[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12638-12642]
[From the U.S. 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:
  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,

[[Page 12639]]

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 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

[[Page 12640]]

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 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.

[[Page 12641]]

       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 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.

[[Page 12642]]

       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.

                          ____________________