Congress upset at late-night decision on Mexican trucks

Houston Chronicle/AP ^ | Sept. 7, 2007 | SUZANNE GAMBOA

[Ben Ficklin]

Though Reagan had indicated he favored a North American Market, the initial agreement was to be bilateral with Canada, and negotiations began in 1985.

In 1986, Mexico joined GATT and began trade liberalization. They told the US that they wanted a "Canadian" deal. The US-Mexico framework was signed in 1987.

The Canadian FTA was signed and went into effect in 1989. Negotiations with Mexico on a bilateral began in 1990.

In 1991 Canada requested that the two bilaterals be converted to a trilateral and negotiations began.

The three presidents signed the agreement in 1992, subject to approval by the legislative branches.

[Colorado Buckeye]

The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, promised access to all U.S. highways by 2000 to Mexican and Canadian truckers.

NAFTA is not a treaty, it is only law. It can be changed or eliminated by passing another law. The solution to this NAFTA problem is to pass a law eliminating the provision giving Mexican trucks and truckers access to out highways. This is what needs to be done.

[Colorado Buckeye]

What a bunch of bull. Who was it who approved this treaty anyway? Congress. Now they’re mad because Bush is implementing it?

Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38.

A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2].

Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.

NAFTA is not a treaty.

---

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103^rd Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450 )
Vote Number:	395	Vote Date:	November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 3450
Measure Title:	A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	61
	NAYs	38
	Not Voting	1

More details on Senate vote here: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

---

U. S. House FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3450      RECORDED VOTE      17-Nov-1993      10:36 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	102	156
Republican	132	43
Independent		1
TOTALS	234	200

More details on the House vote here: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 575

---

[Sun]

Duncan Hunter for president, and we won’t have these problems.

[NRA2BFree]

"I think they are exhibiting an arrogance that is pretty unbelievable," Dorgan said of the administration. "They've given short shrift to all objections, rushing to allow Mexican long haul trucks into this country."

That is the truth! I have never seen such arrogance in my life, and it's not just with Bush, it's Congress too!

[dennisw]

Here is the House vote for NAFTA. Majority of Republicans voted for it. Majority of Democrats voted against. -—>>> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

Democrat FOR-102 AGAINST-156
Republican FOR-132 AGAINST-43

Senate was similar.

[philman_36]

What President authorized this piece of crap?
(NAFTA), accord establishing a free-trade zone in North America; it was signed in 1992 by Canada, Mexico, and the United States and took effect on Jan. 1, 1994. x41

And Congress approved NAFTA in November 1993. x42

So if you want to assign blame or fault throw it at the feet of those who passed it...CONGRESS...(though IMO x41 shouldn't have ever signed it passage was almost inevitable after the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) came into effect on January 1, 1989.) {CONGRESS again!}

[philman_36]

See above...
So if you want to assign blame or fault throw it at the feet of those who passed it...CONGRESS...

[philman_36]

And once again I emphasize the important part...
From your link...
October 9, 1984
The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. [(the SPP for example?)] The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.

The POTUS can't do squat without Congress' approval. Proposing something isn't the same thing as enacting something.
We now have Presidents running hog wild with the power CONGRESS gave them.

[philman_36]

Why do you allow unelected bureaucrats - in the Executive branch - to write law?
Ask Congress, they gave the office of POTUS the power to do it.
See above...
The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements.

I guess Congress figures that it's the Executive branch's responsibility to write up the laws for the trade agreements he/they enters into. They can then say "it's not our fault".

[philman_36]

I see I’m late to the party. Glad to see others are not ignorant on this issue.

[bcsco]

Please add me to your ping list, bcsco.

Glad to have you. Welcome to the AFIRE! ping list.

bcsco

[sergeantdave]

Civics lesson part 2

We are a representative republic. As such, we the right to vote for representatives who will write law. Bureaucrats do not represent the people. They are not accountable to the people’s vote. Congress has no business or authority to transfrer law-making power to anyone, especially unelected bureaucrats.

Unelected bureacrats writing law is one of the primary traits of a dictatorship. The soviets in the former USSR and the functionairies who operated in 1930s fascist Germany are two examples.

Unelected bureaucrats illegally writing law is a long, long way from the Republic the founders designed.

[Not just another dumb blonde]

The Canadian trucks are only supposed to go to their point of destination. Once there, they can pick up a load (within a 400 mile radius) going back to Canada. Not exactly what’s been implied by free reign. They can’t, or, aren’t supposed to be driving all over the place with freight.

[Ben Ficklin]

Civics lesson part 3

Bureaucrats don't write law. They interpret legislation/law and write regulations to implement legislation/law.

Sometimes the Congress is not completely clear in their legislation, and sometimes purposely.

If the bureaucrats mis-interpret, Congress can return to the issue legislatively or handle it thru an oversight committee, depending on who controls the Congress/committees.

The judiciary can re-interpret the bureaucrats interpretation. If Congress doesn't like the judiciary's re-interpretation, it can revisit the legislation.

[dforest]

My post was more to point out how Reagan did make a deal with Canada, the involvment with Mexico really got going during GHW Bush.

There was a poster that put up a link I suppose, for the purpose of trying to involve Reagan in what is going on now. I guess there is no way to know Reagans intent, or how the situation might morph in the future.

Thanks for the info.

[sergeantdave]

“They interpret legislation/law and write regulations to implement legislation/law.”

You’re playing word games. A regulation is recognized as law and has the force of law. Think not? Check out Rapanos v US.

Law - the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

[CHEE]

The lading of a foreign truck should be addressed just like that of sea born freight. Offload it at the port of entry, inspect it, apply tariffs, load it on an American truck or train and send it to the end user. No problem. The Federal agencies have taken control of the USA!

[Ben Ficklin]

I'm not playing word games. And I'm disputing that regulations are law.

I am saying that the bureaucracy is not an ultimate arbiter, they are only bureaucrats doing what they are supposed to do.

Keep in mind that much of this boils down to partisanship and one branch trying to exert their authority over the other.

[nicmarlo]

NAFTA is not a treaty.

bttt!