Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and an old friend.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes of debate, 15 minutes allocated to each side, controlled by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and myself.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. SABO. As I was saying, I have here a letter from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is an association of State, provincial, and Federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier safety laws. They were writing to me to express their strong support for the amendment that I had before the Committee on Rules. They are hardly a self-interest group. Their interest is in enforcing the laws that we pass.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and see if we might inquire how many people want to speak on both sides.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have two additional requests for time on our side. And how many on the gentleman's side?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about who supports this amendment, or my earlier amendment.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we had a long discussion on the rule today, and the amendment I had offered I requested be made in order. It was not made in order, and the rule was not changed, so we have to offer the amendment in a different form. This is a very simple amendment. I wish it could be more complicated, but because of the action of the Committee on Rules and the action in the House, I cannot offer a more complicated amendment. This one simply prohibits funding to process the applications of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for either conditional or permanent authority to operate throughout the United States beyond the current 20-mile commercial zone. Let me say that I thought the amendment that we had earlier clearly was NAFTA-compliant. This probably is not, because it is a total prohibition, but I know of no other way for us to deal with this issue on the floor. I think we should deal with it. Let me review where we are at this point. The Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order. We heard a great deal about the money that we were going to make available for facilities and inspectors in this bill. A significant part of that money has been struck. Today I think close to $90 million for inspectors and facilities have been struck by points of order. Mr. Chairman, I was a strong supporter of the action of our Chair in putting that money in the bill. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do. I thought that was a significant step forward, but not far enough. I thought the best solution to a very troubling situation was both to do preinspection of the carriers, plus add to our capacity to inspect individual trucks. The reality is at this point in the bill, most of that money has disappeared, and I have no option to offer an amendment that calls for preinspection. I think the only way we can address this issue in the House, keep it alive for conference, indicate to the administration and to the Senate that we want to make sure that we do the utmost to protect safety, is to adopt this limitation which is strong and outright. It gives us the action from a point of strength of dealing with the issue of truck safety for all the trucks that are going to be coming here from Mexico as we move on in this process. Let me say as it relates to some of the money that was struck, the administration plans to do 18 months review. Let me simply suggest that even if that money had stayed in the bill, particularly the money for building new facilities, probably very little of that would have been spent within the next 18 months, because it will take a significant period of time to build facilities. Clearly that money would not have been spent by January 1 of this year. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment. It is clear. It is straight to the point. It says that we are not going to permit these carriers to operate beyond the existing 20-mile commercial zone. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that as this moves through the process, this will need to be revised, but it is the only option we have to deal with this important safety question for the American people.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, first, let me say that this is a good bill, and I will have more to say about that later. I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for producing a good bill. At the end of the day, it is a bill that deserves broad bipartisan support and should be passed by an overwhelming margin. Madam Speaker, however, I cannot support this rule. The reason is that we have a problem, in my judgment, a serious problem, with the advent of Mexican trucks having access to the United States outside of the 20-mile commercial zone starting January 1. This bill did not create the problem, it has been created for us, and if there is one place we can begin to deal with the remedy, that place is in this bill. The amendment that I had offered, which would require preinspection of carrier applicants in Mexico before they receive conditional certification, would add to the safety potential that we have in this country, to go along with the additional inspectors. None of us can guarantee perfect safety, but those working together would give us some greater hope that we will have safe trucks operating in this country. Madam Speaker, no one disputes the fact that Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operate with virtually no safety oversight today. There are no motor carrier hours of service regulations in Mexico. Even though the Mexican Government is now implementing a driver record database, there is currently no way to check the driving history of Mexico motor carrier drivers. In addition, Mexico will not finalize its roadside inspection program until October 2001. Let me add that while we are focusing on inspection and out-of- service rates for trucks, equipment is important, but the driving capability of the driver is the most important. A greater proportion of accidents involving big trucks are driver-related rather than equipment-related. I might add that this committee and this Congress has been seriously involved in the last several years of trying to improve the truck safety of American trucks, and then we look at what the history is of Mexican trucks coming into the commercial zones today. Let me simply say that for trucks coming into Mexico and Arizona, we find that 40 percent of the Mexican-domiciled trucks today are put out of service. I urge a no vote on this rule so we can quickly get a new rule which makes my amendment in order.