[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] U.S./MEXICAN TRUCKING: SAFETY AND THE CROSS-BORDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ======================================================================= (110-16) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 13, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34-787 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas California GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California (ii) SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania GARY G. MILLER, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JULIA CARSON, Indiana HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Carolina MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Virginia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania TED POE, Texas JERRY MCNERNEY, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington BOB FILNER, California CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio VERN BUCHANAN, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JOHN L. MICA, Florida HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.................................................... 45 Hill, Hon. John H., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Administration, accompanied by Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation........ 4 Hoffa, James P., General President International Brotherhood of Teamsters...................................................... 45 Rogers, Major Mark, State Commercial Vehicle Safety Coordinator, Texas Department of Public Safety.............................. 45 Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation.............................................. 4 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 59 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 60 Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 294 Lipinski, Hon. Daniel W., of Illinois............................ 299 Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 300 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 308 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Gillan, Jacqueline S............................................ 65 Hill, Hon. John H............................................... 264 Hoffa, James P.................................................. 271 Rogers, Major Mark.............................................. 314 Scovel, Hon. Calvin L., III..................................... 316 Shane, Hon. Jeffrey N............................................ 264 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., A Representative in Congress for Oregon, Letter, Herbert J. Schmidt, President and CEO, Contract Freighters Inc., March 9, 2007................................. 19 Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety: U.S. Department of Transportation handout, March 2007.......... 89 Transcript from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on the nomination of Mary Peters to be Secretary of the Department of Transportation, September 20, 2006......................................................... 91 List prepared by Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's legislated rulemaking actions and studies, and additional agency actions 156 Report from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: A Failed Agency......... 182 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S./MEXICAN TRUCKING: SAFETY AND THE CROSS-BORDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ---------- Tuesday, March 13, 2007, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter DeFazio [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee will come to order. First off, I understand that we will be joined by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is not a member of the Subcommittee. But I would ask unanimous consent she be allowed to sit with the Committee. Hearing no objection, that will be allowed on a timely basis. Today's hearing of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is to examine the issue of a pilot program to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies free access to the entire continental United States. I have a number of grave and ongoing concerns about this program that hopefully will be in part addressed today. Then again in part, they may not, and it may require further action by this Committee. After having a meeting yesterday pertaining to this hearing, just out of idle curiosity I went online to Google and I Googled the word ``mordedura,'' which means the bite, which means essentially bribes. And as someone who has long been a student of Mexico and speaks very little and very bad Spanish, but understands a good deal about the country, they do not have the same system and respect for laws as we do, they have different traditions. In that country, it is rampant and widespread among minor and not so minor government officials that bribery is a way of doing business. I have concerns that if we are accepting a paper program, a paper program that certifies drug and alcohol testing, a paper program that certifies the hours of service, that we are accepting their commercial driver's licenses, that if we are basing it on a government-to-government negotiation, with the understanding that they have the same sort of enforcement of laws down to those levels in the bureaucracy, I think we are sadly mistaken. So that leads me to believing that we need to have some additional levels of trust. And trust would come through a rigorous pilot program. The program is already skewed by cherry-picking the Mexican trucking companies. But we want to know that even though we are cherry-picking and even though hopefully they will have their best drivers and trucks online, that we are checking to see that they are indeed truly conforming. I would hope that testimony is delivered today that relieves some of my anxiety in those areas. Then beyond that, quite truthfully, I have an interesting advisory from the State Department, there is some concern expressed on the Senate side that Mexico isn't immediately giving reciprocity to American trucking companies which is of course fairly extraordinary. But secondly, American trucking companies don't want to drive in Mexico, again, the problem of lack of laws and enforcement of laws. There is an advisory from the State Department saying commercial trucks from the U.S. should stay out of Mexico, you are likely to be hijacked or otherwise shanghaied down there. So this just sort of reinforces my view, which goes to some of these other regulatory regimes that we are adopting. But ultimately what I see really is the agenda here, and I must disclose I voted against NAFTA, is that this is a way to displace American labor. Yet once again, with marginal if any benefit to American consumers, by some minuscule reduction in the price of cheap goods that were manufactured in China or Mexico and then imported into the United States to a middle class that doesn't exist any more. Having a well-paid, well-trained, well-regulated trucking industry and truck drivers benefits our society as a whole. And what I see as the grand vision here is that we will develop ports in Mexico, the junk will be made in China, shipped there, we can avoid the longshoreman's union and not pay a living wage to people unloading the ships. Then we can load it onto trucks that will drive it from there into the United States with workers who are again not paid a living wage and may have a host of other problems inherent in that. So that is sort of the longer term vision to be realized here. I am not inclined to support this in any way, but I am going to be particularly rigorous in looking at protecting public health and safety, because I am not going to sacrifice public health and safety for a non-existent economic benefit. With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today to listen to testimony on the Department of Transportation's new cross-border demonstration project. The safety of trucks coming into the U.S. across the Mexican border has been of concern and it is one that has been of concern to this Committee for quite a few years. Since the opening of the border to truck traffic appears eminent, it is very important for this Committee to stay engaged and ensure that the border opening is handled properly with the safety of American motorists as our top priority. At the time NAFTA was passed, a sizeable majority of people in my district were in favor of it. I feel certain that if NAFTA was up today, a sizeable majority would be opposed to it. I am concerned that treaties like NAFTA essentially want to do away with our borders and with Mexico and Canada and merge us into a North American Union. I am greatly opposed to this and want to protect U.S. political and economic sovereignty. Although I do have concerns about NAFTA, it is the law. It is important that the U.S. follow international law, especially laws we have entered into willingly. But compliance with NAFTA does not necessarily mean we open the border without any scrutiny of the process. This Committee should actively review DOT's plan to open the border and should revisit the demonstration plan once it has been initiated to evaluate its effectiveness. It is imperative that Mexican trucks and truck drivers be as safe as U.S. trucks and drivers. And safety is really the only thing that this Subcommittee can fairly look at, although I do have concerns like the Chairman about American jobs. It is of concern to me, that as I understand it, there's about 160 or so Mexican trucking companies who are already interested in this, but only, I understand, two American trucking companies wanting to go the other way. It seems to me if we are going to do something like this, it needs to be done in a fair way, I would say a tit for tat way. And we should let one Mexican trucking company in for every American trucking company that wants to go and gets permission to go into Mexico. I know, too, that there legitimate safety concerns. I have had complaints over the years about Mexican drivers, uninsured drivers who have hit and seriously injured constituent of mine. My home State of Tennessee recently put in a requirement that while not requiring people to be necessarily fluent in English, they have included a test to make sure that drivers can at least read the road signs. So we need to think about things like that as well. But I thank you very much for calling this hearing. It is important that we look into this from every aspect that we are allowed to do. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Are there other opening statements? Yes, Mr. Holden. Mr. Holden. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank you for conducting this hearing today. I look forward with interest to hearing from our witnesses. A few years ago, when Mr. Petri was chairman of this Subcommittee, I traveled with him and a few other members to San Diego and to Laredo and was just absolutely shocked at the failure rate of the truck drivers and the trucks coming into the Country with lack of insurance, lack of conformation of registration. And in the maintenance failures of the brake systems and numerous other aspects of the vehicle. So it was an absolute failure when I was on the ground looking at it a few years ago, and I am just curious if there has been any progress made since then. So Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his succinct statement. Mr. Coble? Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. I appreciate your calling this hearing. I will say very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this hearing has generated much interest in my district. I have received several telephone calls expressing concern about this. I appreciate your having called the hearing. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Coble. Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Ditto on all the remarks, Mr. Chairman. California has always had a longstanding issue with allowing trucks into our area. I look forward to clarification of a lot of the issues at this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her extraordinarily succinct statement. I see no other opening statements. We can proceed with the witnesses. I believe either Mr. Hill or Mr. Shane or are both going to testify? Mr. Hill, okay, and you are doing backup today, is that it? Mr. Shane. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Hill. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY: JEFFREY N. SHANE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Department of Transportation's demonstration project to implement the trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. I am pleased to describe to you what the Department has done to implement Section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Act and the additional steps we have taken to ensure that we safeguard the safety and the security of our transportation to work even as we strengthen trade with a close neighbor and important trading partner. As Secretary Peters announced on February 23rd, the U.S. and Mexican governments have agreed to implement a limited, one-year demonstration project to authorize up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to perform long-haul international operations within the U.S. and 100 U.S. companies to do the same in Mexico for the first time ever. These companies will be limited to transporting international freight and will not be authorized to make domestic deliveries between U.S. cities. It is also important to note in the demonstration project there will be no trucks authorized to transport hazardous materials, no bus transportation of passengers, and no authority to operate longer combination vehicle on U.S. highways. The program will meet, and in some cases exceed, the safety requirements that Congress included in Section 350. For example, Section 350 requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to perform 50 percent of all pre-authority safety authority audits of Mexican trucking companies at the company's headquarters in Mexico. In fact, for the duration of this program, FMCSA will perform 100 percent of these audits on site. That means the U.S. inspectors will have eyes on and hands on access to all of a company's records, equipment, and personnel as we are determining whether that company has the systems in place to meet Section 350 requirements. And the members of this Subcommittee know that Section 350 includes a very comprehensive set of requirements to ensure that long haul Mexican trucks and drivers operate safely in the U.S. For example, Section 350 requires all Mexican drivers to have a valid commercial driver's license, proof of medical fitness, and verification of compliance with hours of service. They must be able to understand and respond in English to questions and directions from U.S. inspectors must undergo drug and alcohol testing, and cannot be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. All trucks must be insured by a U.S.-licensed insurance company and must undergo a 37 point safety inspection at least once every 90 days. Section 350 also requires all long haul Mexican trucks to have a distinct DOT number, so that they will be easy to identify by Customs and Border Protection officers, FMCSA, State inspectors and more than 500,000 State and local law enforcement officials. We are working closely with our partners in the States to ensure they understand the parameters of the program and are able to enforce the law effectively. Finally, in addition to the Federal Motor Carrier safety requirements, the Mexican trucks operating in the demonstration project will be required to adhere to the same State requirements as U.S. trucks, including size and weight requirements, and pay the applicable fuel taxes and registration fees. It is also important for us to bear in mind that trucks from Mexico have always been allowed to cross our southern border. Every day drivers from Mexico operate safely on roads and major U.S. cities like San Diego, El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville. Every day, Federal and State inspectors ensure trucks are safe to travel on our roads. And our records show that Mexican trucks currently operating in the commercial zone are as safe as the trucks operated by companies here in the United States. We have developed this limited program to demonstrate to you, the Congress, and to the traveling public that we will be able to implement Section 350 successfully to allow Mexican trucks to operate safely beyond the commercial zone. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with you to create new opportunities, new hope, and new jobs north and south of the border, while continuing to ensure the safety of North American roads. Under Secretary Shane and I would be happy to answer your questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for your testimony. With that, we would turn to the Inspector General, Mr. Scovel. Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today as you evaluate the safety of cross-border trucking with Mexico under the provisions of NAFTA. We appreciate the Committee's interest in the demonstration program that will expand the reach of Mexican cross-border trucking. Our role, as established in the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act, is to review eight specific criteria and provide the results to the Secretary. We will continue to work with the Department as the demonstration program progresses, consistent with our responsibility to preserve our independence and objectivity as we conduct our annual audits under the fiscal year 2002 Act and as we respond to your requests that we audit the demonstration program. We have issued seven reports on border safety since 1998 and will issue an eighth report shortly. Today I would like to address four key issues concerning cross-border trucking with Mexico. First, we have seen significant progress in border safety in recent years. We have visited 27 large and small border crossings, some multiple times, and found that FMCSA had in place the staff, facilities, equipment and procedures necessary to substantially meet the criteria set forth in the Act. For example, the number of Federal Motor Carrier enforcement personnel, including inspectors, has jumped almost 20-fold since 1998, from 13 to 254. In addition, the number of Mexican trucks taken out of service after inspection declined by about half, from 44 percent to 20 percent, a rate comparable to that of American trucks. Further, all States can now take enforcement action when necessary against Mexican trucking companies, a significant improvement over 2003, when only two States had this capability. Second, we have concerns about the completeness of the data in the so-called 52nd State system. This is a data repository set up by FMCSA for traffic convictions of Mexican commercial drivers while operating in the United States, and is needed to allow U.S. officials to bar Mexican drivers from operating here for the same offenses that would bar U.S. drivers. We have found reporting problems and other inconsistences with this system at the four border States. In one example, data reported by Texas showed a steep decline in traffic convictions between January and May 2006. When we brought this to FMCSA's attention, it turned out that Texas had stopped reporting this data. After developing an action plan with FMCSA, Texas subsequently eliminated a backlog of some 40,000 Mexican commercial traffic convictions. To its credit, FMCSA has acted quickly to work with the States to correct these issues. Strong follow-up action or interim solutions will be required, however, especially as Mexican carriers begin to operate more extensively beyond the border States. Third, we have two observations regarding FMCSA's demonstration program expanding cross-border trucking with Mexico based on our past and current work. One, FMCSA will need to ensure that it has an effective screening mechanisms at border crossings. Hundreds of trucks enter the Country from Mexico each day at large volume crossings. While the law requires 50 percent of Mexican driver's licenses to be checked, FMCSA has announced a standard of every truck, every time. This will not always be easy. A driver must first be identified, in this case by an X, appearing after the DOT number that is present on the side of all interstate trucks. In instances that we have observed, the driver is then taken out of line for a license check by FMCSA staff. This process could be streamlined if FMCSA enforcement personnel work collaboratively with the Customs and Border Protection Service. Two, FMCSA will need clear objectives and measures of success. In order to assess performance and risk, the agency must have meaningful criteria, especially if it wants to consider opening the border to greater numbers of carriers in the future. To date, we have seen no details on how the program's success will be evaluated. In summary, Mr. Chairman based on our work over the past eight years, we see continual improvement in the border safety program along with a willingness by the parties involved to solve problems once identified. Some areas need and are receiving the proper attention. We will continue to audit the cross-border trucking program, report on its progress and address the specific concerns of this Committee. This completes, my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee may have at this time. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thanks for your report and your testimony. I will begin the questions with Mr. Hill. I guess my first question is quite broad, but you're referring to this as a pilot program. It has to do with safety of motor carriers, commercial motor vehicles, driver safety. My reading, and I am not a lawyer, but by my reading of the law this seems to have been anticipated in the Transportation Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. It sets out requirements to follow if you are conducting a pilot. How is it that the Administration feels they are exempt from this law? Because this so-called pilot does not meet those guidelines. It is our understanding nothing has been published in the Federal Register, no public comment except on individual carriers from Mexico, has been solicited. It is not a three year program. There is a whole long list of failings regarding pilot programs. Do you have legal counsel, have they informed you that you are exempt from this law? Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed that with legal counsel. If you are referring to Section 4007 of TEA-21, the language that is given there specifies how we are to conduct a pilot program when it give relief from or alternatives to the safety regulations. In this particular instance, there is no attempt to deviate from our current regulations. There is no-- ---- Mr. DeFazio. Where is the language? I have the law. Where is the language relating to innovative approaches to motor carriers, commercial motor vehicle and driver safety may include, may include exemptions from a regulation prescribed under this chapter as--et cetera. I don't see that language that you are quoting from legal counsel in the statute. Is this inferred or are you actually quoting statutory language? Mr. Hill. I believe that there is a reference there to having to give relief from or alternatives to the existing safety regulations. We are not giving any relief here or any alternatives. We require them to qualify. Mr. DeFazio. I beg to differ. It is certainly an alternative. We are having a foreign government basically assess whether or not their truck drivers are meeting U.S. requirements for public health and safety relating to drug testing, hours of service, vehicle safety, driver licensing. How can you argue that that isn't------ Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we are going to be handling them just like we do Canadian carriers in our ongoing safety regimen now. We are verifying that they are in compliance with U.S. regulations, not in compliance with Mexican regulations. We are verifying that they comply with U.S. law. And so our------ Mr. DeFazio. We will follow up on that issue regarding your statutory authority. Let's go to the program itself. The allegation is this is a ``pilot,'' i.e., we are going to demonstrate something. And it is not a permanent and full opening of the board of the United States. Yet I do have a copy of the initial agreement, and I believe Mr. Shane participated in this process. It sets out three things. First stage, six months, we let the Mexicans in. Second stage, six months, U.S. companies that want to have their trucks hijacked will be allowed to go into Mexico. Third stage, we get at the end of the 12 month period, in which a full and permanent opening of the border is foreseen, and new carrier operations being appropriated normal operating authority procedures of each country. Have we already reached the conclusion that that at the end of 12 months we are opening the border? It says foreseen. To me that is, it is not like there will be an evaluation that will take a certain period of time, there will be a report to Congress, whatever. It is foreseen that we will fully open our border. Mr. Shane. Mr. Chairman, may I answer that question? Because as you pointed out, I was privy to those conversations. Number one, that document is a record of consultations, it is emphatically not an agreement. We did not establish any international obligations beyond those established in NAFTA. The objective of that document was simply to write down the mechanics of what the two countries contemplated we would do in the demonstration program. The third element of it, as you have suggested, is the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Mexico in trucking. It was an aspiration that we included in the record of consultations. Mr. DeFazio. Right. But here is the question. What is going to happen at the end of 12 months? We have had exchanges before, and I do enjoy it. But we don't have a tremendous amount of time and I want to accommodate other members. As I said before, you should work for the State Department, I think you would be a great diplomat. But let's get to the bottom line. What happens at the end of 12 months? Are we going to put into abeyance the existing rights of the 100 companies. Since it is on a rolling 18 month basis, it sounds unlikely, it sounds like we are already extending people beyond the 12 months. Is there going to be a suspension of further approvals while there is some sort of real, deliberative, evaluative process. What is going to happen at the end of 12 months? This says it foresees full border opening. What is the U.S. position? What mechanics, what will happen at the end of 12 months, plain and simple. I'm a simple guy. So what are we going to do at the end of 12 months? Mr. Shane. We will conduct an evaluation in concert with both the Inspector General and a panel of experts that the Secretary of Transportation will commission for the purpose of delivering objective advice to us about how the program has in fact------ Mr. DeFazio. Objective advice. These will be people named by the Secretary, who has implemented, authored the program, which hasn't been publicly noticed or comment on. And she's going to really objectively choose objective people who are going to really objectively evaluate what really happened. Mr. Shane. Precisely------ Mr. DeFazio. And there is going to be further consultation with the Congress on this? Mr. Shane. I am sure there will be consultation with Congress, not just at the end, but the Secretary has herself promised that the Congress will be informed as the program is unfolding, not merely at the end. The members of the panel, I apologize, I am not in a position to scoop the Secretary on any announcements about the individuals, but I think when you see the individuals, you will conclude that they are precisely as you have described, that they are objective and they are independent and they will provide objective advice. Mr. DeFazio. Well, I hope that is the case. I thank you for that, but again, I am concerned that it is essentially a foregone conclusion that you have to get this done before this President leaves office, and you don't have a lot of time left. So I am very concerned that this is a foreordained conclusion. Let me go to one specific that I raised with the Administrator yesterday and see if he has an answer. I know that the IG might have something to say about this. The IG expressed concern about their drug testing. Basically, there are no certified labs in Mexico. There is no assurance of chain of custody. And there are tremendous concerns, given anecdotal evidence, that it is commonplace, absolutely commonplace, that the abused truck drivers of Mexico frequently abuse substances to stay awake during very long hauls, because there are no hours of service within Mexico, but somehow magically we are going to have hours of service when they come across our border. They are being abused to the point of driving 2,500 kilometers, no relief, being told to get there in a certain period of time, and they are using drugs. Now, I am very concerned that those same people are going to be pushed across the border into the United States. I want to know, there are two things. One is, I am not willing to accept that somehow this Mexican trucking company down there is taking the samples in a secure way from the right people and shipping them to the United States to be analyzed. They could have one guy who is giving the samples. So that is a concern. I want to know, is there going to be a safeguard? Are we going to test a certain percentage of these drivers at the border to make sure that this drug testing program is real and there are no problems? Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, we are going to work with the Mexican carriers to make sure they comply with drug and alcohol requirements the same as U.S. carriers and Canadian carriers. As I told you yesterday, the Canadian carriers do not have drug testing. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Again, we had this discussion yesterday, and I have already gone through the careless disregard for the law in Mexico and the fact that these are not things that are commonly accepted in Mexico and it is not likely that, being assured--I am not assured. Will you require a certain percentage of the people in this pilot program, it is a pilot program and we would want to verify that it is working, to take drug tests at the border, yes or no? Mr. Hill. During this demonstration project------ Mr. DeFazio. Is it yes or no, and then we can get to the number? Mr. Hill. All four of the companies that we have audited have said that they are going to do their collections in the United States. Mr. DeFazio. They are going to do their collection------ Mr. Hill. Their drivers are going to have their specimens-- ---- Mr. DeFazio. They are going to fly their drivers up here or drive them up here? Mr. Hill. I don't care how they are going to do it, but they are going to do it in the United States. Secondly------ Mr. DeFazio. I still would like to know that we are going to do some sort of random testing of these people at the border. Didn't the IG report on the problems with the chain of custody here and concerns about the program? Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have expressed in testimony previously our concern with specifically the collection process used to produce Mexican specimens for analysis in the United States labs. Much attention has been focused on the lab question, and it is true, Mexican specimens need to be examined here, because there is no certified lab in Mexico. However, based on my long experience with the U.S. military's drug prevention and detection effort, I can say that we have had minimal problems with our laboratories. We had, regrettably, more extensive problems with the integrity of the collection process, including some ingenious schemes by service members to subvert or defeat the collection process. If this Committee were to ask my office to verify that the agreement which the U.S. and Mexican governments entered into in 1998 that calls for drug collection processes in Mexico to be equivalent to those in the United States, it would be difficult for my office to produce an opinion unless we were allowed into Mexico to examine their process. Now, if the current procedure envisions Mexican drivers entering this Country and producing samples here, then my office would be in a much better position to examine the process and to provide an objective opinion back to the Committee. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Ranking Member. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questions, I have been asked by Ranking Member Mica, who is apparently not going to be able to make it here, to request unanimous consent that his statement on this issue be placed into the record, and also to ask unanimous consent that statements and questions be permitted to be submitted for the record from any member. I ask unanimous consent. Mr. DeFazio. Without objection. Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. Administrator Hill, I was very impressed by the precautions such as insurance and other requirements that you are going to put in on these Mexican trucking companies. And I was very impressed by Inspector General Scovel's report. I have heard of a lot of testimony from inspectors general, most of which has been very critical of the departments that they are inspecting. But most of what he said is there had been some great improvements and your agency has done some really good work. But I was told that there was an associated press article recently in which a National Transportation Safety Board member said that since only a very tiny percentage of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. truck companies are inspected every year, does your agency have the resources and the staff to really inspect all these carriers in Mexico and on the border, while maintaining all that you are required to do in regard to the U.S. trucking companies? Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I would just simply say to you a couple of things. First of all, when the Section 350 Appropriations Act was put in place, there was not only a very specific set of guidelines given to us to follow, but there was also funding that allowed us to hire dedicated resources, human resources, to deal with the requirements of Section 350. So we have dedicated personnel that all they do is deal with the border issues. For example, the number of inspectors that we have along the border is not representative of what we have anywhere else in the Country. The vast majority of commercial vehicle safety at the roadside is done by our dedicated State and local and law enforcement partners. I think you are going to hear from one of those members in the second panel. We work with the more than 13,000 State inspectors that do commercial vehicle inspections all throughout this Country. So the people that are dealing with this particular issue along the border are dedicated, and that is their only job, is to deal with Mexican trucking related matters along the border. So I would take issue that we are diverting resources. In fact, the statute very clearly says that we are forbidden from taking resources from within the agency and dedicating them to this Mexican trucking enforcement protocol. So I believe that we have the adequate resources to deal with this. Mr. Duncan. All right. Let me ask you something else. You heard in my statement that there's just a lot of concern all across this Country about the trade imbalance that we have. I was told yesterday, as I mentioned, that there are 160 Mexican trucking companies that want to come in here under this demonstration project and only 2 U.S. carriers have applied for operating authority in Mexico. Are those figures accurate, and if so, are you going to do something to try to encourage more U.S. trucking companies? And thirdly, is this some sort of real high priority so you are going to feel pressure to hurry up and approve all these 100 Mexican companies to qualify for this program? Mr. Hill. The numbers that you cited, I am aware of the Mexican applications that we have in place, but I am not aware of all the U.S. interests. I have heard the number two, I have also heard the number six. I don't think the number is very high. We are not going to rush through this inspection process, this safety process. One of the reasons why we are starting with 100 carries is to give us an opportunity to demonstrate to the Congress and to ourselves to make sure that we are going to have the safety protocols that are adequate in place before we would ever look at anything any larger. And there needs to be an evaluation not only of what goes on in Mexican carriers but we are also going to be evaluating whether or not Mexico affords equal treatment to our carriers wanting to go south. So part of the demonstration project is to make sure that their process is transparent, allowing American trucks to apply and to receive operating authority and to be allowed to operate in the same manner that we allow their trucks to operate in this Country. Mr. Duncan. Well, I will say once again, I am sure it won't be done this way, but I think we should approve a Mexican company for each American company that wants this authority in Mexico. Let me ask you this. A little over a year or so ago, I went to a very sad funeral in my district for four young people from Crown College, a small Christian college in my district, who had been, those four young people were on a mission trip to Florida. And they were killed in a very horrible wreck by a Mexican truck driver. What I would like to know is this: How are we going to be able to determine whether these Mexican truck drivers, how are we going to know whether they have a safe driving record in Mexico? How are we going to know that we are not allowing truck drivers in here that, the Chairman mentioned some concerns about the drug problems of some of these drivers. The drug problem, that is certainly a concern. But also the safe driving record, how do we verify this with these Mexican companies? I understand that some of these records in Mexico are really not that good. Mr. Hill. Congressman, when we look at the commercial driver's license record, our inspectors daily are making CDL checks, commercial driver's license checks in the commercial zone. We do about 20,000 of those every month. So we are querying the Mexican Licencia Federale data base. It is called LIFIS, and it is an information similar to our own in terms of its electronic capacity. So our inspectors are verifying driver history records and we know that there are driver disqualifications occurring, because we are finding them now in the commercial zone. Mr. Duncan. So in other words, you think that their records system there is just as good as ours? Mr. Hill. I do not know; I have not seen the details of their system. I know that we were required to have a system in place and to make sure that we could account for violations for drivers operating in the United States. That piece I am sure about. I am not as confident about the Mexican LIFIS system. I do not know the details of it. Mr. Duncan. All right, I am going to forego any other questions, so we can get to other members. Thank you very much. Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Ranking Member. We will go in the order that people arrived at the Committee. Mr. Holden? Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Hill, I heard what you just said about not being able to verify the Mexican system. But I can tell you, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have visited San Diego and Laredo. Mr. Filner, who just stepped in a moment ago, it is his district, that San Diego crossing. I can tell you that they couldn't check the records in Mexico. They are hooked up to a system in Mexico City that basically was a failure. If you count the minor, major violations plus the situations where they were not able to verify one way or the other, it is almost 100 percent of failure at that time, just a few short years ago. So if we are going to rely on the Mexican system for verification and trust them, I don't believe there is any accuracy for it, unless they have come a long way baby in the last few years. So I know you might not have anything further to add to what you just said to Mr. Duncan's question, but I don't have any faith in their system, based on being their first-hand and looking at it. That deals with the registration and the licensing and the insurance, maybe personal information on the driver. But I think you mentioned this in your opening remarks, how are we going to physically test the vehicles? Is it going to be tested in the U.S. or are we going to trust Mexican inspectors for that as well? Mr. Hill. Congressman, we are going to do two different regimens for verification of the vehicle safety. When our inspectors, FMCSA inspectors, go south into Mexico and do the pre-authority safety audit, a pre-authority safety audit is something we are required to do by Section 350 before any kind of operating authority is granted to a Mexican carrier. During that pre-authority safety audit, we will be inspecting every one of the trucks that is anticipated to be used in this long- haul operation. For example, the very first pre-authority safety audit that we did, the trucking company had 37 tractors. But he was only going to dedicate five of them, and trailers, to the long haul operation. So we are recording what vehicles those are, and we are going to physically inspect every one of them to make sure they are in compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. Then if they pass, we will affix a safety decal which will then indicate to us that the vehicle has met safety standards. Mr. Holden. You said that the project is going to inspect 50 percent of the traffic, is that the goal? Mr. Hill. The law requires us to inspect 50 percent of the traffic, but we are going to be inspecting 100 percent of the carriers involved in this demonstration project. Mr. Holden. And how many vehicles, how many crossings are we talking about? Mr. Hill. I'm talking specifically now about the pre- authority safety------ Mr. Holden. The authority, okay. Mr. Hill. When we go into the--we are going to do 100 of those. Then at every one of the border crossings, when those vehicles cross into the U.S., we will be looking for that vehicle through a specific designator. It has an X designation on the side of the truck. Then we are going to be working with DHS to make sure that we have access to their information, so that when we know one of these carriers is in the queue, we can pull that vehicle out of line and make sure it is inspected at the border. Mr. Holden. So after pre-approval, the scrutiny will, what level of scrutiny will there be, or are we just going to trust that there has been no change in the vehicle, no changing of plates, no changing of i.d. numbers? Mr. Hill. Every vehicle that we see that is a long haul Mexican truck, we are going to be making sure they have a safety decal on it, which would indicate they have been through an inspection. Mr. Holden. I understand. Mr. Hill. Then we are going to be looking at the license for that particular driver, to make sure that it is in compliance. Now, the law requires us to do 50 percent of those. But we are going to be checking each one of them at the border, when they enter the Country, for this demonstration project. That is the goal. Mr. Holden. I understand, Mr. Administrator, and I appreciate your testimony. But I am telling you, after being there, I am very, very skeptical. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Coble. Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to have you all with us today. Mr. Hill, I am going to ask you a simplified question, and I may be amplifying my ignorance in doing it. But what is the primary purpose in the cross-border demonstration project? Mr. Hill. The primary purpose, sir, is to fulfill our NAFTA obligation, which has been delayed now for several years, and to make certain that our processes in place meet the requirements of Section 350 of the Appropriations Act, to ensure that we have safe operation of those vehicles coming into the Country. Mr. Coble. Currently, Canadian trucks travel into the U.S., hauling international loads, do they not? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. Coble. How do Canadian trucks and drivers measure up in the U.S. safety-wise? Mr. Hill. In the year 2005, the typical out of service rate for a Canadian vehicle was 13 and a half percent, which was lower than what the out of service rate is for the U.S. carriers. I can explain out of service rate if you would like me to go into a little more detail. Mr. Coble. If you would. Mr. Hill. Okay. Whenever we do this inspection that we have been referring to in our testimony and in answer to questions, if a violation is found that is so serious that we can't allow the safety to be ensured by moving the vehicle or the driver, it is rendered out of service. It can't move until the driver violation or the vehicle violations are fixed. So the rate at which we found those violations with Canadian carriers was 13 and a half percent in 2005. Mr. Coble. So as well or better that our trucks and drivers perform, I presume? Mr. Hill. Yes. The out of service rate for U.S. vehicles in 2005 was 21 and a half percent. Mr. Coble. Mr. Hill, what actions will the FMCSA take when the pilot programs have been concluded? Mr. Hill. As the Under Secretary indicated in his response to the Chairman a moment ago, we are going to be evaluating whether or not there are adequately safety protocols in place and being followed. In other words, are the requirements in Section 350 working as we anticipated that they are supposed to work, and then we are going to be making reports on that, as he indicated, to Congress and other places to ensure that we have fulfilled our requirement under the law before we would proceed on it. Mr. Coble. Will U.S. operations in Mexico be evaluated as well? Mr. Hill. The purpose of the bi-national monitoring group, I don't know whether you have heard this reference, but there is a team of people in Mexico and a team of people in the U.S. that are going to be working together to make sure that we remove any kinds of impediments or obstacles to allowing this process to go forward. We will be making sure that U.S. carriers going south are giving proportionate treatment and we will be evaluating how well that is being done. Mr. Coble. And will the Mexican officials respond in a similar way? Mr. Hill. We have assurance from both the Secretary of SCT, the Secretary of Communication and Transport, and their staff, that they will work with us on this endeavor, yes. Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am listening with great interest, because I sat on California Transportation Commission at the State level for six years. This had come up then. It really hasn't changed a whole lot in terms of the questions. Now, whether the fixes have been there, I don't know. But I can go into another area, because I have some knowledge of some of our American companies losing loads in Mexico. Now, is there anything that will help our drivers, our U.S., if they are able to contract going into Mexico to assure their safety and the safety of their cargo? Because I can name you one company that's lost billions of dollars in cargo theft in Mexico, coming up to deliver to the U.S., it is a major company. There is no help from the Mexican side. Now, that said, there are other issues that I have and I want to ensure that we don't bypass some of the inherent issues that we have. I was born and raised in a border town, I travel to Mexico fairly often. I know some of the issues in dealing with the bureaucracy in Mexico in regard to some of the law enforcement, et cetera. I have a concern that if we are allowing our folks to go into Mexico, will they be as protected, or will they have the ability to be able to have recourse to assistance from the Mexican federal government to assist our companies? That is a big issue for my carriers and for some of the businesses that I know. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that insight. I will assure you that we are working closely with the Mexican officials and SCT. I think what you are also talking about is perhaps another area of the Mexican government in terms of protective service and so forth that we are going to be having to make sure that we work with them as well through this process. The Mexican government has committed to us that they want to have a proper working relationship of NAFTA on both sides of the border. That would imply safety and safe passage, just as we are going to be ensuring that on our side of the border. So we are committed to working with them on this issue. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I certainly want to talk to you, or send you the information so you can look into this one. Because it does involve trucking of products sold to the American companies for processing by American companies, to be delivered in the U.S. and hijacked. The Mexican government has done little to nothing on that. Mr. Hill. We would be glad to relay that information. Mrs. Napolitano. The other questions that I have have to do with, in following up on the questions of my colleague, was on setting up the inspections on the U.S. side of trucks coming in, every single one, on this pilot. Do we have enough trained personnel, U.S. employees at those stations to be able to carry out those inspections on those trucks? Are you limiting it to certain crossings only? How are you setting that up? Mr. Hill. Ma'am, one of the points that I want to make sure that the Committee understands is that we are going to be verifying at the border whether or not the truck has been properly inspected. That could imply a safety decal issued by a certified inspector that they have already been inspected in the last 90 days, what will be verifying at the border. But to answer your specific question, back in 1995, we had very few staff in place to do this. I think we had a handful of people. We now have over 250 FMCSA staff dedicated to border inspection and auditing activities. In addition to that, we have over 350 to 400 State inspectors along the border. That is a large presence to deal with a very limited number of Mexican trucks that are coming into this Country for long haul operations, 100 carriers and a limited number of vehicles. Mrs. Napolitano. Do you differentiate in the training between long haul and short haul at the border by the training you have given these individuals? Mr. Hill. We have done that with our staff, and we are working with the State and local authorities to do that as well, yes, ma'am. Mrs. Napolitano. In regard to the--and I have very little time--to the ability of States to be able to have higher standards, is that preempted by NAFTA? Higher standards for incoming drivers into, say, for instance, California, which has higher standards? Mr. Hill. The current regime is that when a Mexican carrier or driver comes into a State, they must comply with those State requirements. So if there are requirements in place that that State has, they are going to be required to fulfill those requirements. Mrs. Napolitano. Will they know those laws in Mexico, so they can abide by them? Who is going to give them the training to be able to recognize what is expected and required of them when they come into U.S. territory for any given State? Mr. Hill. Part of our process from the FMCSA side is to do some of that education on the front end, during this pre- authority safety audit. But primarily, we are there to do enforcement. We are making sure that the safety protocols are in place. But I think during that time, we could also be answering questions and providing information to them, as you have indicated. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. At this point in the record, I just would insert for the record, since she has questions about security, a document from Securitas Security Services, USA, which outlines the problems of hijacking, 50 truckloads from January of this year up to March 7th, and quite a number of U.S. truckloads being hijacked and an advisory from the State Department. Again, since in part, entering into this agreement with Mexico depends on enforcement of the laws. He goes on to say, and this is the director of these services, who is monitoring what is happening to his companies in Mexico. The Mexican government has not become involved yet, because they are considered to be outpowered. And these are the people we are going to depend upon to enforce the safety and security laws for the American public. Ms. Fallin. Ms. Fallin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all of you coming today to give us this testimony. It is a very important topic. I just have a couple of questions, and if I could start with Mr. Hill. Being in Oklahoma, we have the NAFTA corridor coming up I-35, the middle of our State. I have seen the wear and tear that the trucks take on our highway systems. I am just curious, if this demonstration project goes through, are there any types of fees that the Mexican truck companies will pay to help us with the wear and tear on our national transportation system? Mr. Hill. Congresswoman, the requirement for Mexican carriers coming into the Country specifies that they have to meet State laws. One of the State laws that is in place is something called the International Fuel Tax Agreement, IFTA, and that is designed to collect fuel tax to help pay for the Highway Trust Fund. Those vehicles will be subject to IFTA requirements, they will have to have a decal that is affixed to the vehicle for officers to see non-compliance and they will be enforced if they are not following it. Ms. Fallin. Okay, another question. I know this is to open up trade and goods between our two countries. Have we had any further economic impact studies that if we have the trucks coming through the United States, that will affect our economy and trade? Mr. Hill. I am primarily a safety person. But I would just say to you that in the course of hearing this discussed, we believe that it will eliminate bottlenecks at the border, thereby increasing efficiency and I think the Chairman even referred to that in the opening comments, that there will be some measured relief given to the American consumer. So we believe that it will have an impact of allowing the free flow of commerce between our countries. Ms. Fallin. Okay. Then one last question for Mr. Scovel. According to the testimony, it says all States have adopted operating authority rules. And the States are prepared to enforce those safety standards under this program. Will there be any extra cost to the individual States for training and also for making sure the trucks are in compliance? Mr. Scovel. I would like to defer to the Administrator on the cost question. My staff has examined the training provided by FMCSA to State law enforcement personnel. One of our recommendations has been to ensure that that training is adequate, so that the local and State law enforcement authorities know what they are looking for, and moreover, know the data systems, data bases, that they can access in FMCSA, pertaining to the specific operating authority of a vehicle. Mr. Hill. If I may just add to that in terms of the funding, we do have grants in place that we are working with the International Association of Chiefs of Police to do training as we speak. We are training trainers throughout the Country so that they can then do training for their local law enforcement. That is money that was provided by the Congress and we are using it to make sure that there is adequate training in place. Ms. Fallin. Thank you very much. We are always concerned about unfunded mandates back to our States. Mr. Hill. This will not be one. Ms. Fallin. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. At this point in the record, in response to a question she raised and a response from Mr. Hill, I would submit a letter from CF, the Contract Freighters, Incorporated, Herbert Schmidt, President and CEO. He points out that we actually have an extraordinarily viable and efficient system already of dealing with freight from Mexico, that he has agreements with Mexican trucking companies. His U.S. certified, U.S. approved, U.S. drug tested drivers provide and drive the trailer to the border area, they drop it, the Mexican company picks it up, takes it into Mexico, likewise coming the other way. So we don't deal with this whole issue of the Mexican trucks on the U.S. roads. So there is already a very efficient way to deal with this. He goes on to say that basically no U.S. trucking company in their right mind is going to operate in Mexico because of the safety and security problems. So I would submit that, without objection, into the record. [The information received follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. DeFazio. Now we will move on to Mr. Braley. Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come to this hearing from a different perspective, having been a truck driver back in the days when you needed a chauffeur's license instead of a CDL. I would like to thank the Ranking Member about his poignant story about people from his district who dealt with the consequences of trucking accidents that have a very real concern to me, in light of the regulations we are talking about here today. Because one of the things we know is that having similar requirements for insurance on a Mexican trucking company is a very different thing than having that same insurance requirement on a U.S. trucking company. Because under the current regulations, DOT carriers in the United States are only required to carry $750,000 of liability coverage unless they are carrying hazardous materials, and then that limit goes up to a million dollars. If you are in a bus load of Catholic school kids and you get hit by a U.S. carrier, the first line of defense to take care of those claims is that insurance policy. The second line of defense is the assets of that trucking company located in the United States. The problem with this requirement is that if you have a catastrophic injury, such as a hazardous release of a Mexican carrier, for example, in Ms. Fallin's home district, that $1 million policy won't even begin to cover the liability consequences of that injury. Then the people in her district are going to be faced with pursing a claim against a foreign trucking company that has little or no assets in this Country other than the vehicle that was involved in the collision and a very long and arduous process, trying to get jurisdiction over that company's assets, not over the company itself, to make those people whole. And if they aren't made whole, then we as taxpayers pick up the burden. So what I would like to know from the three of you is whether you feel that applying the same insurance requirement for Mexican trucking companies is going to protect the safety of U.S. citizens if they are involved in a catastrophic loss involving a Mexican trucking company. Mr. Hill. Congressman, thank you for those observations. First of all, I would just say to you that we are required to follow U.S. law, and right now that is the law of the land. And we do that currently with Canadian carriers that come into the Country. So we already have a regimen in place. As far as the hazardous materials release, we are not going to have hazardous materials in this demonstration project. So that is one piece of the equation that you explained that we will not have in this demonstration project. I will defer to anyone else who might want to address the liability issues. Mr. Shane. I can't really add very much more to that, other than to say that the purpose of the demonstration program is to look at issues just like that one and to have a binational monitoring program in place that will identify issues, impediments to the normalization of relations with Mexico that we will need to address before we go any further. There are important pieces of information that we are trying to extract from this demonstration program, and it may very well be that we will come back with some recommendations to the Congress about whether or not our insurance is adequate for U.S. and foreign trucking companies in the U.S. Mr. Braley. Well, as someone who has represented U.S. trucking companies and claims against U.S. trucking companies, one of the big concerns I have is where those records are going to be maintained. Because if there is a requirement that the documentation required currently under USCSA is maintained in this Country, the accessibility to people who are regulating and people who are required to pursue those types of issues is much easier than having to leave this Country and go to some remote location in Mexico where that trucking company may be headquartered and maintains its records. So can any of you answer for me what record-keeping requirements are going to be part of this pilot project, to make sure that we in this Country have a means to monitor the compliance of these companies? Mr. Hill. Sir, I would just say to you that when we go down and do our safety audit and then document what we find there, we will be retaining those records and they would be subject to anyone who would like to see them. They are a part of our files, so they would be kept in the United States as far as the compliance with the safety regulations for that Mexican carrier. Mr. Braley. But as I understand it, that is a snapshot taken at one point in time. It is not a dynamic record-keeping process, which is what you as companies complying with this regulation are required to have in their drivers' files. Mr. Hill. Well, they are required to have the same kind of ongoing updates to their files, just as U.S. carriers are. But in terms of the issue of insurance, if they have any kind of deviation from their coverage, we are notified of that and we will take action to suspend their operating authority if they do not keep their insurance in force. Mr. Scovel. Congressman, if I may address your question as well. As Inspector General, my staff has not yet examined the insurance question in depth. I will note that the Committee's request by letter of last week to my office to conduct an audit of the demonstration program specifically asked us to address insurance, and we will do so. Mr. Braley. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. That's an excellent question. Mr. Scovel, you implied something in an earlier question. Has your staff been to Mexico to some of these companies that have already been chosen to review the comprehensive nature of the documents that they are keeping along the lines of what he is asking? Have you been given that opportunity? Mr. Scovel. We have not, not yet. We have made extensive visits to the border crossings. Mr. DeFazio. Why haven't you been down there? Mr. Scovel. Part of the problem involves the brand new nature of the demonstration program. Mr. DeFazio. Right. But is there any barrier? Will you be going there for certain to review the compliance on that side of the border? Mr. Scovel. That is a question that we will ask the Department to assist us with. In view of the fact, of course, that Mexico is a sovereign country, that will require some negotiations. We would hope, in order to respond to this Committee's request for our current audit, that we will be granted authority at least to accompany FMCSA inspectors on the pre-authority safety audits. Mr. DeFazio. We would love to help you with that. Thank you. We will go on to Mr. Boustany. Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the Inspector General's commentary earlier and he mentioned that there are associated problems with reporting Mexican driver convictions in the U.S. How difficult is it going to be to implement the recommendations of the Inspector General? Mr. Hill. Congressman, as he indicated in his comments that we were responsive to their request to deal with this issue when we found out about it in Texas, the 40,000 citations and dispositions have been entered into the system and have been corrected. We are working with New Mexico, Arizona and California. We are going to make resources available to them to make sure that their current system of reporting that information is updated and current. We are going to be monitoring this as we go through the demonstration project. Mr. Boustany. And you will expand this to the other States? My States of Louisiana has I-10 running through. I talk to sheriffs and State troopers all the time, and of course, this is going to be a concern. Mr. Hill. Yes. Mr. Boustany. And making sure they are up to speed on the reporting and what mechanism they have to follow through to report convictions, to make sure that the data base is clean. Mr. Hill. Yes, one of the relationships that we have is not only with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, but also with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They are the people that oversee the bureaus of motor vehicles throughout the Country, not oversee, but they have an association, they have a close working relationship. So we are going to be making certain that they have a clear understanding of the importance of feeding this into the 52nd State. They have been briefed on it, but we are going to be, as we now move into this demonstration project, we will make certain that that is a part of the regular update, that we meet with them. Mr. Boustany. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, your testimony mentions the development of systems that will permit electronic verification of licenses when a truck crosses the border. We currently don't have that kind of system in place, do we? Mr. Scovel. My understanding, Congressman, is that FMCSA inspectors at that point, through the LIFIS system, can access Mexican records concerning their commercial driver licenses. Here in the States, we have the so-called 52nd State system, which allows FMCSA inspectors, as well as State and local law enforcement authorities, to check possible convictions of Mexican commercial drivers in this Country. Mr. Boustany. We have concerns about the Mexican data, don't we? Mr. Scovel. Actually, Congressman, our examination of that shows that the Mexican data base is accessible. We haven't had an opportunity to verify all the content of that data base. However, we obtained data from FMCSA indicating that in April 2006, FMCSA and state inspectors checked some 20,000 commercial driver license records through the Mexican LIFIS system. About one out of five of those revealed problems with the Mexican driver's license, they were expired, they were restricted, or the driver was not found in the database. That shows, we think, that first of all, the data base is accessible and secondly, the information that we are able to extract from it was helpful to FMCSA inspectors in making their judgments. Mr. Boustany. So given that, you do not feel that the implementation of this demonstration project is premature? Do you feel like you have adequate information to work with to go forward and implement the project? Mr. Scovel. The purpose of the demonstration project, of course, is to test the number of these systems. And we give credit for FMCSA for taking what appears to be a limited and rather prudent step in that regard. There are a host of unknowns that cause my staff great concern. You referred earlier to the 52nd State system and its implementation beyond the four border States. You noted in my testimony, sir, that we found reporting inconsistencies and some problems in the four border States. While we certainly trust FMCSA to carefully ensure the full implementation of that program through the other States in the Country, we will of course verify that and report back to Congress. Mr. Boustany. I thank you for your answer. I yield back. Mr. DeFazio. In a moment, we will have to adjourn for the votes. I am going to have to go to Homeland Security. I just wanted to say something at this point. I believe, and I realize this is ultimately an ideological struggle over free trade and this Administration's opinions on that. They want to deliver for the Mexican government. But you are blissfully unaware, and I believe Mr. Filner will fill you in a little bit on this, on the reality of Mexico. Here is a quote from the article by Charles Bowden. These things are not made up. Talking to truck drivers: We make almost nothing, less than $300 a week. I work 48 hours non-stop. I drive 2,400 kilometers per trip and get no time for turnaround. Every man at the table agrees on their biggest problem: the government. And by that they mean the police, especially federal, who will rob them at will. If you drive to Mexico City, another driver adds, you are robbed for sure. Police are the first to rob you. If you report a robbery, the police will try to make you the guilty person. Then they go on to talk about drug use. This is the reality in Mexico. It is truly the reality. And you are saying, oh, we checked 20,000 commercial driver licenses against the data base kept by these same corrupt police officials. The people who are in that system are the ones that didn't pay the bribes. You are just blissfully unaware of what you are doing here. And we are not going to put in place extraordinary safeguards to deal with it. I am just very disappointed in the Administration on this issue. We are talking about the highways of the United States of America and the safety of the American public. And all for an ideological hit on free trade and a little sop to Mexico, because they haven't been able to deliver on some other things. This is extraordinary. The hearing will continue immediately after these votes. It should take about 20 minutes. We are recessed. [Recess.] Mr. Filner. [Presiding] The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will come back to order. Our Chairman, Mr. DeFazio, will be back in a few minutes. I will substitute until he does get here. As fate would have it, I was next on the list to start questions. I apologize, I did not hear your opening statement, although I read them. I also missed some of the questions, so if you have gone over it, just tell me. I happen to represent the entire California border with Mexico between San Diego and Yuma, Arizona. I have represented that area on the school board, on the city council and now in Congress for a total of almost 30 years. So I would say I have a little familiarity with the area. And I must say to you, with all due respect, that a lot of the comments that I heard and read sounded to me and to the people I represent as very unrealistic. You don't really know what is going on there to make the kinds of statements that I have heard, and I will point out some of them. People throughout the border, whether they are in Texas or New Mexico, Arizona or California, are going to say that you guys have got to spend some time there with truckers, owners and with drivers on both sides of the border, as I have done for years, and then you would have a better sense of reality. My five minutes is not going to allow me to have a full sense of dealing with some of the delusionary statements you made, but let me try to go over some of them. When Mr. Braley asked a very good question about liability issues, your first statement was, oh, we have done that with Canada. No problem. There is a slight difference between dealing with a first world country and a third world nation, slight difference. And all the records and verifications and certifications and stuff that you are talking about hardly exist in Mexico. And if they do exist, they can be forged with great ease. So I am not sure that you fully understand the question or the issues. I have read in your statement that you are going to inspect every truck, every time, in this pilot program. And all drivers must have a valid commercial driver license, proof of medical fitness, and verification of compliance with hours of service. There is no way you will be able to do that in any satisfactory manner, in my humble opinion. That is, in my district, every day, 300,000 people go back and forth legally. There must be 5,000 to 6,000 trucks per day through my district. Your pilot, as I understand it, did you have a number anywhere of how many trucks you are going to do per day on this? Mr. Hill. Sir, we are trying to determine that, but we believe it will be somewhere under 1,000 trucks. We do know---- -- Mr. Filner. Per day or per period? Mr. Hill. For the whole demonstration project. Mr. Filner. So maybe you will have a few a day? What is it? See, you are using issues that have no relevance to the situation. At one crossing that I represent, 3,000 trucks go by. There is no way you can inspect anywhere near a few percent of those. The lines now, without a safety inspection, could be two hours long, could be four hours long, could be eight hours long. You are not going to inspect every one of them. You are going to inspect a certain percentage, 1 percent, maybe 2. The real volume of traffic is so big. If your pilot program is so small that you can accommodate it, it doesn't give you any sense of the reality of the situation. Do you have a number for how many per day? Mr. Hill. We don't know. We are going to distribute it geographically, because it will depend on where they come through the port and it will depend on the size of the carrier. But we do intend to evaluate the safety protocols that we have in place. That is the whole point of this demonstration project. Mr. Filner. But you have had them in place for years and years. The volume is just so great, and the ability to circumvent the regulations is so easy that that doesn't mean much. You said, I think, in answer to one question, that when you inspect a truck, what are you going to do? You are going to give them a green decal, right? Mr. Hill. It will vary in color. Mr. Filner. That is the decal they give now. What are you going to give? Mr. Hill. We are going to inspect to ensure that their vehicle and driver meet the requirements that U.S. trucks meet. Mr. Filner. How are you going to tell me their hours of service? Mr. Hill. We are going to first of all verify that they have a log book in seven previous days, just like we do for U.S. and Canadian drivers. Secondly, our people have laptop computers. The will enter into their point of destination and where they left from as supported by their bills of lading and other documents that are required to be carried. We will enter that to se if the drive time matches what their log indicates. And then we also have a way of verifying through an audit or compliance review what kind of compliance they are doing on a regular basis. If they are found to be in violation, then we will revoke their operating authority. Mr. Filner. Are you sure they have a valid driver's license? How are you going to make sure of that? Mr. Hill. We are going to do it through verification of the Licencia Federale Information System, which is the------ Mr. Filner. See, you are talking about things that in our society work: verification, certification. There is no such thing in Mexico. I could get a driver's license that would look to you perfectly valid. Just give me an hour and I will get it. And the data base could or could not have my name. Who knows? How do you check the insurance? They give you a form? Mr. Hill. They are going to be required to have insurance with a U.S. insurer------ Mr. Filner. And how do you know they have it? Mr. Hill.--and that insurance company must certify with us that it is in force through a standard process that we now use with U.S. and Canadian carriers. It is not coming from the Mexican motor carrier, it is coming from the U.S. insurance company. Mr. Filner. And if a company has 10 trucks, each of those trucks is going to be in your system? Mr. Hill. They are required, when they do their certification through the MSC 90 form, to state what kind of vehicles are going to be in force through that policy. That is something we will verify. Mr. Filner. But is that specific vehicle on that verification, on that system? Mr. Hill. I would like to get back to you for the record. Mr. Filner. It doesn't, believe me. What they do now is give you some insurance form that they may have for one truck, but there may be 12 other trucks in their fleet, and it looks like they have------ Mr. Hill. Right now, the Mexican carriers that are going through the commercial zone and back to Mexico use a trip insurance process. They are not going to be allowed to use that in this long haul demonstration pilot. They mst have insurance in force with a U.S. insurer. That is different than what you are talking about with the trip insurance. Mr. Filner. I want to know, is each vehicle going to be in this system for verification? Every vehicle that the truck company has? Mr. Hill. We are going to be determining------ Mr. Filner. Or is it just for the company? Mr. Hill. We will be determining which vehicles by VIN number are going to be a part of the demonstration project. Mr. Filner. You didn't answer the question about the decal. After they have been certified safe, they get a decal? Mr. Hill. They get a commercial vehicle safety alliance decal. It is a decal that is now put on trucks anywhere in Canada, United States------ Mr. Filner. So if they come back next day and they have that decal, you will just wave them through? Mr. Hill. We could, unless there is an obvious safety defect, then we could pull them in. Mr. Filner. I am glad you have a lot of confidence in the decal. You can't scrape off the decal without destroying it, right? I have watched windshields being taken from one truck to another, with ease. Every one of those things that you said, which in our society is so important, and people carry it out most of the time. When you see stuff on decals and when you see an insurance verification, it is real. It ain't so with the ones you are going to get. And when you get to the real case, the volume is so heavy, that you will never be able to do it. You will never be able to handle this without more efficiency at the border crossing. I will tell you, if you are waiting two, three, four, five hours now, and the safety inspection is added onto that, there is not a lot of room at most of the border crossings to do that, for a large number of trucks. The highway patrol in California has a station. But only a few trucks can pull in there. And if you are going to do every one, every time, there is no way. There is just absolutely no way you can do it, believe me. So you are going to have to do only a certain number, and when you get down to that low percentage, then your system is not guaranteed. My time is up, but I just wanted to let you know, from the point of view of those of us who represent the border, what you are saying has just no sense of reality. There is no way that you can do most of this stuff, from our experience. I have stood at the border with American truckers, with truck owners, with Mexican truckers. They have shown me all the problems of trucks coming through, even ones that may pass a safety inspection. They showed me what the driver was doing that nobody could tell. Virtually every truck had something wrong, every truck, with either insurance or the driver's certification, every truck. In fact, there was a pilot case used in California, I think the California Highway Patrol and you guys did this in the test case, and you had almost 100 percent of problems. You are going to have a major accident somewhere in Iowa, maybe with a school bus, the Mexican driver who hadn't slept for three days, has no insurance, and he runs into an American bus. The American people are going to say, how did this happen? We should not let us get to that situation. Is Mrs. Miller here? Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes, they moved me up here. Let me just say first of all, gentlemen, I appreciate your attendance here today, and what has been some very tough questioning, and I think in a very bipartisan way. Because I think there is tremendous consternation on the part of the Congress on both sides of the aisle about how this program is going to work. And I do, I am very cognizant of the fact that it is a manifestation of NAFTA. Coming from Michigan, I would tell you that I am not predisposed to be very sympathetic to NAFTA and some of the unintended consequences that have happened as a result of NAFTA. That is what happens sometimes with these trade agreements, I suppose. In my district, my colleague is from California, a border State. Michigan is also a border State. In fact, I-69, which is sometimes referred to as the NAFTA super corridor, or superhighway, however you characterize it, has its genesis actually in my district. The traffic transits over the Blue Water Bridge, which is the second busiest commercial artery on the northern tier of the Nation. I will also tell you that actually, before I cam to Congress, I was the Michigan secretary of state. That is one of three States where the secretary actually has jurisdiction and principal responsibility for all motor vehicle administration. So I was responsible for licensing all vehicle drivers, whether that is passenger vehicles or commercial driver licenses, or hazardous material endorsements on the CDLs. And I did note that you said there would be no hazmat transited in the initial pilot. But I will also tell you, I am very familiar with AMBA and the types of reciprocity of data bases amongst all of the States, which was a work in progress for many years. Sharing the data, with safety records and driving records, et cetera, amongst the States in our Country has gotten much, much better than it has ever been. It is not that way in Mexico. I do not know what the reciprocity is amongst the country of Mexico, but I did hear Mr. Scovel mention that when you were looking at the driving records, you noticed that one in five had some sort of discrepancy. If I can say respectfully, you seem to be somewhat cavalier about that. Let me tell you that, Michigan, if we had one in five, we would be in crisis, if there was a one in five problem with our driver's licenses. So I don't think the LIFIS system that is in Mexico does have the transparency that would give me any kind of comfort level. I think it is unfortunately that the Congress apparently cannot stop this program, because I would be very interested in trying to stop what you are having to carry out as a result of what the Congress did, and as a result of NAFTA as well. I guess I would ask, I note that there are approximately 100 Mexican companies that have signed up to start this program. Only two American companies have signed up, which even I can figure out that something is wrong with that equation. Perhaps you could explain to me a bit your process, flesh it out a little bit, the process that you took for auditing these companies in regards to their records. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congresswoman. A couple of points on the auditing of the records. First of all, we are in that process right now. We have done only two or three of those. I am not familiar with any more at this point. What we did is we looked at the people that applied and we are going down the list and we are going to do safety audits. What we are finding is that the first 16 that we had a list to go to audits on, 4 of them, when they heard that we were coming in to do the audits, have chosen not to participate. So we don't know how many we will eventually have to go through in order to get to the 100 carriers that we have talked about. And then beyond that, we have gone through a process of verifying their information before we ever get there to make sure it is current and that they do intend still to participate in long haul trucking. So that is how we have done it at this point, and I will be glad to go further, if you have any further questions. Mrs. Miller of Michigan. I don't know that I have any questions. I suppose I am just making the statement that everybody else on this Committee has seemed to make during the course of this hearing, of how much distress there is and how uncomfortable people are about this entire pilot program. I am concerned they are going to run up I-69 through my State as well and up into Canada, if Canada will allow such a thing to happen. I don't know if that is part of the NAFTA agreement or not. But I do have great consternation and as I say, it is unfortunate that Congress is not able to stop this. Thank you. Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mrs. Miller. Mr. Poe? Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent part of southeast Texas, and I too am very concerned about this situation. I am not convinced at all that this is a wise idea. It looks like it is great for Mexico, and what does the United States get out of it? A player to be named later seems to be the only thing that we will get out of this. Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, where I have been numerous times, the largest inland port in the United States, about 5,000 18- wheelers a day cross that port of entry each direction. Only a fraction of those trucks are already inspected. Now we are going to have more trucks coming in, and only a fraction of those will be inspected. Recently in Houston, the NBC affiliate has done an examination of the trucking industry in the State of Texas and the people who drive those trucks. Texas leads the Nation in fatalities of 18-wheelers. Yesterday there were two wrecks, 18- wheelers in rush hour yesterday morning. It is a daily occurrence. It seems as though the inspection of the trucks and the truck drivers is something that occurs only on an occasional basis. Now we are going to have more trucks and more drivers. In Mexico, you can buy anything at the border for a price. You can get yourself a social security card, you can get yourself a commercial driver's license in any State you want, you can have an insurance card and you can be anybody you want to be. And they will sell all that to you before you cross into the United States. I don't see that that is going to change under this system and especially under the inspections. So my concern is, as stated by everybody else, while it may sound like a noble idea, the reality of the matter is, there is no guarantee that these vehicles will be inspected for safety, that their drivers, that we even know who they are, much less know about their criminal record or use or abuse of narcotics. And I just want to know what assurances the American public has that these trucks will meet standards of the American trucking industry, the drivers are as qualified as an American trucker, what assurances we have except we are going to inspect most of them or some of them. Mr. Hill. Congressman Poe, concerning the issue of the drivers and the security and their history, we are going to be verifying the driver information at the time that we do the pre-authority safety audit, we will be there physically in the company. We are going to be looking at the information. We are going to verify that the driver's license is in force and it is accurate. Secondly, we are also working with DHS to make sure that we vett names through appropriate watch lists and drug-related data bases, so that we have assurance the people that are coming into this demonstration project are not going to be involved in nefarious activity through any data base that we have. Secondly, I would just say to you that as we move forward with the vehicle safety inspections, we are not only going to be inspecting these at the time of the pre-authority safety audit at the carrier's place of business, but we are also going to be inspecting vehicles at the border now, we do that. Last year we did 210,000 with our partners here in Texas in the southern border region, 210,000 inspections. So we are actively involved in already doing safety inspections along the commercial zone. Mr. Poe. Of those 210,000, how many passed inspection? Mr. Hill. There were, the out of service rate for the Mexican carriers was 21 percent, which is comparable to what the U.S. out of service rate was nationally of 23 percent. Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Filner. How are you going to know if they leave? Mr. Hill. I am sorry, I did not understand. Mr. Filner. Truck comes in, you have inspected it, you have guaranteed that we are safe. How long can that truck driver stay without anybody knowing it? Are you verifying the exit? Mr. Hill. We are working with DHS on that. Mr. Filner. The answer is no, that you are not going to verify it. Mr. Hill. They are allowed to be in the Country for a specified period of time under a visa. Mr. Filner. But look, and I am sure Mr. Hoffa can speak for himself, but you have a driver here who is going to work for far under what an American teamster is going to make, and you won't even know it. There is no exit system, right? Mr. Hill. There is------ Mr. Filner. So they can work all day from L.A. to San Diego or from Minneapolis to Chicago, back and forth for $5 and hour or $10, whatever. How are you going to know that, and how are you going to verify after a week that they are still safe? Mr. Hill. I would think that the carrier involved might have a little bit of interest in where his or her truck is. Mr. Filner. That carrier may be a different carrier the next day. I mean, every answer that you give is as if it is a first world nation of contracts and memberships and laws. The same trucking company that you verified will be a different trucking company the next day. Mr. Hill. Those motor carriers that you are referring to that switch their identity every day, we are going to have a record of that, and if it doesn't match, then we are going to be putting them out of service. Mr. Filner. Meanwhile the truck driver is going back and forth. What are the consequences of that? Mr. Hill. If there is a motor carrier that you just described that is switching their identity, then they are operating outside the scope of their authority. When they are detected somewhere in this Country------ Mr. Filner. But the trucks are already here. Mr. Hill.--then we will place the vehicle out of service, and the vehicle will not be allowed to move until it is properly licensed. Which is what we do now with U.S. carriers. Mr. Filner. Just like we do with anybody who overstays their visa in this Country, we have noted them, we know they are here and we go after them, right? Mr. Hill. I am not prepared to talk about DHS protocol in terms of immigration and visa issues. But I can tell you about the safety------ Mr. Filner. Yes, but I am just saying, those of us with experience with it, it is laughable what you are suggesting. It is not going to work. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, we appreciate your being here. And we appreciate all you do. I know you work really hard in trying to come up with the right solutions to problems. But I too have real concerns with this. As the Chairman just mentioned, if you look at the State Department program with the visa, 43 percent of the people who are here illegally have overstayed their visa. Immigration and Naturalization is a mess. It is broken. So DOT does a good job with a lot of things, but I guess my problem is, I don't see where you are going to do any better in a similar situation than these other agencies have done. It is a real concern. You mentioned that 860 applications to come over here, you have whittled it down to 150, 160. But again, the fact that only one or two of our carriers, in an effort to make a buck, are willing to venture across the border, that is a very telling thing. We compare with Canada, and yet we would certainly have countless carriers going the other way. You have mentioned a lot about different enforcement mechanisms. How many people are you going to hire? How much increased staff are you going to do? What do you anticipate a budget, increased budget? If you are not going to increase the budget for these things, then where are you taking it from to pay the bills for this? Mr. Hill. Congressman Boozman, I don't know if you were here for my earlier answer, but when the 2002 Appropriations Act was put in place, there was dedicated funding given to hiring people for this particular project, not so much the demonstration project, but Mexican border enforcement. So the people that we have in place, the 274 FTEs that we have in place on the southern border, those are dedicated positions. They are not allowed to go up into Maine or to Michigan, so they are dedicated to the southern border. We do not anticipate asking you for an increase in the budget, because the Congress has already provided that funding specifically to do this particular border enforcement work. Mr. Boozman. But there will be, it has been alluded to, the problem of the trucks not doing what they are supposed to do once they are in the United States. Our agencies now are basically busting a gut and there is no increased ability for them to enforce. How are you going to enforce all the potential problems that you are going to have once they get beyond the border? Mr. Hill. One of the purposes of the demonstration project is just that, we are going to take the concerns that I have heard expressed by skeptical people today, and we are going to evaluate whether or not we are going to see an effective long haul trucking operation coming into this Country and going south. If what you are saying is accurate and the U.S. trucks have difficulty going south, then I think that is a part of the evaluation process and we will have to make a determination whether this is really something that the U.S. Government wants to do. But our purpose is to at least try it and make sure that we fulfilling our NAFTA obligations. At this point, we are not doing so. Mr. Boozman. I understand. But again, it seems like if you are going to do this, then you have to have enforcement in the interior and you have to budget somehow to do that. You have to pay the people to do it and you have to do it with a pilot program. I live in Arkansas. Seventy percent of the crime in Arkansas is meth-related. Most of that comes from Mexico. There is no way that you are not going to have increased smuggling, you are not going to have increased trafficking unless you go the whole way with the enforcement and the whole bit. If you are going to do this, and I think you have the ability to do it, but you do have to do it with the understanding that you are going to be held accountable. And we really are going to do that. I think that is fair. That is what we are elected to do. But you really are hearing some very valid concerns that really do need to be addressed. If you are going to do this, you can't do it on the cheap. You have to do it right or it is going to bite you. Mr. Hill. I would just say to you, Congressman, in closing, that we have 13,000 State inspectors right now that we work with throughout this Country. I know Paul Kalonch and the people down in Arkansas quite well; I work with him. He is a past president of CVSA. People like that all throughout the Country are right now finding unsafe vehicles, unsafe drivers every day. They did over 3 million roadside inspections last year. I just heard about a commercial vehicle inspector from the State of Michigan, two or three weeks ago, who caught a major drug operation through a regular commercial vehicle inspection. I have done this my whole life, 29 years I have been in the State police. Believe me, I want this to work well. I do not want unsafe trucks in here. I don't want unsafe drivers. I don't want crime coming in here. But my job in the Executive Branch is to execute what the Congress has approved, and this is what I am here to do and I am trying to do it the way you folks are going to allow us to do it. Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Filner. If someone from the Arkansas Highway Patrol stops a truck and finds it unsafe because something happened after the inspection, of course, what happens to that truck and driver? Mr. Hill. In terms of a vehicle defect? Mr. Filner. Vehicle, or person. Mr. Hill. CDL violation or drugs and alcohol? Mr. Filner. Whatever. If the highway patrol, if the guy finds either a crime by the driver, insurance problem, safety problem, a drug problem there in Arkansas, what happens to the truck and the driver? Mr. Hill. The vehicle, if it is an offense that requires incarceration, the Customs and Border Protection staff will be called. They will come and deal with the legal alien and the vehicle will be placed out of service and it could either------ Mr. Filner. He's not illegal, you let him in. Mr. Hill. Pardon? Mr. Filner. How are you saying illegal alien? You certified that they were legal when they came in. Mr. Hill. Excuse me. If they are found to be a legal alien and they are in violation of some State or Federal law, Customs and Border Protection will come and get them and take them back to their country. The vehicle will have to be moved by either a U.S. carrier or by an appropriate approved long haul Mexican carrier with authority. Mr. Filner. You are going to have some problems. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard a lot of very interesting points today, and I have to concur with some of the things that particularly Congress Poe and Congressman Boozman mentioned about making sure that we do this right if in fact it is going to happen. Now, I have a little bit of a different perspective. I represent Florida. We don't have the issue of drivers across the border. However, I just keep hearing that if it is drivers or trucks coming from the great white north that it seems to be okay, but if it is coming from the not so white, brown Mexico, it is totally horrible and everything is going to fall apart, which frankly, I think is rather offensive, to tell you the truth, what I have heard a little bit today. Particularly when for some reason it looks like Canada is infallible and Mexico cannot be trusted, no matter what. My understanding would be, whether you look at cases, for example, like suspected terrorists that have come over the border, they have come from Canada, which means that they are not infallible like we know that the Mexican border clearly is not infallible. But I have just been hearing a lot of this talk, Mr. Chairman, about all these Mexicans are incapable of doing anything. And frankly, it borders on offensive, to tell you the truth. Not that there are not real issues. But what I would say is that the real issues are both from the Canadian side and the Mexican side, because just the fact that they are the great northern lighter skinned border does not mean that they are infallible. Because history has shown that, Mr. Chairman, that they are not infallible either. So my understanding is that that is what the pilot program is all about, to try and figure out what some of those issues are, correct? To try to solve some of those issues. But I am hoping that we are not only looking at, as we need to, what some of those issues are with Mexico, which I know there will be many of them, you have heard a lot of the issues today, but I hope that we are not assuming that because it comes from Canada that for some reason everything is okay there and you cannot get fake decals. The Chairman just mentioned a little while ago how he has seen windshields being shifted. Those are not Mexican trucks. So we already have issues. I am just hoping that we don't only emphasize Mexico and we look at the whole issue, and what are you doing to make sure that we are not going to be forgetting other borders just because they may not be brown. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman. Just for the record, I want to state that safety doesn't have a color lens here. Safety is safety, it is vehicles, drivers, we are going to be doing safety regardless of what nationality is involved in the trucking operation. Secondly, I would say to you that as a part of the appropriations process, the Congress has given $32 million to us every year during this reauthorization period to address border enforcement grants for both the north and the south. So there is money going to the States of Michigan, available to the States of Michigan, Maine, Vermont, all of those northern tiered States to do border enforcement for Canadian carriers, just as we do with the ones down in the south. The only caveat is that because of the Section 350 requirements in the 2002 Appropriations Act, we are specifically required to do some things that are unique to the Mexican carrier population, which is going into Mexico and doing the audit. But I can assure you that we have, working with our States, we regularly do enforcement along the northern border and we are going to continue that. Mr. Diaz-Balart. What happens when the pilot program is concluded? It is done and then what steps are taken to make sure that the issues that you have found, and I am sure there will be a myriad of issues, are actually dealt with and not just kind of passed over like, oh, we did the pilot program, not let's go and expand it. How are you going to deal with those issues and how are you going to aggressively deal with those issues? Mr. Hill. As the Under Secretary indicated earlier, this evaluation process is not going to happen at a point in time on the 11th month at the end of the project. It is going to be throughout the demonstration project. I think one of the values to what we are doing by allowing us to observe these first few months of this project with the Mexican motor carriers is to really focus in on the safety issues and determine how well they are complying or not complying in accordance with Congressional requirements. But to answer your specific question about the evaluation, we are going to make sure that there has been equal treatment south of the border as we are seeing with the Mexican carriers coming north. So that is going to be a key part of what we evaluate. Obviously, safety is the standard that we have to make sure that people who are participating in this are going to meet safety standards. I do not want there to be an event, I do not want there to be some kind of a crash that occurs that draws attention to this. We have to make sure we have done everything that the Congress has asked us to do, and we are committed to doing that through evaluation process. Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller of California. Thank you very much. I have some questions, and I am not trying to be argumentative, I have some questions I have not been able to answer based on what I have heard. There is no way of tracking these drivers when they come into the United States. Let's say you have a truck coming across the border and you have two drivers, one on the passenger side, one in the driver's side. How do you know that both those drivers go back? Mr. Hill. I can only tell you that from a safety perspective, we are going to be verifying whether or not the driver and that passenger in the vehicle is authorized to be there. That is a current part of our regulations. Mr. Miller of California. What type of authorization do they need? They don't need a visa? Mr. Hill. They do need a visa, I am told by the Customs and Border people. I don't have a DHS perspective, I don't have all of their perspective on this. But it is my understanding when they come into the Country and they declare that they are going to be going into the United States, at that point they will be pulled out, they have an individual interview with Customs and Border Protection, they go into their data base and they begin tracking them. Mr. Miller of California. Okay. The Chairman kind of touched on a question, let's say a truck comes from Ensenada with a load. They come from Ensenada, Mexico, they drive to Portland, Oregon to drop their load off. Then they pick up a load in Portland and they drive it back to Grants Pass and drop it off, pick a load up at Grants Pass to Sacramento, drop it off, pick a load up in Sacramento to Los Angeles, drop it off, pick up a load in Los Angeles to San Diego, drop it off, pick a load up in San Diego and they are going back to Ensenada. How are we to track that in any way? How do we know that is not occurring? All it would take is some cooperation with some American scheduler who schedules pickups. I know it sounds like an argumentative question. It is really not meant to be. But this could very likely happen. And the guy going back, he is going to be awful cheap. How do we make sure that does not occur? Mr. Hill. Congressman, I don't think it is an argumentative question. It is a relevant question and it is a term that we use in the industry today called cabotage. Cabotage simply says that if you are coming in from Canada or you are coming in from Mexico, you can only deliver to a point in the U.S. and pick up a load and take it back. I think the answer to that is, through regular inspections that people are subjected to and going through weigh stations, using systems that we now have in place throughout this Country. I know Oregon has a very thorough process at the weigh station and they look at the way that is-- ---- Mr. Miller of California. So you would track that truck to every weigh station? Mr. Hill. No, we are not going to track it. But what I am saying is, in the course of them coming through there, we would verify with their bill of lading and make sure that the loads are in fact where they are supposed to be going. And if they detect cabotage, then they are going to be subject to being placed out of service, they cannot move the load. Mr. Miller of California. And each time these trucks come across the border, do they have to go through the safety inspection process, or is it a one time process? Mr. Hill. They have to be through a safety inspection process at least every 90 days, as verified by a safety decal. If we see an obvious safety defect or we want to inspect the vehicle, we can do so without having to just wave it on through because of a safety decal. Mr. Miller of California. I don't know if it was discussed earlier, but in 1994, the Mexican engines met our emissions standards, so U.S. EPA, up to 2003, but the Mexicans have not revised the standard which requires a 50 percent reduction, that was in 2004 to 2007, and a 90 percent reduction of nitrogen oxide in 2007 and beyond. Are we mandating that they meet those new standards? Mr. Hill. When we have vehicles coming in from out of country, they are required to comply with the standards that are in place in those States. So if States are enforcing air quality standards, as they do in California with the------ Mr. Miller of California. So they have to meet the new standards? Mr. Hill. They would have to comply with those standards. Mr. Miller of California. My concern is a lot of our railroads are being impacted because they are trying to cut the standards, because the pollution is being emitted. Our own truckers are having to buy a new type of diesels to meet the standards. These Mexican trucks are actually going to have to do that? Mr. Hill. One of the things that we have found, Congressman, in doing the two audits that we have already, is that the vehicles that are being proposed to come into the Country for long haul operations are newer models. The 2003, for example, is the most recent version of model coming into the Country. Those would meet the U.S. standards. So we anticipate they will be sending their best equipment north, so that it would avoid breaking down, and therefore we believe they will be using newer equipment. Mr. Miller of California. I really hope that the Government is going to enforce this numerous pickups standards, where they are not allowed to stop in numerous cities to pick up cargo to be shipped. Because we have lost so many jobs in this Country to illegal immigration. To lose more jobs to illegal activity by those who are supposed to be here legally is just one more burden I think it just unacceptable by the American worker. So I just would strongly encourage some type of mechanism or program be developed and is in place that we can actually track these weight loads and make sure there is no disparity between those and we are really protecting American jobs. That is the biggest concern I have. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. Mr. DeFazio. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman for his questions. Just a couple of quick questions, I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee being here so long. Just to follow up on two questions raised by the gentleman. On the emissions standards, a 2003 truck would not meet the 2007 or the proposed 2010 standards, and we are not going to require that they do? Are we going to have a requirement that any truck crossing the border meets the 2007 standards, and a requirement that any truck crossing the border meets the 2010 standards? Are we going to require that? Do the Mexicans have the low sulfur diesel available to those people? Mr. Hill. I am told that they are working on improving the low sulfur diesel fuel access in their country. And what we are going to be requiring them to do is comply with the law, U.S. standards as they come into this Country. But we don't enforce that. Mr. DeFazio. Right. So basically, we are going to have Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. and competing with U.S. trucks who don't meet the emissions standards and haven't had to make the investment or the expense. On the other issue about the cabotage, I think the gentleman raised a very good point. What percent of the trucks en route does FMCSA stop and examine within the U.S. on an annual basis? Of all the trucks out there and all their movement, what percentage? Mr. Hill. I would have to get back to you for the record. Mr. DeFazio. So you would be like single low digits, right, in terms of truck trips? Mr. Hill. I would really have to look at the data. Mr. DeFazio. Well, the question, but that goes to the question of enforcement of cabotage. The truck comes to the border, it has a manifest, it says, I am going to New York. Then apparently they get to New York, they could deadhead all the way over to Ohio and then come back down with a load from Ohio, that would be allowed? You don't have to go to New York and back from New York. You could go to New York, you could drive the truck over and pick something up in Chicago and drive it back down, is that correct? It's just international movement that's required? Mr. Hill. Yes. I am not sure that would be a financially smart move for the truck, but that could happen, yes. Mr. DeFazio. Well, depending upon the cost of labor versus the cost of fuel and when you are not towing a trailer, who knows. But let's just leave that for now. But that is the legal framework. But then, who is going to intercept that truck between New York and Chicago on a regular basis to determine that in fact it wasn't scheduled to take a load from New York to Chicago. It went to New York, the manifest says it is going to come back from Chicago, but only if the random occurrence of a stop happens between New York and Chicago and the person is smart enough to ask for the manifest and can read the manifest, if it is in English, and determine whether or not that truck is en route or not and see that it is carrying a load and it was only supposed to go to New York with a load and back from Chicago, and in between it is not supposed to have a load? It seems to me like we are really opening the door to the abuses that the gentleman on that end raised. I just don't see that we are building in some certainty here that we are going to prevent cabotage. And there is going to be a tremendous temptation on the part of agents to do cabotage, because they can save money. Mr. Hill. Would you like me to respond? Mr. DeFazio. Sure. Mr. Hill. Okay. To the first one, yes, I am quite confident that the inspectors are smart enough to look at the manifest and determine where that is, because that is a part of their current process in doing an inspection. Secondly, this will not happen in the demonstration project the way that it would happen if we were doing this on a full- scale opening of the border. But the compliance review has to be done before any permanent authority is granted. So in other words, we will go in and look at the books of this carrier, and we will examine at that time whether or not they are doing cabotage violations. And if they are, through their bills, through their records that they have been at places other than where they said they were going to do in terms of international movements, then we will take action and deal with their operating authority. Mr. DeFazio. If you were doing something illegal, would you put it on the books? Again, the faith--do you know what the word comic book refers to among truckers? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir, I have heard that. Mr. DeFazio. So I am sure the same thing could go on in this area. I doubt that if someone illegally moved product between New York and Chicago that they would have declared that and their company would record it on the books in Mexico that we could go down and examine and find. But in any case, just one last question. And I don't know if Ms. Napolitano or Mr. Filner followed up on this. But again, just back to the initial agreement. I just find it disturbing that it says first stage, six months, second stage, six months, third stage, commences at the end of the twelve months. Mr. Shane has said there will be an evaluation before we open our borders to any and all Mexican trucks. But then you go to page two, next steps, pilot program, joint formal announcement, done, creation, start of operations, technical bond, done, identification of Mexican carriers, in process. The beginning of the pilot program, hasn't happened yet. But you go on down and you get to the end again, and it says, beginning of pilot program, second stage, U.S. trucks, and then beginning of the permanent opening third stage. Again, this is all initial. You have to understand that from a policy maker's perspective, we look at something that says first stage, second stage, third stage, third stage is we totally open our borders after 12 months and it is repeated on two pages and it is initialed, we have to assume that there is some understanding between the two governments that this thing is going forward. Mr. Shane. There is not such an understanding. The understanding is as we have stated today, there will be an evaluation preceding any normalization of the relationship between the United States and Mexico on motor carrier transportation. That is about as clear as I can make it. Mr. DeFazio. The word normalization meaning what you think must happen pursuant to the requirements of NAFTA, that is what you mean by normalization, i.e., Mexican trucks can drive anywhere in the United States of America? Mr. Shane. And U.S. trucks driving anywhere in Mexico. Mr. DeFazio. Right. But we already had, as I put in the record, the security warning and the testimony that I put in the record saying that actually, given the high degree of hijacking that U.S. companies really are kind of reluctant to go into Mexico and they have an advisory against going into Mexico, because the Government isn't there to protect them. But that same Government is keeping the records that will protect the American people. I don't have any further questions. Mrs. Miller? Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Nothing further, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Napolitano. One last bite of the apple, then we will let these gentlemen go. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. We talk about the non-enforcement area of fuel, leaded fuel. If I am understanding correctly, with California, EPA is now working on the ports to assure that the ships coming in have lesser sulfur, to be able to burn less fuel because of the pollution of the port area, which then blows into my area, blows out into the Inland Empire. We are not looking at something similar to be able to ensure that those trucks coming in are utilizing the low sulfur fuel or unleaded, whichever? Mr. Hill. I wish that I could tell you that I am EPA specialist and could address all of this. I will be glad to follow up on the record with any specific questions you have about the environmental issues from our coworkers at EPA. But I do know from my limited visits out there, your area, the Long Beach port and so forth, that there are initiatives underway with EPA and the country of Mexico to develop projects along the border to decrease the incidence of high sulfur usage. Secondly, they are also developing corridors in this country of Mexico for trade routes for U.S. trucks to have low sulfur diesel fuel. Because it is critical that they have that in place in order for our trucks that use the low sulfur diesel fuel after 2007, that they have that access. Mrs. Napolitano. The reason I am asking is that I did talk to EPA and they were telling me they were working on it with the port authorities. Mr. Hill. Okay. Mrs. Napolitano. Then the last question that I will have has to do with, and I am not sure if it was covered before, but does Mexico have certified labs and protocols in place for drug and alcohol testing of their drivers, and how is our U.S. DOT planning to address the drug and alcohol testing of Mexican truck drivers? Mr. Hill. No, they do not have drug certified labs in Mexico at this time. They have been working with us to do that, but we have not seen their labs certified. We did enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Communication and Transport in 1998 to have them use collection sites. Those collection sites are staffed by SCT employees and there are, I think, seven of them at this time. Mr. Filner. I am sorry, whose employees? Mr. Hill. SCT, Secretary of Communication and Transport, which is the counterpart to our Department of Transportation in Mexico. Government employees there supervise the collection of the specimens and then they are sent to a U.S. lab, where they will be tested in a certified U.S. lab. Mrs. Napolitano. Because that goes to the safety, again, on our highways and our roads, other transportation vehicles. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions for the record that I will introduce. Mr. DeFazio. I always encourage questions for the record, although I have never had one meaningfully answered in 21 years. But you can always try. And that was both Democratic and Republican administrations. Thank you, thank you for your very generous grant of time. I am sorry about the interruption with the votes. Thanks again. With that, we would dismiss this panel and call the next panel. Thank you. Our next panel will be Mr. James P. Hoffa, General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Ms. Jacqueline S. Gillan, Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Washington, D.C.; and Major Mark Rogers, Texas Department of Public Safety, State Commercial Vehicle Safety Coordinator. If you could all take your seats and proceed in that order. Again, I would also thank this panel in advance for their indulgence. I know this has taken a bit longer than we thought to get to you. So with that, President Hoffa. TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. HOFFA, GENERAL PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; MAJOR MARK ROGERS, STATE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY COORDINATOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Mr. Hoffa. Chairman DeFazio, thank you for the opportunity to appear here, especially before this Committee, and Congresswoman Miller, who is our former Secretary of State in the State of Michigan. It is an honor to be here. I am here as General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. We represent over 3 million members and their families that every day use the American highway system. Over 600,000 of our members every day deliver goods and services using our American highways. Like every American, they have a right to safe American highways. I am very alarmed that the DOT is moving forward with this dangerous pilot project that leaves so many questions about what is going on in Mexico, and many of them have been raised here today. I have outlined these concerns in my written testimony. Mr. Chairman, the Bush Administration is playing Russian roulette with the highways and the safety on America's highways. DOT resources do not exist to inspect the thousands of trucks called for in the so-called pilot program. The Mexican government has had 15 years to address the issue of drug safety and they have failed miserably. They have had 15 years to implement a simple computer program like we have in the United States, like all of us have here in every State, all coordinated together, and they have not done that. They have had 15 years to have a driver safety program and a program that, protocols like we have in the United States, and they have not done that. They have had 15 years to create a driver protocol for drug testing and physicals. And they have not done that. I am very shocked by the testimony here today, by the way, which was different than what they gave to the Senate. When they testified before the Senate, they said, well, we are going to collect the drug samples down in Mexico. There is not one drug testing lab in Mexico. After 15 years, they do not have a drug testing facility down in Mexico. Then today, Mr. Hill said, oh, we are going to do it at the border. Then in part of his testimony after that he said, well, we are going to collect them down in Mexico. Well what is it? Where are they going to be collected? And what is the temperature? I know how we do it in the United States. People almost watch you take the specimen to make sure it is your specimen. We all know how it is done, and it is not going to be done in Mexico. Left to its own, without the pressure of the United States, Mexico trucks are even worse than they were before. Mexican truck drivers are underpaid, untrained and overworked. They are often forced to drive 24 hours without sleep. This is not the fault of the Mexican worker. The sole responsibility for meeting the standards required by NAFTA and the Murray-Shelby safety provisions that Congress enacted in 2001 lies with the Mexican government and the United States Government. I would like to tell this Subcommittee what the Teamsters Union has learned about Mexican trucking. Each of you has a copy of an investigative report that we did in the Teamster magazine, and I have provided that and I would ask it be made part of the record. This is the story of an investigative report done by Charles Bowden, who in 1999 wrote a story about what is going on with the Mexican drivers. He was told in 1999 that they were exploited, exhausted, the truck drivers pushed to the limit by their employers. And guess what? Seven years later, he found the same thing is going on. Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Bowden's article, which are based on interviews with Mexican truckers. One said this: ``The longest distance I drive is from Ensenada to Cancun, 2,700 miles, five days and six nights. I do it myself and I do it without a second driver.'' According to Bowden, they are all family men who run the highways at least 25 days a month, and they are adamant about two things, that nobody can make these runs without using cocaine and crystal meth, and they all use marijuana to come down from the high. These drivers are victims of a system that the U.S. will depend on to enforce drug and alcohol testing and hours of service regulations. Is this the so-called pilot program that we are supposed to rely on? What kind of confidence can we have in that program? The Transportation Department Inspector General just a couple of years ago found, after a very close inspection, that they did not meet the standards of the American highways. The fact that there is no lab, after all this time, tells us an awful lot. What we are asked to do is believe that the Mexican driver will produce a log book at the border that is accurate about all his driving for the eight days previous in Mexico. Who would really believe that? Even now in the commercial zone, of the top out of service violations for Mexican drivers that are screened, 15 have no log books and 22 percent try and come across the border without commercial driver's licenses. We don't even know who these drivers are because of the lack of a computer. So I would say, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, there are so many safety and homeland security issues that need to be addressed before one Mexican truck comes across the border that we should just say stop. We have to know that our highways have to be safe. I would hope that Congress could do something to stop this dangerous program, which is really a mad rush to judgment, before this Administration runs out. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, President Hoffa. Ms. Gillan. Ms. Gillan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I am Jackie Gillan, Vice President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. I would also like to add that the preeminent truck safety groups, Public Citizen, CRASH and Parents Against Tired Truckers, also support the views in my statement. With only five minutes, it is hard to know where to start. My 21-page statement can be summed up in three simple words: don't do it. Now let me explain why. The announced pilot program or so- called demonstration project has all the elements of a perfect storm. This perfect storm consists of a failed safety agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, overseeing this project, major safety deficiencies at the border, a cynical decision to open the border under the ruse of a phony pilot program, and lastly, the American public paying the price. I really want to digress for a moment, because coincidentally with this hearing, we had a conference this weekend called Sorrow to Strength, where we had 65 people, family members who have lost someone in a truck crash attend. Many of those people are here in the hearing room today. They have absolutely no confidence that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration can protect their safety over domestic trucking, let alone foreign trucking. We have Jane Mathis, who lost her son and his bride of five days in a truck crash; the Willbornes from Oklahoma whose son was moving into the dorm his freshman year and was killed by a truck crash; and we have the Woods family here from Virginia, whose daughter was killed returning to college from her fall break. These are the people that this pilot program is going to affect if we don't get it right. FMCSA has failed to meet any of its safety goals in the last seven years. We still kill over 5,000 people annually and 115,000 or more are injured. FMCSA has ignored Congressional mandates to issue safety regulations. And when they have issued them, they are weak and ineffective. There are two important safety regulations, the hours of service regulation for truck drivers and entry level driver training has been overturned unanimously in the court with stinging opinions. I am also going to submit for the record a report that we released yesterday, The FMCSA, A Failed Agency, that goes into great detail to all of this. The second component of our perfect storm is inadequate border safety. We have already heard about some of the safety deficiencies that are already at the border. I would like to point out that even the IG in his testimony this afternoon used the term that DOT has substantially met the requirements of Section 350, and he did not say that they have met all the requirements of Section 350. There are still serious questions about drug and alcohol testing, medical and physical fitness of drivers, and whether the States are now enforcing out of service for foreign carriers. I would also like to mention motor coach bus inspections, which the IG has said are sporadic or non-existent, and the issue of hazardous materials transportation with Mexico- domiciled carriers. Now, I know these are not part of the pilot program yet. But because Section 350(a) and (b) expressly state that ``No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier can be permitted to operate beyond the border zone until the provisions of Section 350 have been fulfilled,'' this is a legal bar to any commercial vehicles being granted operating authority to travel beyond the border zones, until all the requirements of Section 350 are fully completed. Lastly, we have the third component of the perfect storm is the one year pilot program, a calculated, cynical move to open the border regardless of safety. Last week's testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee made it clear there was no planning involved, no methodology to assure an objective trial, no criteria for selection of participating motor carriers. We also agree with you, Chairman DeFazio, that the pilot program that they are composing does not comply with the law drafted by this Committee in 1998 as part of the TEA-21 Section 407 governing the conduct of pilot programs by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Calling the pilot program a demonstration project fools no one. We are also concerned because this pilot program was kept in secrecy for many years, even though Secretary Peters at her confirmation hearing assured the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't any pilot program in the making. Last October, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety filed a FOIA to get the documents to better understand and see what they were thinking of in doing this pilot program. The Administration stalled and stalled, and even though they were supposed to provide the documents within 20 days, no documents were made available, and therefore just this morning, we were forced to file suit in Federal court in an effort to get these documents. There is little question that the intent of the pilot program is to supply the justification for opening the border once the year is over. Mr. Chairman, we cannot let an agency that has failed us so miserably in protecting domestic trucking operations say, trust us on this critical decision affecting American families. And I would also like to add that with CAFTA, once the Mexican border is open completely, we do not have any Section 350 guaranteeing the trucks that are going to be coming up through Central America. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Gillan. Major Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Mark Rogers. I represent the Texas Department of Public Safety, and in my opening statement I would like to give you an overview of our Texas border and safety program. Our border safety inspection program is operated to provide both an effective and efficient commercial vehicle enforcement program that is designed to ensure public safety and security, prevent the premature and unnecessary deterioration of our State highway infrastructure due to overweight vehicles, and to create an environment that promotes both vital and safe commerce in the State of Texas. Our program is designed to ensure that only competent drivers are operating safe vehicles in compliance with our State statute. Our program also encourages the trucking industry to take a greater participatory role in resolving any transportation issues that arise. It is important to note that at our Texas-Mexico border, our goal is not only ensure safe vehicles, but it is not to impeded legally compliant vehicles as well. When we determine whether to stop and inspect a vehicle, we basically use four criterion. We visually inspect each vehicle that passes by our inspection facility to see if there are any safety defects, we weigh each vehicle on weigh and motion equipment, we look to see if the vehicle is displaying the valid commercial vehicle safety decal, and then we also look to see if there is any other obvious defect or violation of our State statutes that we enforce. It is important to note that our border inspection program does screen 100 percent of the vehicles visually. We also screen 100 percent of the vehicles via weigh and motion scales. But we generally only conduct a more thorough inspection of only about 3 to 5 percent of the vehicles that actually cross the border. In calendar year 2006, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency indicated that there were over 3 million commercial motor vehicles that crossed from Mexico into Texas. During this same period, the Department of Public Safety did an inspection on more than 101,000 of these vehicles. During these 101,000-plus inspections, we placed 23,651 of those vehicles out of service, or had a 23 percent out of service rate. At the same time, during these 101,000-plus inspections, we only placed 649 drivers out of service, which is less than 1 percent of the total inspections that we have done. Thus far in calendar year 2007, our out of service rate for vehicles continues to be at 23 percent, and our out of service rate for drivers continues to be less than 1 percent. These figures at the national level are comparable to the national out of service statistics for vehicles, but they are much lower than the national out of service statistics for drivers. We attribute this to an aggressive enforcement program at the border. These statistics are considerably lower than when we first started our program back in 1995, when we virtually had a 100 percent out of service rate. At present, the Department of Public Safety staffs the nine largest ports of entry on a daily basis. We staff our facilities at the same hours that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection import lots are open. And our current border staff numbers 310. The Texas Department of Public Safety remains committed to assisting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in meeting its requirements to ensure compliance with Section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 U.S. Department of Transportation Appropriation Act. It is through the support of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that our border enforcement program has grown to its present level. I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee on this important issue, and would be happy to answer any questions concerning our Texas border inspection program. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Major. President Hoffa, obviously truck drivers often frequent the same places, truck stops, whatever. I am wondering, what do you hear? We have the story by this author, which seems quite credible in terms of the problems in Mexico with the use of drugs by the drivers, drivers who are abused by their companies, made to drive extremely long distances without rest breaks, basically no recognition for hours of service. What are your folks who come in contact, do you have any substantial number of members who come in contact with some of the Mexican drivers? Have you heard confirmation of this with drivers who are coming across the border? Mr. Hoffa. We hear this down in the commercial zone, when the drivers come across, where there is interaction between the Mexican drivers, where they drop off the trucks, and then the American truckers take them throughout the United States. There are a lot of complaints from those drivers about how hard they have to work, how they have to use drugs. Basically, our drivers are saying, my God, if those people get over here, it is going to really be a problem. I think it is obvious that these drivers don't have the same training, they are going to be pushed. When you get a driver that is sent from Monterrey, Mexico, to deliver something in Detroit, and he doesn't get it done in time, how does he get home? The whole story is, what is his redress? Who does he complain to? He doesn't have a union. He will be fired if he doesn't do it in a certain period of time or do it the way the company wants, because he doesn't have the protection that we have of hours in service, of the wage and hour laws that a person in the United States would have. They really have no protection. And this whole idea about, we are going to monitor the hours and it is going to be kept in Mexico, well, how are we going to get those records down in Mexico and how do we know how they are kept? So I think that what I have heard from the drivers is that it is going to be a big danger if they come across, and that is from the American drivers. The Mexican drivers, they are looking at it from the standpoint that, I will do whatever I have to do to make a living, because I have a family. It is the same idea about what is coming across the border. We have thousands of people, illegal aliens coming across the border. They are coming here because there are jobs here, there is money here. I think you are going to see the same thing with the Mexican drivers. They want access because they want to make money. It is the same thing about people coming across the border. And the answer is, they don't have the training and they are going to be pushed very, very hard and it is going to create a serious problem on American highways. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Major, there was something that I brought up with Mr. Hill yesterday, and since it relates to Texas, I thought I would ask you about it. In the Inspector General's report, they talked about something disturbing, which is that we seem to see a huge drop-off in traffic convictions from Mexican-licensed drivers from January through May 2006. But then the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that Texas had just stopped putting information into the data base, that in fact there had been 40,000 violations during that relatively short period of time. That is basically a five month period, that is 8,000 a month. And now they go on to say that that Texas is still not providing the information electronically, there is a manual process. Can you address that a little bit? It doesn't give us a high level of confidence. That is on our side of the border, let alone what really goes on on their side of the border in terms of violations, whether or not they are recorded properly to their record and all that. Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. Citations primarily are written at the border via a laptop computer. They are generated for the driver and then the driver is given a copy to report to the court. Then the citation is not electronically transmitted to the court. That is a manual process. It is taken to the local court and it is filed by the officer. Once adjudication occurs on the offense, some of the courts do electronically report dispositions back to the Department of Public Safety, others do not. That is a very manual process. Essentially, the reverse side of the citation is filled out with the violation information and that is forwarded by the court to the Department of Public Safety for entry into the commercial vehicle driver's license information system. There were problems within the department's ability to be able to report those violations. It was discovered and corrective measures were taken with the support of FMCSA. They are currently being reported in an electronic manner. I also want to assure you, sir, it hasn't been because we have reduced the number of citations that we were writing. The number of citations has remained pretty static throughout this entire period. We believe we have corrected our reporting difficulties. Mr. DeFazio. You said that basically you are inspecting somewhere between 3 and 5 percent of the vehicles crossing the border, and yet you had 23 percent placed out of service, 23,651 vehicles. Can we expect that if, I mean, let's put it this way. Are those 3 to 5 percent because there was something obvious going on? Or is that just a random sample? Mr. Rogers. No, sir, it is because there was something wrong with the truck, the inspector selected that particular vehicle. Mr. DeFazio. So he saw it moving and saw something? Mr. Rogers. Correct. As it was rolling by, it was either visually selected or there was some sort of obvious defect. Mr. DeFazio. So if we had more personnel and we were able to inspect more trucks, do you think that the out of service rate would remain the same or perhaps would drop, because these are the trucks with the most obvious defects? Mr. Rogers. It would either remain the same, sir, or we feel that it would decrease somewhat. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. But still, that could mean a lot of trucks that would be placed out of service who weren't driving around? Mr. Rogers. That is correct, yes, sir. Mr. DeFazio. So that is a concern. I don't think I have any other questions. Mrs. Miller? Mrs. Miller of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just tell you sincerely how much I appreciate your calling this Committee hearing, because this is such an important issue. I appreciate the panel, the second panel, all of you coming again and sitting through what has been a very lengthy Subcommittee hearing here today, particular Mr. Hoffa, from the great State of Michigan. After almost three and a half hours of listening, almost without exception, every member on both sides has expressed consternation about this program, what a problem it is going to be. I think it is well documented by the testimony of all of you and the panel before you, in some cases, about the problems. This is really just a problem that is waiting to happen. I don't know what other question I can even ask of you. I have no question in my mind that this is a bad situation. I would respectfully suggest, I would like to start turning from questions and think about an action plan on how the Congress could actually stop this. I have been sort of sitting here noodling about what we can--I cannot believe we can't do anything about this. I do understand it is a manifestation of NAFTA. I do understand about the court case, et cetera. But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if I could respectfully suggest, just something I have been thinking about, that this Subcommittee or the full Committee would send a letter to the appropriators, asking to have the funding for this particular pilot program denied. That would be a way perhaps for us to stop it. I am going to continue to try to think of other avenues that we may be able to take as a Congress to stop what I think, as I say, is just a huge, huge problem waiting to happen. As I mentioned, before I came to the Congress, being the chief motor administrator in my State, I have worked with Mr. Hoffa and other trucking groups with the rodeos, the trucking rodeos, and we were so proud of our safety record and the kinds of things that we have tried to do in our State and across the Nation, in thinking about what the potential is here. I was the Chairman of the Michigan Safety Traffic Commission for seven years. So I appreciate all the information that I am hearing here today. What I am saying now is somehow we have to develop an action plan of actually trying to stop this pilot program before any damage is accrued to our Nation. That would be a suggestion that I would lay out on the table and I will be thinking of other avenues that might be appropriate as well. Again, I want to thank the panelists, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. I actually had a brief opportunity to approach Chairman Oberstar while we were voting on the Floor and I expressed the same concern to him. I thought that there was strong bipartisan concern that we needed to take action, that we were not confident that the program, which is dependent upon the good offices of officials in Mexico and paper keeping, record keeping by these Mexican trucking companies, was a sufficient measure to assure that these trucks and drivers would be safe when they come across the border into the U.S. So I agree with you on that, and would like to, I intend to first challenge their premise that they are exempt from the law regrading pilot problems. It is highly unusual, in the least, and Ms. Gillan, you might address this, since you are a watchdog safety advocate. I am not aware of any other program of this magnitude which did not go through a rulemaking process with some notice in the Federal Register, which would be required, as I see it, under TEA-21. Ms. Gillan. You are absolutely right. I think it is interesting that we gave similar testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where we challenged them about this pilot program. And now they have changed the nomenclature to call it a demonstration project. So I think that sort of says it all right there, that they are trying to wiggle out from under that requirement also. And the fact of the matter is, if you also read Section 350, even though they have excluded trucks transporting hazardous materials and buses, the language is very clear that no vehicle shall cross the border until all the requirements of Section 350 have been met. And they haven't been. Mr. DeFazio. Anybody else have an opinion on that? Mr. Hoffa. I would think that somehow Congress could deny funding for this. Perhaps that is the way to do it, to notify this Department and go to the Appropriations Committee and say that there is broad bipartisan concern about this program and that we will not fund it. And when funding does come up, it would be found out and stopped. Now, I know it is a big, amorphous budget and it is hard to find the money in it. But at least that type of directive might be something that would be a way to de-fund this particular project. I have heard that has been done other ways, other times. So may de-funding it or not funding is a possible way to do it. Mr. DeFazio. I am sorry, I didn't notice, we do have another member of the Committee. I was so focused straight ahead here. In response to that, the problem of course is that the giant Continuing Resolution would have extended funding through next October for this particular program, in all probability, since we didn't earmark anything and we left great discretion to the agencies. So something, it seems to me, a limitation amendment is certainly something that we can offer, if our colleagues on Appropriations would see fit. But that would only apply to the next fiscal year, which would mean we would still have the program between May and October, at least. So I am going to look for something that we might be able to do a bit more immediately. Mrs. Napolitano, I apologize. Mrs. Napolitano. That is okay, you are on a roll. To Mr. Rogers, do you check with the courts to see the percentage of citations that are complied with in regard to appearing in court, correction of defects and paying of any fines? Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am, we do. Roughly about 80 percent of the citations that we write are complied with within the terms of the citation. That leaves the remaining 20 percent that result in warrants for the arrest of the driver. Then we have those warrants in file. Should we interact with the driver, we would serve those warrants and arrest that driver. Mrs. Napolitano. But do you do that at the border? Because if they come in, do you have the ability to identify those warrant violators? Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Napolitano. You do, okay. Do you by any chance speak to the other border highway patrol or other law enforcement agencies to share comments? Do you meet and discuss this issue? Mr. Rogers. No, ma'am. It is not a regularly scheduled meeting between the four border States. Mrs. Napolitano. Don't you think it might prove advantageous to be sharing information? Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. The more information you have, the more sound decisions you can make. But it is has not been something that has ever been put in place. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, maybe we should suggest to the four border States that they discuss the issue. Because it will affect the safety of the people that you guard. Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. To President Hoffa, have you worked at all, have you had any dialogue with the Mexican labor unions in regard to this issue? Mr. Hoffa. We have not. We know some of the people down there. But on this issue, they haven't approached us nor have we approached them. We should probably do that. But they are very, very weak with regard to these issues. And there are thousands and thousands of independent truck drivers that don't belong to the unions. Unions there are relatively weak, and they do not have enforcement power. When people come across the border, they don't belong to unions. The number of people belonging to the transportation union is so small, that it really wouldn't cover and they wouldn't have any jurisdiction over this. Now, maybe they could speak out, that is something they could do. We could talk to them about that. But as far as the individual drivers, they really are not union members. Mrs. Napolitano. I understand that. But if they were able to maybe suggest a way of being able to be more effective in providing safety safeguards. Mr. Hoffa. Well, as I said in my testimony, it has been 15 years. One of the things I like to point out is that when NAFTA was passed in 1993, the United States actually had a trade surplus with Mexico. Today we have a $68 billion trade deficit with Mexico. So we know what is going on with Mexico, everything is coming out and very little going in. There is a huge trade deficit with Mexico. You would think that with all that revenue and all that time, that they would have addressed these issues. I agree, if the unions could speak out, that would be good. But it really is a Government issue to bring up. And you would think they would want to bring up their standards to our level, so they could be true partners in NAFTA. And I think they have failed that mission. Mrs. Napolitano. I agree with you, because I know that prior to NAFTA, I was not here during passage of that agreement, it did not encompass some of the safeguards that would be necessary. This is one of the reasons why I am totally against some of these trade agreements that don't protect our general public in the United States. We seem to be able to give carte blanche, if you will, in some areas, without understanding that what we are doing is tying the hands of our law enforcement and of our other agencies to be able to protect the United States, not only the business, but the public safety of the people. We talked about the issue of being able to have a truck driver deliver, say, to New York and go back empty. Do you think that happens, or do they pick up loads and take back? Mr. Hoffa. It is hard to imagine that a Mexican truck driver who was interested in making money and feeding his family, he is going to find a way to make money. That is the issue of cabotage, that they are not going to go back empty, they are going to find something to take back, they are going to find some way to stop. There is always a network of people that say, if you stop here you can pick up something. And I think that is something that the people from the Administration really have no answers for. They had no way to police the people in, when we all know about people coming to this Country, they say they are going to be a student, they get a visa, they come here, they disappear into the system. No one can find these people. And if that is true, we can't find people who come to our Country who have a visa and disappear, how are we going to find these people? Mrs. Napolitano. But Mr. Hoffa, on the way back, they have to cross our border. Do we not at that border find out if they are going empty or are they carrying materials and are they qualified or allowed to be able to carry it back into Mexico? Because they have to go through our border. Mr. Hoffa. I didn't hear any testimony on that, and I wonder what kind of documentation they have. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, maybe that is something we need to go into. Mr. Chair, there are a couple of other things I would like to cover. Mr. DeFazio. Go ahead. Mrs. Napolitano. Suggestion, panel? Any one of you. What do you suggest we need to do. And I heard you about the appropriation, withdraw the funding or the cutting of funds to be able to do that. But what other suggestions would you have to be able to begin imposing upon this Administration the necessity of being more careful on what we do on this specific issue? Because it will affect our people and our safety. Mr. Hoffa. Well, the problem, and I have been critical of this Administration, they never saw a trade agreement they didn't like. Every trade agreement they make, whether it is Peru, whether it is Panama, whether it is Colombia, one trade agreement after another, CAFTA, NAFTA, on and on and on. Every one of them results in a massive trade deficit. Every one of these agreements ends up with a trade deficit. I would like to see one that works, or maybe it was equal. The answer is, we have to make sure that there is an equality. If you are going to sell your goods to us, we have to be able to sell our goods to you. And with regard to what we are talking about today, one of the Congressman said, I would like to see it on the fact that if we are going to have 10 trucks going over the border into the United States, we will have 10 American trucks going over there. Some type of equality with regard to trade, some type of equality with regard to services. To me that makes sense, so that we have some idea that this is a fair deal. We want fair trade. No one wants to build a wall around America. But we realize that we have to have fair trade. And we do not have that today. It is a one way street with a $68 billion trade deficit. Mrs. Napolitano. So what would be the answer? Mr. Hoffa. The answer is we should rewrite NAFTA, is one of the things we should do. We should rewrite all these trade agreements to make sure we have protections for our borders, to make sure we preserve our sovereignty. Many of these agreements say that we lose our sovereignty, that we cannot have a law that is contrary to what they have in Mexico, we can't enforce those laws. We have seen tests with regard to environmental issues. We have to make sure that we protect what we have in the United States, so we keep high standards as opposed to going to low standards. And that is the issue here with regard to highway safety, that we know that our standards are up here, and we believe that the standards in Mexico are down here. Until they meet our standards, they should not be able to come across our border. Mrs. Napolitano. They have been attempting to improve the standards. That I know for a fact. They have not been able to improve them to the standards that we keep raising, because we do keep raising our standards to protect our folks. It is something that we need to go at. Ms. Gillan? Ms. Gillan. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety comes at it from a little bit different perspective, because we did not take a position on NAFTA. We are a coalition of consumer health, safety and insurance companies. We had many of our consumer board members who opposed NAFTA and our insurance members supported NAFTA. However, we are completely in agreement that NAFTA should not degrade the safety of the American public. That is why I am here testifying, saying that the border is not ready to be opened. You have heard all the different issues. You could have a driver from the central part of Mexico drive 12, 14 hours, get to the border and still have 11 hours that they can drive. And fatigue is a major problem. Mrs. Napolitano. And the answer? Ms. Gillan. And the answer is, I think we need to get some legislation passed to stop this pilot program from going through. The Administration says they want to move it in 60 days. That doesn't give us a lot of time and they are not going to correct these problems with 60 days. Mrs. Napolitano. Major? Mr. Rogers. Ma'am, unfortunately, as a State employee I can't offer any advice as to pro or con against any piece of legislation. Mrs. Napolitano. But given your findings, given the impact it has, would you want to have a budget to be able to help you do better enforcement? Mr. Rogers. At present, ma'am, the budget that is provided to us by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is quite adequate to do our enforcement program. Mrs. Napolitano. It is? Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. They provide us with about $24 million each fiscal year, which is very adequate for our enforcement. Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, then the question, sir, would be, if they go ahead and work through this pilot, this demonstration project, what would be the impact on your ability to be able to do the job? Mr. Rogers. It would really be insignificant. We already have 3 million trucks crossing a year in Texas. So a few more will really not have an impact on us. Mrs. Napolitano. But can you tell me if there is any real impact on the communities themselves? I was born and raised in Brownsville, Texas. I can tell you, I grew up in that area. To see a mile long of trucks waiting to cross is not necessarily what I remember of my home town. Mr. Rogers. Yes, ma'am. We are not the ones that create the backlog. That is when they actually cross the border and interact with Customs and Border Protection. Basically, if you are not selected for inspection inside our facilities, you move through in just a few seconds. So we really don't impede that process. The lines occur when you are waiting to clear in Customs and Border Protection. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gillan. Could I just add something? I just spent this weekend met a police officer from Fort Worth, and he was mentioning to me, I think it is an issue no one has even focused on, the Federal money for truck inspections goes to the State. But we haven't even thought about the burden is going to be on local police, that once these trucks go out, leave the border zones and travel throughout the United States, those police are also going to be charged with enforcing trucks, if they see a truck that is unsafe or a driver that is fatigued. Nobody has even thought about the additional burdens on local police when they have to start enforcing these truck safety laws. Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, because I sat on transportation for six years in California, and the Highway Patrol, which deals with not just--they deal all over-- what is specific to that issue is the safety, the upkeep, the maintenance, the driver's license, the placarding, safety factor in the normal, if the person had slept, the logs, all of that came into play. As I say, it hasn't changed much. There are still the same questions, as to whether or not we are going to be allowing the truck drivers to operate under the same premise that they operate in Mexico, with a few adjustments, but not enough to be able to provide the law enforcement the ability to determine whether or not they are safe to drive on our streets and our highways. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Napolitano. I want to thank the panel members for their time and their testimony. I think you can see with perhaps one exception there is broad concern on this Committee on a bipartisan basis about the potential problems with this program. We are going to do the best we can, I am going to begin to try and formulate a strategy to push back on the Administration here. We are not confident that they have reached the point at all where they can assure us that these trucks coming across the border are going to be as safe as American trucks, and even within our own industry in our Country we have problems. So to bring in yet another pool that pulls down the overall safety is not, certainly not desirable. Thanks again for your time and your testimony. The Committee is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]