The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“OUR TRADE DEFICIT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S5664-S5666 on May 25, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
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.
____________________
