Senators vote to block Mexican trucks

[peejay 327]

Senators vote to block Mexican trucks

Lawmakers want to bar them from U.S. highways, but the bill faces a veto threat

By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT

2007 Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday night to block a controversial Transportation Department program that last week opened U.S. highways to Mexican trucks, dealing a setback to the Bush administration.

On a 74-24 vote, the Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that would bar the use of federal funds to operate a one-year trucking pilot program that allows certain Mexican trucks beyond a narrow border commercial zone. The House adopted a similar amendment in July — placing both houses of Congress on record against the trucking program.

Yet with the defunding effort attached to a spending bill that remains a few steps away from reaching President Bush's desk and faces a veto threat, it was unclear whether the administration would immediately halt the cross-border trucking program.

The head of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is administering the pilot project, condemned the vote — but didn't say whether the program would end immediately.

"Tonight's decision by the Senate is a sad victory for the politics of fear and protectionism and a disappointing defeat for U.S. consumers and U.S. truck drivers," said Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator John Hill.

"This decision robs consumers of significant new savings, deprives drivers of new opportunities to compete in Mexico and squanders millions in taxpayer dollars Congress has spent to put in place a sophisticated safety network for border crossings."

Labor opposes program

So far, only one Mexican carrier has been granted a permit to operate two trucks in the United States. Under the pilot program, a maximum of 100 Mexican carriers could receive permits, with U.S. officials predicting no more than 500 to 600 Mexican trucks would operate during the life of the program.

Tuesday's skirmish, during consideration of a $104.6 billion transportation and housing spending bill, marks the latest fight over a cross-border trucking provision ratified as part of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. The three NAFTA partners — the United States, Canada and Mexico — agreed to open their highways to each country's trucking companies.

But organized labor, public safety advocates and others have waged a 14-year battle on Capitol Hill, in the executive branch and the courts to keep Mexican trucks from operating beyond the 25-mile border zone to which they've been confined since 1982. They argue that Mexican trucks and drivers do not meet equivalent U.S. safety standards, posing a risk to American motorists and threatening the livelihood of U.S. truckers — contentions denied by the Transportation Department.

The Teamsters Union, which has long fought the program, welcomed the Senate's action. "The American people have spoken, and Congress has spoken," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. "Now it's time for the Bush administration to listen. We don't want to share our highways with dangerous trucks from Mexico."

Dorgan, a labor ally, led the drive to derail the trucking program, accusing the administration of ignoring safety concerns raised by the Transportation Department's inspector general. And he deemed unseemly the administration's decision to implement the pilot program Thursday night, an hour after receiving a report from the inspector general that pointed to ongoing concerns, including the fact that five states say they are not ready to enforce roadway and safety rules involving the Mexican trucks.

"Why the urgency? Why not stand up for the standards we have created and developed in this country?" Dorgan asked, questioning how the U.S. could certify Mexican drivers and trucks when Mexico doesn't keep a database of accident reports, driver violations and vehicle inspections.

"I don't think it is wise to proceed," Dorgan said.

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, argued that the United States must live up to its treaty obligations, which have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and a NAFTA tribunal.

Seeking to blunt the Dorgan amendment, Cornyn offered an alternative that would keep the pilot program alive but impose new inspection and reporting requirements. That amendment failed on a 29-69 vote.

Cornyn and fellow Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against the Dorgan amendment.

Hutchison supported Cornyn's amendment.

'Fear of free trade'

In a debate that served as a proxy to refight NAFTA's costs and benefits to the U.S., Cornyn argued that critics were seeking to impose different standards on Mexican trucks than for Canadian trucks, which already enjoy free access across the U.S.

And he charged that the Democrats' opposition stemmed from a broader dislike for free trade.

"It's apparently about protectionism, it's apparently about fear of competition in the marketplace," Cornyn said. "It's fear of free trade, which to my way of looking at things provides new markets for American producers, new opportunities for more revenue and creates more jobs right here at home."

Said Dorgan: "This is about safety."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5127184.html

[pedroh 21]

ohh too afraid of the mexican business?? cheaper costs? LOL PWNED

[pedroh 21]

oops double post

Edited September 12, 2007 by pedroh

[Jasman0717 9]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

[pedroh 21]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

although the safety issue is a major concern, i don't think it's diffuclt to regulate.. if you don't meet the standards, you can't drive in the US, as simple as that, I think the main issue is the competition, because I would think Mexican truck companies would be cheaper to move products across the countries.. other than that, there's no issue, mexican truck companies can't transport products from an american city to another american city, they can only move from a mexican city to 1 american city and that's it

[Ban Hammer 14,279]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

although the safety issue is a major concern, i don't think it's diffuclt to regulate.. if you don't meet the standards, you can't drive in the US, as simple as that, I think the main issue is the competition, because I would think Mexican truck companies would be cheaper to move products across the countries.. other than that, there's no issue, mexican truck companies can't transport products from an american city to another american city, they can only move from a mexican city to 1 american city and that's it

rail is still cheaper.

[eric&gen 0]

What ever you do never say the B word a certain little guy named pedroh will report ya rying little baby to ewok beans run run.

[LondonGooner 0]

This is all part of a capitalist plan to create a North American Union modelled on the EU. The Federal Government won't deal with illegal immigration because it is the eventual aim for citizens of the US, Canada and Mexico to move and work freely within those three countries. Only the Corporate masters here and in Canada want to exploit the cheap labour pool that is available south of the border so they rid themselves of those pesky expensive American and Canadian workers who demand such unecessary benefits such as retirement funds, health and dental insurance and paid leave. As Pedroh said, this is all about cheaper costs which translates into bigger profits for the Fat Cats at the top. I am not a Socialist by the way but I am a big believer in equal opportunities, a level playing field for everyone and I dislike Corporate greed.

[Ban Hammer 14,279]

What ever you do never say the B word a certain little guy named pedroh will report ya rying little baby to ewok beans run run.

reported.

would you care to try for two now?

[Jasman0717 9]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

although the safety issue is a major concern, i don't think it's diffuclt to regulate.. if you don't meet the standards, you can't drive in the US, as simple as that, I think the main issue is the competition, because I would think Mexican truck companies would be cheaper to move products across the countries.. other than that, there's no issue, mexican truck companies can't transport products from an american city to another american city, they can only move from a mexican city to 1 american city and that's it

We haven't been able to regulate the U.S. trucks on the road. Just about every truck the CHP stops has safety violations.

[Caladan 19]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

although the safety issue is a major concern, i don't think it's diffuclt to regulate.. if you don't meet the standards, you can't drive in the US, as simple as that, I think the main issue is the competition, because I would think Mexican truck companies would be cheaper to move products across the countries.. other than that, there's no issue, mexican truck companies can't transport products from an american city to another american city, they can only move from a mexican city to 1 american city and that's it

This is just part of NAFTA, isn't it? So far we've been reaping most of the benefits (and the resulting illegal immigrants.) The safety concern, I agree, is a separate issue from the agreement. If the trucks aren't safe to drive they shouldn't be on the roads.

But unless Mexico's trucks are nationalized, it doesn't make sense to be worrying about 'Mexican trucks...' Are the companies not responsible for their own maintenance?

[Jenn! 918]

What ever you do never say the B word a certain little guy named pedroh will report ya rying little baby to ewok beans run run.

Why are you trying to get yourself banned? Does it have anything to do with that time when you thought someone insulted you when they were really talking to someone else?

Just wondering.

[pedroh 21]

I don't think it is the business as much as the safety issues. Many of the big trucks on the California highways today are not safe so why add to the problem

although the safety issue is a major concern, i don't think it's diffuclt to regulate.. if you don't meet the standards, you can't drive in the US, as simple as that, I think the main issue is the competition, because I would think Mexican truck companies would be cheaper to move products across the countries.. other than that, there's no issue, mexican truck companies can't transport products from an american city to another american city, they can only move from a mexican city to 1 american city and that's it

We haven't been able to regulate the U.S. trucks on the road. Just about every truck the CHP stops has safety violations.

yeah, but id' think the US would try to set up a very strict safety system, so the minimum flaw or problem with the mexican truck company, would be a no-no.

[pedroh 21]

What ever you do never say the B word a certain little guy named pedroh will report ya rying little baby to ewok beans run run.

Why are you trying to get yourself banned? Does it have anything to do with that time when you thought someone insulted you when they were really talking to someone else?

Just wondering.

i don't think he even knows what does that word mean.. or he knows and is just acting like an arsehole..

[peejay 327]

This is all part of a capitalist plan to create a North American Union modelled on the EU. The Federal Government won't deal with illegal immigration because it is the eventual aim for citizens of the US, Canada and Mexico to move and work freely within those three countries. Only the Corporate masters here and in Canada want to exploit the cheap labour pool that is available south of the border so they rid themselves of those pesky expensive American and Canadian workers who demand such unecessary benefits such as retirement funds, health and dental insurance and paid leave. As Pedroh said, this is all about cheaper costs which translates into bigger profits for the Fat Cats at the top. I am not a Socialist by the way but I am a big believer in equal opportunities, a level playing field for everyone and I dislike Corporate greed.

Bush Jr. is up to his eyeball with his grand vision of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This must be the continuation of his daddy's New World Order. Reagan pushed his "trickle down" theory of economics that the wealthy would send prosperity down to the masses. All that has been thrown out in favor of the "trickle up" economy. In his vision the rich get richer by exploiting cheap Third World labor at the expense of their own countrymen. It's not about the quality of life for our citizens anymore...the priority has now become maximum corporate profitibility in the shortest amount of time and worry about the collateral damage later (if they worry about it at all). The corporations run America now...are there any doubts?

Yes...they do want to level the playing field. Unfortunately the goal is to level it down instead of up.

And I'm no Socialist/Commie either!