Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Nevada, I think, knows the answer to this question. Not very much is happening in the Senate, regrettably. We have a large amount to do, yet this place has been slowed down. Last week, it was sort of a parade-in-rest all week because people didn't want the Senate to get its work done. Trying to get something done in the Senate is like trying to walk through wet cement. It is pretty hard going. It is not as if there is not a lot to do and there are not a lot of pieces of legislation that need doing now. The emergency supplemental to help family farmers passed the House, out of the Agriculture Committee. But are we on the bill? No. Why? Because we are debating a motion to proceed. What is going on here, when we have to debate the motion to proceed to deal with an emergency bill to help family farmers? There can't be a lot of thinking going on about this. Senator Daschle is trying to create an agenda that says let's get our work done and get it done soon. Everybody ought to have the opportunity for full debate. For nearly 2 days last week, this Senate sat in session with nobody coming over to offer substantive amendments, but an objection to going to third reading to pass the Transportation bill. Essentially, the Senate was shut down. We have all these things to do, and we have so much ahead of us, yet people think it is somehow to their advantage to slow this place down. The Senate has never been accused of speeding, in the first place. This is a deliberate body, the place where we deliberate for long periods of time. There is no excuse under any condition to force us to have to debate a motion to proceed. That is unthinkable, in my view. In addition, when we get this done, we have to finish the Department of Transportation bill, the VA-HUD and independent agencies bill; and if we get all that done, we will still come up far short of what we need to do. It is not because Senator Daschle has not said here is what we need to do, it is because we have some people sitting on the back seat of this bicycle built for two and putting the brakes on. All we want is a little cooperation. The Senator asks me what is happening here in the Senate. Regrettably, not much. This afternoon, nothing. We are debating the motion to proceed on an emergency bill. I have never seen the likes of this. So my hope is that those who are stalling, those who are holding this up will come to the floor and say, all right, we won't hold it up anymore. Let's go have our votes and get these pieces of legislation passed. The Senate can do better than this. Mr. President, I reserve time for others who want to speak on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. That is the case. We have some of the highest tests, education tests in the country. It has a lot to do not so much with the specific teachers or the specific schools, but it has to do with the family values of family farms and small towns and rural life. That is not to denigrate any value that anyone else has. It is simply to say that the kind of family values that spring from a rural State produce good achievement in education. There was a wonderful author who has since died, world-renowned author, actually grew up in Fargo, ND, and lived in New York and London before he died. He wrote a number of books. His name was Richard Critchfield. He wrote books that described the rolling of family values in this country's history in two centuries, the rolling family values from family farms to small towns to big cities, and the refreshment and nurturing of the value system in the country by having that happen. I grew up in a town of 400 people--not quite 400, between 300 and 400 people. We raised livestock and other things. But I understood what those values meant when a fellow named Ernest died of a heart attack with his crop out there needing to be harvested. All the neighbors showed up and harvested the crop. It is like the old barn raising, the neighbor-to-neighbor help in which they form communities. Those values by which people form communities to help them through tough times are very important values for the country. That is why I came to the floor to talk about this legislation. It is money to be sure, but that money represents a bridge. There are very few people in the country who have seen a total collapse of their income the way family farmers have. The income for their work and the income for the measure of their effort is down 40 percent, 50 percent from what it used to be. How many businesses or how many enterprises in this country are getting 1930s level income in real dollars? That is what is happening to family farmers. It is unfathomable to me that we are such a strong country in terms of having this aspiration to build a national missile defense along with all these technologies. We are doing all these things, yet we have 500,000 people who go to bed every night hungry as the dickens. We have this food in such abundant quantity, yet we can't find the way to connect the two so that family farmers have a chance to make a living and people who are hungry have an opportunity for a better life. There is something that is not connecting very well in this country on this policy. That is why I want us to write a better farm bill. In the meantime, we must have this bridge to get there. The bridge is this bill, an emergency supplemental bill that provides about $5.5 billion in this fiscal year, and roughly $2 billion, slightly less, in the next fiscal year, to help family farmers over these troubled times.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. That is what I said. This bill isn't too much money. It is within the framework of what we decided as a Congress that we were going to spend on the budget. It spends the required amount in this fiscal year, and then $2 billion in the next fiscal year. It does not violate the budget. The point I was making was that real income for family farmers has fallen to the level of the 1930s. This is the real income achieved by farmers out there who are struggling to raise a family and run a farm. It is clearly an emergency. We have clearly brought to the floor legislation that does not violate the Budget Act. Yet even though it is an emergency supplemental, we can't get to the bill. We have to debate today a motion to proceed to the bill. I am outraged by the fact that there is stalling on a bill that represents a clear response to an emergency in American farm country.

Mr. DORGAN. In North Dakota, which is a rural State, agriculture is 40 percent of the State's economy. It is clearly the 500-pound gorilla of economic activity in States such as North Dakota. But it is not just North Dakota, it is Montana, Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Iowa. There is a whole heartland in this country whose economies are supported by agriculture, by family farm producers.

Mr. DORGAN. There is no question that will be the case. There isn't any question if we don't provide a bridge, and quickly--between the current inadequate farm bill and a new farm bill that tries to provide a decent safety net and a bridge across price depressions--there isn't any question that family farmers in a number of cases around the country will not be allowed to continue. These are people who are more than just in this for a business. These are people for whom family farming is their life. It is all they know. It is what they do. It is what they want to do. There is so much value in family farming in a country. Farmers produce much more than just wheat or corn or soybeans. They produce communities. They produce cultural value. It is a seed bed for family values that moves from family farm to small towns to big cities. It is such an enormous contribution to the country. That is why, as I mentioned, in Europe they decided long ago that the kind of economy they want is an economy that has healthy family farm agriculture--a network of producers living on the land throughout Europe producing their food. We should make a similar commitment and write a farm bill that does that. In the meantime, this emergency supplemental is the bridge to get from here to there. I do hope beyond this afternoon we are not further delayed by anyone stalling with what clearly is an emergency piece of legislation designed to reach the extended hand out to say to family farmers that we are here to help during tough times.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the YMCA Teen Action Agenda Enhancement Act of 2001, along with my colleague Mr. DeWine. This bipartisan legislation will enable the YMCA to reach more teenagers across the United States who are in need of safe, structured after-school activities. Unfortunately, the evidence is all around us that our young people today need some extra care and support. Kids today face challenges and obstacles that I never dreamed about when I was growing up in Regent. Children are killing other children because they covet their tennis shoes or their jackets. Kids are having kids. One-quarter of adolescents report that they have used illegal drugs. Part of the problem is the temptation that kids face when they have too much idle time on their own. Every day, millions of American teens are left unsupervised after school. Studies have shown that teens who are unsupervised during these hours are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, and become involved in delinquent behavior than those teens who participate in structured, supervised after-school activities. Also, nearly 80 percent of teens who are involved in after-school activities are A or B students, while only half of those who are not involved earn these grades. Two out of every 3 teens said that they would participate in after-school programs to help them improve academically, if such programs were offered. The YMCA is an exemplary organization that is dedicated to serving our nation's youth, and it wants to help them even more. Nearly 2.4 million teenagers, 1 out of every 10, are involved in a program offered by their local YMCA. The Y is a safe place for kids during after school hours. Teens participate in hundreds of programs that feature tutoring and academics, sports, mentoring, community service and life skills. To serve more teens who are in need of structured after-school programs, the YMCA has set a goal of doubling the number of teens served to 1 out of every 5 teens by 2005. This ambitious campaign is called the Teen Action Agenda. The bill that I offer today provides funding to help the YMCA reach teens who want and need more after-school activities. This piece of legislation authorizes Federal appropriations of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 for the YMCA to implement its Teen Action Agenda. This funding would in turn be distributed to local YMCAs that are located in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Similar legislation was passed in the 105th Congress for the Boys and Girls Club and in the 106th Congress for the Police Athletic League to aid in their efforts to reach out to youth. The YMCA is an established and proven organization that is in the position to reach and influence thousands of teenagers who are in danger of falling through the cracks. This bill will encourage public-private partnerships and leverage additional funding for teen programs. This legislation contains a matching component that will be met by the YMCA through local and private support. The matching component, along with the support the YMCA programs receive from national corporate sponsors, will turn $20 million in Federal funds into $50 million that will be invested in proven programs that serve the teens who are most in need. In my State, there are six YMCAs that serve North Dakota teens. Through programs focusing on education, life skills, safety, leadership, and service learning, these YMCAs helped 12,500 teens in my State develop character and build confidence within the last year. One example of how the YMCA reaches teens is the Teen Board recently established in Fargo. This board is comprised of teenage representatives who advise the YMCA and other community residents on issues and concerns affecting local teens. Similar teen programs have been created at the other YMCAs in my State. The legislation I introduce today will provide funding for these YMCAs to expand these important programs. Nationwide, YMCAs partner with 400 juvenile courts, 300 housing authorities and over 2,500 public schools. While the YMCA is national in scope, they are local in control and every program is designed and evaluated to meet the communities' unique needs. I am confident that this bill will help the YMCA to continue to provide successful solutions for our Nation's teens and their families. Edmund Burke once said, ``All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.'' This legislation will provide good volunteers in YMCAs across the country with the additional resources they need to reach more teens. This bill represents a small step we can take to reach out to at-risk teens in communities across the Nation. For the sake of our children's future, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that Mark Zaineddin, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during pendency of this legislation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. That is exactly the case. Let me just again say that when the term ``raw rotten protectionism'' is used, it is wrong. There is nothing about this proposal to require similar standards on Mexican trucks coming into this country as already exists for the American trucking industry--there is nothing raw about that, there is nothing rotten about that, and there is nothing that is protectionist about that. It represents common sense, something that is too often obscured in these debates in this country in public policy. It is especially obscured in trade policy. Let me just say this to my friend from Illinois. I am aware of not one trade agreement that this country has negotiated that would require us as Americans to sacrifice safety on America's roads. There is not one trade agreement or one word in a trade agreement that requires us to do that. We should not do that. We will not do that. When President Bush says on January 1 we are going to remove the 20- mile limit, and we are going to have Mexican drivers and trucks come into this country unimpeded, when in fact he has not proposed the inspectors and compliance officers necessary to make certain this could be done safely, in my judgment he is saying this trade agreement requires us to diminish standards on America's roads. I will not accept that. I do not support that. None of us in this Chamber, in my judgment, should vote for it.

Mr. DORGAN. Do you want yourself, your families, your friends, your neighbors looking in the rearview mirror to see an 80,000-pound vehicle coming behind you with a driver who has not slept in 24 hours, who has brakes that may not work, and who has come across the border and has not been inspected? Is that what you want for yourself or your family? I do not. Let me just say again, there is not a ghost of a chance by January 1, when President Bush wants to allow these trucks in, that the inspectors necessary to assure the protection of American drivers on America's roads will be in place. How do I know that? Because the Department of Transportation's Inspector General testified before the Commerce Committee and said the administration is short of inspectors. Even the plan they are proposing will not allow the inspectors to be present to make sure these trucks coming into our country are safe. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I walked on the floor, I heard the words ``raw, rotten protectionism'' used on the floor of the Senate. I had to smile because that is such an ill described position with respect to what the Senate is doing. If you were to try to misdescribe what is going on in the Senate, you could not do it more aggressively than to use terms such as ``raw, rotten protectionism.'' There is nothing protectionist about this issue. This issue is about a trade agreement called NAFTA: a terrible trade agreement that, in my judgment, sold out the interests of this country; a trade agreement that turned a very small surplus with the country of Mexico into a huge deficit; and turned a moderate deficit with Canada into a large deficit. NAFTA is a trade agreement that has not served this country's interests, and we are now told, as a part of this trade agreement, we are required as a country to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country. We are told that if we don't let in Mexican long-haul trucks, we are somehow guilty of violating the NAFTA trade pact. According to my colleague from Texas, if we don't allow Mexican long-haul trucks into America, Mexico intends to retaliate on the matter of corn syrup. Sometimes it is a little too confusing. Mexico is already abusing its trade policies on corn syrup by imposing the equivalent of a tariff ranging from 43 percent to 76 percent on corn syrup exported from this country to Mexico. A panel has already ruled against Mexico on the issue of corn syrup, and, yet, they are now threatening that they may take action on United States corn syrup if we don't allow Mexican long- haulers into this country. Is someone not thinking straight here? The only question, in my judgment, on this issue is, Is it in the interests of the American people to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country at this time? If we allow Mexican trucks to operate unfettered throughout the United States, will it sacrifice highway safety? Will it jeopardize people on American highways? The answer to all of these questions is it will jeopardize safety, it will compromise safety on our highways, and this is not the time to do this. Both the United States and Mexico have had 6 years to cogitate about this--6 years. Really almost nothing has been done. We have 27 border crossings where trucks enter the United States, but a minuscule percent of those trucks are inspected. Thirty-six percent of the Mexican trucks now coming into this country, and are now limited to a 20-mile zone, are turned back for serious safety violations--36 percent. In most cases there are no inspections at all. There are no facilities to inspect. In only two of the border locations are there inspection facilities during all commercial hours. In most cases, there are no parking spaces and there are no phone lines to verify, for example, commercial driver's license data, and so on. I have said it before, and I will say it again--I know it is repetitious, but it is important to do--the San Francisco Chronicle, God bless them, sent a reporter down to ride with a long-haul trucker. He filed a report. Here is what he said. This trucker he rode with traveled 1,800 miles in 3 days, slept 7 hours in 3 days--7 hours in 3 days--and drove a truck with a cracked windshield that would not have passed U.S. inspection. The situation is much different in Mexico than in the United States. In Mexico, there are no standard hours of service in Mexico. There is a logbook requirement, but it is not enforced so truckers do not have them. During the Chronicle reporter's ride with the Mexican trucker, there were no safety inspections along the way. Now we are told if we do not allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country, we are somehow in violation of NAFTA. This is not violating anything. I am so tired of a ``blame our country first'' on all these issues. We are not going to violate anything if we decide that highway safety in this country is important enough to say we will not, under any circumstances, allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country until we have a regime of compliance and safety inspections that give us the assurance, yes, the assurance that Mexican trucks coming into this country and the drivers are meeting the same rigorous, aggressive standards we apply to American drivers and American trucks.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Texas is attempting to weaken the provisions in the Murray bill. I happen to think the Murray provisions are too weak. I would like a stronger provision. I want the House provision to prevail that simply says during the next fiscal year, no funds will be used for certifying long-haul Mexican trucks to come into this country unimpeded beyond the 20-mile limit. As I said, I happen to think the Murray provision is not strong enough. The amendment that is before us is to try to weaken the Murray provision. In my judgment, it makes no sense. I will not use terms such as ``raw, rotten protectionism'' because they are totally inappropriate about this decision. This is not about discrimination. It is not about trade. It is not about protectionism. It is not about anything that is raw or rotten. It is about whether we are willing to stand up for standards we have already established in this country for safety on our road dealing with 18-wheel, 80,000-pound trucks. Do you want a driver behind you who has just come across the border who has been awake for 24 straight hours and is driving a truck that is unsafe, with no brakes? I don't think so. These standards are radically different in the United States. Ten hours of consecutive driving is all you can do in the United States. You have to have logbooks. In Mexico, they have no logbooks. Alcohol and drug testing: In the United States, yes; in Mexico, no. The list goes on and on and on. We are nowhere near having equivalent standards and there is not a ghost of a chance of that happening on January 1. All of us ought to recognize it. This is not about trade. It is about safe hours and it is about common sense. I hope when this vote is taken, common sense will prevail.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am trying to understand what has happened. My understanding is that the majority leader is forced to file a cloture motion not to get the bill up but on the motion to proceed to the bill dealing with an emergency appropriation for family farmers. My understanding is in the budget we reserved an amount of money that we all understood was necessary to try to help family farmers during a pretty tough time. Prices have collapsed. Family farmers are struggling. We all understood we were going to have to do an emergency appropriation to help them. My understanding at the moment is that you are prevented not only from going to the bill but you are having to file a cloture motion on a motion to proceed to go to the bill to try to provide emergency help for family farmers. Is that the circumstance we are in and, if so, who is forcing us to do this? I watched this week while for a couple of days nothing happened on the floor. The appropriations subcommittee chair was here wanting amendments to come, and no amendments came. It looked like the ultimate slow motion on the floor of the Senate. Now we are told--those of us who come from farm country--that not only can we not get to the bill but we have to file cloture on the motion to proceed for emergency help for family farmers. What on Earth is that about, and who is forcing us to do this?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the majority leader will yield for one additional question, of course, the Senator from Idaho would have every right to come to the floor and protest that the amount of help for family farmers is too much, too generous, and this, that, or the other thing. The Senator has every right to do that. But I think that is different than trying to delay our ability to consider legislation that responds to an emergency need for family farmers. My question to the majority leader was not about how much money was involved. My question was who is delaying this and why. I urge my friend from Idaho not to delay us. He has every right to come to the floor of the Senate and try to cut it or try to reduce it if he thinks it is too much, but allow us to immediately go to this on Monday because it is an emergency appropriations bill. We all understood earlier this year that we needed an emergency supplemental. We provided the money for it. Now the Senator from Idaho has a dispute about how much money is going to come to the floor. Allow that bill to come to the floor and then offer an amendment. But don't force the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. Speaking as somebody who represents farm country--I know the Senator from Idaho does as well--delaying on the motion to proceed is the worst way, in my judgment, to serve our family farm interests. All of us have the same interests. I say to majority leader, I hope if there are disagreements about the amount of aid that we will have a debate about it. But I certainly hope that Members will allow us to get to this bill. It is an emergency appropriations supplemental bill designed to address an emergency. It ill-serves those who we intend to help to have to file a cloture motion on a motion to proceed to the actual bill. Let's not do that. Let's get it to the floor and have at it on Monday, get it passed, and help family farmers. I appreciate the majority leader yielding to me.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the majority leader will yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, seldom in political debate--especially in the Senate--do you find a bright line between that which you think is thoughtful and that which you think is thoughtless. I think I have seen some lines recently. Let me describe my reaction to someone who suggests those of us who stand up and worry about highway safety in our country are engaged in something that is raw, rotten, and protectionist. What we are doing is not raw, not rotten, and has nothing to do with protectionism. If you use the word ``protection'' in the manner I describe our duties in the Senate, let me plead guilty for wanting to protect the interests of Americans on American highways. Let me plead guilty for wanting to protect those interests. I, of course, would never apologize to anyone for standing in the Senate saying this is a critically important issue on behalf of those in our country who travel our country's highways. The question is, Shall we allow Mexican long-haul trucks in beyond the 20-mile limit? Senator Murray from Washington has said, the only condition under which they can come in beyond that 20-mile limit is when they meet the standards that we impose in this country. We have compliance reviews and inspections. We do it in a way that protects the American interests. What are the differences between our standards and the standards in Mexico? We have had 6 years, and both countries have understood we have come to this intersection, but nothing has been done. I wish my friend from Texas would have had the opportunity I had to sit 3 hours in a hearing on this subject and listen to the inspector general tell us what he found on the U.S.-Mexican border. We know, of course, the standards are different. In Mexico, there is no hours of service requirement. They can drive 24 hours a day. One newspaper reporter drove with one guy for 1,800 miles. In 3 days, the guy slept 7 hours. This is a truckdriver making $7 a day, sleeping 7 hours in 3 days, driving a truck that would not pass inspection in this country. And we have some in this Senate who say: Let's let that truck into this country, or at least let's let that truck present itself to an inspection station. The inspector general, by the way, says there will not be inspectors sufficient at those stations to inspect those vehicles as they come into the United States. So to those who say our goal is to inspect all these vehicles, I say simply look at the numbers. The fuzzy math that the inspector general described for us between the budget requests and what actually is going to happen to these inspection stations, tell us that those trucks are going to come into this country--and they have already been doing it illegally in 26 States, incidentally, including the State of North Dakota. We have had Mexican long-haul truckers violating that 20-mile limit. My question is this: If you have radically different standards, and we do--no hours of service requirement in Mexico; we do here for 10 hours. No logbooks in Mexico. Yes, they have a law, and they don't carry them in their trucks; we have the requirement here. No alcohol and drug testing in Mexico; we have it here. Drivers' physical considerations, there is a requirement here, really none in Mexico. The fact is, it is clear we have radically different standards. What we are saying is, we ought not allow long-haul Mexican trucks into this country until we can guarantee to the American people that the trucks or the drivers are not going to pose a safety hazard to American families driving on our roads. This is all very simple. It is not raw. It is not rotten. It has nothing to do with protectionism. That is just total nonsense. This has to do with the question of when and how we will allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country. What we are saying is, we will allow that to happen when, and if, we have standards--both compliance and reviews and inspections--sufficient to tell us that the Mexican trucking industry is meeting the standards we have imposed for over 50 to 75 years in this country in our trucking industry and for our drivers. We have had a lot of talk about a lot of things that have nothing to do with the core of this issue. We are told that NAFTA requires us to do this. No trade agreement--no trade agreement at any time, under any circumstances--ever in this country has required us to sacrifice safety on our highways. No trade agreement requires us to sacrifice safety with respect to food inspection. No trade agreement requires us to do that. I have heard for 3 days now that the NAFTA trade agreement somehow requires us to allow long-haul Mexican trucking beyond the 20-mile limit. That is simply not the case. In fact, the strangest argument by my friend from Texas was that if we did not do this, the Mexicans say they are going to retaliate on corn syrup. The Mexicans are already in violation of NAFTA in corn syrup. A GATT panel already decided that. I think what we ought to do is protect the Murray language. She has done the right thing, and I hope, in the end, we will understand this is about safety for Americans on American roads.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would be kind enough to do so.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to observe that the Senator from Texas said he doesn't think our States are involved because we have a 20-mile limit. My point is, Mexican truckdrivers have been stopped in North Dakota already exceeding the 20-mile limit, so of course we are involved. Twenty-four States have found that similar condition. No. 2, the Senator from Texas said he didn't want to talk about the facts. The facts are that when Mexico alleged they are going to take action against our high-fructose corn syrup, does the Senator from Texas agree a panel has already ruled against Mexico, and they are now unfairly imposing tariffs on high-fructose corn syrup in violation of NAFTA? Does the Senator agree with that assertion?

Mr. DORGAN. My point is, alleging somehow Mexico will hurt this country if we don't allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country, with respect to high-fructose corn syrup, and actions they will take-- the facts are stubborn. The Mexicans are already doing that unfairly. I am a little tired of saying, ``let's blame America for something we might do.'' How about blaming Mexico for something they are doing with respect to high-fructose corn syrup that is in violation of NAFTA. I thank the Senator from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have great respect for my friend from Arizona and, for that matter, for my friend from Texas. I might say my colleague from Arizona and I agree on a lot of things and we work together on a lot of things. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of things with my colleague from Texas. We tend more often to come down on opposite sides of the spectrum. But I did want to respond a bit to a couple of questions that were raised. I just came from the Senate Appropriations Committee. I had to be there because we were marking up an appropriations bill. I was on the floor earlier intending to ask the Senator from Texas a question, but I was not able to be here when he finished his comments. One of the things he said I found very interesting. Do you know what he said? He said if we do not allow Mexican long- haul trucks into this country, Mexico is going to take action against the United States. Do you know what they are going to do? He was quoting a Mexican official. He said they are going to impose sanctions or tariffs on high-fructose corn syrup from the United States to Mexico. Do you know what? They have already done that. They are already in violation of NAFTA. An arbitration panel has found Mexico is in violation on high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, they have a high grade and low grade. Guess what. Mexico imposes the equivalent of 43 percent tariff on the low-grade corn syrup and the equivalent of a tariff of 76 percent on the high-grade corn syrup. So my friend from Texas says Mexico is now threatening to do something with respect to high- fructose corn syrup when in fact they are already violating international trade agreements in terms of the tariffs and the obstructions they put in the way of high-fructose corn syrup going from the United States to Mexico. God forbid we be upset about that, that Mexico is going to do something to us that they are already doing in violation of the trade agreement. I heard a long discussion by my colleague from Texas saying we may not and we must not violate NAFTA. I said yesterday and I will say again, there is nothing in any trade agreement, including NAFTA, nothing that will ever require us to compromise safety on America's roads. There is nothing that makes that requirement of the United States. I would also say this. If one would allege that what we are about to do would be to violate NAFTA on behalf of American road safety and complain about that, I wonder then whether someone would complain about Mexico, for example, violating trade agreements with respect to the obstructions and the tariffs applied to high-fructose corn syrup that we now send to Mexico, or that we now try to send to Mexico. This cuts both ways. But it only cuts one way when you talk about things that really matter; that is, highway safety in this country. The United States and Mexico have had a half dozen years to understand the consequences of allowing long-haul Mexican trucks into this country. They have had a half dozen years to prepare for this. What have they done? Nothing. Now we are told in 5 months the United States border must be open to Mexican trucks to come into this country for long hauls. I will say again what I said yesterday. I am sorry if it is repetitious to some, but it is important to say it. The anecdotal evidence obtained by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, I think quite masterfully presented to us in that feature story, is compelling. The San Francisco Chronicle sent a reporter to Mexico to ride with a long-haul trucker who began that ride in Mexico City and went 1,800 miles to Tijuana. That trucker was driving an 18-wheel truck that would not have passed inspection in this country, with a crack in its windshield among other things. That truck driver drove 3 days, 1,800 miles, and slept a total of 7 hours; had no logbook, no limits on his hours of service, and was never stopped for an inspection along the way. Now we are told: By the way, it is our requirement to allow that kind of truck to come into this country. It is not our requirement. It is not. My colleagues will say: But what we are really saying is we want to inspect every truck. There is not a ghost of a chance of that happening, and we all know it. Let me put up a chart that describes the differences in standards between the United States and Mexico. Hours of service: 10 hours of consecutive driving, and no more, in this country--10 hours, and no more. I am telling you, this reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle rode 3 days, 1,800 miles, with that truck driver, and the truck driver slept 7 hours in 3 days because there are no limitations on hours of service in Mexico. There are no limitations on the driver. These are drivers who make, on average, $7 a day, sleep 7 hours in 3 days. Is that what you want in your rearview mirror: A truck weighing 80,000 pounds with 18 wheels coming down the highway, perhaps with no brakes, with a driver that has been awake for 21 straight hours? Is that what we want in this country? I do not think so. And there is no trade agreement ever written--none--that requires this country to compromise safety on its roads. I know some say: well, no one is suggesting a trade agreement would do that. They say they are suggesting a robust area of inspections. Not true. There is no requirement being proposed that investigators go into Mexico to investigate compliance of the Mexican trucking industry to make sure that when someone presents themselves at the border with a logbook, they have filled it out one-half hour before they arrived at the border. They simply fill out their logbook. They have been driving 21 straight hours, but they present a logbook saying they have only been on the road for 3 hours. There is nothing remotely resembling a broad-scale compliance program or a broad inspection program at the border that would provide the margin of safety this country needs. We have, I believe, 27 border entry points. Only two of them are staffed during all commercial operating hours. Most of them don't have telephone lines to access a driver's license database. Most of them don't have parking places where you can park a truck that is pulled out of service. We asked the inspector general who testified last week: Why do you want a parking space if a truck shows up from Mexico that is not safe trying to come into this country? Why not just turn it around and send it back? He said: Let me give you an example. A truck shows up at the border and has no brakes. It happens. Are we going to send an 18-wheel truck back with no brakes? No. We have to park it. The fact is that we only inspect a small percentage of trucks crossing the border. It is not a large percentage as has been alleged. We actually inspect a very small percentage of trucks coming into this country. The proposal for additional investigators and inspectors is far short of what is needed to have a broad regimen of inspections. It is just far short of what is needed. I just did the math. I asked the Secretary of Transportation and the inspector general: Am I not right that you are short, and you don't have the people? The inspector general said: You are right, we are short of inspectors, because these numbers don't add up. To those who say let's open the borders and somehow we will inspect all of these trucks, I say to them even if you could do that, where are the inspectors? They are not being proposed. They have some, but not nearly enough. What about the compliance reviews of sending someone into Mexico to make sure the industry is going to require the kind of compliance that is necessary? I mentioned the requirement of logbooks. Mexico requires logbooks. They do. But nobody has them. It is just like Mexican laws with respect to the environment. They have very stringent laws with respect to pollution and the environment. They are not enforced. You can have wonderful laws, but if they are not enforced, they are irrelevant. There is in Mexico a requirement for a standardized logbook. It is not enforced. Virtually no trucker in Mexico uses a logbook. Alcohol and drug testing in this country, yes; Mexico, no. Driver's physical considerations: In this country, a separate medical certificate, and an examiner's certificate is renewed every 2 years. In Mexico, a physical examination is required as part of licensing, But no separate medical card is required. We have a weight limit of 80,000 pounds in this country. It is 135,000 pounds in Mexico. Hazardous materials: I don't even want to describe the difference here. You can only imagine the difference. Strict standards, training, and inspection regime in this country; there, a lax program, few identified chemicals and substances, and fewer licensure requirements. Vehicle safety inspections: Here, yes, of course. There they are not yet finalized. Insurance: Incidentally, the inspector general pointed out that when they come across the border, they buy insurance for 1 day. Some have questioned why I should care about this issue. One of my colleagues said: Senator Dorgan is from North Dakota, Mexican trucks probably won't even get to North Dakota. But in fact they have already been found to be improperly operating in North Dakota. They have been stopped for a range of infractions and difficulties. There is supposed to be a 20-mile limit for long-haul Mexican trucks in this country. If someone says it is not going to affect North Dakota, they are wrong. It already has. They have already been apprehended on our roads. Let me say, with this one question of inspections and all of the soothing words about, we will just inspect all those trucks, and there is not going to be any problem with the big 18-wheeler coming down the highway--let me describe where we are with inspections. Out-of-service rates at El Paso, TX, 50 percent but only 24 percent at Otay Mesa, CA where they have a full inspection process. I could put up 25 border crossings and you would find exactly the same thing. It is preposterous to allege that in 5 months we are going to have a regime of inspections and compliance audits that will provide the margin of safety that we expect for our country's highways. It is not going to happen. There is not a ghost of a chance of it happening. Let me again say that it is true, I voted against NAFTA. Before this trade agreement which our trade negotiators negotiated with Mexico and Canada, we had a very small trade surplus with Mexico. It quickly turned into a very large deficit. Is it a trade agreement that works in our interest? I don't think so. We had a reasonably modest trade deficit with Canada. It quickly doubled. Is that a trade agreement that works in our interests? I don't think so. Yes, I voted against the trade agreement. I have from time to time suggested that perhaps, just as we do in the Olympics, we require them to wear a jersey so they can look down and see a giant ``U.S.A.'' printed on this jersey to see whom they are working for, so they remember from time to time whom they represent. I am so tired of our trade negotiators negotiating agreements that they lose in the first week. Will Rogers once said that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. Surely he must have been talking about our trade negotiators. It takes them just a moment to begin negotiating with some country and give away the store. That is the case with NAFTA. But I say this: There is nothing in that trade agreement--nothing in NAFTA--that requires our country to sacrifice safety on America's highways--nothing. We have had 6 years, I say to my colleague from Texas, for both countries to prepare for Mexican long-haul trucks to come into America, and neither country has done anything. Now we are told by the President that on January 1 we are going to take the lid off this 20-mile limit and Mexican long-haul trucks are coming in. My position is this: There is not a ghost of a chance of our having the compliance and inspection capability to assure the American people that we have safety on our highways. I don't want my family, or yours, and I don't want any American family driving down the road looking in a rearview mirror and seeing an 18-wheeler coming with 80,000 pounds perhaps without brakes, with the driver having driven the rig for 21 straight hours, in a truck that has not been inspected. I don't want that for the American people, and no trade agreement requires that it happen. To those of us who have come to the floor in the last several days on this issue, I say this isn't about trying to be discriminatory against anyone. If it were Norway, I would be saying the same thing. Canada has a reasonably similar system with trucking. We suspended trucking privileges for Canada for a number of years until they came into compliance. We restored them. With airlines, what we do is very simple. We understand the safety issue with airlines. With airlines, we send compliance inspectors to airlines all around the world to insist and demand, if airlines want to come into our country, they must meet rigid compliance standards. We audit them and require them to comply. There are 13 countries in which their airlines are not allowed into the United States of America. Why? Because we have not deemed it safe to allow those airlines to come in. That is the issue here with these long-haul trucks. It is very simple. This is not an issue about the Murray-Shelby language versus the Gramm-McCain amendment. There are more than two sides; there are three. I happen to believe we ought to have the House language simply prohibiting funding for the issuing of licenses or permits to allow long-haul trucks to come in during the next fiscal year. I say no. If at the end of the next fiscal year it can be described to us that we have a full regime of compliance, investigators, and inspectors at the border, and if we set up all of the burdens to show us that this will work, then I will be the first to admit it and say I am with you. But that is not the case now. It will not be the case in January. In my judgment, it will not be the case in a year and a half. Until that time, on behalf of the American people, we ought to insist--we ought to demand--on behalf of highway safety in this country that we take this issue seriously. In my judgment, what we ought to do, at some point before this debate is over, is take the House language, the Sabo amendment that the House passed 2-1, put it on this bill, put it in conference, and keep it there; and say to the President: If you want to veto it, that is your choice. But if you want to do it, you are wrong. This Congress is going to do the right thing. If you want to do the wrong thing, that is up to you. But our job is to do the right thing right now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I wanted to inform the majority leader that the proposition of discussions about the Murray language, in my judgment, should not just be among those who support the language and those who wish to weaken it. Others wish to strengthen it. While there is a disagreement on this issue, it is not just on one side. I hope if discussions ensue in the coming hours on this subject, they include those of us who believe the Murray language is not strong enough.