[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S8153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8153]]
          TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS AND LONG-HAUL TRUCKERS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, just in the time we have remaining, I 
really would like for us to move forward on this legislation and, 
indeed, on other legislation that is important to people's lives.
  I want to speak to three different questions.
  First of all, on the Murray amendment--and presumably we will have 
more time for debate; I do not know whether or not we have a filibuster 
that is going to be sustained or whether or not there is going to be 
some agreement, but I want to thank Senator Murray for her good work.
  I tell you, people in Minnesota, as we look at I-35 coming from the 
south, are interested in safe drivers and safe trucks and safe 
highways. They are interested in their own safety. Frankly, I think it 
is terribly important that all of us support Senator Murray's 
amendment.
  For my own part, I also want to give a lot of credit to what 
Congressman Sabo from our State of Minnesota has done on the House 
side. He basically has said, we are not going to have the funding to 
grant the permits because there is just simply no way that right now we 
are going to be able to have any assurance that the safety standards 
are going to be there.
  I want to make one point that perhaps was brought up yesterday in the 
debate but which I think is really important as well. As a Senator, I 
do not really make any apology for also being concerned about--above 
and beyond safety--the impact this is going to have on jobs in our 
country, frankly, the impact of NAFTA on jobs in our country.
  In particular, I think the very powerful implications of all this are 
as we see more and more subcontractors crossing the border at maquilas, 
it is far better, from the point of view of people in Minnesota, that 
the subcontractors to our auto plants or to other parts of our economy 
are located in the United States. With a lot of the transportation 
being done by American trucks, that is what happens.
  The Bush administration is pushing this full force, and they are not 
even interested in respect for the safety standards.
  The other thing that is going to happen is, you are going to have 
more and more subcontractors basically located in Mexico because 
Mexican trucks take whatever is produced there right to wherever it 
needs to go in the United States, thus eliminating a lot of other jobs.
  So I think this is not just about truckdrivers, not just about 
Teamsters, not just about safety--all of which I think is very 
important--I think it is also about living-wage jobs in our own 
country. It is also about our economy. Frankly, in some ways, though I 
support the Murray amendment, I really appreciate Mr. Sabo's effort. 
And we will see what happens on the floor of the Senate, whether or not 
we will have an amendment similar to Mr. Sabo's amendment in this 
Chamber.
  But I think, at the very minimum, we have to insist on the safety 
standards, and, at a maximum, eventually we are also going to have to 
have yet more honest discussion about this new global economy and where 
people fit into it. All that happened in Italy and all that happened in 
Seattle I would not defend--not all of it, by any means, but what I 
will tell you is that there are an awful lot of people in our country 
and throughout the world who are raising very important justice 
questions. They are not arguing that we are in a national economy 
alone. They are not arguing that we ought to put up walls on the 
borders. But they are arguing, if we are going to have a new global 
economy and we are in an international time, then above and beyond it 
working for large financial institutions and multinational 
corporations; it ought to work for working people; it ought to work for 
human rights; it ought to work for consumer protection; it ought to 
work for small producers; and it ought to work for the environment.

  Frankly, I think that is part of what is being debated in this 
Chamber. We have a very, what I would call incremental, pragmatic 
amendment, which Senator Murray has done an admirable job of defending. 
I am amazed other Senators believe this goes too far by way of assuring 
basic safety on our highways. I think we need to defend Senator 
Murray's effort.
  Above and beyond that, I have some real questions about whether or 
not all of this will be enforced and then properly certified. Then 
above and beyond that, I have some real questions about these trade 
agreements and the impact they have on whether or not we will have 
living-wage jobs for the people in our country to enable people to earn 
a decent standard of living so they can support their families.
  And above and beyond all that, eventually, I am telling you --it may 
not be this year; it may be 5 years from now; it may be 10 years from 
now--we are going to design some new rules for this international 
economy, so that rather than driving environmental standards down, or 
wages down, with a complete lack of respect for human rights, we can 
have the kind of standards that lift up people's lives.

                          ____________________