[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 94 (Monday, July 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7294-S7298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEXICAN LONG-HAUL TRUCKS ON U.S. HIGHWAYS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, later this week and perhaps through the
summer we will have a discussion in both the Senate and the House about
a very controversial issue. This administration and this Government
will allow Mexican long-haul truckers to move across the border from
Mexico into this country to drive their trucks on the highways and
byways of this country unrestricted on the grounds that the North
American Free Trade Agreement requires us to do so. However, after
signing NAFTA the previous administration decided, because of serious
safety concerns, not to allow the Mexican truckers to come in
unrestricted on America's highways. At the moment, we allow them to
cross the border and operate only in a zone within 20-miles from the
Mexican border, on short-haul trucks.
The Bush administration is now going to lift that restriction. That
is going to cause some very serious controversy. I want to explain
today why that is an important issue.
A San Francisco Chronicle reporter named Robert Collier recently went
on a 3-day trip with a long-haul trucker in Mexico. His article in the
San Francisco Chronicle is quite interesting and quite revealing. I ask
unanimous consent to have it printed at the conclusion of my remarks in
the Record.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DORGAN. What is this issue of Mexican trucks coming into the
United States? Why is it important and why will it provoke controversy?
Simply, the issue is this: We inspect just 1 to 2 percent of the
Mexican trucks that come into this country and operate within the 20-
mile restriction. And 36 percent of those Mexican trucks are turned
back into Mexico for serious safety violations.
In other words, up to now, we have told Mexican truckers: We will not
allow you to drive on American roads because you don't meet American
safety standards. Mr. President, 98 to 99 percent of the trucks were
never inspected at all because we do not have nearly enough inspectors
at the border. But of those that were inspected, 36 percent were turned
back into Mexico for serious safety violations.
Mexico has a regime of safety issues dealing with truckers that is
very lax. They are printed at the end of the article I previously
mentioned. Let me run through a few of these. It says:
[[Page S7295]]
Hours-of-service limits for drivers: In the United States, we limit
truckers to 10 hours of consecutive driving and then they must rest.
That is all you can do in the United States, 10 hours. In Mexico, the
sky is the limit. In fact, this reporter rode with one Mexican long-
haul trucker for 3 days. In 3 days of driving a truck, the Mexican
driver slept 7 hours--7 hours in 3 days. There is no restriction on
hours with respect to Mexican drivers and truckers.
Random drug tests: In the United States, yes for all drivers; in
Mexico, no.
Automatic disqualification for certain medical conditions: In the
United States, yes; in Mexico, no.
Standardized logbooks: In the United States, yes, and you better fill
them out. In Mexico, virtually no truckers use a logbook. The new law
is not enforced.
Maximum weight limit for trucks: In the United States, 80,000 pounds;
in Mexico, 135,000 pounds.
The point is, under NAFTA, it has been determined that the United
States should allow Mexican long-haul truckers into this country
unrestricted. I wonder if you want a Mexican trucker in your rear-view
mirror on an American interstate, coming down the highway with
questionable brakes, with questionable equipment, in a circumstance
where over a third of all the trucks that we have inspected--and we
have only inspected an infinitesimal number--over a third of them have
been found to have serious safety violations.
This isn't rocket science. Of course, we should not allow
unrestricted long-haul truckers to come into this country on America's
roads; not until they meet all the requirements for safety that we
require of our own trucking companies and our own drivers. This is not
a hard question.
On the appropriations bill in the House of Representatives there was
an amendment added that prohibits funding for permitting Mexican
truckers to come into this country on an unrestricted basis. I have
indicated I intend to offer a similar amendment in the Senate. I have
offered stand-alone legislation which is more comprehensive than that,
but it seems to me it is useful to offer language identical to that of
the House because then it would be non-conferenceable and the
restriction would become law when the appropriations bill is signed.
Senator Murray, the chair of the Transportation Appropriations
subcommittee, talked to me and I know she is working on some language.
I have not yet had an opportunity to see what that language is, but I
appreciate the work she is doing. I hope when the appropriations bill
leaves the Senate, we will have included similar or identical language
to that in the House; language that says we will not allow Mexican
long-haul trucks into this country on an unrestricted basis
jeopardizing the safety of Americans who are driving on the roads--
virtually all citizens who are driving on our roads. We do not want
these safety questions to have to be in their minds.
This is a very important issue. It is one more evidence of a trade
strategy that is inherently weak, that trades away our interests. How
can we adopt a trade policy with another country that says: Oh, by the
way, we will not allow anything that reflects safety issues from one
side or the other to come in the way of trade?
It doesn't make any sense to me.
This is a paramount example of trading away our ability to make
safety on America's roads something that is of significant concern. We
have not gotten to the position of requiring safety equipment, driver's
logs, and hours of service restrictions just because we want to
regulate; we did it out of concern for safety. When you are driving
down the road and have an 18-wheel truck behind you full of tons and
tons of material, you want to make sure that truck has been inspected,
that the truck has safety equipment, and that the truck is not going to
come through the back of your car right up to the rearview mirror if
you happen to put on your brakes in an emergency.
This is an important issue on its own. Giving up our ability to
decide whether we will allow unsafe trucks to enter United States
highways from Mexico is almost unforgivable. But it is part and parcel
of a trade policy that has been bankrupt for a long while.
That brings me to another question about trade agreements. The
administration is talking a lot now about fast-track. They want fast-
track ability to do new trade agreements. I have some advice for them.
I say: If you really want to fast-track something, why don't you fast-
track solving some trade problems that you, along with previous
administrations, have created through signing past trade agreements.
Don't deal with Congress if you need fast-track legislative authority
for anybody or anything; deal with fast-track trade solutions yourself.
Let me give you some examples of issues that the Administration might
want to fast-track.
Today, in Canada, they are loading trucks and railroad cars full of
molasses to bring into the United States. The molasses is loaded with
Brazilian sugar and sent to Canada so it can be added to molasses. The
molasses is a carrier that is used to circumvent our quota on sugar
imports. They subvert the sugar quota by sending Brazilian sugar
through Canada loaded as molasses. It is called stuffed molasses. It is
fundamentally unfair trade, but we can not get anything done about it.
If you want fast track, let's fast track a solution to solving the
stuffed molasses scheme.
Fast track: How about this? Do you know how many American movies we
got into China last year? Ten. Ten American movies got into China--a
country with an $80 billion trade surplus with the United States. This
is intellectual property. It is entertainment. We got 10 movies into
China because they say: That is all you can get into our country.
What about the issue of automobiles? Do you know how many automobiles
we bought from Korea last year? Americans bought 450,000 cars from
companies building cars in Korea. Do you know how many United States-
produced cars were sold in the country of Korea last year? Twelve
hundred--four hundred and fifty thousand to twelve hundred. Why?
Because Korea doesn't want American cars in Korea. So they ship us
their cars and then keep our cars out.
How about something more parochial that comes from the rich soil of
the Red River Valley that I represent? They grow wonderful potatoes--
the best potatoes in the world. One of the things you can do with
potatoes is make potato flakes and ship those flakes around the world.
They are used in fast food. So you try to ship potato flakes to Korea.
Guess what you find. Shipping potato flakes to Korea means that Korea
imposes a 300-percent tariff on potato flakes. Imagine that. Poor
little potato flakes with a 300-percent tariff.
In all of the issues about tariffs, everybody talks about tariffs and
reducing tariffs. Twelve years after we reached a beef agreement with
Japan--a country that every year has a $50 billion to $80 billion trade
surpluses with us--there still remains on every pound of T-bone steaks
sent to Tokyo a 38.5-percent tariff. Can you imagine that? Every pound
of American beef getting into Japan still has a 38.5-percent tariff.
When they reached the beef agreement, my God, you would have thought
they had just won the Olympics. They had dinners and congratulated each
other--good for all of these folks who reach trade agreements. Yet,
twelve years later, we still have a 38.5-percent tariff on every single
pound of beef we send to Japan.
That is just a sample. Potato flakes, cars to Korea, beef to Japan,
stuffed molasses from Canada, and movies to China--you name it.
I say to those who come to us saying we want fast track: look, you
don't need fast track from Congress. I am sure not going to give it to
you. You don't deserve it. You have constructed trade agreements that,
No. 1, threaten safety in this country by saying to us in those
agreements you have to let trucks that are fundamentally unsafe come in
from Mexico. You constructed trade agreements that have allowed the
Canadians to dump durum wheat across our border.
I have told the story repeatedly--it bears telling again--of driving
up to the border in a little 12-year-old orange truck with a farmer
named Earl Jenson, and all the way to the Canadian border we saw 18-
wheeler after 18-wheeler hauling Canadian durum wheat south. It was
such a windy day that the
[[Page S7296]]
grain was coming out from under the tarps of these big semis hauling
Canadian durum wheat, splattering against our windshield every time we
met one. I counted a lot of trucks coming from the other border.
When we got to the border with the 12-year-old 2-ton orange truck
with a small amount of durum on it, we were told: You can't take that
into Canada. You can't take American durum wheat into Canada. So we got
turned around with the little 12-year-old orange truck, despite the
fact that all of these semis all day long came down from Canada--
evidence, it seems to me, of just one more thorn that exists in this
trade circumstance, one more burr under the saddle for all those
farmers and ranchers out there who have been taken by unfair trade
agreements negotiated by our trade negotiators who should have known
better, by trade negotiators who did not seem to stand up for this
country's interest in the final agreement. They were more interested in
getting an agreement than they were in getting a fair agreement.
Again, I say to the Trade Ambassador and others, if you want fast
track, hold up a mirror and say this in the morning: Fast track for me
means solving trade problems, solving the Canadian durum problem,
solving the Canadian stuffed molasses problem, solving the problem of
our getting cars into Korea, potato flakes into Korea, movies into
China, and beef into Japan.
I can stand here and cite a couple of dozen more, if you like.
Show us you can solve problems rather than creating problems, then
come back to us and talk. But don't suggest to me that we do something
for you to negotiate a new agreement unless you have solved the
problems of the old trade agreements--yes, GATT, NAFTA, you name it,
right on down the road.
I have always, when I have spoken about trade, threatened to suggest
that we require our trade negotiators to wear uniforms. In the
Olympics, they wear a jersey. It says ``U.S.A.'' across the chest. So
at least in some quiet moment in some negotiating meeting someplace,
these trade negotiators who seem so quick to lose are willing to look
down and see whom they really represent.
Will Rogers used to say, ``The United States of America has never
lost a war and never won a conference.'' He surely must have been
thinking about our trade negotiators, because in agreement after
agreement after agreement we seem to end up on the short end.
That is especially true with a trade agreement that now puts us in a
circumstance where we are told we are supposed to allow Mexican long-
haul trucks to come into this country under the provisions of the trade
agreement notwithstanding the safety issues. That is not fair. It is
not right. To do so would not be standing up for the best interests of
the American people.
We are going to have a fight about this. We are going to have
controversy about it. But as I said when I started, this ought not be
rocket science. We cannot and should not decide that these trade
agreements either force us or allow us to sacrifice the basic safety of
the American people. It doesn't matter whether it is safety on the
roads, safety with respect to food inspection, you name it. We cannot
and should not allow these trade agreements to force us to sacrifice
safety.
We should insist just once and for a change that our trade
negotiators stand up for this country's interest. There is nothing
inappropriate and nothing that ought to persuade us to be ashamed of
standing up for our best economic interests. Yes, we can do that in a
way that enriches all of the world and in a way that helps pull others
up and assist others in need.
We can do that, but we also ought to understand we have people in
need in this country. American family farmers are going broke. We have
all kinds of people losing their jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing is a sector in this country that is very important and
has been diminishing rather than expanding.
So let's decide to do the right thing with respect to trade. I want
expanded trade. I want robust trade. I do not believe we should
construct walls. I do not believe that a protectionist--using the
pejorative term--is someone who enhances this country's interests. But
using the term ``protection,'' let me just be quick to point out there
is nothing wrong with protecting our country's best interests with
respect to trade agreements that will work for this country.
So we will have this discussion this week on the Transportation
Appropriations bill, that will be under the able leadership of Senator
Murray. My expectation is we will resolve this in a way that is
thoughtful and in a way that expresses common sense in dealing with
Mexican long-haul truckers coming into this country.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 4, 2001]
Mexico's Trucks on Horizon--Long-Distance Haulers Are Headed into U.S.
Once Bush Opens Borders
(By Robert Collier)
Altar Desert, Mexico.--[Editor's Note: This week, the Bush
administration is required by NAFTA to announce that Mexican
long-haul trucks will be allowed onto U.S. highways--where
they have long been banned over concerns about safety--rather
than stopping at the border. The Chronicle sent a team to get
the inside story before the trucks start to roll.]
It was sometime way after midnight in the middle of
nowhere, and a giddy Manuel Marquez was at the wheel of 20
tons of hurtling, U.S.-bound merchandise.
The lights of oncoming trucks flared into a blur as they
whooshed past on the narrow, two-lane highway, mere inches
from the left mirror of his truck. Also gone in a blur were
Marquez's past two days, a nearly Olympic ordeal of driving
with barely a few hours of sleep.
``Ayy, Mexico!'' Marquez exclaimed as he slammed on the
brakes around a hilly curve, steering around another truck
that had stopped in the middle of the lane, its hood up and
its driver nonchalantly smoking a cigarette. ``We have so
much talent to share with the Americans--and so much
craziness.''
Several hours ahead in the desert darkness was the border,
the end of Marquez's 1,800-mile run. At Tijuana, he would
deliver his cargo, wait for another load, then head back
south.
But soon, Marquez and other Mexican truckers will be able
to cross the border instead of turning around. Their feats of
long-distance stamina--and, critics fear, endangerment of
public safety--are coming to a California freeway near you.
Later this week, the Bush administration is expected to
announce that it will open America's highways to Mexican
long-haul trucks, thus ending a long fight by U.S. truckers
and highway safety advocates to keep them out.
Under limitations imposed by the United States since 1982,
Mexican vehicles are allowed passage only within a narrow
border commercial zone, where they must transfer their cargo
to U.S.-based long-haul trucks and drivers.
The lifting of the ban--ordered last month by an
arbitration panel of the North American Free Trade
Agreement--has been at the center of one of the most high-
decibel issues in the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship.
Will the end of the ban endanger American motorists by
bringing thousands of potentially unsafe Mexican trucks to
U.S. roads? Or will it reduce the costs of cross-border trade
and end U.S. protectionism with no increase in accidents?
Two weeks ago, as the controversy grew, Marquez's employer,
Transportes Castores, allowed a Chronicle reporter and
photographer to join him on a typical run from Mexico City to
the border.
The three-day, 1,800 mile journey offered a window into a
part of Mexico that few Americans ever see--the life of
Mexican truckers, a resourceful, long-suffering breed who,
from all indications, do not deserve their pariah status
north of the border.
But critics of the border opening would also find proof of
their concerns about safety:
--American inspectors at the border are badly undermanned
and will be hard-pressed to inspect more than a fraction of
the incoming Mexican truckers.
California--which has a much more rigorous truck inspection
program than Arizona, New Mexico or Texas, the other border
states--gave full inspections to only 2 percent of the
920,000 short-haul trucks allowed to enter from Mexico last
year.
Critics say the four states will be overwhelmed by the
influx of Mexican long-haul trucks, which are expected to
nearly double the current volume of truck traffic at the
border.
--Most long-distance Mexican trucks are relatively modern,
but maintenance is erratic.
Marquez's truck, for example, was a sleek, 6-month-old,
Mexican-made Kenworth, equal to most trucks north of the
border. But his windshield was cracked--a safety violation
that would earn him a ticket in the United States but had
been ignored by his company since it occurred two months ago.
A recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department said
35 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States
last year were ordered off the road by inspectors for safety
violations such as faulty brakes and lights.
--Mexico's domestic truck-safety regulation is extremely
lax. Mexico has no functioning truck weigh stations, and
Marquez
[[Page S7297]]
said federal police appear to have abandoned a program of
random highway inspections that was inaugurated with much
fanfare last fall.
--Almost all Mexican long-haul drivers are forced to work
dangerously long hours.
Marquez was a skillful driver, with lightning reflexes
honed by road conditions that would make U.S. highways seem
like cruise-control paradise. But he was often steering
through a thick fog of exhaustion.
In Mexico, no logbooks--required in the United States to
keep track of hours and itinerary--are kept.
``We're just like American truckers, I'm sure,'' Marquez
said with a grin. ``We're neither saints nor devils. But
we're good drivers, that's for sure, or we'd all be dead.''
Although no reliable statistics exist for the Bay Area's
trade with Mexico, it is estimated that the region's exports
and imports with Mexico total $6 billion annually. About 90
percent of that amount moves by truck, in tens of thousands
of round trips to and from the border.
Under the decades-old border restrictions, long-haul trucks
from either side must transfer their loads to short-haul
``drayage'' truckers, who cross the border and transfer the
cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks. The complicated
arrangement is costly and time-consuming, making imported
goods more expensive for U.S. consumers.
Industry analysts say that after the ban is lifted, most of
the two nations' trade will be done by Mexican drivers, who
come much cheaper than American truckers because they earn
only about one-third the salary and typically drive about 20
hours per day.
Although Mexican truckers would have to obey the U.S. legal
limit of 10 hours consecutive driving when in the United
States, safety experts worry that northbound drivers will be
so sleep-deprived by the time they cross the border that the
American limit will be meaningless. Mexican drivers would
not, however, be bound by U.S. labor laws, such as the
minimum wage.
``Are you going to be able to stay awake?'' Marcos Munoz,
vice president of Transportes Castores jokingly asked a
Chronicle reporter before the trip. ``Do you want some
pingas?''
The word is slang for uppers the stimulant pills that are
commonly used by Mexican truckers. Marquez, however, needed
only a few cups of coffee to stay awake through three
straight 21-hour days at the wheel.
Talking with his passengers, chatting on the CB radio with
friends, and listening to tapes of 1950s and 1960s ranchera
and bolero music, he showed few outward signs of fatigue.
But the 46-year-old Marquez, who has been a trucker for 25
years, admitted that the burden occasionally is too much.
``Don't kid yourself,'' he said late the third night.
``Sometimes, you get so tired, so worn, your head just
falls.''
U.S. highway safety groups predict an increase in accidents
after the border is opened.
``Even now, there aren't enough safety inspectors available
for all crossing points,'' said David Golden, a top official
of the National Association of Independent Insurers, the main
insurance-industry lobby.
``So we need to make sure that when you're going down
Interstate 5 with an 80,000-pound Mexican truck in your
rearview mirror and you have to jam on your brakes, that
truck doesn't come through your window.''
Golden said the Bush administration should delay the
opening to Mexican trucks until border facilities are
upgraded.
California highway safety advocates concur, saying the
California Highway Patrol--which carries out the state's
truck inspections--needs to be given more inspectors and
larger facilities to check incoming trucks' brakes, lights
and other safety functions.
Marquez's trip started at his company's freight yard in
Tlalnepantla, an industrial suburb of Mexico City. There, his
truck was loaded with a typical variety of cargo--electronic
components and handicrafts bound for Los Angeles, and
chemicals, printing equipment and industrial parts for
Tijuana.
At the compound's gateway was a shrine with statues of the
Virgin Mary and Jesus. As he drove past, Marquez crossed
himself, then crossed himself again before the small Virgin
on his dashboard.
``Just in case, you know,'' he said. ``The devil is always
on the loose on these roads.''
In fact, Mexican truckers have to brave a wide variety of
dangers.
As he drove through the high plateaus of central Mexico,
Marquez pointed out where he was hijacked a year ago--held up
at gunpoint by robbers who pulled alongside him in another
truck. His trailer full of canned tuna--easy to fence, he
said--was stolen, along with all his personal belongings.
What's worse, some thieves wear uniforms.
On this trip, the truck had to pass 14 roadblocks, at which
police and army soldiers searched the cargo for narcotics.
Each time, Marquez stood on tiptoes to watch over their
shoulders. He said, ``You have to have quick eyes, or they'll
take things out of the packages.''
Twice, police inspectors asked for bribes--``something for
the coffee,'' they said. Each time, he refused and got away
with it.
``You're good luck for me,'' he told a Chronicle reporter.
``They ask for money but then see an American and back off.
Normally, I have to pay a lot.''
Although the Mexican government has pushed hard to end the
border restrictions, the Mexican trucking industry is far
from united behind that position. Large trucking companies
such as Transportes Castores back the border opening, while
small and medium-size ones oppose it.
``We're ready for the United States, and we'll be driving
to Los Angeles and San Francisco,'' said Munoz, the company's
vice president.
``Our trucks are modern and can pass the U.S. inspections.
Only about 10 companies here could meet the U.S. standards.''
The border opening has been roundly opposed by CANACAR, the
Mexican national trucking industry association, which says it
will result in U.S. firms taking over Mexico's trucking
industry.
``The opening will allow giant U.S. truck firms to buy
large Mexican firms and crush smaller ones,'' said Miguel
Quintanilla, CANACAR's president. ``We're at a disadvantage,
and those who benefit will be the multinationals.''
Quintanilla said U.S. firms will lower their current costs
by replacing their American drivers with Mexicans, yet will
use the huge American advantages--superior warehouse and
inventory-tracking technology, superior warehouse and
inventory-tracking technology, superior access to financing
and huge economies of scale-to-drive Mexican companies out of
business.
Already, some U.S. trucking giants such as M.S. Carriers,
Yellow Corp. and Consolidated Freightways Corp. have invested
heavily in Mexico.
``The opening of the border will bring about the
consolidation of much of the trucking industry on both sides
of the border,'' said the leading U.S. academic expert on
NAFTA trucking issues, James Giermanski, a professor at
Belmont Abbey College in Raleigh, N.C.
The largest U.S. firms will pair with large Mexican firms
and will dominate U.S.-Mexico traffic, he said.
But Giermanski added that the increase in long-haul cross-
border traffic will be slower than either critics or
advocates expect, because of language difficulties, Mexico's
inadequate insurance coverage and Mexico's time-consuming
system of customs brokers.
``All the scare stories you've heard are just ridiculous,''
he said. ``The process will take a long time.''
In California, many truckers fear for their jobs. However,
Teamsters union officials say they are trying to persuade
their members that Marquez and his comrades are not the
enemy.
``There will be a very vehement reaction by our members if
the border is opened,'' said Chuck Mack, president of
Teamsters Joint Council 7, which has 55,000 members in the
Bay Area.
``But we're trying to diminish the animosity that by
focusing on the overall problem--how (the opening) will help
multinational corporations to exploit drivers on both sides
of the border.''
Mexican drivers, however, are likely to welcome the
multinationals' increased efficiency, which will enable them
to earn more by wasting less time waiting for loading and
paperwork.
For example, in Mexico City, Marquez had to wait more than
four hours for stevedores to load his truck and for clerks to
prepare the load's documents--a task that would take perhaps
an hour for most U.S. trucking firms.
For drivers, time is money, Marquez's firm pays drivers a
percentage of gross freight charges, minus some expenses. His
three-day trip would net him about $300. His average monthly
income is about $1,400--decent money in Mexico, but by no
means middle class.
Most Mexican truckers are represented by a union, but it is
nearly always ineffectual--what Transportes Castores
executives candidly described as a ``company union.'' A few
days before this trip, Transportes Castores fired 20 drivers
when they protested delays in reimbursement of fuel costs.
But Marquez didn't much like talking about his problems. He
preferred to discuss his only child, a 22-year-old daughter
who is in her first year of undergraduate medical school in
Mexico City.
Along with paternal pride was sadness.
``Don't congratulate me,'' he said. ``My wife is the one
who raised her. I'm gone most of the time. You have to have a
very strong marriage, because this job is hell on a wife.
``The money is OK, and I really like being out on the open
road, but the loneliness . . .'' He left the thought
unfinished, and turned up the volume on his cassette deck.
It was playing Pedro Infante, the famous bolero balladeer,
and Marquez began to sing.
``The moon of my nights has hidden itself.
``Oh little heavenly virgin, I am your son.
``Give me your consolation,
``Today, when I'm suffering out in the world.''
Despite the melancholy tone, Marquez soon became jovial and
energetic. He smiled widely and encouraged his passengers to
sing along. Forgoing his normal caution, he accelerated
aggressively on the curves.
His voice rose, filling the cabin, drowning out the hiss of
the pavement below and the rush of the wind that was blowing
him inexorably toward the border.
How NAFTA Ended the Ban On Mexico's Trucks
The North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into
effect in January 1994, stipulated that the longtime U.S.
restrictions on Mexican trucks be lifted.
Under NAFTA, by December 1995, Mexican trucks would be
allowed to deliver loads all
[[Page S7298]]
over the four U.S. border states--California, Arizona, New
Mexico and Texas--and to pick up loads for their return trip
to Mexico. U.S. trucking firms would get similar rights to
travel in Mexico. And by January 2000, Mexican trucks would
be allowed throughout the United States.
However, bowing to pressure from the Teamsters union and
the insurance industry, President Clinton blocked
implementation of the NAFTA provisions. The Mexican
government retaliated by imposing a similar ban on U.S.
trucks.
As a result, the longtime status quo continues: Trucks from
either side must transfer their loads to short-haul
``drayage'' truckers, who cross the border and transfer the
cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks.
The complicated arrangement is time-consuming and
expensive. Mexico estimates its losses at $2 billion
annually; U.S. shippers say they have incurred similar costs.
In 1998, Mexico filed a formal complaint under NAFTA,
saying the U.S. ban violated the trade pact and was mere
protectionism. The convoluted complaint process lasted nearly
six years, until a three-person arbitration panel finally
ruled Feb. 6 that the United States must lift its ban by
March 8 or allow Mexico to levy punitive tariffs on U.S.
exports.
COMPARING TRUCKING REGULATIONS
The planned border opening to Mexican trucks will pose a
big challenge to U.S. inspectors, who will check to be sure
that trucks from Mexico abide by stricter U.S. truck-safety
regulations. Here are some of the differences:
Hours-of-service limits for drivers--In U.S.: yes. Ten
hours' consecutive driving, up to 15 consecutive hours on
duty, 8 hours' consecutive rest, maximum of 70 hours' driving
in eight-day period; in Mexico: no.
Driver's age--In U.S.: 21 is minimum for interstate
trucking; in Mexico: 18.
Random drug test--In U.S.: yes, for all drivers; in Mexico:
no. Automatic disqualification for certain medical conditions
in U.S.: yes; in Mexico: no.
Logbooks--In U.S.: yes, standardized logbooks with date
graphs are required and part of inspection criteria; in
Mexico: a new law requiring logbooks is not enforced, and
virtually no truckers use them.
Maximum weight limit (in pounds)--In U.S.: 80,000; in
Mexico: 135,000.
Roadside inspections--In U.S.: yes; in Mexico: an
inspection program began last year but has been discontinued.
Out-of-service rules for safety deficiencies--In U.S.: yes;
in Mexico: not currently, program to be phased in over two
years.
Hazardous materials regulations--In U.S.: a strict
standards, training, licensure and inspection regime; in
Mexico: much laxer program with far fewer identified
chemicals and substances, and fewer licensure requirements.
Vehicle safety standards--In U.S.: comprehensive standards
for components such as antilock brakes, underride guards,
night visibility of vehicle; in Mexico: newly enacted
standards for vehicle inspections are voluntary for the first
year and less rigorous than U.S. rules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The time under the control of
the majority has expired.
Under the previous order, the time until 1 p.m. shall be under the
control of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, or his designee.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am going to talk about two different
subjects this morning. The two subjects are the energy crisis, No. 1,
and, No. 2, the situation in the Middle East. There is some connection
between those two, and I will go into that in a moment. But I would
like to treat them as separate subjects and begin with the discussion
of what I still refer to as the energy crisis. My colleague from
Wyoming, Senator Thomas, will be addressing that briefly as well.
____________________