we will check every truck every time. The IG says that the way it works is we now have a greater risk and they will be able to avoid the required checks. That is not from me, it is from the IG's report. So I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Specter an amendment-- bipartisan, with a good many cosponsors--that says let's stop this pilot program. It should not have been initiated last Thursday. The House of Representatives already voted to do so by voice vote. The House has done this already. I hope the Senate will do the same this evening. My colleague will offer an amendment that sounds as if it is wrapped in a bouquet of flowers. The very last sentence says: Let's fund this project. So we can skip the preamble and say: Do you want to fund this project or not? Do you believe we ought to have long-haul trucks from Mexico under these circumstances at this time or don't you? If you believe we are not ready, that there is not and will not be at this point equivalent standards and enforcement and, therefore, assured safety for the American people, if you believe that--and I think the evidence is clear--then you vote for the amendment I have offered with Senator Specter and others. If you believe we should proceed with this long-haul Mexican trucking coming into our country at this moment, then vote with Senator Cornyn and his amendment. I hope most Members of the Senate will reject what a colleague of mine said last evening. This amendment is just making Mexico a bogeyman, I think is what he described. This is much more serious than that. There will be people driving up to 4-way stop signs in this country or driving down a 2-lane or 4-lane road in this country next to an 18-wheeler, and the American people want to know whether that has an equivalent inspection to what we have. Do they have logbooks and records, and are they obligating themselves to the same requirements as this country? The answer, quite clearly, in my judgment, looking at what the IG has said, is that there is nobody in this Chamber who can give that assurance, and if that is given, it is given without any documentation at all. I have other things to say. I want others to proceed to make their case. I hope to be able to close the debate this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to close debate, if possible, at some point. Does the Senator from Texas have other speakers?

Mr. DORGAN. This Congress has the right to make decisions about safety on our highways. We made those decisions in many ways with respect to our internal regulations, our internal standards, and we enforce those standards, but that equivalent enforcement does not exist in Mexico at this point. If it existed, we would have a database in Mexico that would tell us immediately and quickly accident reports on drivers and vehicles, vehicle inspections, and driver violations. No such database exists, and that is the problem. That is why I think this pilot project is unwise. It is why Senator Specter, I, and others have offered an amendment to stop this pilot project. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown, and as I do that, let me say to Senator Brown, as I have said previously, the Cornyn amendment, in the last sentence, says let us just fund the pilot project. It has a lot of bouquets wrapped around it, but in the end it says, let us just fund this project. That is why I believe we should pass the Dorgan, Specter, et al., amendment. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Brown.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if you voted to shut down this program of long-haul trucks into the United States from Mexico, Senator Cornyn says: You were wrong. In his amendment, page 4, it says: We shall fund, sufficient funds shall be made available to the Secretary of Transportation to carry out this section. The reason I believe that is inappropriate is the inspector general last Thursday night said this: They could not get information about Mexican trucks with respect to vehicle inspection, accident reports, and driver violations. Why couldn't they? Because there is no database available. None available. There will come a time when this is just fine, but it is not now. The first and most important concern at this point is safety on the roads of this country. I hope those who voted for the Dorgan-Specter amendment will decide to vote against the Cornyn amendment, which funds the very program against which the Senate has just voted.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold his request for a quorum call.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will you notify me when I have 7 minutes remaining?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment that has just been described on page 4 ends with: Of the amounts appropriated for the Office of the Secretary under this title, sufficient funds shall be made available . . . to carry out this section. This is simply a mechanism to say let's just do this; let's fund it. The point I have made is very simple. There is no treaty that would require this Senate to decide to have something happen on our highways that we believe not to be safe. There is no treaty that requires us to open our borders to long-haul Mexican trucking at this moment unless we believe there is safety and soundness to that proposal. I do not believe that is the case. Let me again describe the three conditions that represent the problem. The suggestion that every truck will be inspected every time is simply not the case. On page 2, it says, from the inspector general's report, that it will not be the case: In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid the required checks. This is not a legal issue; frankly, it is a safety issue. The question of accident reports, vehicle inspections, driver violations, the fact there is no national database--that is not me saying that, that is the inspector general--there is no national database, there is no database they can go to get this information, the fact that this information doesn't exist means that we don't know what the consequences will be. One of my colleagues earlier said: Let's try it. That is probably fine, if he feels like pulling up to a four-way stop sign next to an 18-wheeler to try it and see whether there were vehicle inspections that were adequate or whether it has a driver who might have had three drunk driving accidents or perhaps 10 speeding violations nobody knows about because there is no database. Let's try it? How about let's not try it with our families or with the families of other Americans. Sheryl Jennings McGurk describes her family's experience. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page statement from this woman, Sheryl Jennings McGurk.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, she describes an accident south of Los Angeles that took the life of several members of her family, an accident that was totally avoidable, she says. I quote her last paragraph: The accident was 100 percent avoidable. The truck had numerous safety issues and should not have been operating in the United States. For this, our lives are forever changed and we lost three of the most incredible people [from our family]. This was a truck from Mexico headed north on I-5, a truck that had mechanical problems, a truck that had numerous safety issues. Three people are dead. This is not a legal issue, not for the Senate; this is a safety issue. And if you believe that you have all of the assurances you need that this will be safe, then I understand your vote. But if you look at what the inspector general report says clearly--the inspector general report says we don't have information on these key issues, the issues we would need to know before we decide to allow long-haul Mexican trucking into our country. As I indicated earlier, the American Trucking Association is an association that supported the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clayton Boyce, the vice president of public affairs for the American Trucking Association, said today, in fact: The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project will be carried out and whether it will be safe. Even though they supported NAFTA. Let me say that again. The American Trucking Association said: The group has grave concerns about how the pilot project will be carried out and whether it will be safe. I don't believe this is a legal issue.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the interest of finishing, I will use my 3 minutes. Let me say that when I said this is not a legal issue, my point is whether it has been in the courts or not, we make the law. We will determine tonight our destiny. That is our responsibility here in this Chamber. Because we write the law and make the law, we will determine what the safety standards will be for America's roads tonight. My colleague from Ohio says it very well, in my judgment. There is an old saying: Never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. There is a kind of breathless quality to what the Department of Transportation did last Thursday night. They get the IG report at 7:30; at 8:30 they announced, we made a decision: We got the report, studied it--we have some of the fastest lawyers in the world waiting on this--and away we go. Well, let me talk about what they missed. They missed the three key points with respect to the standards of safety, because the inspector general's report said there is no databank, no massive information with respect to accident reports, vehicle inspections, or driver violations in Mexico with Mexican trucking. The fact is they do not have equivalent enforcement in Mexico. That is just a fact. If you think there is equivalency between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, you just miss it. I had a trucker call me yesterday who said, look, I do this for a living, and I pull up at truckstops all over this country. I pull up in the short-haul areas 25 miles from the border, and I have talked to a lot of Mexican truckers and looked at their equipment. He said, if there are people who think there are equivalent standards, they are daydreaming. Let me say this, finally. Everything about NAFTA has gone haywire, to use a term of art. Everything. They said pass NAFTA, the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, and things will be great. Well, we passed it. Guess what. We turned a small surplus into a huge trade deficit. They said what it will mean is low-skilled, low-wage jobs will move to Mexico. Well, guess what. The three biggest exports to Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. All the products of high-skilled labor. Those are the jobs we lost. Huge deficits, and we lost a lot of important and good jobs. They said, we are going to cut the tariffs for accentuating trade between the two countries. Just months later, Mexico devalued the peso 50 percent, and all the gains in the tariff cut were gone and then some. So all of it is wrong. All of it has redounded against this country's interest. And now the latest chapter is to say, you know what, we are required to at this moment, notwithstanding what the inspector general says, notwithstanding that there is no databank with respect to vehicle inspections and drivers records, and so on, we are required to allow long-haul Mexican trucks into this country. Well, we are not required to do that. We are a body of lawmakers in the Senate and we ought to do what the House has already done. I hope by passing my amendment we will say to the Department of Transportation that they may not go forward with this pilot project because this is an issue of safety and we stand for safety in this country.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, might I ask, we have a vote ordered by unanimous consent at 7 o'clock; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might take 2 to 3 minutes to respond to Senator Coburn's amendment, which we will vote on, I believe, during this group of votes. I ask unanimous consent to use the time between now and 7 p.m. to respond to the amendment offered by Senator Coburn for which I have not had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Coburn has an objection to legislative directed spending for something called the International Peace Garden. He apparently believes that is unwarranted spending. Many of my colleagues perhaps will not know it by the International Peace Garden, but it is an institution that has been around since the 1930s. It has been supported at various times by the Government of Canada and by the Government of the United States. It exists between the United States and Canada and is a wonderful and a remarkable place. I would encourage all of my colleagues to visit the International Peace Garden at some point. We have a substantial number of buildings at the International Peace Garden that are in some disrepair. The Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba have agreed to participate in some funding. The amount of funding that is in the appropriations bill is $450,000, and it represents the kind of commitment that our Federal Government has made in the past to maintain this wonderful institution called the International Peace Garden. We are proud of that institution, and sufficiently so that we put it on our license plates in North Dakota--The Peace Garden State. We are enormously proud it exists in our State. But as I have indicated previously, the Congress has, on previous occasions between the 1930s and today, assisted in some funding, very minimal funding, to upgrade some facilities there. The facilities are in substantial disrepair. The Government of Canada has made a commitment for some funds, and we wish to match those funds, so that is the purpose of this rather small earmark, but an earmark or legislative-directed funding, nonetheless. It is very important and will perform a very important purpose at the International Peace Garden. I hope the citizens of America are as proud of the existence of this peace garden as I am. The peace garden actually reflects the determination and the dedication of two wonderful neighbors, the United States and Canada, and the peaceful co-existence that has existed for some long while. It has also been a place in which seminars have taken place, a band camp exists there, and so many other things occur that are a wonderful reflection of the best that is in all of us, those of us from the United States and Canada. My hope is my colleagues would agree with me, the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma is not a worthy amendment. Let us do what the Government of Canada has already done and recognize the worth of the International Peace Gardens and dedicate a very small amount of funding to try to respond to its facilities' needs. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2797

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have previously described an amendment I wish to offer. I believe I have filed the amendment. It is an amendment that deals with Mexican trucks. I wish to offer it at this point on behalf of myself and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania and other cosponsors. It is amendment No. 2797. I ask that we consider that amendment. I believe there is no amendment pending at the moment, so I do not need consent to set an amendment aside. I ask for the immediate consideration of the amendment I just described.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated, I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and others. I believe my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, is working with the ranking member of the subcommittee for a time agreement. I don't believe a time agreement exists at this point. With consent, I ask that Senator Specter from Pennsylvania be recognized. He has a time commitment. He was asking to be recognized now. I previously said a few words about this amendment. I will speak about it in greater detail in a bit. I ask unanimous consent for Senator Specter to be recognized for as much time as he may consume. If he is not ready, Mr. President, I will continue for just a moment to describe the amendment. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from the State of Washington.