Congress went into its August recess without resolving the fight over cross-border trucking between the U.S. and Mexico. While members are in their home districts, taking the pulse of the electorate, their staffs on Capitol Hill will search for ways to reconcile differences that threaten to ignite a trade skirmish between the U.S. and Mexico

– and that have put $60 billion worth of transportation funding on hold.
On its face, the conflict is about safety – but it’s about safety the same way that the battle of Gettysburg was about shoes.
There were shoes in Gettysburg, and when the Confederates went there to get them, they encountered Union troops and triggered the climactic fight of the Civil War. There are serious safety issues arising from long-distance cross-border trucking, but they are essentially about procedures and money – problems that could be solved without the hoopla that has attended this debate. The fight is really about presidential politics, international trade policy, the Hispanic vote and control of Congress.
Under an agreement between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, the border is supposed to open to long-haul trucking by the first of next year. This agreement follows a decision by a North American Free Trade Agreement arbitration panel that the U.S. is in violation of NAFTA because it failed to open the border on schedule. If the U.S. does not open the border next January, it faces possible trade sanctions to the tune of $1 billion. Moreover, last week Fox was threatening to make the truck ban reciprocal.
“There won’t be any U.S. trucks here until there is an agreement to let Mexican trucks travel there,” he said.
The Bush-Fox agreement pits the U.S. president against domestic forces that have long opposed NAFTA. Labor, environmental organizations and safety advocates were instrumental in getting the Clinton administration to keep the border closed, and they have been energized by Bush’s commitment to let the trucks roll.
When Congress left town, it left two bills – House and Senate versions of Department of Transportation appropriations bills – that have radically different approaches to cross-border truck safety.
On its face, the House bill is the tougher measure: It would keep the border closed by cutting off funds to the Department of Transportation for processing applications from Mexican trucking companies. But that position does not reflect the true sentiments of many House members. While they are concerned about the safety of Mexican trucks, many still support the idea of cross-border trucking. They voted for the funding cut-off because it was the only way they had to express their concerns, since House rules restrict the scope of appropriations bills to language concerning money.
President Bush has vowed to veto a final bill that contains the funding cut-off.
The Senate bill would give Mexican trucks access, but sets the safety bar high – higher than it is set for new entrants in the U.S. Under the proposal by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., FMCSA would have to conduct an onsite compliance review of all Mexican applicants before granting conditional operating authority, and then follow up within 18 months with another compliance review before granting permanent authority. Further, Mexican trucks would be restricted to border crossings where inspectors are on duty. Right now, according to Murray, inspectors are on duty 24 hours a day at just two of 27 border crossings.
In addition, Murray-Shelby places a host of conditions on the border opening. It says, for example, that the DOT Inspector General must certify that FMCSA has hired and trained 80 new border inspectors. Also, the IG must certify that the agency can ensure that Mexican truckers comply with hours-of-service rules, and that Mexico has a safety information infrastructure, including a license database, that is accurate and integrated with U.S. systems.
Other points:

• U.S. inspectors must electronically verify the documents of every Mexican truck crossing the border.

• DOT must require all state inspectors whose operations are supported by federal funds to check for violations of federal rules. According to Murray, many state inspectors enforce only state rules.

• The IG must certify that each border crossing has enough parking space to manage safety inspections.

• All border crossings must be equipped with fixed scales, as well as weigh-in-motion systems, to verify the weight of all Mexican trucks.

The effect of all this would be to delay the border opening – the administration says by at least two years. Critics, led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argue that the delay is precisely what Murray and her supporters want, because they are opposed to NAFTA. Murray and her supporters, on the other hand, say that their sole interest is to ensure that Mexican trucks are safe.
DOT, for its part, argues that it simply cannot comply with many provisions of Murray-Shelby. For instance, it cannot conduct the initial compliance review of a Mexican company – because the records that are basis of the compliance review do not exist until the company has operated in the U.S. The DOT, through McCain, proposed changing the CR to a “safety review,” based on the records that are available, but the Senate rejected that idea.
A third element in the equation is DOT’s own proposal for ensuring safety. It would set up a screening process based on paperwork designed to ensure that Mexican applicants understand U.S. rules and are prepared to obey them. It also would require the safety agency to audit each Mexican company within 18 months of registration.
Meanwhile, President Bush has said he cannot accept a bill that contains the Murray-Shelby provisions, although it remains to be seen if he has enough votes to override a veto.
How will the issue be resolved?
It seems unlikely that DOT will be allowed to proceed with its plan, although Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has said the agency can get its enforcement systems ready in time for the Jan. 1, 2002, opening. At the same time, Mineta said that if the pieces are not in place he will postpone the opening.
In the final moments of debate last week, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, hinted that compromise still is possible – something between what DOT originally proposed and what the Senate passed.
“I think the discussion that has been going on for almost two weeks on this floor is really a process discussion, not a substantive one,” said Hutchison. “I think we are very close to significant changes in the original Department of Transportation regulation because they were totally inadequate, and (DOT has) stepped up to the plate and agreed to come up with good safety regulations.”
One industry leader agrees that DOT’s original plan needs work. Stephen Campbell, executive director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, described the plan as “insufficient” and suggested an alternative.
“We believe that it would be helpful to go to Mexico to evaluate carriers, perhaps one-by-one or perhaps in a statistically valid sample,” Campbell said. “Mexican carriers are likely to be as good or better than U.S. carriers, but we need people on the ground to answer that question factually.”
He said CVSA could do that work in conjunction with Mexico, which is a partner along with Canada and the U.S. in the organization.
Meanwhile, owner-operators and other trucking interests are saying that DOT has not yet come up with a plan to ensure that Mexican companies comply with U.S. tax and cabotage rules.
“In fact, state officials in all but the four border states have no idea what issues will be raised with the emergence of large numbers of trucks and drivers from Mexico ... and the U.S. government has made no effort to inform them,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn.
And Lane Kidd, president of the Arkan