Senate Votes to Ban Mexican Trucks By a 74-24 Vote

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(09-11) 16:48 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Senate voted Tuesday to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways, rekindling a more than decade-old trade dispute with Mexico.

By a 74-24 vote, the Senate approved a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., prohibiting the Transportation Department from spending money on a North American Free Trade Agreement pilot program giving Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.

--
Supporters of Dorgan's amendment argued the trucks are not yet proven safe. Opponents said the U.S. is applying tougher standards to Mexican trucks than to Canadian trucks and failing to live up to its NAFTA obligations.

--
Under NAFTA, Mexico can seek retaliation against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty's requirements, including retaining tariffs on goods that the treaty eliminates, said Sidney Weintraub, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin.


Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/11/national/w164826D06.DTL

[bemildred]

1. Good, now rescind NAFTA while you are at it. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Yes, do more for the people, less for

the corporations. Reform campaign finance, shorten the campaign season, and you won't need the corporate money to run your campaigns.

[NancyBreen]

11. Amen. Can they do it? nt

[OhioChick]

19. You Got It. n/t

[kestrel91316]

30. Thank you. It needed saying.

[orleans]

42. that's exactly what i thought when i read this. n/t

[robinlynne]

2. finally, a good move by the senate.

[ozone_man]

3. Rescind NAFTA or give them (back) Texas?

"Under NAFTA, Mexico can seek retaliation against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty's requirements,"

I would choose to rescind NAFTA. Damn evil piece of Clinton economics.

[EndElectoral]

5. ..or both

[jody]

7. NAFTA was negotiated by George H. W. Bush and signed by Clinton. n/t

[davekriss]

17. No surprise then that GHWB and Bill Clinton...

...get along so fabulously. Don't get me wrong, I love the Big Dog, but because of this, welfare reform, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 I find myself saying that Clinton was the best "Republican" president we ever had.

[Divine Discontent]

21. Clinton said he never would allow the Mexican trucks into the US

so we give him that... B*sh II is more than willing.... I wanna see who voted against the safety of Americans and the middle class. And, yes, I understand that Mexico is upset about this, but NAFTA needs rescinded and/or reworked anyhow.

[pinto]

31. I favor reworking it, with Labor and Human Rights concerns addressed.

[pampango]

47. Agreed. The Senate should introduce and vote on legislation to either

amend the treaty or to withdraw from it. It is political pandering to take parts of a treaty that you don't like and vote not to honor the provisions you have agreed to.

When you negotiate a treaty with another country, in most instances, each side makes concessions in order to get concessions from the other party. If you subsequently find that you cannot live with some of the concessions that you made, you should either renegotiate or withdraw from the treaty. You should not unilaterally decide that you are not going to honor the concessions that you made in order to agree to a treaty.

Obviously, we have the economic and political power to tell Mexico which parts of the treaty we intend to follow and which we intend to ignore. This is the old "might makes right" theory of justice. I always thought this was a conservative, not a liberal, theory.

Come on, Senate. If you don't like the treaty, and it sure hasn't been good for Mexico, vote to withdraw from it or to amend it to make it better. Don't pander to us with votes that either cannot be enforced on a mutually agreed to treaty or would be unfair to the other partners, if it were enforced.

[KamaAina]

59. And environmental concerns as well.

As it stands, labor and the environment were shunted off into "side agreements" which, unsurprisingly, turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. I'm not sure whether human rights were addressed at all.

[napi21]

24. It was actually signed by GH Bush. Clinton signed the secondary

agreements. This was a big discussion on Malloy last week. Mike looked it up, and he said he really owed BC an appology becaue all these years h'd been blaming him for the whole thing!

[davekriss]

25. Really?

I too must apologize. All these years I thought it was Bill who signed the main agreement. I must've unknowingly swallowed a Republican meme at some point.

[napi21]

26. Check these links.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed during December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).<4> and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38<5> Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November 1993.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm

President Bush signed NAFTA in December 1992, but sending it to the Senate for ratification would be up to the next president. Facing stiff questions from labor unions-a core Democratic Party constituency-candidate Bill Clinton declared that he would support NAFTA if it included side agreements on labor rights and the environment.



There are MANY more references. Just Google "Who signed the NAFTA agreement.

[Igel]

56. In other words ...

Bush I signed something that wasn't binding.

Clinton submitted it for ratification, it passed before the repub majority took Congress in '94--although I'd guess with a majority of repubs and a minority of dems voting for it. Then Clinton signed it. This makes it on par with any other law passed by Congress--and now Congress is trying to use a funding trick to prevent implementation. (When * does it--when he faces a law passed by Congress and signed, and then tries to use an shortfall in funds that he himself engineered in order to prevent implementation ... what do we call that? "Good government"?)

Clinton could have held NAFTA and not submitted it for ratification. It's what he did with Kyoto. However, NAFTA was something that he believed was good for the US *and* something he believed would pass. Kyoto ... I'm not sure he believed either was true about Kyoto.

[superkia]

10. Yes, I agree with Kucinich also on this one.

We need a president for the people to have a chance at slowing down the big machine, not just another typical politician!

[Gman]

23. You bash Clinton but

NAFTA is nothing compared to the trade going on between Asia and the US. Asia is where all our jobs have gone. Not to Mexico, much less Canada.

[w4rma]

46. Which started under Clinton, also. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

6. On idiocy: bipartisanship reigns.

What was the vote total on funding the surge again?

[Divine Discontent]

8. THIS is something they can run on!!!! woohoo!

add this to the minimum wage increase and other issues that can push us further into the majority to get more things through!

see, we CAN make a difference with our calls and emails.

[NancyBreen]

9. Does this mean it will stand or will Bush once again

give us the finger?

[Purveyor]

13. If I'm not mistaken, the mexican truck provision is part of the overall transportation bill.

Bush has threatened to veto it due to 'overspending' however there is plenty of support for passage.

Will have to see the final passage vote tally, which is suppose to happen tomorrow, to see if it is 'veto proof'...

[NancyBreen]

16. Thank you for the edification, Purveyor

[Ian David]

12. Viva Los Freeways! n/t

[bbgrunt]

14. one small welcome victory.

[CHIMO]

15. Tell Us About It

Already, NAFTA suits launched by private investors have meant that Canada has had to pay millions of dollars in compensation for enforcing laws protecting its environment because it refused to export PCBs (which would have been a violation of its international environmental commitments). And the Canadian government is now in danger of losing a NAFTA challenge to Canada Post of $160 million, launched by UPS, the American parcel delivery firm. UPS charges that Canada Post has a monopoly on mail delivery and is using its profits to cross-subsidize its parcel and courier service, thereby hurting the private sector. If UPS is successful, courier rates will rise and rural areas will suffer. This is a prime example of sector-based policy replacing place-based policy. Less obvious is the “fear” from the threat of investor lawsuits under the NAFTA. Examples of this include when the federal government backed away from requiring plain-paper packaging of cigarettes, and when Ontario and New Brunswick were discouraged from introducing public auto insurance.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:8clcckGY73YJ:www.environmentalsociety.ca/TILMA.pdf+nafta+%22law+suits%22+%22canada+post%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

Lawsuit Against Canadian Government: Foreshadowing MAI

Ethyl Corporation's $251 million lawsuit against a new Canadian environmental law is sure to set off alarm bells throughout the public interest world. The suit, brought under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, demonstrates how present and future international economic pacts could pose a danger to environmental regulations and other safeguards.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:fkWQKBfBJ8gJ:www.islandnet.com/~contempo/library/mai/lawsuit.html+nafta+%22lawsuits%22+ethyl&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

[Vidar]

18. Wow, the Senate does something right & it's veto proof.

[EndElectoral]

20. Here's who voted against it....All Repubs and Joe Blow....

NAYs ---23
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 2
Craig (R-ID)
McCain (R-AZ)

[spag68]

27. Once again

Lieberman proves he is a rethug

[pinto]

32. Thanks. Facts are a good thing.

[Baby Snooks]

37. Lieberman

I hope the Democrats in Connecticut remember next time they go to the polls that Lieberman is not an "I" but an "R" and has made it perfectly clear he was never a "D." You have to wonder if there would have been a landslide in all the states for Gore had Lieberman not been on the ticket in 2000.

There were two things wrong in 2000. The first was the Republican Party in Florida. The second was the Republican candidate on the Democratic ticket.

[Divine Discontent]

43. AH the sweet smell of Senators saying so long to their seats!

this can be ran as a commercial very effectively.

Because of their previous problems or controversies I see Senators Martinez kissing his seat goodbye when Jim Davis or someone runs against him when he runs in '10, also Senator Vitter faces an unlikely re-election for being a philandering purchaser of prostitution, and well, you know what? A lot of these Republican senators are either retiring because of being pretty aged, or won't have the opportunity if they have to resign (Craig, Stevens, Allard, Bunning, Hagel), is there more?

McCain might retire, too, right?

[peace13]

49. Oh my god I am so ecstatic!

This is the first time that my boy Mr. Voinovich has not been on the list of evil doers! I will call him directly and give him a hearty thank you! Yea....a reason to live. Peace, Kim

[FreakinDJ]

22. Very good news

I always liked Dorgen - even more now

[defendandprotect]

28. Thanks Sen. Dorgan -- !!!!

[Riverman]

29. Who are the 24 Traitors to American Workers and the Environment

Who voted against S 1789?

[pinto]

33. (?) There's been no vote on this, as far as I can see. It's on agenda.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

'Search' under S 1789.

No co-sponsors to date, awaiting action.

:shrug:

[Oilwellian]

39. The amendment to be added to the bill was voted on today

I saw it with my own eyes. :D

[pinto]

41. Ah. Thanks for the update.

[TankLV]

34. Good! GREAT NEWS!

Finally, a congresscritter who gets it...

[gateley]

35. Excellent! I'd gotten so used to being 'trod upon' that I felt and opposition was futile. nt

[OzarkDem]

36. But what about banning Mexican truck drivers?

They're also a hazard, with no rigorous standards for training, safety or drug testing.

If that's not included in this legislation, its not useful and I wouldn't support it. It would be another case of "feel good" legislation that looks good, but accomplishes little.

[Gloria]

38. Hey...why not cut funding for that place over in the Middle East with that

war going on?

[MissMarple]

40. Fine...go on ahead....I'm going to my room.

:rofl:

Good for Senator Dorgan. "Free trade", is there such thing? Well, maybe... would that be called the black market?

[LeahD]

44. Thank you, Senators. K & R

[1776Forever]

45. Thank you finally the Senate comes through like the cavalry!

:kick:

[Joanne98]

48. GOOD!

[brentspeak]

50. The only problem is, Bush is promising a veto

This proposal, prohibiting money to be spent on the NAFTA Mexican trucks program, is part of a new Transportation bill. It's vital that Dorgan gets enough votes for the final bill to make it veto-proof.

[pink-o]

58. Let him

..first, let the American people see their Idiot Leader for what he is: a corporate shill who could give a shit about our workers. This is right up there with the Dubai ports debacle; a totally bi-partisan cause. If dim Son did veto, I bet they could find enough votes to override it. It only takes 66, right?

[BonnieJW]

51. Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test

Source: Yahoo News

Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test By Kevin Drawbaugh
Tue Sep 11, 9:51 PM ET



The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to block funding for a Bush administration test program to let Mexican long-haul trucks operate in the United States under 1994's North American Free Trade Agreement.

One day after a fiery truck accident killed dozens in Mexico, the Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill that would cut off funding for the test, which the administration authorized last week to run for one year.

The House of Representatives has passed a similar measure.

The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the broad transportation bill because it would spend more money than President George W. Bush requested. It said the administration opposes any restrictions on the cross-border trucking program.

The administration said "it has the necessary safeguards in place to ensure a safe and secure program."

A tractor-trailer loaded with explosives blew up in a huge fireball on Monday after hitting a pickup truck in the northern Mexican state of Coahuila. At least 29 people were killed.

Calling the accident a warning to proceed cautiously, North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan led the effort to deny funding for the program.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070912/pl_nm/usa_mexico_trucks_senate_dc_3&printer=1;_ylt=Apt2vUridrmH0du8uskZWsIb.3QA

---

I don't think this program is ready for prime time. Not unless we can be assured that the Mexican trucks and drivers are held to the same standards and laws as American truckers.

[Me.]

52. The Turn Of The Double Screw

They take jobs from our people and we pay for them to do it.

[Rydz777]

53. North Dakota has given us a Democratic Senator - Byron Dorgan

who is leading the way to try to protect American jobs. His book, "Take This Job and Ship It" should be required reading by those who spout the empty slogans praising "free trade."

[rodeodance]

54. They are using the 'power of the purse' for this-lets see them use it for the Iraq occupation!

[tanglefoot]

55. Wouldn't that be nice! n/t

[truedelphi]

57. Under our set of National Policy, our government has nothing to do with our rights. Our rights are

Derived from our humanity.

Under NAFTA, our government can choose to dispense our rightsor rescind or or forget them, whatever is in the best interests of the corporate economy.