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.
“MEXICAN LONG-HAUL TRUCKS ON U.S. HIGHWAYS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S7294-S7298 on July 9, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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, 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 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 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.
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.
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.
____________________
