Posted on 09/11/2007 5:09:04 PM PDT by ruination
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways, rekindling a more than decade-old trade dispute with Mexico.
By a 74-24 vote, the Senate approved a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., prohibiting the Transportation Department from spending money on a North American Free Trade Agreement pilot program giving Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.
The proposal is part of a $106 billion transportation and housing spending bill that the Senate hopes to vote on later this week. The House approved a similar provision to Dorgan's in July as part of its version of the transportation spending bill.
Supporters of Dorgan's amendment argued the trucks are not yet proven safe. Opponents said the U.S. is applying tougher standards to Mexican trucks than to Canadian trucks and failing to live up to its NAFTA obligations.
Until last week, Mexican trucks were restricted to driving within a commercial border zone that stretched about 20 miles from the U.S.-Mexican boundary, 75 miles in Arizona. One truck has traveled deep into the U.S. interior as part of the pilot program.
Blocking the trucks would help Democrats curry favor with organized labor, an important ally for the 2008 presidential elections.
"Why the urgency? Why not stand up for the (truck) standards that we've created and developed in this country?" Dorgan asked.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who drafted a Republican alternative to Dorgan's amendment, said the attempt to block the trucks appeared to be about limiting competition and may amount to discrimination against Mexico.
"I would never allow an unsafe truck on our highways, particularly Texas highways," he said.
Under NAFTA, Mexico can seek retaliation against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty's requirements, including retaining tariffs on goods that the treaty eliminates, said Sidney Weintraub, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin.
The trucking program allows up to 100 Mexican carriers to send their trucks on U.S. roadways for delivery and pickup of cargo. None can carry hazardous material or haul cargo between U.S. points.
So far, the Department of Transportation has granted a single Mexican carrier, Transportes Olympic, access to U.S. roads after a more than decade-long dispute over the NAFTA provision opening up the roadways.
One of the carrier's trucks crossed the border in Laredo, Texas last week and delivered its cargo in North Carolina on Monday and was expected to return to Mexico late this week after a stop in Decatur, Ala.
The transportation bill is S. 1789.
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 |
|
|
Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV |
| Democratic | 102 | 156 | ||
| Republican | 132 | 43 | ||
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 234 | 200 |
Uh huh. Say Cornyn, when you call someone a "discriminator", is that the same as calling them a "racist"?
"I would never allow an unsafe truck on our highways, particularly Texas highways," he said.
We are waiting anxiously for Inspector Cornyn to take his place with the Texas Dept. Of Transportation any moment now.
There is no primary opponent to Cornyn. TX voters just rubberstamp friendly incumbents.
In today’s America, unions are usually only delaying the inevitable. Big union leaders also don’t care who makes up their body count — they lose their integrity when the illegals issues is put that way.
Foreigners who lack legal permission to work here, shouldn’t. Others are fine. It’s up to us as a democratic republic to see that laws governing such affairs are suitable and that they are enforced.
What a load of BS.
Protections which have been built into our society over DECADES should NOT be tossed aside in an instant just to make ensure higher profits for certain corporations. Such protections include border security, vehicle safety, driver certification, drive time controls, etc. If these controls could be ensured for trucks and drivers originating in Mexico, I would have no problem. But the fact is, this will not happen. Your playing the race card is revealing. Are you one of those who believes that yelling "racism!" automatically wins the argument?
That grapic is sweet. Did you create it?
I’ll keep him as my Senator. I disagree with him on this issue, but very few others.
two drivers that drive trucks, you enter our country making 5 dollars per hour, and the American driver is making $24 per hour with benefits
Obviously the 24 dollar an hour pay plus bennies is out of whack with reality. Competition will even the playing field. The union trucker should lower his wages so the US driver can compete..maybe he can drive safer, or do something more efficiently..buyt he will be forced to compete...that’s good.
Thank you, very much, for this work.
The lesson of less restricted trade is economic growth for everyone. With less trade restrictions, much of the world including the US has seen strong economic growth over the last 25 years, partly due to less restricted trade. Parts of old Europe have seen stagnation because of excessive regulation, taxation, and entitlement mentality.
Less restricted trade creates disruptions. I understand that disruptions are extremely painful. The answer is not economic nationalism. The answer involves less onerous taxation, regulation, and litigation. I support retraining unemployment and other ways to cushion the blow. Economic nationalism may look good in the short run but in the long run it will be very harmful.
The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
The three-nation NAFTA was signed during December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries.
There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993.
During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate.
Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with both the NAAEC and NAALC.
After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38
Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November 1993
But this is what is going to happen, and every democrat lawmaker knows it:
Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada, or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) have adversely affected their investments.
They are going to sue us, and win.
Ain’t it the truth?
Thank Ron. I like your bingo BTW.
It’s about damned time the Senate grew some balls.
The key to preserving our standard of living in a global economy will be to develop the third worlds rather than to import the third world into America...no small task.
In the interim we do need to keep a completive edge by allowing some lower wage earners to enter, but wiping out borders is not necessary.
I think this is the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
Food for thought: This concept could catch on. If this helps the Dems in 2008, then they can adopt Hitler’s Play book and round them up. Just replace Jew with Mexican and load up the rail cars.
Yeah, you get 75 trucks parked in your road and it takes a while to get them moved. LOL
Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.
We know the greedy out there like your low wage peasant salary with no benefits. But how does this help the American driver?
Obviously the 24 dollar an hour pay plus bennies is out of whack with reality.
Out of whack for a 50 year old truck driver? That's like 17 bucks an hour after taxes!!!!!
Competition will even the playing field. The trucker should lower his wages. But he will be forced to compete...that’s good.
Compete with what? A 5 dollar an hour Mexican truck driver?
OMG!
To ALL:
Beware of those that support this lunacy.
Economics and making an extra 50c are not the only dynamic here. - Far from it.
Ever wonder if that emperor watching Attila approaching the gates ever really believed that Rome itself would fall forever?
IOW, I disagree with your post, but thank you for it. - bill
And how affairs had reached that point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.