Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers of this bill, the Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby for an outstanding bill. It is my pleasure to serve on the committee with them and to support this bill.


Senator Murray has been willing to accommodate many of the very important priorities submitted by the Bush administration, including $325 million for the U.S. Coast Guard Deep Water Systems Program, full funding of the President's request for Coast Guard retired pay and Reserve training, and certainly, as far as my State of Missouri, which is a very transportation- dependent State, we are very grateful for the recognition in our State of the needs in transportation, whether it be transit, buses in the metropolitan areas, transportation for the elderly and the disabled in rural areas, light rail, or a critical road project in southwest Missouri on U.S. Highway 71.


These are all things that are extremely important, and we are, indeed, grateful for the careful attention the Chair and the ranking member have provided to the needs of all of us in this body.


I have, however, raised a question at the subcommittee and full committee level at the request of the Secretary of Transportation. I raise this issue of the Mexican truck treatment. As we all know, in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect following congressional approval the previous year. I was here in 1993 and voted for this critically important trade agreement. Though I recognize not all of my colleagues were here, and some who were here did not support the agreement, the simple fact remains that NAFTA did pass. It is now the law of the land. The result is we, as Members of this body, have the responsibility to uphold the law and assure we take no deliberate action to violate it.


Unfortunately, we have received a Statement of Administration Policy, dated July 19, which, No. 1, commends the work that Senator Murray and Senator Shelby, the Chair and ranking member, have done to address these many critical issues. They say the administration is pleased the Senate committee has provided necessary funding and staff to address critical motor safety issues. It repeats that the administration is committed to strengthening the safety enforcement regime to ensure all commercial vehicles operating on U.S. roads and highways meet the same rigorous safety standards. However, the Statement of Administration Policy goes on to say, the advice from the administration is that the Senate committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisers will recommend the President veto the bill.


That is the situation in which we find ourselves. This is too good a bill to be lost. We want to work together to make sure we do not lose the benefits of this bill or violate our agreements under NAFTA. We know for a fact that the NAFTA international tribunal has already issued a decree we violated obligations and are subject to sanctions ranging from $1 billion to $2 billion per year for continued violations. These sanctions could certainly lead to multiple problems, particularly in manufacturing, which has already seen three-quarters of a million jobs lost since 2000. The real fear in terms of trade is that if the sanctions continue with alternative suppliers being found from the European Union or elsewhere, the job losses could become permanent.


To set the context for the Senate bill, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol took a very stringent view that would prohibit the use of any funds in the appropriations bill pending to process applications by Mexico domiciled motor carriers for conditional or permanent authority to operate beyond the commercial zone adjacent to the border. In other words, the House-passed language, as amended on the floor, effectively closes our borders to trade with Mexico while providing no money to address any of the concerns noted by those supporting the amendment. That is to assure safety for all trucks on the highway.


This action not only constitutes a direct violation of NAFTA, but it does not do anything to address the safety issues associated with the status quo on the United States-Mexico border.
A few moments ago we heard questions raised about the weight of trucks in Mexico, their brake systems, and other things. Let me go back to point out that under NAFTA and under the administration's policy, the inspection regulations would require that the trucks coming in from Mexico meet our standards. Whether it is weight, whether it is brakes, all of the safety standards that we impose on our trucks, that we impose on Canadian trucks, would be imposed on Mexican trucks.


As I mentioned earlier, the provision in this bill, headed by the Chair, Senator Murray, and Senator Shelby, made very significant improvements in the legislation and added the money necessary to protect others who travel on the highways. That has to be our first responsibility. Everybody wants to make sure our highways and roads are as safe as possible. We are going to do that. What we need to do is figure out how to do that.


I raise a concern that some of the provisions in this bill could effectively close our border to Mexican trucks. I am very pleased to say we are expecting very shortly to be able to meet with the administration to find out precisely the kind of language changes that are needed. I trust and I believe the leaders of this committee, the Chair and the ranking member, will be able to work to find solutions to the language problems and the practical problems that cause the administration to believe this is a NAFTA violation. We do need to maintain our standing in the international community and make a good-faith effort to live up to our trading obligations. Certainly the obligation to open our borders to other countries that want to bring goods into our country in exchange for opening their borders to allow us to take goods into their countries is very important.


Whether or not my colleagues supported NAFTA at its inception, there should be no question that we should not do something in this body or in conjunction with the other body that would cause us to be in the position of breaking our agreements. That, I am afraid, is the major problem. We cannot and must not violate our agreements. The practical impact of the provisions, unless we can work out a change before it is sent to the President, would be a veto of the whole bill. Senator Murray and Senator Shelby have worked too long and hard to get this bill together to lose it. Our agricultural exports, our manufacturing exports,
the jobs for our farmers, the jobs for our workers, require we do this job properly.


If you have, as I have, listened to the congressional debate on letting Mexican trucks travel U.S. roads, you might think the United States is an unequipped, underdeveloped country. I pointed out that NAFTA permits us to require the same safety standards for trucks on highways.


We have had more than 7 years to prepare for the inspection of trucks to ensure they meet U.S. safety standards as required by the North American Free Trade Agreement and as repeatedly requested by Mexico. Yet it appears the Teamsters Union and others with straight faces tell us that the world's wealthiest and most advanced nation does not have the resources to perform this relatively modest chore. That is the heart of their argument--U.S. inadequacy--and we should be ashamed of it, just as we should be ashamed of other arguments being made: we cannot inspect trucks coming across the border, not 7 million trucks; at maximum 180,000, or 300,000 trucks might be the most.


We have the right and the obligation to inspect these trucks. We should be ashamed of saying that we cannot inspect them. We have a lot of evidence already of trucks traveling on our highways. A Mexican trucking fleet has long been allowed to traverse this country en route to Canada with no notable safety hazard resulting. Only if the Mexican trucks want to stop to deliver goods throughout the United States do we want to bar them. Maybe it is a question of whose jobs are being impeded.


Mexican trucking firms can already travel throughout the United States so long as the firms are U.S. owned and no serious issues have been raised about that. Only if the Mexicans own the companies do we prohibit their trucks. Something to do with competition maybe. That raises questions.


Older Mexican drayage trucks, those long allowed to make short hauls in the 20-mile ``commercial zones'' on either side of the border, are as safe as similar U.S. trucks. As the American Trucking Association has noted, the Mexican vehicles are taken out of service for safety reasons at rates that are virtually identical to those at drayage operations at ports and intermodal facilities all across the United States.


If we need more proof, we only need to look to California, the only State that inspects every Mexican vehicle crossing its border. The out-of-service rate for Mexican trucks there is virtually the same as that for U.S. trucks. The president of the Teamsters, Mr. James Hoffa, calls California's program, which we propose for the rest of the border, ``a model of what a proper inspection program can achieve.''


What it has achieved is to show that we can, indeed, inspect Mexican trucks. California does it in two modern facilities, built mostly with Federal funds, with inspectors chiefly paid with Federal dollars, and those vehicles are as safe as U.S. trucks. How, then, can critics make the claims about dangerous Mexican trucks?


First, they mix apples and oranges, comparing older drayage trucks, which have a higher out-of-service rate in both our nations, with all U.S. trucks. Thus, when critics say the out-of-service rate for trucks at the border is 36 percent, or half-again higher than the 24 percent for all U.S. trucks, they are engaging in a little statistical sleight of hand. This, I find, is misleading.


In addition, there is a contention that under the administration's plan it would take 18 months to take any unsafe Mexican trucks off the road. But that is how long it would take to go into Mexico and audit Mexican firms' paperwork, maintenance records, drivers' logs and the like, not to inspect their trucks.


What we are seeking funds for in this bill, and what the administration has sought, is money for roadside truck inspections.


Similarly, as I said, many House Members signed a Teamster-generated letter that under NAFTA, 7 million Mexican trucks would be riding American highways, while only 180 Mexican firms have applied, and there are only about a total of 300,000 commercial trucks in all of Mexico.
The chief danger in this debate is not Mexican trucks but U.S. protectionism, which is already costing businesses and consumers dearly. About 75 percent of United States-Mexico trade, or about $195 billion of goods moves by truck with cargoes transferred from long-haul trucks to drayage trucks at the border and back to long-haul trucks for nationwide delivery. It is a senseless and expensive system that must be ended--not for the least reason that it keeps the older, more dangerous drayage trucks targeted by critics on the road.


As one who comes from an agricultural State, and 75 percent of our exports go into Mexico by truck, we depend upon trucking because 12.5 percent of the American agricultural exports go to Mexico. That gives us a trade surplus in agriculture of over $1 billion.


If we put these barriers up to Mexican trucks as Secretary Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation has noted, Mexico could impose compensatory tariffs of $1 billion on U.S. goods. Many U.S. workers and companies would feel the pain if Mexico were to exercise this right.


Perhaps more costly, however, would be the damage to our U.S. drive to get other nations to keep their borders open and to keep their trade commitments. As the world's largest exporter, we have the most at stake in this issue. Our case will be impossible if we violate our own word. I think it is past time. I hope we can very shortly work out something that the President has suggested, the Teamsters endorse, many on this floor have endorsed, and that is adopting the California model for all border States to provide the funds for facilities and inspectors, to make sure our highways are safe. That is No. 1. Every American has a right to demand that we ensure the safety standards for all the trucks on our highways.


I encourage all my colleagues to work with the Chair and the ranking member to ensure safety on America's highways while opening our borders to foreign trade, to assure compliance with our treaties, and to avoid a veto.


People in my State want to trade with Mexico just as the people in the rest of the country want to trade with Mexico. We can achieve safe highways while maintaining open borders and avoiding trade sanctions by applying universal inspections and standards across the board. We can get the job done. I look forward to working with the Chair of the Committee, Senator MURRAY, and Ranking Member SHELBY in the coming hours and days in an effort to see that we can attain these very reasonable goals for all Americans.


I yield the floor.