U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–928 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 107–1095

CROSS BORDER TRUCK AND BUS OPERATIONS

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 27, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

and the Committee on Appropriations

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT MARINE

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

(III)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director 

CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director 

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)

Professional Staff

PETER ROGOFF

KATE HALLAHAN

WALLY BURNETT (Minority) 

PAUL DOERRER (Minority)

Administrative Support

ANGELA LEE

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held June 27, 2002 .................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Bond ..................................................................................... 6

Statement of Senator Breaux ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 7

Statement of Senator Fitzgerald ............................................................................ 41

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 34

Statement of Senator Murray ................................................................................. 3

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Statement of Senator Specter ................................................................................. 31

WITNESSES

Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of Transportation ..... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Mineta, Hon. Norman, Secretary, Department of Transportation; accompanied 

by Joseph Clapp, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

(1)

CROSS BORDER TRUCK AND BUS 

OPERATIONS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC.

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND

RELATED AGENCIES, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:44 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John B. Breaux, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, and Hon. Patty Murray, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies of the 

Senate Appropriations Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator BREAUX. The Committee will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being with us. We are here today 

to have a joint hearing on a very important subject and I am delighted to have our full Committee Chairman, Senator Hollings, 

with us, and also the Chair of the Subcommittee on Appropriations 

Transportation who has been a leader in this area, and has been 

the person who has brought a great deal of the legislation through 

the appropriations process to help solve the problem that we are 

continuing to address and to oversee this morning. We are delighted that Senator Bond from the Appropriations Committee is 

with us as well for the hearing. 

Senator Hollings, would you like to—Chairman Hollings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Chairman HOLLINGS. Yes, thank you a lot, Mr. Chairman, and 

I thank Chairman Murray and her leadership here on this appropriations level, and what I want to do, is comment. Mr. Secretary, 

our Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has had 

the best of relationships with you. Right after 9/11 we immediately 

took up the $15 billion for the airlines. We passed out an airlines 

security bill, reorganizing the entire institution unanimously from 

the Committee, and unanimously out of the U.S. Senate, and simiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
2

larly with seaport security. On rail security, Mr. Secretary, we 

have had difficulties. 

We appropriated before Christmas, authorized—it is right there 

at the desk—$5 million, and we have yet to see the Administration 

move on that particular measure, and in the meantime over the 

year now we have had three hearings on Amtrak. Everybody knows 

the problems. 

The problem is the Congress and the White House over the 

years. They come up with certain needs. There is a group that 

want to appropriate for those needs, provide for them, and there 

is a group that thinks they ought to be run as a private entity. Of 

course, we know differently. It was run as a private entity after 

World War II up until 1970 when I was here on this Committee, 

and the private entities came begging for us to please, for Lord’s 

sakes, take this passenger rail service, and they gave us back the 

equipment and everything else, all except the tracks, but we have 

limped along with half measures for some 30 years. 

So it is not necessarily this President and this Congress, but we 

know what has happened, and so in the last year we have had 

three hearings trying to get you up here. The last one you would 

not appear, but you sent Mr. Jackson, and he came with more 

questions than answers. In fact, I admonished him. I said, look 

here, we are having the hearing. You are asking us all these questions. No help whatsoever, but we worked in a bipartisan fashion, 

and we reported out in April, by a vote of 20 to 3, an Amtrak bill 

with reforms, and then out of the blue you go running down to the 

Chamber of Commerce like, ‘‘Oh, we have got to do something 

about Amtrak and we have got to have reforms,’’ after we have 

been trying to get you up here for a year. 

You did not come to the Committee. You have not commented on 

our bill, S. 1991. By a vote of 20 to 3 it is right there on the calendar. Everybody in the Department of Transportation knows abut 

it. They got the Committee report, and incidentally on the reforms 

we have got an itemized breakdown of every section of the financing. You put out a statement this morning to give them $100 million temporarily till the end of July, when we are going on the August break, because of another crisis. 

It is Government by fear. We had a President around here once 

who said the only fear we had to fear was fear itself. Now you have 

all got Government by fear, all kinds of announcements, and trying 

to manufacture this one. We are ready to go. We are ready for the 

Administration to lead and not run down to the Chamber of Commerce talking about ‘‘reforms, reforms,’’ like we never thought of it. 

We have got in here all kinds of financial reforms. The new 

head—I have been corresponding, of course, with him, talking to 

him, Mr. Gunn. He is outstanding, I think, a breath of fresh air. 

He has already gotten rid, of the 80-some vice presidents, 60 of 

them. He has cutoff operations that we cannot afford and everything else of that kind, but we have got to make a commitment. 

We have got to have Federal involvement and Federal leadership, 

and all we are getting out of the Department of Transportation, 

Mr. Secretary, is crisis appearances. We have not gotten anything 

on this bill, and we would appreciate it at the committee level if 

3

you would work with the Committee and—criticize. Tell us what 

you do not like about the Amtrak bill. 

But we have seen all that separation of the passenger service 

from the rails, and just be a passenger service, like you mentioned 

down at the Chamber of Commerce. Maggie Thatcher did that. I 

do not know how many people in England they have killed so far 

this year, but they did separate the infrastructure out, and they 

had 25 bidders, and 15 have gone broke, and the other 10 are back 

downtown in London begging for more money. It is not working 

that way. 

Every successful high-speed passenger rail service has been run 

by the Government, run efficiently, run within fiscal bounds, and 

run with governmental leadership, and that is the only way we are 

going to have it. On this Committee, we have got Commerce, Space, 

Science, Transportation, we appropriated $180 million for a railroad in space, but we cannot get a dime out of you folks on the 

ground, and we got only $100 million this morning in your release. 

We have got over half in a bipartisan—over half the Senate has already sent a letter to the President—we are going to put $200 

million in that emergency supplemental. We are ready to put up 

the money. If the President wants to put a million people out on 

the highways and byways all in disarray here, let him do it. But 

really, we have had no leadership whatsoever from your Department on Amtrak, and do not act like you all are leading this morning, that you’ve got it together. 

As we move, we saw where 3 days ago you were going to give them $130 million, and then, night before last, you started talking, 

well, you might go ahead with the $200. Now you have come this 

morning with a release for $100. It’s just ‘‘The Perils of Pauline,’’ 

and the room all crowded up as to whether or not we are going to 

have a rail system in America. That isn’t playing; tell Karl Rove. 

Secretary MINETA. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to respond? 

Senator BREAUX. Well, I want to thank the Chairman of the 

Committee. I am not sure that was about Mexican trucks, but I 

think the message is pretty clear. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HOLLINGS. That is right. 

Senator BREAUX. I want to recognize—Norm, we are going to 

give you a chance to comment on that, but I want to recognize the 

Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee, as I said, who has been 

the person who was in a leadership role in putting the money in 

it to take care of this Mexican truck situation which we are having 

a hearing about today, and Senator Murray, any opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Breaux, and before I speak to Mexican trucks I know that Secretary Mineta is also 

going to make a statement on Amtrak and its financial condition 

this morning. My Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 

held a hearing 1 week ago today on Amtrak’s financial crisis, and 

at that time President Bush’s Federal Railroad Administrator testified that the Administration was doing everything in its power to 

4

keep Amtrak operating and keep the commuter railroads that depend upon Amtrak running. But a week later a solution still has 

not been finalized, and we are told that an agreement has been 

reached in principle between the Administration and Amtrak’s 

board of directors, but nothing has been signed. 

This has been a very tortuous process for Amtrak’s riders, their 

employees, and the tens of thousands of daily rail commuters, and 

worst of all, this really was avoidable. The Appropriations Committee has provided Amtrak with every penny the Bush administration has requested for the railroad and then some. 

Secretary Mineta sits on Amtrak’s board of directors, his Deputy 

Secretary Michael Jackson serves for him on both the board’s Finance Committee and is chairman of the board’s Audit Committee. 

Even so, the Administration has voiced surprise over the sudden financial crisis of Amtrak. I have to say that it is very hard to understand how the situation was allowed to reach such a dire strait 

without the Administration being fully aware of it, so I do not want 

to detract from the importance of the discussion on Mexican trucks. 

I hope we can take some time this morning to question the Secretary on a number of Amtrak issues, including, I will have questions for you on whether saddling Amtrak with more loans when 

the railroad is already $4 billion in debt is an appropriate solution, 

whether we can get Amtrak through the current fiscal crisis, 

whether we just will not face another bankruptcy crisis a few miles 

down the road if we do accept the Bush Administration’s budget request for next year, and if the Administration is asking Amtrak to 

engage in financial transactions that will only undermine rather 

than improve its credibility with its creditors and debtors. 

So I will be asking those questions when we do get to the questions, but I do want to thank Senator Breaux for having this hearing this morning, and before we hear from our witnesses I think 

it is important to remember how we have reached this point. 

When President Bush took office, he reversed a policy from the 

Clinton administration and announced his intention to open all 

U.S. highways to Mexican trucks and buses. That policy change 

was prompted in part by the decision of a NAFTA arbitration panel 

that states the United States was in noncompliance with the treaty. Both before and after President Bush’s decision, the two Subcommittees represented here this morning received numerous reports by the DOT Inspector General, the General Accounting Office 

and others, that criticized the overall safety of the Mexican truck 

fleet and questioned whether DOT could guarantee safety on our 

highways once that border was opened. 

These reports indicated that under the Administration’s original 

plan to open the border, there would be a woefully inadequate 

number of safety inspectors to handle the influx of Mexican trucks; 

trucks would be crossing into the United States at border stations 

where no Federal inspectors would be present; Mexican trucks 

would be given interim authority to drive on all U.S. highways 

after filling out only a cursory questionnaire; there would not be 

enough space at inspections stations to remove unsafe Mexican 

trucks from service; there would not be any way for U.S. and State 

truck safety inspectors to validate and verify the licenses, insurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
5

ance, and driving records of Mexican truck drivers, or the validity 

of the operating authority granted to Mexican firms. 

There would not be any comprehensive mechanism to check 

whether Mexican trucks driving on U.S. highways complied with 

U.S. weight limits; and this is an especially important concern, 

since trucks in Mexico are allowed to operate at heavier weights 

than trucks in the United States. And finally, many critical safety 

rulemakings that were to be published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration were not going to be in place by the 

time the Bush administration planned to open the border. 

When the transportation appropriations bill reached the floor of 

the House of Representatives last year, the House voted by an 

overwhelming bipartisan majority, more than 2 to 1, to absolutely 

prohibit Mexican trucks from traveling beyond the border commercial zone during fiscal year 2002. That action, it was said, constituted a blatant violation of NAFTA. When the Senate Subcommittee marked up its bill, we took what I believe to be a much 

more balanced and responsible approach. As a Senator who voted 

for NAFTA, I, along with Senator Shelby, addressed the safety, inspection, and enforcement deficiencies head on and established a 

series of strict safety conditions that would have to be met before 

Mexican trucks could travel on U.S. highways. 

Under the Senate bill, the Inspector General was required to certify that those conditions have been met prior to the border being 

opened. Our bill engendered a great deal of debate on the floor. We 

spent about 2 weeks debating that measure. After more than a 

dozen roll call votes, including two successful cloture votes, the bill 

passed by an overwhelming margin. 

When we went to conference with the House of Representatives, 

the Senate bill stayed largely intact with one notable change. Rather than having the Inspector General certify that safety conditions 

had been met so the border could be opened, we allowed the Inspector General to issue a thorough report on the DOT’s efforts to 

comply with each of these conditions. Secretary Mineta was given 

the responsibility to respond to each of the IG’s findings and open 

the border only after he certifies in writing to Congress that opening the border will not present an unacceptable safety risk. 

As was the case when the bill passed the Senate, the conference 

report included more money for Mexican truck safety enforcement 

than the Administration requested. That is where we find ourselves today. The Inspector General is here to tell us what has and 

has not been done by the Department so far. Secretary Mineta is 

here to tell us his intentions regarding whether and when the border will be opened. There is no question that at the end of this 

process we will have safer highways than under the President’s 

original proposal. 

I want to commend the Department of Transportation for its 

work so far. However, I have to say it is somewhat disappointing 

that it took such specific language out of Congress for the DOT to 

take the steps that it has. I hope the Department will bring the 

same energy to improving truck safety in the United States that 

they have brought to implementing the measures to open the border. As the Inspector General knows, there are several 

vulnerabilities in our truck safety program right here at home that 

6

need immediate attention. More needs to be done to test and verify 

the capabilities of our drivers. A lot more needs to be done to combat fraud in the distribution of commercial drivers’ licenses, and 

the DOT needs to improve its record of taking almost 4 years to 

complete major truck safety regulations. The efforts to ensure the 

safe passage of Mexican trucks on our highways has already, I believe, had a very positive effect in limiting the number of Mexican 

trucks that plan to enter the U.S. to those trucking firms that are 

really prepared to meet all of the statutory safety requirements in 

the transportation appropriations bill. 

In 1995, when the border was first expected to be opened, the 

Department received almost 200 applications from Mexican trucking firms seeking to operate in the United States. To date, the Department has received roughly 10 percent of that number, representing fewer than 100 trucks. I do expect that number will grow 

in time. If the DOT does its job, that growth will not represent a 

safety risk. The IG will tell us this morning that there are still 

many inspection units that are not electronically linked to the necessary data bases to ensure the validity of Mexican driver’s licenses, operating authority, and insurance. Those enhancements 

are expected shortly. 

Perhaps most importantly, more needs to be done not just in implementing the safety requirements, but also in preparing to prosecute those who would violate them. As Mr. Mead will testify this 

morning, they continue to find Mexican truck drivers who wantonly 

disregard the requirement to stay within the commercial zone. This 

has been going on for years, and the States are ill-suited to prosecute those cases. Mr. Mead will testify that only two States, California and Arizona, have currently adopted a law to prosecute 

truckers that have deliberately strayed beyond the commercial 

zone. 

I know that Secretary Mineta will agree that rapid action needs 

to be taken to address that loophole in the area of truck safety. As 

in the case of all transportation safety, our safety requirements will 

only be as effective as the enforcement mechanisms that surround 

them. During the lengthy Senate debate over the transportation 

bill last year, I stated over and over again my belief that free trade 

and safety can progress side by side. While more work needs to be 

done, I think that over time it will be clear that trade and safety 

are not mutually exclusive. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Chairman Murray, for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome, and Inspector General Mead, welcome. 

I begin by unabashedly telling you I am a supporter of NAFTA, 

and I believe most of my colleagues are, despite what some of our 

actions in this body may lead you to think. 

To put it bluntly, our borders with Mexico should have been open 

to Mexican trucks long ago. That is an old debate. I will not go into 

it. I will, however, remind my colleagues here today that our constituents are hurt every day that the moratorium on Mexico-domiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7

ciled trucks remains in place. I represent an agricultural State, and 

it is important to note that the freeze on cross-border trucking has 

impacted U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico. In the year 2000, 

they accounted for almost 121⁄2 percent, or one-eighth of U.S. agri- cultural exports, and they produced a trade surplus of well over $1 

billion. With 85 percent of U.S.-Mexico trade moving by truck, the 

success of our agricultural exporters and thus the success of our 

farmers who depend upon the prices that they receive because of 

the demand from Mexico hinges on efficient cross-border trucking 

operations. 

I understand from the Inspector General that you are making 

progress to assure the safety. We need to hear today what additional steps need to be taken, and where you need assistance and 

what you are doing, but I view the implementation of NAFTA 

trucking provisions as a way to create additional opportunities for 

U.S. agricultural and other exports to Mexico, which is a vital 

neighbor, an ally, and our second-largest trading partner. 

In other words, I may not agree with the actions that Congress 

has taken, but I do intend to do whatever I can to help move the 

process along. The people and particularly the farmers in Missouri 

need to see that process moved. 

But to switch tracks, Mr. Secretary, to what I guess everybody 

is going to be talking about today, I would like to mention Amtrak. 

It appears to me that Amtrak has a full head of steam bellowing 

down a one-way track. There is no question in my mind that before 

Congress gets out the checkbook to the tune of an additional $200-

plus million, we need to be assured that some real reforms are taking place. At the current rate, Amtrak is burning over $1 billion 

a year with no apparent end in sight. I am really disappointed in 

the way things are being run. 

I am pleased that you have come to an agreement with Amtrak 

last night. We will hear the details today, but without getting into 

too many of the details before a final agreement is actually signed, 

I would like to hear your perspective on whether the agreement addresses short-term needs or some of the concessions intended to 

serve our long-term objective of continued passenger rail service. 

I understand that there is a request before your Department for 

loan guarantees of $200 million. If one takes the relatively oldfashioned and mundane approach of reading the statute, section 

260.5, the eligible purposes of TEA–21, state in subsection (b) that 

‘‘financial assistance under this part cannot be used for railroad operating expenses.’’ Now, in spite of that fact, I know some of my 

colleagues are asking that you approve the loan guarantee. I wonder if you see another potential available resource that Amtrak 

could utilize, and perhaps you will be able to tell us what your 

agreement with Amtrak envisions in terms of a loan guarantee 

under this or some other additional legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BREAUX. Senator Dorgan, any comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, let me just respond 

on this issue of Mexican trucks. I am tempted—I understand our 

8

full Committee Chairman fired both barrels on Amtrak, so I 

will——

Chairman HOLLINGS. It is on the record. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, without knowing what he said, let me associate myself with his remarks. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN. I know that is dangerous, but on this subject 

I also know that he and I agree. 

Let me just say on the Mexican truck issue, I think this is one 

more example of trade agreements that dumb down and diminish 

our abilities in dealing with issues affecting workers, our environment, public safety—there is not a ghost of a chance, not a ghost 

of a chance that by the middle or the end of this year we are going 

to have anything that resembles something ensuring that it is safe 

for the American people to have Mexican long-haul trucks moving 

across this country. 

There is not a ghost of a chance of that happening, and if any 

of you wonder about it, go back and read the San Francisco Chronicle in which the San Francisco Chronicle reporter did something 

no one in this Congress has done, traveled 1,800 miles in 3 days 

with a Mexican trucker who slept 7 hours during the 3 days, did 

not have a logbook that was up to date, drove equipment of questionable safety. 

The fact is, you are trying to put two standards together that 

cannot be easily put together, and if ever they are put together in 

a way that is protective of the safety of the American people, it is 

going to take a long, long time, and frankly I wanted a much 

harsher provision in the bill when it went through the Senate. I 

did not prevail on that, but in any event, I do not think the Administration is going to have a ghost of a chance of meeting the standards imposed by the Murray-Shelby amendment, in my judgment. 

So I just want to say that I do not think trade agreements ought 

to be about compromising safety; and frankly, if we proceed on this 

track there will be Americans whose safety is jeopardized on the 

roads of this country, because there is not any way in which you 

create a system where the long-haul truckers from Mexico are 

going to have the same standards and the same safety capabilities 

as long-haul truckers in this country. 

I have more to say, but I will do that later. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Senator. Senator Smith, any comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement. In the interest of time I would include it in the record. 

Senator BREAUX. I thank the Senator for his consideration. 

Senator SMITH. And I share Senator Dorgan’s concern about safety. I voted with Senator Murray and Senator Shelby on this, and 

if it is going to happen, we have to make sure that safety is not 

compromised. If we can assure safety then Americans can get the 

benefit of the competition that would come with cross-border trucking. However safety should not be sacrificed on the altar of free 

trade, and I think we ought to hold that position. 

9

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the efforts of the Administration to 

safely open our border with Mexico and comply with the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The United States signed NAFTA almost ten 

years ago; since that time, trade with Mexico has climbed significantly. Mexico now 

accounts for about 12.5% of total U.S. merchandise trade and Mexico is our second 

largest trading partner. I believe the benefits will be even greater once NAFTA is 

fully implemented. 

We all agree that safety and security must not be compromised in allowing trucks 

domiciled in Mexico to operate in the United States. It is precisely these concerns 

that led Congress to enact additional safety inspection, audit, and investigation requirements as part of the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2002. The Act also funded an increase in the number of federal and 

state inspectors to ensure the requirements are properly enforced. I supported these 

provisions and believe that if they have been properly implemented, the border can 

be opened safely in the near future. 

Trade with Mexico is important to Oregon. In 2001, trade with Mexico approached 

$900 million. Exports from the State have grown at an average annual rate of 12% 

since 1994. Mexico is a particularly important market for transportation equipment, 

industrial machinery, electronics and metal products. I want to encourage this positive trend. 

That said, I fully support continued vigilance on safety matters involving all

trucks operating on our nation’s roads and highways. While I understand today’s 

witnesses will testify that we are now prepared to inspect , audit and monitor the 

operation of Mexican-based trucks, the true test will come once the border is open 

and these trucks are actually operating in the U.S. We must ensure that U.S. safety 

regulations are properly enforced and any unsafe drivers and vehicles are taken out 

of service. Frankly, stricter enforcement of our safety standards should apply to all 

carriers if we are serious about improving highway safety. 

I would like to thank Secretary Mineta, Administrator Clapp, and Inspector General Mead and their staffs for their hard work and diligence in preparing the opening of the border and meeting the tight deadlines for implementing the provisions 

of the Appropriations Act. I hope the President will lift the moratorium on Mexican 

trucks soon, so that we can reap the full benefits of NAFTA.

Senator BREAUX. Well, thank you, Senator. 

With that, Secretary Mineta, welcome to the Amtrak/Mexican 

truck hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BREAUX. You heard from the Committee, and we welcome you, and Mr. Joseph Clapp, who is Administrator of the 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration is here, as well as our Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, Mr. Ken Mead. 

Mr. Secretary, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY

JOSEPH CLAPP, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Secretary MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, and 

members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to be here with all of you, and I want to thank you for 

this hearing to share with you the progress that the Department 

of Transportation has made to ensure a safe operation of Mexicandomiciled carriers under the North American Free Trade Agreement’s transportation access provisions. 

Now, before I get into the discussion of today’s hearing topic, if 

you would indulge me, I would like to begin with a brief discussion 

10

of another timely issue that has been brought up, and that is the 

Amtrak financial crisis. As all of you are aware, last night we were 

able to conclude a meeting with the Amtrak board of directors 

which resulted in excellent progress toward a resolution of the 

short-term financial crisis facing the railroad. 

We reached an agreement in principle on the approach that we 

will take which will involve a combination of immediate assistance 

from the Department of Transportation along with a joint request 

of Amtrak and the Administration for congressional support. We 

are continuing to meet this morning in order to finalize the details 

of what has been agreed upon in our Monday and Wednesday 

meetings. I think the total of those two meetings on those 2 days 

were somewhere in the area of about 11 or 12 hours. 

No action will be necessary by the Congress this week to keep 

the trains running. We will seek your help after the Fourth of July 

recess, and I look forward to consulting with the Members of both 

the House and the Senate about our proposal. 

Now, the proposed agreement includes several important first 

steps about reform of Amtrak, measures that will help accomplish 

three important objectives: improving Amtrak’s financial discipline 

and performance, making Amtrak’s financial and operating performance transparent to the public, and providing the executive 

branch and the Congress with a better understanding of Amtrak’s 

long-term assets and liabilities, and its cost control and revenue options. In short, what we are trying to interject is more business discipline, more accountability, and more complete and timely information for Congress and the executive branch about performance. 

I look forward in the coming weeks to working with all of you on 

the longer-term reform issues facing Amtrak. 

I really cannot say much more about the details of the agreement 

this morning, but I would like to express my personal thanks for 

the work done by the board of Amtrak and by our staff at the Department of Transportation in the last several days. In particular, 

I would like to thank Mayor John Robert Smith, the chair of Amtrak’s board of directors, who has devoted a great deal of time and 

energy to resolving this crisis. As a former mayor, I know that his 

being away from home for this extended period of time has not 

been easy, so I appreciate his leadership and his dedication to 

reaching a solution of this crisis. 

Senator BREAUX. Mr. Secretary, excuse me. At that point does 

Chairman Hollings or Chairman Murray or anybody else have any 

comments on this? 

Chairman HOLLINGS. I would just add, thank you, Mr. Chairman, that we did submit to the Department of Transportation and 

the Secretary the bill and the report. Our last hearing was in 

March. We submitted this in April. We heard absolutely nothing 

about it. I will submit it again, along with over a dozen reforms, 

and we agree with you that we have got to work with the States. 

We have got to have a new financial plan, new cost accounting 

methods and everything else like that. In fact, we got from your 

Controller a lot of these ideas. We have been working with you, but 

to go down to the Chamber of Commerce and act like, ‘‘Oh, wait 

a minute, nothing is happening and we have got to save Amtrak’’—

and what you have done with $100 million, as of last night, after 

11

82 hours, heck, we got together $200 million in 1 hour, over half 

of the Congress, and your loan guarantee is really Chairman 

Murray’s money. She will give you the $100. She will give you the 

$200. She will give you the $300. It is her money. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HOLLINGS. It is the Congress’ money. I mean, you act 

like you have got some money to give around. I mean, hell, we have 

been trying to give you the money, and you are having discussions 

about whether we are going to have a loan, and we have already 

granted it. If you could only accept it and get on with, not with the 

politics, but get on with Amtrak. We are going to get us a national 

rail system in this country. 

Secretary MINETA. Mr. Chairman, just to get to the point of an 

outline of a policy that has taken close to a year of back-and-forth 

discussion between the Department of Transportation and the 

White House, and so that has taken a great deal of time. We 

helped you get your rail security bill. I helped get the statement 

of Administration policy on that. We do have your rail bill, S. 1991. 

One of the problems facing it is the total cost of that bill, and unless there are some other reasons for getting into some reforms and 

changes that would be needed, we cannot move forward on the bill 

as it is right now. 

Chairman HOLLINGS. The bill has got the reforms. They have an 

amendment. Let us put an amendment up that supports your view 

and the Administration’s view to cut the money, but I mean, time 

is of the essence. We are just diddling around and waiting. The 

Congress legislates, you folks execute, so do not worry about it. 

Just tell us your views. That is what we want to know. It is a bipartisan initiative, and really with respect to the States we are 

playing catch-up ball with the States. You got lines going from Oregon up to Washington, one of the finest lines there is; the State 

of California they have got on the ballot already this year a full $1 

billion rail initiative, and you folks are sitting around meeting 13 

hours over $100 million. Come on, let’s get going. 

Senator BREAUX. Chairman Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Secretary, I just have to add to what 

Chairman Hollings said. This is very frustrating. When you came 

before the Appropriations Committee, or actually Mr. Jackson did, 

we were told the $521 million request 4 months ago was a placeholder till we had a long-term proposal from the Administration, 

which we have been asking for since that time and still do not 

have, to the best of my knowledge, unless it was the chamber 

speech that you gave. And that is not a proposal, a legislative proposal that Chairman Hollings can look at. 

But my question to you immediately, before we move on to the 

next topic, is, you have just outlined that you are going to request 

some short-term, I understand, $100 million loan guarantee. Is 

that going to be in the form of an official request, and is that official request going to be for an appropriation, an emergency supplemental, or are you going to officially ask for a loan guarantee? 

Secretary MINETA. We will not be asking—what we contemplated on this short term, this $100 million right now, is not a loan guarantee. 

Senator MURRAY. The Administration’s first part, your first——

12

Secretary MINETA. First tranche. 

Senator MURRAY. Your first $100 million is not a loan guarantee? 

Secretary MINETA. We are not doing a loan guarantee under the 

RRIF program. 

Senator MURRAY. What is the $100 million that you have already 

agreed on with Amtrak to get you through the next several weeks? 

Secretary MINETA. That is a straight—it is a loan, but it is not 

under the RRIF, we are not executing it under the RRIF program. 

Senator MURRAY. Under what authority are you asking for a loan 

guarantee for that $100 million? You are giving them a direct loan 

under what authority? 

Secretary MINETA. Under the RRIF program. 

Senator MURRAY. Under the RRIF program you are going to give 

them a direct loan of $100 million, and then you are going to ask 

us for what, an appropriation? 

Secretary MINETA. We will then be asking for two—let us see, an 

additional $270, or the difference between $270 and the—so it will 

be the $170, in terms of the request that they were asking for. 

Senator MURRAY. You will be asking us for what, another loan, 

or an appropriation? Are you going to be asking for an emergency—

that would be under an emergency——

Senator MURRAY. So we are going to get an official request from 

the Administration for $170 million in our supplemental, or separate from that, an emergency request from the Administration for 

$170 million on top of what we have here already, in terms of our 

supplemental. 

Secretary MINETA. For a total of $270, because as I recall, the 

emergency supplemental at $55 million——

Senator MURRAY. That is correct. 

Secretary MINETA. And in my conversations with Senator Byrd 

last week, I think he, or maybe it was this week, but he was talking about taking that to, I believe $205, and so that was left on 

that basis. 

Senator MURRAY. OK, well, I want to understand what we are 

going to be asked to do. You have already approved a $100 million 

direct loan to Amtrak to get them through the next several weeks. 

You are now going to give us an official request for an emergency 

supplemental on top of everything else we have here. We are not 

going to take it out of homeland security or anywhere else. You are 

asking for $170 million for Congress to do an emergency supplemental for them, is that correct? 

Secretary MINETA. The whole determination about whether this 

will be a loan or a loan guarantee is something that I would like 

to come and discuss with you. 

Senator MURRAY. Now, when you say loan or loan guarantee, are 

you talking about your $100, or our $170? 

Secretary MINETA. The $170. 

Senator MURRAY. The $170. 

Secretary MINETA. That is right. The additional——

Senator MURRAY. OK, I am—take apart the $100 you have already done. The $170 you are asking, is it going to be an emergency supplemental request, or is it going to be in the request of 

a loan? 

13

Secretary MINETA. It will be in the emergency supplemental request. 

Senator MURRAY. And when will we get that direct request from 

you? 

Secretary MINETA. I would hope that we would be able to do that 

soon after your return from the July 4 recess; I think you come 

back on July 8. 

Senator MURRAY. OK, then if I am to understand you, you are 

not asking us to assume further debt for Amtrak. You are asking 

us for an emergency supplemental of $170 million, correct? 

Secretary MINETA. That is correct. 

Senator DORGAN. Would you yield on that point? Mr. Chairman, 

I wonder if she would yield just for a brief——

Senator BREAUX. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Could I ask the Secretary how——

Secretary MINETA. May I correct this, Senator Dorgan? 

It still has not been determined, I guess, as to whether it will 

be a loan or a loan guarantee. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, Mr. Secretary, let me tell you, there is 

going to be a huge difference in that request. If you ask this Congress to give Amtrak $170 million in some kind of loan guarantee, 

that is just further debt to Amtrak, and it is a further debt to our 

transportation appropriations bill at a time when you have requested less than half of what they say they need in the coming 

fiscal year. 

So I would like to know as quickly as possible whether you are 

going to ask for an emergency supplemental, which is very different than asking us for a loan guarantee, and will have a very 

different financial impact on Amtrak. 

Secretary MINETA. We will get that to you. 

Senator DORGAN. If I might just inquire, if all of this occurs, on 

what date would Amtrak then run out of money when it has depleted the interim financial——

Senator MURRAY. I would answer, Senator Dorgan, it completely 

depends on whether they are asking us for a loan guarantee that 

is further debt, whether we are looking at a supplemental, how 

much that request is. But I can tell you this, even in our appropriations request for next year, if we do not get the Administration to 

request the $1.2 billion that Amtrak is telling us that they need, 

we are back in this conversation we have had this last week by the 

end of September. 

Secretary MINETA. What we are requesting is to get us through 

this fiscal year. 

Senator DORGAN. So that is the end of September? 

Secretary MINETA. Yes, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. At which point Amtrak would run out of money 

again? 

Senator MURRAY. That is correct. 

Senator BREAUX. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I think in the interest of straight talk we 

are going to give Amtrak what they need to keep operating. I think 

we all know that it is not going to shut down, and I think it is important to note that this will be one in a long series of bailouts that 

we have given to Amtrak since 1971, and there are some of us, Mr. 

14

Secretary, that believe, as you do, that fundamental reforms have 

to be made in Amtrak. I do not think any Member of Congress is 

interested in having Amtrak shut down, and even if they went into 

bankruptcy they would not shut down, would they, Mr. Mead? 

Mr. MEAD. That is correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. I mean, so I am intrigued sometimes by the 

media, will Amtrak keep rolling, et cetera. The real question is, 

will we 2 or 3 or 4 years from now be back again with another bailout for Amtrak, as we have every few years since 1971? 

I think also that the previous administrators of Amtrak who testified at that table that Amtrak was on the road to financial selfsufficiency, time after time after time, ought to be held to account. 

The board of directors of Amtrak ought to be held to account. Actually, they all ought to be replaced immediately, because they did 

not carry out their fiduciary duties but there are some of us who 

want reform, as you do, Mr. Secretary, as Mr. Mead has recommended for a long period of time, and I hope we can make those 

reforms even if it means shutting down a line in some Senator’s 

State. And if we do not get those reforms, then we will continue 

to have a hemorrhage of American tax dollars. 

I really hope that we can come up with an Amtrak reform package that all of us can agree to, and if that requires some continued 

Government assistance, that is fine, but it is my understanding 

they are now $4.6 billion in debt, is that right, Mr. Mead? 

Mr. MEAD. Very close to that. 

Senator MCCAIN. A $4.6 billion debt is a pretty heavy debt load. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that the purpose of this hearing was to 

discuss the Mexican truck issue. Coming from a border State that 

is most affected by this issue, I believe that it is time we moved 

forward on it, as was our treaty commitment of NAFTA, which has 

had enormous beneficial effects economically to both the United 

States and Mexico, and I hope we can get this issue finally resolved, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Mr. Secretary, let us now get on—if you could summarize, Mr. 

Secretary, your statement on the Mexican truck situation, we will 

proceed to questions. 

Secretary MINETA. As all of you know, over the last several 

months we have been working diligently to try to address the 22 

specific requirements that Congress established in the fiscal year 

2002 Transportation Appropriations Act as conditions to the opening and the operation of Mexican carriers outside the existing commercial zones. I am pleased to report to you today that we have 

succeeded in meeting the requirements of section 350 of that legislation. 

The Act also directs the Department of Transportation Inspector 

General to conduct a review and to evaluate the Department’s performance in 8 areas. It is my understanding that you received this 

report on Tuesday. 

The IG has raised a few issues, and we are working hard to address them, but I want to thank the Inspector General, Ken Mead, 

for the insight and analysis that he and his staff provided over this 

period. I can assure you, on behalf of President Bush, that we will 

not open the border if doing so poses an unacceptable safety risk. 

15

However, we expect to fully address all of the issues that have been 

identified in the IG’s report to allow the border to open in the near 

future, and I will touch very briefly this morning on some of the 

steps we have taken to meet those requirements. 

Administrator Joe Clapp and the staff of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have done an outstanding job in hiring, 

training, and deploying enforcement staff for border operations. By 

the end of this month we will have hired and trained 144 border 

inspectors charged with conducting roadside inspections of vehicles 

and drivers. We have made significant progress in meeting our target for hiring safety auditors to conduct inspections of carriers 

prior to the issuance of any provisional authority, and by the end 

of June we will have hired all 67 safety auditors, and we will train 

and deploy all of them by July 29. We have also begun to hire safety investigators, even though we will not need them to perform 

safety audits for another 6 to 18 months. In the meantime, these 

staff will augment our inspection and audit staff. In all, by midsummer, DOT will have more than four times the number of personnel we had at the border in mid-2001. 

On another front, we issued final regulations in March to establish this new safety oversight system. These regulations help ensure that Mexico-domiciled carriers operating in the United States 

meet the same Federal motor carrier safety regulations that U.S. 

and Canadian carriers must satisfy. Mexican carriers will need to 

demonstrate that they have a drug and alcohol testing program, a 

system of compliance with U.S. hours-of-service requirements, valid 

insurance with a U.S.-registered insurance company, and adequate 

vehicle maintenance and driver records, all before receiving operating authority. 

Mexican vehicles operating beyond the commercial zones must 

display a valid CVSA, or Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection decal, and we have signed agreements with all four border 

States requiring inspections of all Mexico-domiciled vehicles not 

displaying a valid CVSA decal. 

Finally, Congress directed FMCSA to conduct 50 percent of the 

safety audits and compliance reviews onsite in Mexico and we will 

do so. My written testimony offers greater detail on these and other 

steps that we have taken. 

Two other areas deserve special mention today. First, the U.S. 

Patriot Act requires a security check on any holder of a commercial 

driver license that has a hazardous materials endorsement. The 

regulation to implement this provision is currently under departmental review. In a nutshell, Mexican and Canadian drivers transporting hazardous materials will not operate beyond the commercial zone until security driver license checks comparable to those 

performed on U.S. drivers have been done. In addition, FMCSA 

will continue to work with TSA, Customs, INS and other Government agencies involved in border security to ensure that our safety 

programs are consistent and integrated with their security-focused 

initiatives. 

Second, we will keep improving our border infrastructure to handle increasing traffic volumes in the future. In this regard, I 

awarded $54 million in grants to the four southern border States 

for infrastructure improvements at border inspection stations. 

16

In closing, the Department remains firmly committed to ensuring 

the enhanced safety and security of commercial vehicle operations 

at our borders. As you know, DOT has inspected Mexican trucks 

and buses since 1995, and the guidance and additional resources 

provided by Congress have allowed us to continue to build on that 

strong program. 

I want to thank the Governments of Mexico and Canada for their 

cooperation in identifying and resolving a number of operational 

issues, and I thank this Committee in setting high standards for 

opening the southern border to help bring about the unprecedented 

preparations that I have discussed today. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to highlight our efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Mineta follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittees, it is a 

pleasure to appear before you today and to have the opportunity to report on the 

progress that the U.S. Department of Transportation has made to ensure the safe 

operation of Mexico-domiciled carriers once the President acts to implement the 

North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) transportation access provisions 

along our Southern border. 

Introduction 

The Department is appreciative of the work of Congress on the FY 2002 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the Act). The bill offered clear guidance on the necessary elements required to assure the compliance of Mexican commercial truck and bus companies with U.S. safety regulations. 

Section 350 of the Act set forth 22 steps that needed to be taken before the Department could process any applications from Mexican carriers during the fiscal 

year. Also, it required the DOT Inspector General (IG) to conduct a comprehensive 

review of border operations within 180 days of enactment. 

We have worked diligently to take the steps required of us in the Act, and I am 

pleased to report that we have succeeded. This was an intensive effort on the part 

of many agencies and individuals. It could not have been accomplished without the 

able leadership of Administrator Joe Clapp and the commitment of the staff of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Department, other Federal agencies, and our State partners. In the process, we have worked closely with 

the Mexican Government in numerous face-to-face meetings. 

As I indicated, the Act directs the DOT IG to conduct a review of our Southern 

border operations, and evaluate the Department’s performance. During these past 

months, Department staff met regularly with the IG staff to discuss the progress 

on these issues. I particularly wish to thank Inspector General Kenneth Mead. The 

insight and analysis he and his staff provided us over this period proved extremely 

useful in assisting us to appropriately focus our activities. 

Now that the Inspector General has issued his report, by law I must evaluate it 

and determine if I can certify that opening the border does not pose an unacceptable 

safety risk. Only after this certification is made and the President lifts the moratorium, will Mexico-domiciled motor carriers be allowed to operate outside the commercial zones. The Inspector General has raised a few issues, and we are working 

hard to address them. I want to assure you, on behalf of President Bush, that the 

border will not be opened unless it can be done safely. We do expect to fully address 

all issues identified in the IG’s report, to allow the border to open in the near future. 

Requirements of the Appropriations Act 

The Act called for numerous conditions to be met before DOT could process applications for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate outside of the border commercial zones this year. All of these conditions have been met. The chart attached to 

my testimony illustrates the tasks and the progress to date. Today I would like to 

highlight several of our major activities. 

17

Staffing 

One of the most significant challenges was to hire, train, and deploy enforcement 

staff for border operations. The enforcement staff is composed of three distinct 

groups: Border Inspectors, Safety Auditors, and Safety Investigators. The Border Inspectors are charged with conducting roadside inspections of vehicles and drivers. 

The Safety Auditors will conduct safety audits of carriers prior to the FMCSA’s 

issuance of provisional authority to operate beyond the commercial zones. The Safety Investigators will conduct Compliance Reviews of these carriers within their first 

18 months of operations—after they have established an operating history. 

By the end of this month, we will have hired and trained 144 individuals to perform Border Inspector functions. In addition to Border Inspectors, we have made 

significant progress in meeting our target for Safety Auditors. By the end of June, 

we will have hired all 67 Safety Auditors and all of these Safety Auditors will be 

trained and deployed by July 29. We have also recently issued selection certificates 

for Safety Investigators in Arizona and California. In addition, the review of employment applications for Texas Safety Investigators is underway. 

Although we have begun to hire Safety Investigators now, they will not be required to perform safety audits until approximately 6–18 months from now, when 

they will be performing the actual audits. In the meantime, these staff will augment 

our inspection and audit staff. 

Oversight Process for Mexico-domiciled Carriers 

The Act directed DOT to revise and complete its May 2001 proposed safety oversight regulations. On March 19, we issued final regulations establishing this safety 

oversight system. These regulations help ensure that Mexico-domiciled carriers operating in the U.S. will meet the same Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs) that U.S. and Canadian carriers must satisfy. Now, Mexican carriers will 

be required to demonstrate that they have met U.S. requirements, such as having 

a drug and alcohol testing program, a system of compliance with U.S. hours-of-service requirements, valid insurance with a U.S. registered insurance company, and 

adequate vehicle maintenance and driver records, all before receiving operating authority. 

The regulations also provide that DOT will conduct a safety audit of each carrier 

prior to the issuance of provisional operating authority, and a compliance review 

prior to granting the carrier permanent operating authority. Congress also directed 

FMCSA to conduct 50% of the safety audits and compliance reviews on-site in Mexico—and we will do so. In addition to the safety audit and compliance review requirement, our oversight includes a process for expedited enforcement action against 

those carriers committing specified offenses, such as operating without a commercial 

driver’s license (CDL), operating vehicles that have been placed out of service, and 

operating an uninsured vehicle. 

Vehicle Inspections 

We have issued regulations requiring Mexican vehicles operating beyond the commercial zones to be inspected every 90 days and to display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection decal. This provision applies to the provisional 

operating authority period and for 36 months after receiving permanent authority. 

We have also signed agreements with all four border States requiring State inspectors to conduct inspections of all Mexico-domiciled vehicles not displaying a valid 

CVSA decal during the provisional period, and for a period of three years after permanent authority has been issued to the carrier. 

Other Requirements 

• Weigh In Motion Scales. Weigh in Motion (WIM) Scales are in place at 8 of the 

10 highest volume crossings, and static scales are in place for enforcement at 

all commercial crossings. This exceeds the 5 WIMs as required by the Act. The 

remaining 2 WIMs will be in place by year-end.

• Verification of License Status. Inspectors will electronically verify the status and 

validity of the licenses of 100% of the Mexico-domiciled CMV drivers operating 

beyond the commercial zones—exceeding the requirements of the Act.

• DOT Numbers. A distinct DOT Number will be assigned for Mexico-domiciled 

carriers engaging in operations beyond the commercial zone. The number must 

be affixed to the vehicle in a visible location.

• Staffing at Crossings. FMCSA or State motor carrier inspectors will be on duty 

at all crossings that U.S. Customs Service has designated commercial crossings 

during operating hours.

18

• Operating Authority Violations. State inspectors will enforce regulations concerning operating authority of Mexico-domiciled carriers or notify FMCSA staff 

so that it may take any enforcement actions necessary.

• Facilities on Federal Sites. We have constructed appropriate inspection facilities 

and out-of-service parking areas to provide adequate capacity for conducting inspections and detaining-out-of-service vehicles. These improvements include 

paving and site utility work, installation of portable office buildings, construction of inspection bays, and construction of parking areas.

• Related Rules and Study. As required by the Act, we have published the New 

Entrant Rule for U.S. and Canadian carriers, the Rule for Certification of Inspectors and Auditors, the Border Staffing Study, and initiated a Weigh in Motion site determination study. 

Hazardous Materials Driver Requirements 

The USA Patriot Act requires a security check on any holder of a CDL that has 

a hazardous materials endorsement. The USA Patriot Act applies to new applications and renewals. The regulation to implement this act is currently under Departmental review. We have had several conversations with both Mexican and Canadian 

officials about the requirements of the law. Mexican and Canadian CMV drivers operating vehicles transporting hazardous materials will not be permitted to operate 

beyond the commercial zones until security driver license checks, comparable to 

those performed on U.S. drivers, have been done. 

FMCSA is working with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and 

the U.S. Customs Service to address overall security aspects of cross-border operations. FMCSA expects to continue to meet with TSA, Customs, the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service, and other government agencies involved in border security, to ensure that our safety programs are consistent and are integrated with their 

security-focused initiatives. 

The United States Customs Service is the lead agency for border security. Motor 

carrier safety inspectors have been trained to look for security risk indicators on 

commercial vehicles. If indicators are present, motor carrier inspectors have been 

instructed to notify Customs immediately. The partnership US DOT and the States 

have with Customs at the various ports is important in the detection of security 

risks at the border. 

Border Infrastructure Grants 

Beyond our immediate efforts to assure the safe operation of Mexican carriers, we 

are also focused on improving our border infrastructure to handle increasing traffic 

volumes in the future. In this regard, I announced the awarding of grants to the 

four southern border States for infrastructure improvements at border inspection 

stations. With the distribution of these funds, we look to strengthening our partnership with the States in the inspection process. 

Funds for the Border Infrastructure Program (BIP) were made available by Congress from the Federal-aid highway revenue aligned budget authority to be distributed among the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Of the $54 

million available, $2.1 million was awarded to Arizona; $8.9 million to California; 

$2.2 million to New Mexico; and $40.8 million to Texas. Four criteria were used to 

award the grants: safety, number of commercial vehicles, delays, and traffic patterns. 

The objective of the grant program is twofold: the safe operation of Mexico-domiciled commercial motor vehicles operating in the United States and improved traffic 

flow at border crossings in the four border states. Examples of the types of projects 

funded under the BIP are construction of eight new commercial motor vehicle safety 

inspection facilities at the border in Texas, upgrade and final construction of an 

automated port of entry at the Santa Teresa, NM, border crossing, and construction 

of additional inspection bays and parking areas for out-of-service vehicles at the 

commercial vehicle enforcement facility at Calexico, CA. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I want to say that the Department is committed to ensuring the enhanced safety and security of commercial vehicle operations at our borders. At our 

Southern border, DOT has been inspecting Mexican trucks and buses since 1995. 

The guidance and additional resources provided by Congress have allowed us to continue to build on that strong program. By mid-summer, DOT will have more than 

four times the number of personnel we had at the border in mid-2001. 

We are confident that we have achieved our shared goal of setting a firm safety 

foundation for expanded cross-border operations. When operating authority is grantVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
19

ed, Mexico-domiciled carriers, as well as U.S. and Canadian carriers, will all be governed by the same safety standards when operating in the United States. 

At this time we have received a small number of applications from Mexico-domiciled carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones. To date, 31 Mexican longhaul carriers have applied for authority to operate in the interior of the United 

States, and 101 have applied to operate within the commercial zones. 

As you can see from these numbers, it appears that interest among Mexican carriers for expanded authority is beginning at a somewhat gradual pace. Applications 

from Mexico-domiciled carriers will be processed as they are submitted. However, 

the border will not be opened to expanded cross-border access until I have certified 

that the border can be safely opened, and the President has lifted the moratorium 

on Mexico-domiciled carrier access. 

In addition to taking the steps set out for us by Congress, we have been working 

closely with our Canadian and Mexican counterparts to identify and resolve the numerous operational issues involved in opening the border to cross-border motor carrier traffic. I want to thank the governments of both Mexico and Canada for their 

cooperation. Our goal is to work together to realize the promise of one market in 

North America, while ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. 

Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, the actions of your committees in creating 

the FMCSA and in setting high standards for opening the Southern border have 

been instrumental in bringing about the unprecedented preparations I have discussed today. You are to be commended for your roles in these achievements. 

I look forward to your questions today and to working with Congress in the 

months ahead. I thank you once again for the opportunity to highlight the steps we 

have taken to ensure that our NAFTA commitments are fulfilled in a safe and secure manner.

COMPLIANCE MATRIX 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 350 OF THE DEPARTMENT’S FY 2002 APPROPRIATION ACT 

Action Status 

1) Rule: Rule issued to establish the 

safety audit. 350(a)(1)(A).

Completed: On March 19, 2002, the Department issued an Interim Final Rule 

(IFR) titled ‘‘Safety Monitoring and Compliance Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled 

Motor Carriers Operating in the U.S.’’ This rule not only established the safety 

audit as an additional safety compliance tool but also outlined a comprehensive program for tracking the safety performance of carriers once they have 

received provisional authority and/or certificate of registration.

2) Policy: Mexican carriers with 3 or 

fewer vehicles need not undergo onsite safety audit, however FMCSA 

must ensure 50% of all audits are on 

site and on-site inspections must 

cover 50% of estimated truck traffic 

in any year. 350(a)(1)(C).

Completed: On April 3, 2002 FMCSA issued a policy titled, ‘‘Selection Process 

for Safety Audits and Compliance Reviews of Mexico-Domiciled Carriers Operating Beyond the Commercial Zones’’ that goes beyond the 50% on-site review mandate by requiring FMCSA safety auditors and safety investigators to 

conduct on-site, pre-authority safety audits on at least 85% of all Mexicodomiciled carriers that apply for operating authority beyond the commercial 

zones.

3) Rule: Rule issued to require compliance review and to ensure Mexican 

carrier receives satisfactory rating 

prior to permanent authority. 

350(a)(2).

Completed: On March 19, 2002, the Department issued an IFR titled ‘‘Safety 

Monitoring and Compliance Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers Operating in the U.S.’’ The IFR modifies the FMCSRs to include section 385.109 

that requires compliance reviews of Mexico-domiciled long-haul operations to 

be conducted consistent with our existing safety fitness evaluation procedures 

in part 385 and that the carrier receive a Satisfactory safety rating.

4) Policy: Compliance reviews for 3 or 

fewer vehicle carriers need not be 

done on-site, however FMCSA must 

ensure (1) 50% of all compliance reviews are on site and (2) any Mexican 

carrier with 4 or more vehicles that 

did not undergo an on-site safety 

audit receives an on-site compliance 

review. 350(a)(2)(A).(B).

Completed: On April 3, 2002, FMCSA issued a policy titled, ‘‘Selection Process 

for Safety Audits and Compliance Reviews of Mexico-Domiciled Carriers Operating Beyond the Commercial Zones’’ requiring an on-site compliance review 

within 18 months on at least 50% of all Mexico-domiciled carriers that have 

been granted provisional operating authority to operate beyond the commercial zones.

20

COMPLIANCE MATRIX—Continued

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 350 OF THE DEPARTMENT’S FY 2002 APPROPRIATION ACT 

Action Status 

5) Policy and Agreements: Federal & 

State inspectors to electronically 

verify the license of all hazardous 

materials drivers, all undergoing a 

level I inspection, and 50% of all 

other long haul drivers. 350(a)(3).

Completed: On April 3, 2002, FMCSA issued a policy titled, ‘‘Driver’s License 

Verification’’, that goes beyond the Section 350 mandate by requiring all Federal and State inspectors to electronically verify the licenses of all (100%) 

Mexico-domiciled drivers operating commercial motor vehicles beyond the 

commercial zones until such time as base traffic volume can be ascertained.

6) Rule: Gives a distinct DOT # to long 

haul vs. commercial zone carriers. 

350(a)(4).

Completed: On March 1 9, 2002, the Department issued two IFR titled ‘‘Revision 

of Regulations and Application Form for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers to 

Operate in the US Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the US-Mexico 

Border’’ and ‘‘Application by Certain Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers to Operate Beyond US Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the US-Mexico Border’’. Each of these rules require the FMCSA to assign distinctive USDOT 

numbers that distinguishes a carrier as a commercial zone or long haul 

motor carrier by adding a ‘‘Z’’ or ‘‘X’’ suffix after the USDOT number.

7) Rule and Agreements: Requires inspection of all long haul Mexican 

commercial vehicles that do not display a valid CVSA decal (until carrier 

has permanent authority for 3 years). 

350(a)(5).

Completed: On March 1 9, 2002, the Department issued an IFR titled ‘‘Safety 

Monitoring and Compliance Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers Operating in the U.S.’’, that modifies Part 385 of the FMCSRs to include section 

385.103 CVSA decal. Section 385.103 requires each Mexico-domiciled carrier 

granted provisional operating authority to operate beyond the commercial 

zone to have a current decal attesting to a satisfactory inspection by a CVSA 

inspector on every commercial motor vehicle operated in the US. In addition, 

FMCSA has entered into cooperative agreements with the lead MCSAP agencies from the 4 border states to provide the resources necessary to implement this requirement.

8) Agreements: Requires State inspectors to enforce FMCSRs or notify 

FMCSA staff of violations. 350(a)(6).

Completed: FMCSA has entered into cooperative agreements with State enforcement representatives from the 4 border states to provide the resources necessary to implement this requirement.

9) Agreements: 5 of 10 highest volume 

crossings are to have WINS and requires inspectors to verify weight of 

long hauls where present and equip 

all crossings with scales suitable for 

enforcement. 350(a)(7)(A).

Completed: On June 24,2002, WIM systems are operational in eight of the 10 

highest volume crossings (Otay Mesa, Calexico, Nogales, Columbia, Brownsville, Pharr, El Paso (Ysleta) and El Paso (Bridge of the Americas). In addition, portable/static scales have been purchased and are present at all commercial crossings.

10) Contract: Initiates a study to determine where other WIMs should be 

placed. 350(a)(7)(B).

Completed: On April 15, 2002, FMCSA executed a contract with the Texas Transportation Institute and the Texas Department of Public Safety to determine 

the need and potential placement of additional WIMS.

11) Rule: FMCSA has issued a policy to 

ensure no long haul vehicle will be 

granted authority unless they have 

proof of insurance by a US licensed 

insurance carrier. 350(a)(8).

Completed: On March 19, 2002, the Department issued an IFR titled ‘‘Application by Certain Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers to Operate Beyond US Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the US-Mexico Border’’, that requires that 

Mexican long haul carriers use a US licensed insurance carrier.

12) Agreements: Requires that long 

haul trucks only cross where a certified inspector is on duty. 350(a)(9).

Completed: FMCSA has entered into cooperative agreements with State enforcement representatives from each of the 4 border states to provide the resources necessary to implement this requirement.

13) Agreements: Requires long haul 

trucks to cross only where adequate 

capacity exists to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful inspections and where 005 parking is 

available. 350(a)(9).

Underway: Federal facilities funds have been provided to GSA for site and 

utility work necessary for inspection bays and out of service parking. 

Work is scheduled for completion by 6/30/02.

21

COMPLIANCE MATRIX—Continued

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 350 OF THE DEPARTMENT’S FY 2002 APPROPRIATION ACT 

Action Status 

14) Rule: Publishes New Entrant Rule 

350(a)(10)(A).

Completed: FMCSA issued this Interim Final Rule (IFR) on May 13, 2002, and 

made it effective January 1, 2003, to ensure safe operations by new entrant 

motor carriers. This IFR requires a safety audit be conducted, among other 

things, for new entrant carriers, to ensure understanding and compliance 

with all Federal motor carrier regulations, etc. The comment period ends July 

12, 2002.

15) Rule: Publishes Inspectors/Auditor/SI 

Certification Rule 350(a)(10)(B).

Completed: On March 19, 2002 FMCSA published a Final Rule titled, Certification of Safety Auditors, Safety Investigators, and Safety Inspectors that establishes procedures to certify and maintain certification for inspectors, auditors and investigators.

16) Policy: Publishes Border Staffing 

Study 350(a)(10)(C).

Completed: On May 14, 2002, FMCSA published a study and a methodology for 

estimating border staffing needs.

17) Policy: Publishes policy on leasing 

350(a)(10)(D).

Completed: On November 16, 2001, FMCSA issued a policy titled, Enforcement 

of Sections 205 and 219 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) 

that clarified leasing issues and specifies penalties for violators.

18) Policy: Publishes policy on scope of 

authority enforcement 350(a)(10)(E).

Completed: On November 16, 2001, FMCSA issued a policy titled, Enforcement 

of Sections 205 and 219 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) 

that defined Federal and State enforcement procedures regarding carriers 

that operate without registration or beyond the scope of their authority and 

identifies penalties for violators.

19) Agreement: Mexican hazardous materials drivers must meet same security requirements as US hazardous 

materials drivers. 350(b).

Pending: FMCSA is awaiting issuance of the USA PATRIOT Act rule currently 

under Departmental review. Until such time as the rule is issued and an 

agreement with the Mexican government is in place establishing similar 

requirements on hazardous materials drivers, Mexican hazardous materials 

drivers will not be permitted to operate beyond commercial zones.

20) Border Infrastructure Grants: $54M 

in Border Infrastructure Grants (BIP) 

was earmarked for border improvements and construction..

Completed: On June 5, 2002, the Secretary awarded $54M to the border states 

of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. Of the $54M, $2.1 million will 

be awarded to Arizona, $8.9M to California, $2.2M to New Mexico, and 

$40.8M to Texas.

21) IG Review: The DOT Inspector General conducts a comprehensive review of border operations within 180 

days of enactment to verify specific 

requirements are met. 350(c)(1).

Underway: A report documenting the findings of the IG’s review of the Department’s border operations should be completed by 6/30/02.

22) Certification By The Secretary: The 

Secretary of Transportation must certify in writing that the opening of the 

border does not pose an unacceptable 

safety risk to the American public. 

350(c)(2).

Pending: The Secretary’s certification will be considered based upon review of 

the Inspector General’s report. No operations will be permitted outside the 

commercial zone until certification is made. 

Senator BREAUX. I would like to go ahead and get Mr. Mead’s 

statement. We have a vote. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The law says we are supposed to do an audit within 180 days of its enactment. We did so. 

We provided a report to Secretary Mineta, and you have that report. The law also built in another audit requirement for us within 

the next 180 days. 

22

I do want to say that I think Congress established a very good 

process here. It set up a number of safety requirements, enabled 

us to bring information directly to the attention of the Secretary as 

this process was unfolding, and that allows for a more expeditious 

closing of safety gaps. 

The requirements, in fact, were intended to ensure that some 

basic safeguards would be in place before trucks would begin longhaul operations. For example, long-haul Mexican drivers must have 

a valid commercial driver’s license, they must comply with U.S. 

hours-of-service rules, each and every long-haul truck must be inspected every 90 days and display a special sticker and a special 

DOT identification number. I think that is a particularly strong 

provision. Carriers must undergo safety audits before provisional 

long-haul authority is granted, and another review within 18 

months before being granted permanent authority. 

Our work has shown that there is a direct correlation between 

the condition of Mexican trucks and the level of inspection resources. The more likely the chance of inspection, the better the 

condition of the vehicle. The percent of inspected vehicles placed 

out of service has declined from 44 percent in 1997 to 34 percent 

in 2001. To date, 40 carriers have applied for long-haul authority. 

I have no way of forecasting when or to what extent the long-haul 

carriers will apply, but I agree with your assessment in your opening remarks, Senator Murray. Twenty-six carriers indicated they 

intended to operate a combined total of 118 vehicles, and you say, 

what happened to the other applications? Well, the other applications were incomplete; they did not say how many vehicles they intend to operate long-haul in the United States. 

We found that the Department and the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration in fact made very substantial progress in 

meeting the Act’s requirements to hire and train inspectors, establish inspection facilities, and develop safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul carriers. There are a number of actions in process and planned that will require aggressive followthrough. We have reviewed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s plans for these actions and, with a couple of exceptions, we think they are credible and achievable within the next 45 

to 60 days. 

We have made a series of recommendations to the Secretary. He 

has agreed to act on them. I think it is important to note that a 

lot of our efforts to date have focused on verifying that resources, 

facilities and communications systems are in place to implement 

the basic requirements of the Act. The key once the border opens 

will be how effectively these resources are used and procedures are 

implemented. We will be maintaining this carefully during our future audit work. 

Another matter that we have raised with the Secretary, and I 

want to call to your attention, is that currently only two States, Arizona and California, authorize their enforcement personnel to take 

actions against vehicles operating without authority. State law enforcement officials can take action if they find reckless driving, or 

if the truck has mechanical failure, but if the truck is there illegally, in 48 States they cannot take action. 

23

1The Act directed the OIG to verify eight specific requirements that include (1) filling and 

training all new inspector positions, (2) training inspectors who will be conducting compliance 

reviews as safety specialists, (3) not transferring inspectors who will be conducting compliance 

reviews from elsewhere in the United States, (4) ensuring adequate capacity at each crossing 

to inspect and place vehicles out of service, (5) implementing a policy to ensure compliance with 

U.S. hours-of-service rules, (6) ensuring that Mexico’s information infrastructure is sufficiently 

accurate, accessible and integrated with that of U.S. law enforcement, and that telecommunications links are adequate at all crossings and in mobile enforcement units operating adjacent 

to the border, (7) developing a database that is accessible and enables safety monitoring of carriers and drivers, and (8) establishing measures to ensure monitoring and enforcement of licensing of Mexican carriers. 

In 2000, DOT issued a regulation saying the States had until the 

end of 2003 to fix that and pass a law. Well, only two have done 

it, so if you find a truck operating illegally in, say, the State of Colorado or Louisiana, State law enforcement officers cannot take enforcement action. 

In 1999, we reported that at least 52 Mexican-domiciled motor 

carriers operated improperly in 20 States, outside the 4 border 

States, and we know this problem has continued. We have discussed this with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and Mr. 

Clapp, and we think there can be a ready fix to the situation. Rather than waiting for every State to pass a law, we think the Administration can issue a regulation saying that operating illegally is, 

in fact, a safety violation, which would enable the States to enforce 

it, and we would like to see that happen. 

I will conclude now, and we can get into details later on if you 

would like, with questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittees: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the implementation of commercial vehicle safety requirements at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (the Act) directed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct a comprehensive audit of border operations to verify whether safety requirements are in place.1 The Act requires us to 

conduct another audit within 180 days and at least annually thereafter. 

We completed our first required review within the stipulated 180 days and provided a report on this review to the Secretary on June 25, 2002. The Act requires 

the Secretary to address our findings on safety requirements and certify in writing 

that opening the border does not pose an unacceptable safety risk. 

Congress established a good process in the Appropriations Act. It enabled us to 

bring information to the attention of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) as our work progressed so that 

actions could be taken and plans could be adjusted to close safety gaps. 

The requirements that were written into this year’s Appropriations Act were intended to ensure that some very basic safeguards will be in place when the U.S.-

Mexico border opens to long-haul commercial traffic. For example, the law requires 

Mexican drivers to comply with U.S. hours-of-service requirements and have valid 

commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) that will be checked as those drivers enter the 

United States in long-haul designated vehicles. Trucks that will be used in longhaul operations must be subjected to intensive inspections every 90 days and must 

display a unique Department of Transportation (DOT) number that identifies them 

as long-haul vehicles. Carriers must possess insurance issued by companies licensed 

in the United States, and must undergo safety exams before being granted provisional long-haul authority and will then have to undergo a safety compliance review 

within 18-months before that authority can become permanent. 

The Act provided $140 million for FMCSA and the States to make sure these requirements are met. We have grouped the requirements into three categories: (1) 

hiring and training inspectors, (2) building new and improving existing inspection 

24

facilities, and (3) developing systems to monitor and ensure the safety of Mexican 

carriers operating long-haul vehicles in the United States. 

Our efforts to verify these requirements included multiple trips to the 25 commercial border crossings—most recently on June 20—to verify the changes in staffing 

and inspection facilities. Our staff also met with Mexican officials and performed 

audit work in Mexico on the driver and carrier databases, which included performing real-time testing from the U.S. border crossings and mobile enforcement 

units operating in the border States. 

Two factors will likely determine the ultimate effectiveness of the safeguards that 

have been put in place. First, the size of the workforce and the facilities needed to 

provide sufficient coverage of trucks and buses bound for the interior of the United 

States will be driven by the number of carriers that apply for long-haul operating 

authority. The number of applications is picking up, and as of June 25, 2002, 

FMCSA had received applications from 40 carriers applying for long-haul authority. 

Twenty-six carriers indicated they intended to operate a combined total of 118 vehicles. Fourteen of the applications were incomplete and did not provide information 

on the number of vehicles they intend to operate long-haul in the United States. It 

is likely that over time, long-haul traffic will build, but we have no basis to forecast 

how quickly or to what extent that will occur.

Second, there is a direct correlation between the condition of Mexican trucks entering the United States and the level of inspection resources at the border. Our 

work has shown that the more likely the chance of inspection, the better the condition 

of the vehicles. As shown in Figure 1, the out-of-service rates for Mexican trucks seeking to enter the U.S. commercial zones declined from 44 percent in 1997 to 34 percent 

in 2001 as the number of inspections increased. Out-of-service rates by crossing are 

provided in the Attachment. 

Figure 1: Mexican Vehicle Out-of-Service Rates Compared to Number of 

Inspections Performed

Based on our verification work, FMCSA has made substantial progress in meeting 

the Act’s requirements to hire and train inspectors, establish inspection facilities, and 

develop safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul carriers. However, 

there are a number of actions in process and planned that will require aggressive 

follow through to meet the Act’s requirements. We have reviewed FMCSA’s plans for 

completing these actions, and we believe that with two exceptions, which I will discuss shortly, they are credible and achievable within the next 45 to 60 days. We have 

made a series of recommendations to the Secretary that will assist the Department 

in tracking FMCSA’s efforts to implement actions necessary to fully comply with the 

Act’s requirements. 

It is important to recognize that our efforts to date have focused on verifying that 

FMCSA has staff, facilities, equipment, and procedures in place to implement the 

basic requirements of the Act. The key once the border opens will be how effectively 


627mea02.eps
25

these resources are used and procedures are implemented. We will be monitoring this 

carefully during our required follow-on audits. 

Also, as long-haul traffic materializes, it may be necessary for FMCSA and the 

States to adjust their inspection resources to meet the volume, location, and condition 

of that traffic. The Department will need to have a process for reevaluating overall 

resource requirements and inspection facilities at the U.S.-Mexico border and to 

make adjustments as necessary to maintain adequate staffing and facilities. 

Another matter that we want to bring to the attention of the Secretary and Congress is that currently, only two States—Arizona and California—have enacted legislation authorizing their enforcement personnel to take action when they encounter a 

vehicle operating without authority. Enforcement personnel in all States can place a 

vehicle out of service for serious safety violations but operating without valid operating authority is currently not considered a safety violation. In March 2000, FMCSA 

issued a rule requiring States to authorize their enforcement personnel to take action 

when they encounter a vehicle that does not have valid operating authority. States 

are to comply with this requirement by the end of FY 2003. 

In 1999, we reported that at least 52 Mexican-domiciled motor carriers operated 

improperly in 20 States beyond the 4 border States. Roadside inspection data 

throughout the United States show this has continued. The primary concern is not 

necessarily long-haul carriers whose authority will be checked every 90 days, but 

rather carriers only authorized to operate in the commercial zones that continue beyond the zones. With the exception of Arizona and California, State enforcement personnel do not have authority to put them out of service.

If Congress and the Department want to accelerate the ability of States to enforce 

operating authority, there are several options for doing so that are described in our 

report. 

I would like to turn now and briefly discuss some specific areas that our work 

has focused on. 

Hiring and Training Inspectors. By July 31, 2002, FMCSA plans to have filled 

198 of the 214 new inspector positions assigned to the U.S.-Mexico border. By that 

date, 171 of those inspector positions should be trained. The Act referred generically 

to all funded positions as ‘‘inspectors,’’ but in practice the 214 Federal positions will 

be responsible for a full range of activities, including inspecting trucks and drivers 

at the border, conducting safety exams, and performing compliance reviews and investigations.

• FMCSA has hired 138 of the 144 inspectors it plans to locate at the U.S.-Mexico 

border to conduct driver and vehicle inspections. This represents 60 inspectors 

that were at the border prior to the Act’s passage and another 78 new inspectors that have been hired since January. FMCSA needs to hire 6 more inspectors and 30 inspectors must be trained. All but 1 of the 30 inspectors will be 

trained by July 26, 2002. The remaining inspector is scheduled to come on 

board in August and will complete training in October.

• FMCSA has hired 91 auditors to conduct safety exams which evaluate basic 

safety management controls to determine if the Mexican carrier is able to operate safely in interstate commerce before being granted provisional authority to 

operate in the U.S. FMCSA exceeded its hiring goal of 67 auditors to ensure 

an adequate pool of auditors is available if attrition occurs, either through turnover during the hiring or training process, or if auditors are promoted to the 

higher-paying investigator or supervisor positions. Fifty auditors are fully 

trained and 17 more auditors will be trained by July 12 to bring the total to 

FMCSA’s goal of 67 trained auditors.

• FMCSA does not plan to begin hiring safety investigators until July because 

compliance reviews should not be required until October or November 2002 at 

the earliest and will not be conducted routinely until at least January 2003. 

Compliance reviews assess the safety performance of a carrier’s operations and 

its regulatory compliance as a basis for granting permanent operating authority. The Act provides up to 18 months before a compliance review is required 

in order to allow motor carriers time to develop a history of operations against 

which FMCSA can measure compliance. 

This differs from the immediate need for inspectors and auditors, who will 

perform vehicle and driver inspections and safety exams of Mexican long haul 

carriers. The first training class for investigators ends on September 27, 2002, 

and 19 investigators should be fully trained to perform compliance reviews by 

that time. The remaining investigators should be hired and fully trained by NoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
26

2 Except at Sasabe, a low-volume crossing where, according to FMCSA, an agreement exists 

between the U.S. Customs Service and the State of Arizona to detain long-haul vehicles until 

an inspector can be called and the vehicle inspected. 3Trucks are removed from service because of serious safety violations, including inoperative 

and defective brakes, defective frames and steering systems, and bad tires. Drivers are placed 

out of service for reasons that include: not having valid CDLs, not complying with hours-of-service rules, or not having logbooks to document the number of hours they were on duty. 

vember 22, 2002. This area is one of the exceptions where FMCSA’s plans are 

not scheduled for completion in the next 60 days.

A circumstance that could require a compliance review before a history of operations is established would be if a carrier commits one or more of a specific 

set of safety violations that triggers an immediate compliance review. If this occurs, FMCSA plans to use the one safety investigator currently assigned to the 

border or another staff member assigned to the border who is also a trained investigator to conduct compliance reviews.

• The Act requires us to verify that inspectors conducting compliance reviews—

the investigators—are not transferred from other parts of the United States, 

leaving those areas vulnerable. We have not seen transfers of any personnel in 

the hiring FMCSA has done to date, but we will continue to verify how the investigator positions are filled when FMCSA begins to bring investigators onboard in July. 

FMCSA has not yet hired five border supervisors to oversee the activities of 

investigators, auditors, and inspectors, but will rely on existing crossing supervisors and FMCSA State directors to provide supervisory guidance until all five 

supervisory positions are filled and trained. FMCSA plans to fill all five supervisory positions by July 15, 2002. However, supervisors will be required to attend the 9-week investigator training if they have not already been trained as 

investigators. The first investigator class begins July 29, 2002, and ends September 27, 2002. This area is the second exception where FMCSA’s plans are not 

scheduled for completion in the next 60 days.

• All four border States and FMCSA have signed agreements to provide inspection coverage during all hours the crossings are open to commercial traffic from 

Mexico.2 Schedules have been developed and will be implemented when the border opens. 

Adequacy of Facilities. By June 30, 2002, facilities should be adequate for inspectors to enforce the Act’s requirements at 23 of the 25 commercial border crossings. FMCSA plans to reach agreements to obtain inspection facilities for the remaining two, low-volume traffic crossings by June 30, 2002. 

Until earlier this year, FMCSA had not attempted to procure its own facilities or 

seek improvements to space it had borrowed from the U.S. Customs Service on General Services Administration (GSA)-owned or leased facilities. As a result, FMCSA 

did not have dedicated space to inspect vehicles and place vehicles out of service.3

The space FMCSA had been occupying in many cases was not sufficient to support 

the level and quantity of inspections necessary to satisfy the Act’s requirements, 

and to maintain sufficient coverage of commercial traffic entering the United States 

to operate in the commercial zones. 

For example, in 2001, we found that at: 17 of the 25 crossings, Federal inspectors 

had space to inspect only 1 or 2 trucks at a time; 12 of the 25 crossings, Federal 

inspectors had only 1 or 2 spaces to park vehicles placed out of service and often 

the out-of-service space was the same as the inspection space; and 18 of the 25 

crossings, Federal inspectors did not have dedicated telephone lines to access databases, such as those for validating CDLs. 

This situation changed dramatically in 2002. At 11 crossings, accounting for 51 

percent of total traffic, the out-of-service space will have increased by 100 percent 

or more. For example, at the Pharr, Texas crossing, which had the third highest volume of commercial traffic in 2001, inspectors had access to two inspection spaces 

and five out-of-service parking spaces. The new facilities will provide FMCSA with 

4 inspection spaces and 15 out-of-service parking spaces, which is more than double 

the original space. The Attachment identifies the status of facilities at each of the 

commercial crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The most significant improvements are at the high volume crossings where the 

lack of facilities has hindered the ability of inspectors to monitor and enforce safety 

regulations. The Act provided FMCSA $2.3 million to procure and improve Federal 

inspection facilities. FMCSA has entered into agreements with GSA to obtain dedicated inspection and out-of-service space and to make necessary improvements. Improvements were needed at 19 of the 25 commercial border crossings and ongoing 

27

improvements have estimated completion dates by June 30, 2002. Existing facilities 

at four of the remaining six crossings are sufficiently adequate without improvements to enforce the Act’s requirements, and the improvements needed at two lowvolume California crossings—Tecate and Andrade—have not yet been determined. 

However, negotiations are underway to obtain inspection facilities at Tecate and 

Andrade, and FMCSA anticipates finalizing the plans by June 30, 2002. The Act provided the four southern border States with a total of $66 million for 

the construction of new or improvement of existing State border inspection facilities. 

The funds have been distributed as follows: California—$8.9 million, Arizona—$2.1 

million, New Mexico—$2.2 million, and Texas—$52.8 million. The State facilities, 

when complete, will augment the Federal inspection facilities in the short term and 

may ultimately replace them. 

Enforcing U.S. Safety Rules and Establishing Information System Capability. The focus of the verification requirements Congress established in this area 

were intended to ensure that inspectors would be prepared to enforce U.S. safety 

rules, such as hours-of-service, once the border opens to Mexican long haul carriers. 

Also, the verification requirements were to ensure that inspectors have access to accurate, timely, and current driver, vehicle, and carrier information when they conduct safety inspections of Mexican long-haul carriers. FMCSA must also monitor the 

safety record of Mexican drivers and carriers operating in the United States in order 

to take appropriate action, such as revoking a Mexican driver’s privileges or a Mexican carrier’s authority to operate in the United States, when they violate U.S. safety 

rules.

• Hours-of-Service Policy. FMCSA issued a policy on April 3, 2002, to ensure 

Mexican carriers comply with U.S. hours-of-service rules. We cannot verify that 

the hours-of-service policy is implemented until Mexican long-haul carriers are 

granted authority to operate beyond the commercial zones. However, based on 

our observations of current practices for Mexican carriers operating in the commercial zones, we believe that inspectors will be prepared to implement the 

hours-of-service policy for Mexican long-haul carriers.

• Access to Accurate Data. We determined that Mexico’s databases are sufficiently 

accurate to provide inspectors with information to verify the status of a Mexican 

CDL and the validity of a Mexican vehicle’s license plates. During our April 

2002 visit to Mexico’s Department of Transportation, we validated the accuracy 

of the information entered into the CDL and vehicle registration databases by 

reviewing and tracing automated records for CDLs and permits to source documents. 

In addition to Mexico’s databases on drivers and vehicles, inspectors need to 

access the U.S. Licensing and Insurance database to verify that a Mexican carrier has authority to operate in the United States and has valid insurance. To 

evaluate the accessibility of data to inspectors, we conducted tests at 25 border 

crossings to determine if they could access the Mexican databases to electronically verify CDLs and license plates and the U.S. database to electronically 

verify operating authority and insurance. We conducted the same tests with 17 

mobile enforcement units operating adjacent to the border crossings in the four 

States. 

We found that inspectors at 6 of the 25 commercial border crossings could not 

access Mexican and U.S. databases to verify information on Mexican carriers. 

At one of the six crossings the problem was that the inspector did not yet have 

a password to access the database. At 3 crossings, telephone lines or telecommunication links were not yet installed. FMCSA plans to remedy these 

problems by June 30, 2002. At the remaining two crossings, inspectors were not 

yet onboard and inspection facilities had not been secured. However, the issue 

will be addressed within the next 45 to 60 days when improvements will be 

made to the inspection facilities. 

With the mobile enforcement units, we found that all could access information 

in the Mexican database on CDLs. However, only 1 of the 17 could access insurance and operating authority data, and none could access vehicle registration 

information (license tags). FMCSA has developed a plan to provide mobile enforcement units access to this information by June 30, 2002.

• Mexican Driver and Carrier Monitoring Systems. FMCSA will be using the following two separate systems to monitor the safety records of Mexican drivers

and carriers: 

Drivers. FMCSA has developed and implemented an automated system to 

monitor the performance of Mexican commercial drivers operating in the United 

States. The system provides FMCSA the capability to track, monitor and withdraw U.S. driving privileges of Mexican commercial drivers convicted of moving 

28

traffic violations in the United States. If U.S. driving privileges are withdrawn, 

a disqualified status will be immediately reported to U.S. law enforcement officials when they check the license status of the driver. 

Carriers. FMCSA developed an automated system and plans to have it operational by July 1, 2002 to extract safety violation data on Mexican carriers from 

its Motor Carrier Management Information System. To complete the system, 

FMCSA is developing an automated process for (1) identifying carriers requiring 

a compliance review or letter of corrective action; (2) generating corrective action letters to send to the carrier; (3) notifying the appropriate field office that 

a compliance review or corrective action is required; and (4) creating a carrier 

history of violations and corrective actions taken.

• Enforcing Operating Authority. In March 2000, FMCSA issued a rule requiring 

States to enforce operating authority requirements as a participating qualification under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The States have until 

the end of FY 2003 to enact legislation. 

Currently, only two States—Arizona and California—have enacted legislation 

authorizing their enforcement personnel to take action when they encounter a 

vehicle operating without authority. The other States’ enforcement personnel do 

not enforce operating authority. However, enforcement personnel in all States 

are authorized to remove drivers and commercial vehicles from service for serious safety violations, such as operating without a valid commercial driver’s license or operating a vehicle with defective brakes. Operating in the United 

States without valid operating authority is currently not considered a safety violation and hence with the exception of Arizona and California, State inspectors 

cannot enforce the violation. 

In 1999, we reported that at least 52 Mexican-domiciled motor carriers operated improperly in 20 States beyond the 4 border States. Roadside inspection 

data throughout the United States show this has continued. To provide a mechanism to enforce operating authority in the absence of State laws, FMCSA 

issued a policy memorandum in November 2001, encouraging the States to contact FMCSA if State inspectors encountered a commercial vehicle operating 

without authority. 

A principal concern in this area is not necessarily the long-haul carriers that 

will have authority to operate beyond the commercial zones and throughout the 

United States. These carriers’ vehicles will be subjected to an inspection every 

90 days, which will include verification of operating authority when performed 

by a U.S. inspector. Rather, the concern is that carriers without authority to 

operate within the commercial zones or those that have authority only to operate within the zones will continue to operate beyond the zones. In these latter 

cases, the Act does not require periodic inspections and, other than California 

and Arizona, States do not have authority to put them out of service. 

If Congress and the Department want to accelerate the ability of the States 

to enforce operating authority, there may be several ways to accomplish this. 

One option might be a Federal law conditioning States’ receipt of Federal funding on the enactment of State laws to enforce operating authority. Another option is the Department could include operating authority violations among the 

safety criteria for placing vehicles out of service. States are already authorized 

to place vehicles out of service for safety violations, but operating authority is 

currently not considered a safety violation. 

Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman; this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions.

29

†The information referred to has been retained in the Subcommittee’s files. 

Attachment 

The following figure identifies the status of facilities at each crossing between 

June 17 and June 20, 2002. A ‘‘green light’’ indicates that new or existing space and/

or facilities are consistent with identified needs. A ‘‘yellow/green light’’ indicates 

work is progressing steadily on improving or securing adequate space and facilities. 

We expect these will become ‘‘green lights’’ by June 30 when FMCSA projects that 

all improvements will be complete. A ‘‘yellow light’’ indicates that improvements 

have not yet been started. These facilities are not likely to be complete by June 30, 

but are likely to be complete within 60 days. 

Status of Inspection Facilities and Vehicle Out-of-Service Rates by 

Commercial Crossing Between June 17 and June 20, 2002

* According to FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System, records of 

inspections performed did not specify whether the inspections were done at border 

crossings or within commercial zones adjacent to crossings. Therefore, a rate for the 

crossing could not be determined.

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you very much to our witnesses, 

and let me just ask a few questions because we have a vote on. 

Senator Breaux will be back in a few minutes, and I know Senator 

McCain has some questions as well, but let me just begin by asking 

you, Mr. Secretary, the Inspector General’s Report on Implementation of Commercial Vehicle Safety Requirements at the U.S.-Mexico 

Border † was issued 2 days ago, and in that report the IG made 

several observations on safety issues that are associated with opening the border. 


627mea01.eps
30

The next step is for you to issue a certification to the President 

based on the findings of that IG report that opening the border 

does not pose an unacceptable safety risk to the American public. 

When do you envision making this certification? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, first of all, having just received the report, I will not rush into this until I am thoroughly familiar with 

the report. Mr. Clapp and I have already talked about that, but I 

will not recommend to the President nor certify until those issues 

of safety are resolved. 

Senator MURRAY. And once that certification has taken place, 

how long before you will officially open the border to allow Mexican 

long-haul trucks in? 

Secretary MINETA. I would assume that once we do the certification, that it will probably will be about, let us say, a month? Will 

it take that long? 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Clapp, I cannot hear. 

Mr. CLAPP. I am sorry—thank you. The President, of course, also 

has to take action to lift the moratorium after the certification is 

made. 

Senator MURRAY. So the process is, the certification is by your 

office, the President lifts the moratorium, and then it takes some 

time to implement. How much time is that? 

Secretary MINETA. I think the crossing would be open as soon as 

he lifts that moratorium. How long would it take the Administration to——

Senator MURRAY. Do you have any estimate of time, how long it 

would take you to do the certification? 

Secretary MINETA. Given the number of items that I saw in a 

cursory glance at the report, I would think that I would be able to 

do that in about a month. 

Senator MURRAY. All right. The IG’s audit found that 6 of the 25 

commercial border crossings could not access Mexican and U.S. 

data bases to verify Mexican drivers licenses, license plates, and 

authority to operate in the United States or insurance coverage, 

and only 1 of 17 mobile enforcement units operating adjacent to the 

border could access insurance and operating authority data, and 

none of them could access vehicle registration information. 

Mr. Secretary, can you tell this Committee what’s being done to 

ensure that all enforcement personnel, both stationed at the border 

and in mobile enforcement units, will have access to the necessary 

information before you open the border? 

Secretary MINETA. First of all, we are trying to build this system 

based on the use of an 800 number for accessing the driver license 

and the insurance requirement provisions. Second, eventually we 

were going to move to PDAs, and as I recall the third one was the 

Internet, access through the Internet, in terms of trying to, have 

the information available for immediate access. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Mead, are you confident that all enforcement units are going to have the necessary access to information 

before the border opens? 

Mr. MEAD. In the case of the mobile enforcement units that you 

mentioned and the crossings you mentioned, FMCSA has plans 

that we feel are credible, to have access in place in July. 

Senator MURRAY. In July. 

31

Mr. MEAD. In July. When we did our review, access was not in 

place and that is why it was noted in our report. The basic problem 

at a number of those crossings was they did not have telecommunication lines and facilities. It is not rocket science to put them in, 

and that is why we think it is fairly credible to say by July. 

Senator MURRAY. And there is an effort to do that by July? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, there is. 

Senator MURRAY. Some of the transportation safety groups have 

expressed concerns that there is no effective system and no attempt 

to build a system for verifying that Mexico-domiciled carriers are 

validly and adequately insured by U.S. licensed insurers. What 

method of verification is the Department using, Mr. Secretary, to 

ensure that Mexican carriers have the proper insurance before they 

are allowed to drive on U.S. highways or outside their commercial 

zone? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, again we will be making that as a 

check, because the law does require a U.S. insurer of a Mexican 

carrier, so in that instance we will be verifying with the U.S. insurer. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Mead, do you think that DOT’s plans are 

adequate in the area of insurance? 

Mr. MEAD. I do in the border States. I think they have a good 

command of this in the border States, when you are talking about 

the operating authority and also whether they have insurance. In 

the other States, for right now you are going to have to rely on 

them calling an 800 number, and I would like to see in the longer 

term a quicker way of doing that. 

Senator MURRAY. I am going to have to go vote. I am going to 

turn it over to you, Senator Specter, to go ahead and ask your 

questions, and I know Senator Breaux is going to return in just a 

few minutes, and I will return as well, but I assume someone else 

will be back by the time you conclude. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER (presiding). Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MINETA. Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. The issue of the border is obviously one of 

great importance, and I know that is the focus of this hearing, but 

our Transportation Subcommittee out of Appropriations is very 

much concerned about a number of other matters, and I would say 

the number 1 item on the agenda is Amtrak, which I would like 

to discuss with you briefly this morning, and I thank you for what 

you and the Administration have been doing in an effort to keep 

Amtrak running. 

This has been a perennial battle since I was elected in 1980, with 

every year the issue reaching a very difficult situation, but the crisis now is more pronounced than ever, and I am pleased to see the 

reports in the media today that you have worked out an arrangement to keep Amtrak running at least in the short run on the problem involving the $205 million. 

I would be interested to know what role you are expecting the 

Appropriations Committee to play, because we have a supplemental bill up, and this is an opportune time for us to weigh in, 

32

and Senator Hollings, Chairman of this full Committee, is on appropriations, as am I, as are the others, and I would be interested 

to know how you see that working out to provide the $205 million. 

Secretary MINETA. Well, what I had indicated earlier was that 

we have worked out a temporary program to get us through July, 

and that after Congress returns after the July 4 recess we would 

then sit down with you folks to make sure that we have adequate 

funding to go through the fiscal year, and so——

Senator SPECTER. What will you be looking for Congress to do 

specifically, if you know at this point? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, what we would like to do—as I recall, 

the figures from yesterday was to look for a total of $270 million 

to carry us through the fiscal year. 

Senator SPECTER. $270 million. 

Secretary MINETA. We already have, as I said, $100 million that 

we——

Senator SPECTER. Why $270, instead of the figure which has 

been used of $205 million? 

Secretary MINETA. That was the request of the Amtrak board at 

the time, and in going through all of the figures we think that that 

would be roughly the area in which we would be able to sustain 

its operations, but again that is something I would like to come 

back and talk to the Senators and the House Members about. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I am glad to have those assurances, and 

I believe it is fair to say that there will be overwhelming support 

on the Appropriations Committee, and I think in the Senate, and 

ultimately I believe in the House, too. 

I am concerned as to what is going to happen in the long run. 

I sat down with the Amtrak officials, Mr. Gunn and Mr. Smith, 

and inquired as to what their long-range plans are. It seems to me 

we really need to get figures from them as to what it is going to 

take to keep Amtrak running. If it is going to be a permanent subsidy that they are going to need, Congress and the Administration 

ought to be told that so we can make an evaluation, and when they 

talk about a capital program, they are very vague as to what they 

are doing. Mr. Gunn has been there for only a short time but it 

seems to me we need something very, very specific as to what Amtrak’s needs are so that we can make an evaluation. 

We had the proposal, as you know, for $12 billion in bonds last 

year which did not go through, but the time has come when we 

really have to have an overall plan to know what is going to happen. This is the first time since I have been in the Congress in 22 

years, in the Senate in 22 years that there has been a threat, an 

immediate threat of a shutdown. 

There have always been problems, but this runs ‘‘The Perils of 

Pauline’’ right to the edge of the cliff, and I can tell you, as a frequent rider of Amtrak, and knowing people across the country who 

are concerned about it, that—well, it is no way to run a railroad, 

to use a very popular expression, which has special applicability 

here. 

Secretary MINETA. Well, I think in terms of hammering out this 

agreement, the kinds of conditions, or the reform issues that you 

referred to are the kinds of things that we put in the agreement. 

I think there is a recognition by Mr. Gunn as well as the board of 

33

directors and the Administration in terms of the kinds of conditions 

for reform, and that we cannot continue from crisis to crisis. We 

do have to start instituting these kinds of changes, and I am confident that with the conditions we have in this agreement, and 

with the work of Mr. Gunn as the executive of Amtrak, that it will 

be done. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Secretary, on the outline of the speech you 

made a week ago Thursday on having States take over and having 

privatization to some extent, or public bidding, how would that 

work if, say, Pennsylvania agreed but Ohio did not? You cannot 

stop the train at the border. What is your thought on that? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, the other alternative I did say was that 

to the extent that you have a State that does not contribute, you 

can always keep the doors of the train closed as it goes through the 

State. 

Senator SPECTER. You are not serious about that, are you? 

Secretary MINETA. And of course, my boss, who is a former Governor, raised his eyebrows. 

Senator SPECTER. Both of them? 

Secretary MINETA. Both of them. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we need to have more specification of 

that. The United States needs a rail system. Every industrialized 

country has one. You know all the generalizations about subsidies 

for airlines and subsidies for highways and the rest of it, but we 

have to figure out where we are going here, because we have a 

broad vision we have to move ahead on, on maglev, something you 

and I have discussed many times, and that is a very active item 

on the agenda for the Department of Transportation with the competition now between the 47 miles from Greensburg to the Pittsburgh International Airport with Baltimore to Washington, and a 

need for maglev from Orange County to Las Vegas, and really a vision for the future. 

If this country was as timid in the 19th Century as some are 

today, and I do not include you in it, because I know you have a 

vision for the future, we never would have built the transcontinental railroad, but I think we really have to get down to 

some hard analyses here and come up with a plan. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might ask just a couple of parochial questions 

before the balance of the Committee members return here, Mr. Mineta, when we get a chance to talk to you on the record, it is, as 

you remember from your congressional days, an opportunity, and 

I want to talk about Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is a very important city to me and to Pennsylvania. We recently had an allocation by the Department of Transportation for $20 million in a small 

community air service development pilot program, which did not 

comprehend Lancaster. I might say that it does carry Reading, 

which is just a little bit up the road, and sort of a twin city to Lancaster. You can imagine the concerns I am hearing as to why not 

Lancaster. Lancaster had been trying to get a subsidy on essential 

air services, which was declined, and I know you will recall my conversation with you on a 70-mile rule. 

It is possible to drive from Lancaster to the Philadelphia International Airport in 66 miles if you go on route 30, and are willing 

34

to stay behind big trucks all the way on a two-lane highway, but 

if you take the Interstate, Route 222, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, 

and the Schuylkill Expressway, it is a good bit more than 70 miles, 

but it is much, much faster. And is there any relief in sight for 

Lancaster either by way of perhaps being included in the community air service pilot program, or having a reevaluation of that 70-

mile rule, which just does not fit the essential air services subsidy? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, as we have discussed, 70 miles has been 

the delimiting, or the limiting factor on Lancaster. On the other 

program that Congress passed for the $20 million program, those 

grants were issued, or announced last week as I recall, and there 

were a total of 40 cities that applied, but I do not believe, as I recall the list, that Lancaster applied under that program. 

Senator SPECTER. No, Lancaster did apply, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MINETA. Did it? 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. 

Secretary MINETA. Oh, well then, but then it did not successfully 

compete in that program. 

Senator SPECTER. Is it possible to take another look at that? 

Secretary MINETA. As an EAS city but not under the other program, because those allocations have been announced for the $19 

million. 

Senator SPECTER. But you could take another look at the ESA 

issue? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, based on that 70-mile limitation, but 

one of the problems with that 70-mile limitation is that the—and 

I know that I have asked, after our discussion I asked the FAA, 

our aviation office to—because there is so much controversy about 

the mileage requirement in terms of shortest route, fastest route, 

and to come to some rationale on it, but let me have them take a 

look at it again, but I know that for the round right now, I do not 

believe it would qualify. 

Senator SPECTER. But you will have them take another look? 

Secretary MINETA. I will have them take another look. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. President—I 

mean, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BREAUX. I accept. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Secretary, I thought I had walked into 

an Amtrak hearing earlier, before we went to the vote. I would like 

to just ask you one question about that, and then of course as a 

border Senator I certainly have concerns about the issue that is the 

subject of this hearing, but I wanted to ask you if the Administration reform plan will have a goal of a stable national system rather 

than a separate northeast corridor and rest of the country. 

Secretary MINETA. Well, our objective is to have a viable intercity 

passenger rail service. Now, the question is, does that mean that 

all of the dots are connected, and I think that what we have to do 

35

is to try to rationalize that system in terms of profitability of 

routes, and in terms of the nature of the participation by local and 

State governments. 

There are a number of factors that we are looking at in trying 

to build a viable intercity passenger rail service. What has been 

happening in the past is that it is like taking margarine and 

spreading it on a piece of bread without any thought to whether 

the routes are making money, and even as Mr. Gunn talks about, 

dealing with not only cost controls, but also revenue sources. 

I think the whole issue of trying to see where are the ways to 

have routes, and I do not know financially whether these are the 

ones, but whether it’s, let’s say, a Chicago to the Twin Cities, or 

Chicago to Detroit, Chicago down into the Texas area in terms of 

the routes, or what about the Chicago to L.A. route across the 

country? 

Those things all have to be looked at, and I do not think there 

is a prejudgment in terms of the elimination of routes, but I think 

they have to be looked at in terms of whether or not they are financially viable, and do we get State and local participation in those 

routes. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, Mr. Secretary, I would just hope that, 

rather than looking at revenue from the passenger side, and I 

think we need to look at revenue sources on the freight side. Package service has been very helpful to Amtrak, but they have been 

limited because some of the cargo rail companies have resisted 

going beyond packages. And I think that that should be looked at 

as well. But I would just like to see a national rail system commitment that puts in place a structure that makes sense. And then 

once you have that, something like a skeleton across the top of the 

country, across the bottom of the country, east to west, up the two 

East and West Coasts, and then perhaps something down the middle, and maybe something else in between, but a basic system to 

which we could commit that would then allow for real stability in 

service. 

It is hard to judge a route when it is 4 to 6 to 12 hours late routinely. It is hard to judge the kind of revenue that you are getting 

on a line that has been starved for funding, because in fact we keep 

talking about these great subsidies that Congress has given. Congress has given about $500 million a year. As Mr. Mead has pointed out, that is about half of what was authorized in the legislation 

that was meant to try to bring Amtrak up to speed, and what has 

been starved are the long distance routes. 

So yes, they are least revenue-producing, but I would hope, as a 

member of the Amtrak board, that you would commit to a national 

system, where we do not announce that long-haul routes are going 

to be closed, and the Northeast Corridor is going to stay open so 

that people start canceling reservations because they cannot be 

sure that Amtrak is going to run, and if it does run, that it is not 

going to be within 10 hours of being on time. And let us make the 

commitment, and let us fund it at a reasonable level, let us get the 

stability, and then I think you will see the synergism of States 

coming in. 

And I do not disagree with the Administration at all that States 

should step up to the plate. They absolutely should. It should not 

36

be just a Federal subsidy, it should be a State-Federal match just 

like so many of our transportation projects are. That is totally 

valid, but I do think we need the national commitment to a national rail system that is part of our homeland security and our 

transportation intermodal network that includes air and highways 

and rail, and I would hope that would be the direction that you are 

going. 

I would like to just switch gears and talk about the situation 

with Mexican trucks. I had asked that this hearing include people 

from the border cities who are on the front line to determine their 

view of where we are, but the Chairman of the Committee only 

wanted to have witnesses from the Administration. 

I have to say that I think there are some issues such as El Paso 

and Laredo, both would like to have their border crossings away 

from town, and Mr. Mead, my colleague, Congressman Bonilla, has 

asked you for a study to determine if this can be accomplished in 

Laredo, and if it is, can it be accomplished and also have the number of inspections that we are going to need in Laredo, which handles the highest number of commercial truck crossings I think of 

any crossing on the border. What is the status of that request to 

you? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, we had a request, as I recall. I think 

you had supported the request of the Mayor of Laredo. There are 

two entry ports at Laredo, and the question was, instead of doing 

an inspection at the border can it be done further up the road? As 

I recall, further up the road was about 28 miles. The problem there 

is that it puts it beyond the commercial zone, as I recall, so that 

creates the problem for us in terms of having the road that would 

then go up to this inspection facility further up from Laredo. 

Senator HUTCHISON. What would be within the range that you 

would see—I mean, the commercial zone is there now because that 

is the restriction, but when that is—when the restrictions are removed, what would you consider, then, a reasonable number of 

miles from the center city? Because of course these cities, both El 

Paso and Laredo, are trying to get the air pollution cleared up, and 

the long lines that are waiting are not helping that situation at all. 

So what number of miles would you consider feasible? 

Mr. CLAPP. Senator, if I may assist in that regard, without respect to where the State does locate its inspection station or stations, we still have an affirmative requirement to see that the inspections are conducted at the border. We fully support what we 

hope will be fruitful efforts between TexDOT and the city to work 

out a suitable location that will satisfy that requirement. 

In the meantime, and perhaps for the long term, the reality is 

that the inspections must be done, under law, at the border. Currently Federal agents, our people, are doing those inspections. Of 

course, we have very substantially augmented our staff to do just 

that, as well as augmented the space on the customs compound or 

adjacent to the customs compound to accomplish that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We are talking about the border. 

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We are not questioning that the inspections 

would be done on the border. The question is, how far would you 

consider from the main city crossing a reasonable number of miles 

37

up the border? I mean, if you are going to inspect all the trucks 

that do not have the certification stickers, why does it matter if it 

is 28, or 20, or 14, or 5 miles up, and you will have a road that 

will go back to the main corridor? 

Mr. CLAPP. Senator, I think—and the Inspector General will 

probably have a few thoughts or comments on this, but I think it 

is reasonable to assume that you would have to look at that on a 

case-specific basis, particularly with regard to what are the opportunities to evade the inspection requirement. I do not think anybody involved wants to be so hidebound as not to try to work out 

a reasonable solution, but it would have to be an effective solution. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Mead? 

Mr. MEAD. The Congressman did write to us, and you asked as 

part of your question, what our response was. The priority we assigned to that request comes second to the statutory requirement 

of the report that we are testifying on today. So we have not completed the request, but I would say that, first, the law that Congress enacted refers in several places to inspections that must be 

done of long-haul trucks at the border crossings. The exact location 

and how far inland you can go may be a matter more within the 

province of the Congress than it is a matter of administrative discretion. 

Second, I do not know why you would spend money to create a 

facility 28 miles in, or 20 miles in, or 30 miles in, until you have 

a good handle on the amount of long-haul traffic. 

In our statement we pointed out that to date the Department has 

received 40 applications, representing a total of 118 trucks applying for long-haul authority. I cannot forecast what the future will 

hold. I know the State of Texas and the city of Laredo are having 

a dispute about this, and I guess ultimately they would have a 

great deal to say about it, but before I would want to spend the 

money, I would want to know, is there going to be enough traffic 

to justify consideration of that particular question? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me ask you another question, because 

Laredo handles about one-third of the commercial crossings, and 

the bill says that permanent scales and weigh-in-motion machines 

have to be located at five of the 10 busiest crossings. The Department has complied with this, but Laredo is not one of those that 

is receiving the permanent scales and weigh motion machines. 

They were put in El Paso, which is also one of our busiest ports, 

and certainly across from Juarez, which is the third or fourth largest city in Mexico. I think that is warranted, but why was Laredo 

not considered, with its number of commercial crossings, for the 

permanent scales and weigh——

Secretary MINETA. The static scales were part of the——

Mr. MEAD. Both Laredo crossings will have weigh-in-motion 

scales by the end of the year. Under the law, 5 of the 10 highest 

volume crossings must have weigh-in-motion scales before FMCSA 

begins processing applications for long-haul authority and the remaining 5 by December 18, 2002. The Columbia Bridge in Laredo 

has a weigh-in-motion scale now and Laredo’s World Trade Bridge 

should have one by December. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Secretary, will you verify that Laredo 

will have one by the end of the year, will have those facilities? 

38

Secretary MINETA. They will. 

Senator HUTCHISON. OK. Thank you. 

Secretary MINETA. The other point I wanted to make was that 

we have another responsibility—besides a congressional mandate 

that says that the inspection has to be done at the border—the 

whole issue of evasion of inspections. I think that is the only other 

question that we might have about locating an inspection facility 

away from the border. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I do not think, practically speaking, it 

should make that much difference. If the corridor—I mean, 28 

miles would be certainly monitored, and there would be a lot of security that would be closely watching, and certainly there would 

not be any egress from that 28 miles from the border to the station, 

so I do not think as a practical matter it should be a problem. 

I know the Department of Transportation in Texas is in disagreement, but I do think the local people should be considered, mainly 

because of the environmental problems, but also the traffic congestion and the infrastructure they are going to have to put in city 

streets and bypasses, and they have already made a huge financial 

commitment there. I have been to the station where they are inspecting now, and it is a fine facility, it really is, but it is not nearly enough to handle what is going to be necessary when you open 

the border. 

Secretary MINETA. Well, we will continue to work with you, and 

the Mayor of Laredo and TexDOT on that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I will just end by 

saying that the safety issue is very important, not only for the people of Texas who will have the first few hundred miles with these 

trucks and would want to have the requirements met, but going 

into the rest of the country we must assure that all the trucks meet 

the safety standards that have been set forth, and I hope that you 

will open as soon as is feasible, but not in any way lessening the 

safety requirements from the standards of the law. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Mr. Secretary, I have a number more questions about Mexican 

trucks, and after Senator Fitzgerald asks his questions I want to 

go back and ask a few questions about Amtrak, but before I go 

back to my border questions I do want to ask you about another 

topic while I have you here, because as Chair of the Transportation 

Appropriations Subcommittee we have jurisdiction over the FAA as 

well, and I am concerned about the likely bankruptcy of WorldCom, 

and whether it will have serious ramifications for the FAA’s air 

traffic control system. 

They are currently holding a contract providing the telecommunications links between all of our air traffic control facilities, and I 

would like to ask both you, Mr. Secretary, and you, Mr. Mead, if 

you would comment on what vulnerabilities the FAA may face in 

the event of a sudden WorldCom bankruptcy, and Mr. Secretary, 

could you comment first? 

Secretary MINETA. Madam Chairwoman, that just happened last 

night, and I have asked Administrator Garvey to brief me on all 

of that issue, so I cannot give you a response on the impact of 

39

WorldCom. We know it will have an impact, without a doubt, but 

she said she would brief me today on that. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Mead, are you prepared to answer? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. We think the Department has taken the right 

steps here, that obviously WorldCom, as you point out, is the incumbent on handling the telecommunications between the ATC facilities. They actually own, I understand, the switching machinery 

that covers the interchanges of communications, and so obviously 

we want to make sure that we have full assurances that the shortterm implications are under control and there will be no interruption. 

Second, there is a pending contract award for the provision of 

telecommunications services to the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a multibillion contract, I understand, and WorldCom was 

one of the bidders on that contract, so exactly where we stand on 

the new contract obviously needs to be reassessed as well, and we 

will keep you apprised, but right now I know the Secretary, the 

Deputy Secretary, and Administrator Garvey, are all focused on it. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, I am delighted to hear that you are focused on it, and we would like both of you to stay in close touch 

with us as we see what develops with that. 

Secretary MINETA. I will do that. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. I will return to issues regarding the border 

before I turn it over to Senator Fitzgerald. 

Let me go back to you, Mr. Secretary. So far, the Department has 

received relatively few applications from Mexican motor carriers 

seeking long-haul operating authority. Can you tell us about where 

these first Mexican trucks to enter the U.S. are likely to travel and 

what type of cargo they might be carrying? 

Secretary MINETA. I would assume that the principal four States 

would be California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and most of 

those would probably be agricultural products, but let me see if Mr. 

Clapp has anything further on that. 

I think most of the applications have been for the commercial 

zone rather than any long distance, and even on the long distance 

I think there is really only one. Even though we have had 40 applications, I believe there is only one that is complete, and that is 

under review. 

Senator MURRAY. For outside the commercial area? 

Secretary MINETA. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Clapp. 

Mr. CLAPP. If I can add to it, thank you, Senator Murray, there 

is a fairly good distribution of applications of the long-haul carriers 

at this point. We expect the Port of Long Beach probably would be 

a significant origin and destination point, as well as Tucson and 

San Antonio. But as I say, there is a fairly good distribution across 

the border from California to Texas at this point. 

It is typical for carriers to apply for the world in terms of where 

they may be able to go, which, of course, does not really speak to 

where they actually will go. So it is really going to be more of a 

function of where the traffic and trade flows are, as opposed to the 

way they apply. 

Senator MURRAY. The IG’s report says that 48 States lack any 

laws to put vehicles out of service or penalize large trucks that are 

40

caught operating outside of their Federal operating authority. The 

IG suggested that this problem could be solved if the Department 

included operating authority violations among the safety criteria 

for placing vehicles out of service. Mr. Secretary, do you intend to 

add operating authority violations to that safety criteria? 

Secretary MINETA. Yes, and the other way I think that we can 

deal with that is to have a congressional mandate on that issue. 

Is that another way that we can deal with that? 

Mr. CLAPP. There are three ways. As I think the Inspector General testified, we do have a regulation that requires, by 2004, the 

States to be able to do this or they would lose MCSAP money. That 

is fairly significant. 

Senator MURRAY. Do you intend to pursue the regulating authority? 

Mr. CLAPP. Yes. However, the two other options that you just 

mentioned both have promise. The suggestion by the Inspector 

General I think is very intriguing, and we intend to pursue that 

to see if we can do it. That would perhaps be the easiest fix that 

we can do. 

Mr. MEAD. We like the approach of doing something in a regulatory way. If the opening of the border is going to occur in the 

near term, and they continue with the progress in meeting all their 

plans, the milestones, we are very shortly going to have a truck 

seeking to go into the interior of the United States. 

We are not so concerned about the long-haul trucks that tell the 

truth, that they are going to be long-haul and have the inspection 

sticker displayed on their windshield. We are more concerned about 

the trucks that come across that are by law confined to the commercial zones, who just drive on. We think it is important that the 

State law enforcement officers have the authority to say, you are 

stopping in your tracks. That is going to cause economic pain and 

that will be a hindrance to that type of behavior. But if you go with 

the approach of having every State enact a law, we could be back 

here 3 or 4 years from now testifying that there are still some 

holes. 

Senator MURRAY. Right, and as of right now there are only 2 

States with those laws, so we definitely could have holes, and we 

could have different regulations in different States, so you are suggesting, Mr. Mead, that the regulating authority is probably the 

best way to go at this time? 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, and it would work with the Commercial Vehicle 

Safety Alliance, with the out-of-service rules on safety violations. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Mineta, I understand you intend to pursue 

that, is that correct? 

Secretary MINETA. That is correct. 

Mr. CLAPP. That is correct. Senator, perhaps I should mention 

that as of today, in the meantime, all the States have received a 

policy from us that if they should stop a truck that is operating beyond its authority and they do not have their own authority to put 

it out of service, their instructions are to contact our office and one 

of two things will happen. We will come and put the truck out of 

service because we do have that authority, and we have hundreds 

of agents in the field, and that is a plausible way to go. 

41

If for some reason that is not possible, if they document that incident, then we will take enforcement action against the carrier, the 

first offense of which will be at least a $10,000 fine, so it is not 

something to be taken lightly. 

Senator MURRAY. Secretary Mineta, you have said that you intend to ensure that new Federal inspectors at the border are largely bilingual. I have to say that begs the question as to what will 

happen when Mexican drivers encounter Federal inspectors who 

are not bilingual away from the border. How are you going to ensure English proficiency on the part of Mexican drivers entering 

the U.S.? 

Secretary MINETA. That is part of the requirements that we have 

been talking about on the whole issue of drivers and their ability 

in terms of safety, adherence to traffic signs, etc. I know that in 

terms of our own employees who are going into Mexico to do the 

compliance and safety reviews, they will have with them bilingual 

material for the carriers so they will be able to understand our regulations and rules. But in terms of the drivers, we intend to make 

sure that they are knowledgeable about reading signs and observing the traffic laws of the United States. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, Mr. Mead, you issued a report on improving the testing and licensing of commercial drivers, and in that report you identified English language proficiency as a weakness of 

our own CDL program. What are your concerns about Mexican 

drivers as well who lack English proficiency, and what do you 

think we can do to address those concerns? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, I am not a student of how to test people in 

English fluency or any other language, but I think we need to bring 

greater descriptive clarity to what we mean by English proficiency, 

and that is for our own drivers as well as the Mexican drivers, and 

that exactitude has not been brought to the situation yet. It is 

something I think obviously, when we open the border, is going to 

be an even bigger issue, so that would be an area I think that 

FMCSA could prudently invest some time on. 

There are just no standards that define what it means to be proficient in English. You can take the tests, as I understand it, in another language, so you cannot really say that the test is a measure 

of English proficiency. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Fitzgerald. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want 

to compliment you on hosting this joint hearing, and I want to 

thank the Secretary for coming. I think, Secretary Mineta, you are 

one of the most responsive Cabinet members to Congress in a long 

time, and I compliment you for your willingness to work with us, 

and thank you for your hard work in trying to implement the law 

that Congress passed last year with respect to Mexican trucks. 

I was with the Transportation Department in not being fully supportive of this legislation but I note that, once it was passed, you 

stepped up to the plate and did not complain, and you have gone 

about working hard to implement it, and I want to compliment you 

on that. 

42

If I could raise another issue which you and I have talked to each 

other about before, the O’Hare expansion issue, I just wanted to 

bring up that the House Transportation Committee passed a 

version of the bill yesterday which thankfully gutted what I 

thought were the most egregious provisions of the Senate bill. 

The Senate bill is designed to do two things, 1) preempt the Governor of Illinois so that the Governor cannot stop the O’Hare expansion program from going forward, but 2) also to straitjacket the 

FAA into approving a specific runway design. It would be the first 

time in the history of our country that Congress would ever have 

put a gun to the head of the FAA and said, you must approve a 

runway design. 

Thankfully, I understand that Representative Oberstar in the 

House was against that precedent, and he removed the straitjacket 

language, and the bill now moving through the House, all it does 

is preempt the Governor of Illinois. I just wanted you to be mindful 

of the action that the House had taken, because I think it speaks 

volumes that the House recognized that it would be a bad precedent for Congress to dictate a specific runway design to the FAA. 

If we did that with respect to O’Hare, you can count on San 

Francisco Airport coming in wanting a bill that forces you to approve their new runway in the Bay, LAX will be in, Atlanta, Dulles, it will create a parade of horribles that could haunt our Nation 

for years to come. 

I do want to emphasize, though, that I oppose the portion of the 

bill that remains in the House, and that is the preempting of the 

Governor of the State of Illinois. Right now, the Mayor of the city 

of Chicago has condemnation powers of the communities around 

O’Hare to expand O’Hare if he gets a permit from the Governor of 

Illinois. The legislation now moving through the Senate and the 

House would remove the requirement that the Mayor of the city of 

Chicago get a permit from the Governor of Illinois. 

Another way of looking at it is, the bill gives the Mayor of the 

city of Chicago—and he is a very popular mayor, Mayor Daley, very 

popular in Chicago—but it will give him unfettered ability to condemn all parts of Illinois as long as he goes out contiguously from 

O’Hare. I do not think that is a good idea for Congress to be doing, 

and they cannot get it through the State legislature, so they are 

trying to do that here, probably making Mayor Daley the most 

powerful human being in the country, once he has that unfettered 

condemnation power. 

I just wanted to bring those concerns to your attention while we 

had you here. I know that United and American are spending millions on lobbying for this bill, and I know they are lobbying members of your administration. They have hired a lobbyist for practically every Member of the Senate who is on the fence, but that 

does not mean that they are right on this. I happen to think this 

is a bad idea. 

I also note that United is incurring a monstrous liability by having signed on to the World Gateway program, which will cost $4 

billion for the terminal expansion at O’Hare. The runway expansion would cost $6 billion. There is $10 billion right there, assuming no cost overruns. 

43

I think it fairly remarkable that United would have the audacity 

to incur that liability and at the same time come in and ask for 

a taxpayer handout in the form of a Government loan guarantee 

program, and I would hope the Department would consider the propriety of an airline assuming a monstrous new liability in offering 

to pay for $10 billion worth of work at O’Hare, and then at the 

same time coming in and ask for a taxpayer handout, and I know 

you have a representative on the Airline Stabilization Board, and 

I think that is a fair point to bring up. 

One final point before I return to the Chairman is, the World 

Gateway program, which the Department just gave approval for 

last week, and it cost $4 billion. It will only add 12 new gates at 

O’Hare. The runway expansion will increase, if it goes through, increase the runway capacity by 78 percent, but we are only going 

to have 12 new gates, so this will mean more planes could land at 

O’Hare, they just will not have any place to park, and there will 

be no gates for them. 

So this is a very disjointed and troubling program in my judgment. Chicago has needed a third airport since 1969, when O’Hare 

first reached capacity, and United has been doing everything and 

stopping at nothing to block the third airport so that new entrants 

cannot come into the Chicago market and compete with it, but I 

do not think that is benefiting consumers around the country. 

With that, I have probably done enough of my rehearsal of a Senate floor filibuster, and so I will spare you any more. Again, I want 

to compliment the Department on your hard work, and compliment 

Secretary Mineta for being here, and you are one of the most 

knowledgeable Transportation Secretaries I think we have ever 

had, due to your experience in Congress, I think. 

Secretary MINETA. Let me just mention—I just saw something 

where, is it Bensonville that is doing something relative to the condemnation action around the O’Hare Airport to counter what the 

city of Chicago is doing? Of course our responsibility in the Department, the FAA, is really as it relates to safety and air space and 

environmental issues, and we do not need legislation to be involved 

in those three areas. 

Senator FITZGERALD. If the city wants to expand O’Hare they 

could just file an application with you for approval, is that not correct? They do not need legislation to file an application, right? 

Secretary MINETA. But as I understand it, part of the issue in 

Chicago is that they need extraterritorial condemnation powers. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Well, they have that under State law if 

they get approval from the Governor. 

Secretary MINETA. From the Governor. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Right, and——

Secretary MINETA. They can only do that if they get——

Senator FITZGERALD. Well, the current Governor is willing to give 

them that power, but what this bill does is, it strips away the requirement that they get a permit from the Governor. 

Now, the reason that State law requires a permit from the Governor before Mayor Daley condemns communities outside Chicago 

is because he does not represent those communities and he is not 

accountable to them, so they want to have some State-wide official 

who is accountable to those people as a check on the power of the 

44

Mayor of the city. If we remove the section of the State law by Federal legislation that requires a permit from the State before Mayor 

Daley can condemn, he will have unfettered condemnation rights, 

and he is not accountable to the people who—he will probably condemn my house, which is 12 miles away, but—he will have a lot 

of power. I do not think it is appropriate for Congress to be doing 

that. 

Secretary MINETA. You will recall, Senator, we worked with you 

and others, and the Governor, to get the environmental report on 

the Peotone site. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Well, I appreciate that, and I trust your Department to do the right thing in terms of the environment, in 

terms of safety, and in terms of maximizing air space over O’Hare 

and over Chicago generally. I think your Department will do the 

right thing, and I want you to take this on the merits and not have 

a gun put to your head by Congress telling you what you must do. 

I think that is a terrible precedent. We will not need an FAA if 

Congress starts politicizing all these runway design decisions. 

The other thing the bill does is, it requires by law that all the 

runways be in the East-West direction. It would be illegal for the 

FAA to alter the plan to say, have them go Northwest-Southeast, 

which the controllers tell me they like to land the planes in the bad 

weather in the Northwest-Southeast, and the one parallel, the two 

parallel runways we have in the East-West direction are now shut 

down 3 percent of the year because of bad weather. 

If they are all in the East-West direction, that could mean that 

3 percent of the year, all six runways at O’Hare are shut down, and 

I think that highlights the impropriety of Congress designing a 

runway design. We do not know anything about that, and nullifying the discretion of your experts at the FAA I think is a terrible precedent. 

Secretary MINETA. I think what they were trying to do is get 

enough separation so that they could get parallel landings, or operations, because the present configuration does not do it. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Well, that is correct. We have to shut down 

one runway in bad weather now in Chicago, but under their design, 

two of the runways would have to be shut down in bad weather because they would only be 1,200 feet apart, as opposed to the 4,300-

foot separation, so if the airlines continue to schedule for good 

weather conditions, I think under their design O’Hare will be even 

more of a bottleneck than it is now, but that is enough of my 

speech. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MINETA. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Secretary, you have spent a lot of time and effort to make 

sure that the U.S. border is open to Mexican trucks in the name 

of free trade, and it has been reported that some of the larger 

Mexican carriers and brokers would prefer not to see U.S. trucking 

firms competing with them for business in Mexico, and that the 

Mexican customs requirements will prove to be an effective deterrent in keeping U.S carriers out. 

Have you seen any evidence that the Mexican customs broker 

system will deter U.S. carriers from sending their own trucks into 

45

Mexico, and should we be concerned that there is some kind of double standard here? 

Secretary MINETA. I have not seen or heard that. I think there 

are other issues that might be of concern, but I do not think of the 

customs brokers in terms of any deterrence to them. It seems to me 

that with so many of Mexican trucks being owned by U.S. companies, that there would not be that kind of resistance to the trucking 

companies operating on either side of the border. 

Joe, is there something you could clarify, or at least expand on, 

in terms of your own experience? 

Mr. CLAPP. I think that there is not any question but that the 

Mexican Government and the industry in Mexico have had some 

concern over the regulations we have put into place. From their 

perspective, they appear to be a larger hurdle to clear than is the 

case for U.S. carriers or for Canadian carriers. 

Our own view of that is, that it’s really not the case. Because 

when they do operate in this country, all three countries’ carriers 

must operate to precisely the same regulations. It is true, however, 

that Mexican carriers must receive a safety audit, unlike U.S. and 

Canadian carriers, before they can begin operations. It is true that 

their vehicles, as you well know, must be inspected according to the 

North American standards and maintain a current inspection sticker. We will be applying the same regime to U.S. and Canadian carriers as far as the safety audit is concerned, although not immediately prior to operating. 

We believe that the system put in place, certainly with a great 

contribution by your Committee, is a good one. We are trying to 

convince the Mexicans of that, but there has been discussion on 

their side about the possibility of putting in mirror image requirements for U.S. carriers seeking to operate in Mexico. We expect to 

have ongoing deliberations with the Mexican Government. 

Senator MURRAY. So those discussions are going on right now? 

Mr. CLAPP. Yes. They have been, and they will continue. 

Senator MURRAY. Secretary Mineta, one final question on this, 

and then I have a couple on Amtrak before we close this hearing. 

The fiscal year 2002 transportation bill provided $144 million for 

the FMCSA and the States to make sure that the safety requirements for cross-border trucking were met. Included in that amount 

were the one-time costs for the establishment of the permanent facilities, the training of inspectors, and the development of the information verification systems. 

To determine how many inspectors, auditors, and how much 

space would be necessary, there were estimates based on applications received back in 1995. At that time, we had 196 applications 

that were received, but as of 2 days ago, only 40 applications have 

been received, representing only 117 vehicles. 

Now, you have requested $116 million for oversight and enforcement of safety at the U.S.-Mexican border in fiscal year 2003. That 

would equate to about $1 million per Mexican vehicle. Do you think 

you may have overestimated the budget request, given the small 

number of applications we received to date? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, as I recall, in terms of the numbers, we 

were required to have the number of safety auditors and safety investigators at the border, but we anticipate that there will be more 

46

applications that we will see coming in. So I do not believe that 

even though we are gearing up right now in terms of the safety 

auditors and the others, we are doing it in anticipation of the traffic. 

Senator MURRAY. So you expect a lot more requests——

Secretary MINETA. I believe so. 

Senator MURRAY.—that will impact us in fiscal year 2003? 

Secretary MINETA. And that is why under our buildup of the program, of the number of inspectors—for instance, like safety inspectors, we will have some of them on board by this spring, even 

though compliance reviews do not start until after the first of the 

year, but we do anticipate an increase. 

Mr. CLAPP. Senator, to some extent that is driven by the requirements to be sure that we have a safety inspector on duty at all 

times any crossing is open. In a few cases those folks, especially 

early on, may look a little bit like the Maytag repairman, but we 

still need to be there. It is reasonable to assume that we will see 

some increase as time goes by. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Mead. 

Mr. MEAD. Yes, I have a couple of points. A year ago, when this 

arrangement was being worked out that you put into law, you only 

had 60 inspectors. By July 31 you are going to have 231 of them, 

trained, at the border. Spacewise a year ago, 17 to 25 of the crossings, you had space to park only one or two trucks at a time, and 

that is all changing very dramatically. 

If I thought you were overfunding this, I would tell you. I would 

err on the safe side, and let us not forget that the vast, vast majority of these trucks do come into the United States, they are supposed to have licensed drivers, they are supposed to be safe, even 

though they may be only going 20, 25 miles inland, so I would just 

err on the side of caution here. 

Senator MURRAY. All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all that input on that. I do have a couple of Amtrak questions 

before we go here, that I think are important to clarify before we 

end this hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, you do serve on the Amtrak board, and your Deputy Secretary, Mr. Jackson, has participated in innumerable briefings and conference calls with the full Amtrak board as well as the 

board’s finance committee and its audit committee. Given that extensive level of involvement of your Deputy Secretary, why is the 

Administration voicing surprise over where we see the severity of 

Amtrak’s financial crisis today? 

Secretary MINETA. I think it is partially—or, rather that a great 

deal of that is attributable to the kind of information that has been 

provided, and I think that was one of the things that Mr. Gunn addressed immediately on coming aboard. 

Senator MURRAY. Has Deputy Secretary Jackson met with Amtrak’s audit board—with its auditors or its bankers? 

Secretary MINETA. I think as board members KPMG has been 

there, but I do not believe he has met with them individually. I do 

not know. I would have to check with him on that issue, but I know 

that collectively the board has had KPMG at the board meeting. 

Senator MURRAY. Let me go back to your request for fiscal year 

2003, because that is what we are going to have to deal with once 

47

we get past this initial crisis. 4 months ago, Deputy Secretary 

Jackson told me that your budget request for $521 million was a 

place-holder, and he said that you would announce a different 

budget request once you had laid out your long-term plan for Amtrak. A week ago today, you announced that long-term plan, but 

your budget request for $521 million has not changed even a 

penny. 

Last week, I asked David Gunn when he testified before us 

whether an appropriation of $521 million for next year would put 

Amtrak into bankruptcy, and he said yes. Do you take exception 

with his testimony? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, I think this is something, and I would 

like to—it is that old proverb, what the Secretary meant to say, 

and I have been asked to restate what I had said earlier, but in 

terms of that request, I believe it still is what we consider a placeholder, and I think the Administration is still, in terms of both policy and financial, in terms of how much would be required we are 

still working with the White House on this. 

And if I might, Madam Chairwoman, read this statement because of my own error in what I had said earlier, I would just like 

to say that the Administration is committed to support additional 

funds for Amtrak——

Senator MURRAY. Above the $521 million? 

Secretary MINETA. Above the direct loan that we announced yesterday. However, the Administration is still working with Amtrak, 

and we will be working with Congress before we announce exactly 

the amount of funds or the type of funds for the second tranche of 

the——

Senator MURRAY. You are referring to the short term. 

Secretary MINETA. So that whether the second tranche would be 

direct loans, loan guarantees, or supplemental funds, are options 

that we are still looking at. And so that is what I am committed 

to say, so to the extent that we are still working on that detailed 

statement with—or not statement, but the detailed program, as 

members of the board of directors, we will hope to have that clarified. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, given Amtrak’s debt, would it not be 

more appropriate to ask for an appropriation, rather than more 

debt through loan guarantee? 

Secretary MINETA. That is where we will look. We will work with 

you on what we are going to be asking for in fiscal 2002. 

Senator MURRAY. When will we see that request? 

Secretary MINETA. Well, I would assume that it would be sometime in mid-July. Sometime after, in the mid-July timeframe I 

would like to make sure we have the justification to you for the 

2002 application for these funds. 

Mr. MEAD. Ms. Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. Yes, Mr. Mead. 

Mr. MEAD. To just followup on the hearing the other day, Amtrak itself needs to provide some information about what its budgetary requirements are. Mr. Gunn speaks generically of $1.2 billion, and I know you and other members of the Committee are 

going to want to drill down and say, well, exactly what are the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:57 Mar 09, 2005 Jkt 092928 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92928.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
48

stituent elements of that, Mr. Gunn, and so there is a responsibility here on Amtrak’s part, too. In IG, we were asked by the House to scrub the $1.2 billion, and 

the categories we would put that money in are different, in different amounts than Amtrak, so we do want to hear from Amtrak. 

Senator MURRAY. I would agree. We need them at the table, but 

we need the Administration to be at the table quickly as well both 

for the short term and for the long term. We need to know what 

your short-term request is, whether it is an appropriation or a loan, 

we need to make a determination of what is in the railroad’s best 

interest, and how we are going to get that through, and I must say 

I am very confused as to what the Administration is going to ask 

us for, and we are on a very short timeframe. 

And I would say in the long run, I do not know how long you 

expect us to live with the place-holder, but we need to have a better understanding, because we are going to back in July, the Chair 

of this Committee and the Appropriations Committee expects us to 

have bills moving by the August recess, and in order to put that 

request together with all of the other things I need to balance in 

my transportation appropriations, we need to know sooner rather 

than later, and I mean sooner within days. 

Secretary MINETA. All right. We will comply with that. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. I want to thank all the 

witnesses for appearing this morning. This joint Committee hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittees adjourned.]

Æ