Editorial: Promoting safety

Thursday, May 17, 2007 | 7:09 a.m.

W hen the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted in 1993, one of its main goals was to help prop up Mexico's sagging economy by opening its markets to consumers in the United States and Canada. We support free trade and its potential to create jobs, but free trade agreements make no sense if they are implemented in a way that creates health or safety hazards for American citizens.

The Bush administration regrettably did not have this in mind when it sought to allow Mexican trucks to travel on all U.S. highways in accordance with NAFTA but without ensuring that those vehicles would be safe. We couldn't agree more with Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., who was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: "We do not need 90,000-pound unguided missiles on our highways." The reason for concern is that Mexican trucks are often older than their U.S. counterparts.

Thankfully, the House voted 411-3 on Tuesday to delay the administration's proposal, replacing it with a plan to implement safety inspections of Mexican trucks before they transport their cargo on U.S. roadways. This affects Southern Nevada because U.S. 93 from the Arizona border to Las Vegas and Interstate 15 from Las Vegas to the Utah border are part of the proposed CANAMEX corridor. When fully implemented, this corridor will help transport goods from Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta, with stops in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana.

For the House plan to work, Congress must make sure that it sets aside enough money for manpower and equipment to ensure that Mexican trucks are safe. And while lawmakers are on the subject, they need to revisit the level of safety employed by American truck drivers. Many of them continue to travel at unsafe speeds that can cause horrific accidents and hazardous chemical spills.

Highway safety should not be taken lightly, and free trade agreements should be no exceptions.