[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9519-9521]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           OUR TRADE DEFICIT

  Mr. DORGAN. I want to speak this morning about international trade 
and our growing and troubling trade deficit. In March, the merchandise 
trade deficit surprised economists, jumping to $37.6 billion in that 
month alone. That is the latest month for which we have data. In March 
imports into this country increased to $101 billion, while American 
exports decreased to $64 billion.
  This is a very serious problem. The trade deficit continues to 
balloon. We had a $450 billion merchandise trade deficit last year and 
it continues to grow and grow. It increases our indebtedness in this 
country. Unlike a budget deficit, about which economists over strong 
coffee can make the point that we owe to ourselves, you cannot make the 
point that our trade deficit is owed to ourselves. It is owed to others 
outside this country and will be and must be repaid one day with a 
lower cost of living in this country. We must get a handle on this 
exploding trade deficit.
  Let me speak to one portion of the trade issue. We are about to see 
the administration take a step that I vigorously oppose. I am going to 
offer a piece of legislation today on behalf of myself and my colleague 
from Nevada, Senator Reid, that deals with the issue of Mexican trucks 
entering this country under the provisions of NAFTA, the North American 
Free Trade Agreement.
  What is the issue? We signed a free trade pact with the country of 
Mexico. It has not turned out very well, as a matter of fact. We had a 
trade surplus with Mexico when we signed the trade pact. Now we have a 
$24 billion trade deficit with Mexico. So we went from a surplus to a 
very large and exploding deficit with Mexico.
  But one aspect of the trade pact with Mexico is the question of 
movement of goods and individuals back and forth across the boarder and 
especially the question of Mexican trucks coming into this country. 
President Clinton, I believe in violation of NAFTA, prescribed a 20-
mile zone in which Mexican trucks could haul goods into this country 
for trade purposes. But they could not go beyond that zone. This 
administration is about to lift that and provide unrestricted access 
into this country for Mexican trucks. My legislation will say that is 
not possible, we will not allow that to happen until and unless the 
Administration implements certain safeguards to protect those who use 
America's highways.
  Let me describe why this is important. Do you want to drive down a 
highway in this country and drive next to a Mexican truck that is 
pulling double the load we allow pulled in this country behind our 
trucks, driven by a driver who is making less than the minimum wage in 
this country--on average, incidentally, of $7- to $10-a-day salary for 
that Mexican truck driver; a truck that has not been inspected in most 
cases, if inspected, not inspected to the same standards to which we 
inspect trucks in this country?
  This is a circumstance where the Mexican trucks are determined to be 
unsafe at the border crossings at which the trucks are inspected. In 
many cases, 40 percent are turned back because they are unsafe, do not 
meet standards. Is that what we want to have on American highways? I 
don't think so.
  This is what has happened. Mexico threatened, under NAFTA, to sue the 
U.S. for billions of dollars per year in compensation if the U.S. did 
not lift this longstanding control on allowing Mexican commercial 
truckers to operate within the United States. President Bush has agreed 
to allow them to operate in the United States beyond the limit, even 
though the Department of Transportation says it cannot certify the 
safety of any, except a tiny fraction, of the Mexican trucks that enter 
this country.
  This month, in fact, the Department of Transportation's own inspector 
general concluded that the Department of Transportation's enforcement 
program cannot reasonably assure the American people of the safety of 
Mexican trucks entering this country.
  Barely 1 percent of the 3.7 million Mexican trucks that enter into 
the United States are inspected. Of those inspected, 36 percent are 
declared out of service for serious safety violations. At the border 
crossing in El Paso, TX, there are 1,300 trucks that come across every 
single day. One inspector is on duty--one--and he or she can inspect 
about 10 to 14 trucks a day. Most inspectors work only during daylight 
hours, leaving crossings with no inspectors at all during much of the 
day.
  Now Mexico still lags far behind the United States when it comes to 
truck safety. They do not have an effective drug and alcohol testing 
program for truck drivers as we do. They simply do not have it. They 
have no hours-of-service regulations and only recently proposed the use 
of logbooks for hours of service. A reporter from the San Francisco 
Chronicle recently drove with a Mexican truck driver. They drove 20 to 
21 hours straight--20 to 21 hours. That is significant and also 
dangerous. That cannot happen legally in this country. I do not want 
that driver on the road next to my family or my neighbors or my friends 
or anyone else in this country who is driving.
  Right now there is no way for American law enforcement agencies to 
access a database containing information

[[Page 9520]]

on Mexican truckers. If a police officer pulls me over to the side of 
the road or pulls the Presiding Officer, from the State of Virginia, 
over to the side of the road, and asks to see our license, they can put 
that name into a database. They can figure out very quickly what we 
have or have not done, what is on our driving record and what isn't. If 
the same police officer pulls over a Mexican truck driver, he will not 
find any information on him because it does not exist.
  Despite these unresolved issues, and despite all of these facts and 
figures, despite the written objections of 258 Members of the House and 
48 Senators, on both sides of the aisle, the administration has said 
that the NAFTA trucking provisions should be implementing. They are 
wrong. The provisions should not be implemented until and unless we can 
demonstrate safety for the American people by allowing these trucks 
into this country. If we cannot demonstrate safety--and clearly we 
cannot at this point--they should not be allowed in.
  I am introducing legislation to prohibit the administration from 
granting operation rights to Mexican motor carriers until we can ensure 
that they meet the safety standards we require in this country. My bill 
would require the implementation of inspections and the deployment of 
needed resources to ensure that the trucks that would come in would 
meet basic safety standards.
  This is not some issue where one can say: These people are antitrade, 
and therefore they want to stop trucks from this country or that 
country. This is very real. Every day, every hour, we have massive 
numbers of trucks coming into this country. There is evidence from 
California and New Mexico and from Arizona. The evidence of the number 
of trucks turned back for serious safety violations is overwhelming.
  Mexico does not have the same standards. Their drivers can drive 20 
hours a day and no one will know it. They have no logbooks. They have 
no drug testing. They do not have the same equipment standards as we 
do. It demonstrates, in my judgment, the concern that many of us have 
about this unfettered notion of opening up borders without making sure 
we have adequate safety in place for the American people. I am going to 
introduce this legislation on behalf of myself and my colleague, 
Senator Reid, from the State of Nevada. And other colleagues I know 
will join us because there are nearly 50 Members of the Senate who have 
expressed their reservations about this issue.
  I urge the administration to reconsider this issue. Change your mind 
about this. The American people don't want to be driving down a highway 
to pull up next to an 18-wheel truck that is hauling a load that is 
twice as heavy as that which could be hauled by an American trucker in 
this country, with a driver who has been driving 20 hours, who has 
never been drug tested, and driving equipment that doesn't meet safety 
specifications on American roads. That is not what we want on American 
roads and not what we want for the safety of the American people.
  Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my colleague from Nevada.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  Mr. REID. I am very happy to join with my colleague from North Dakota 
on this most important legislation. He has outlined very clearly the 
problems we have.
  Let's think about this. In the United States there are 400,000 
trailer truck accidents every year. Keep in mind, we have pretty 
strong, strict safety standards. Over 14,000 of those accidents involve 
hazardous materials. Do we want to add to that mix unsafe vehicles?
  The trucks that have accidents in America that are American trucks 
are not unsafe. Those accidents are caused by driver errors, weather 
conditions.
  We need to move forward on this legislation yesterday, not today. I 
certainly hope, through administrative fiat, that the President does 
not allow this to happen. That is our fear. That is what we have heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota is really a visionary as far as 
legislation goes, on what he has focused in making statements in this 
Chamber, what he has done as a Senator, and what he has done as a 
Member of the House, focusing attention on our trade deficits. It is a 
stealth monster. Ultimately, if we do not do something about it, it is 
going to destroy the economy of this country. It is getting bigger and 
bigger and bigger. As the Senator has outlined with the chart he has 
behind him, this balloon is going to continue to get bigger and bigger 
and thinner and thinner and finally explode. I say he is a visionary 
because he has talked about our trade situation. This legislation in 
regard to dangerous trucks is excellent legislation.
  Also, we have an amendment pending on the education bill that I think 
says it all. What it says is we should have the House and the Senate 
have a joint committee and convene immediately to determine what is 
happening with the gasoline and fuel prices in this country.
  They expect in California, which is a neighboring State to Nevada, 
that the price of gasoline will be $3 a gallon this year. If we can 
inspect and investigate the price of chickens, can't we investigate the 
price of gasoline? Yes, we can.
  So I say to my friend from North Dakota, I hope that when that 
amendment comes up--which was written by the Senator from North Dakota 
and on which I happily joined as a cosponsor--it is adopted 
overwhelmingly. I also acknowledge and appreciate his authoring the 
legislation that deals with these trucks, in which I happily join.
  Also, as an aside, I tell him how much I appreciate him being one of 
the lone voices who talks continually about the dangers of this 
burgeoning debt we have in the form of a trade debt. It is just as 
dangerous as any debt we have. We need to do something about it. But it 
is a difficult issue to understand. It is in the background and people 
really don't focus on it. I appreciate very much the Senator not 
letting us not focus on it.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  I have a couple minutes remaining. Let me point out what is happening 
with our trade deficit.
  As you can see: With Canada, our trade deficit has dramatically 
increased from 1999 to 2000; China, $83 billion merchandise trade 
deficit in a year; European Union, $55 billion; Japan $81 billion. 
Japan, a $50 billion-plus trade deficit for us almost forever. Mexico--
this used to be a surplus, incidentally--now the trade deficit is $24 
billion-plus.
  We cannot continue to do that. We just cannot continue to run up 
these kinds of trade deficits.
  Just for a moment, let me describe some of the circumstances of the 
trade deficit. When we want to ship apples into Japan, they say the 
apples must come from trees that are separated at least 500 feet from 
apples on apple trees in the orchard that are not going to be shipped 
to Japan. So if we are going to ship apples to Japan, they have to be 
in a grove 500 feet away from other apple groves. What kind of sense is 
that?
  We ship T-bone steaks to Japan. Guess what the tariff is after 12 
years of an agreement. Twelve years after an agreement with them, the 
tariff is 38.5 percent on beef going into Japan.
  In Korea, just as an example, we exported 4,400 cars last year. They 
exported 470,000 to us. One might ask the question, Where is the fair 
trade here? Where is the reciprocal treatment? This country needs to 
demand of its trading partners that they open their markets to us so we 
can have fair trade.
  Our deficit with China is going up, up, way up. It is now $83.8 
billion. We take all their trousers and shirts and tennis shoes and 
jeans. They ship them into our country, and guess what. When we try to 
penetrate the Chinese market, we get a pitiful amount of exports into 
China.
  People say: Hoorah, it is increasing. Hoorah, it is increasing at a 
minuscule level, and we have an $83 billion deficit with them. We have 
to change that.
  I have other things to say.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.

[[Page 9521]]


  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for 30 additional seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. The President says he now wants fast-track trade 
authority. Fast-track trade authority to do more of this? Not on my 
watch. Let's have some trade authority that says when we do trade 
agreements in the future, we do them on behalf of this country's best 
interests. Maybe we should put some jerseys on those trade negotiators 
that read: USA. We do that for the Olympians. How about doing it for 
trade negotiators so they remember for whom they are negotiating.
  My legislation on Mexican trucking is very important. I encourage my 
colleagues to cosponsor it.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, 
Mr. Thomas, or his designee.
  Mr. DORGAN. Might I ask the Senator from Wyoming if he will yield for 
a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator from Wyoming if he would allow me to 
propound a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of his 30 
minutes, I have the floor for another brief statement in morning 
business? I believe his time will run until 11 o'clock. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be recognized at that time.
  Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection to that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________