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.
The point is this. Mexican truckers come here and earn income. Do they spend it here? No. They spend it back home. Does that help our local communities? Does it support the local tax base to help schools, local municipalities, states and the federal government?
When this gets going, there will be tens of thousands of truckers earning income that won’t be spent, for the most part in the U.S.
If you spend a dollar, that dollar pays someone elses salary. That person spends his dollar and another person works. It is estimated that for every dollar spent in the U.S. some $1 to $3.50 is generated into the economy. There’s a term for this and at the moment it escapes me. It is an important dynamic that a lot of people don’t think about.
“Someone changed the title...”
Quickest way to turn news into propaganda. Not cool...not cool at all.
I don’t know, it may be too cold to snow from what I’ve just observed. :->
Ah, this photo just in...
Knew it! :->
“If we can’t let Mexican trucks into the country, what idiot believes that we’re just going to merge with Mexico (and Canada)? Oh, right, Corsi. LOL!”
THESE “idiots”:
Anti-NAU legislation introduced in either the U.S. Congress, or in state legislatures:
United States Congress: House Concurrent Resolution 40 - introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia
Alabama: Senate Resolution 30 - introduced by Senator Beason (Currently in the Senate Rules Committee). Contact the Office of Senator Beason: (334) 242-7794.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Rules Committee
Arizona: Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 - introduced by Senator Johnson.
LATEST UPDATE - Passed Senate by a vote of 17-11 with 2 not voting, passed a House Committee by a 7-3 vote on March 26, 2007, still awaiting a final House vote.
Colorado: House Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Stafford on April 23, 2007 (Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year). Contact the Office of Rep. Stafford: (303) 866-2944
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, the bill has been postponed indefinitely and cannot be reintroduced until next year.
Georgia: Senate Resolution 124 - introduced by Senators Schaefer, Rogers, Douglas, Hill, and Chapman
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the House Committee on Insterstate Cooperation.
Hawaii: Senate Concurrent Resolution 96 - introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
Senate Resolution 60 - Introduced by Senator Hanabusa.
LATEST UPDATE - Currently in the Senate Committee on Intergovernmental and Military Affairs/Senate Committee on Transportation and International Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Judiciary and Labor.
Idaho: House Joint Memorial 5 (HJM-5). Sponsored by Representatives JoAn Wood, Cliff Bayer, Marv Hagedorn, and Senators Shirley McKague, Monte Pierce and Mel Richardson
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the House by a voice vote - Passed by the Senate on March 22, 2007 by a vote of 24 -10.
Illinois: House Joint Resolution 29 - introduced by Representative Black
LATEST UPDATE - Assigned to the International Trade and Commerce Committee on February 27, 2007.
Missouri: Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 - sponsored by Senator Barnitz (Currently in the Senate Committees on Rules, Joint Rules and Resolutions and Ethics)
House Concurrent Resolution 33 - sponsored by Representative Guest (Passed the House Committee on Rules by a 5-3 vote, awaiting final floor vote)
Montana: House Joint Resolution 25 - introduced by Representative Rice of Montana
LATEST UPDATE - Passed by a vote of 94-5and has been transmitted to the Senate and was assigned to the Committee on the Judiciary, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 7-5 on April 10, passed in the Senate by a vote of 32-18 on April 18th, 2007.
Oklahoma: Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 introduced by Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdan
LATEST UPDATE - Passed the Senate Business and Labor Committee by a vote of 7-1 on April 2nd, 2007, passed the full Senate with no dissenting votes on April 23rd, 2007, transmitted to the House on April 24, 2007, adopted by the House on May 15th, 2007, with a unanimous vote of 97-0.
Oregon: Senate Joint Memorial 5 - sponsored by Senators George, Starr, and Whitsett and Representatives Boquist, Krieger, Nelson and Thatcher
LATEST UPDATE - The resolution failed to meet a May 1st, 2007 deadline for a hearing, the resolution may be introduced in the next legislative year.
Pennsylvania: House Resolution 278 - introduced by State Representative Surraa (Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18, 2007). Contact the Office of Honorable Surra - (717) 787-7226
LATEST UPDATE - Referred to the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on May 18th, 2007.
South Carolina: Senate Concurrent Resolution 416 - introduced by Senator Fair (Resided in the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry). House Concurrent Resolution 3185 - introduced by Representative Davenport
(Resides in the House Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions)
South Dakota: Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 - introduced by Senators Kloucek, Apa, Lintz, and Maher and Representatives Nelson, DeVries, Gassman, Jerke, Kirkeby, Noem, and Betty Olson
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the State Affairs Committee.
Tennessee: Introduced SJR-88 on February 21st, 2007.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Finance, Ways and Means Committee, a hearing is scheduled for April 10th 2007, adopted by the Senate on April 26th 2007, transmitted to the House on April 26th 2007, assigned to the House Committee on Commerce on April 30th 2007, assigned to the House Rules Committee on May 16th 2007.
Texas: House Bill 3647 - Introduced by Representative Kolkhorst (a bill that would require the attorney general to produce a report on how NAFTA/SPP/NACC/WTO/GATS would effect state law) (Referred to the Committee on Border and International Affairs, passed in the Hosue on May 11, 2007, passed in the Senate on May 23, 2007, signed in the House on May 24, 2007, signed in the Senate on May 25, 2007, sent to the Governor on May 26, 2007) Contact Office of Representative Kolkhorst: (512) 463-0600 ext. E2.318
Utah: House Joint Resolution 7 - introduced by Representative Sandstrom and Senator Fife (Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year)
LATEST UPDATE - Passed in the House by a vote of 47-24 and was killed in the Senate for the remainder of the Congressional year.
Virginia: Senate Joint Resolution 442 - introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins (Resides in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Senate Joint Resolution 387 - introduced by Senator Reynolds (Bill emphasis on the NAFTA Superhighway) (Resided in the Senate Committee on Rules)
Washington: - Senate Joint Memorial 8004 - introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton & House Joint Memorial 4018 - introduced by Representatives Roach, Dunn, McCune and Hurst.
LATEST UPDATE - Resides in the Committee on Economic Development, Trade and Management.
Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
He an aider and abettor on this one. Quisling comes to mind.
“Sounds to me like they found their pollsters (for which I am grateful).”
LOL!!
First, the list of co-sponors, and
Second, the list of Senators voting NAY or not voting:
S.AMDT.2797
Amends: H.R.3074
Sponsor: Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] (submitted 9/10/2007) (proposed 9/10/2007)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the establishment of a program that allows Mexican truck drivers to operate beyond the commercial zones near the Mexican border.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S11350
STATUS:
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 9/10/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 9/10/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 9/10/2007
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 9/10/2007
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 9/10/2007
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 9/10/2007
===
Senators voting NAY or Not voting:
| NAYs ---24 | ||
| Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) DeMint (R-SC) |
Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hutchison (R-TX) Kyl (R-AZ) Lieberman (ID-CT) |
Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Vitter (R-LA) |
| Not Voting - 2 | |
| Craig (R-ID) |
McCain (R-AZ) |
===
As of 2005, there were just over 3 million class A & B CDL truck drivers in the U.S. Less than 3% are union. And, of that, most were local and/or regional.
Where the unions come into play, big time, is the ports, rail yards, and terminals.
OMG...you mean..it's...it's..frozen over??!
How wonderful...
:^D
Are you saying that the Congress can stop the unconstitutional all powerful conspiracy? LOL!
Wow, who's assuming that? Please show where that was stated? No one is saying American's are superior. All anyone says is if you come to America, you better be legal because there are people all over the world paying their dues, waiting their turn in line. NO ONE gets to shove their way to the front of the line in front of everyone else who is doing it legally.
Yeah, the term is mercantilism. Adam Smith, with some help from David Riccardo, refuted it almost 300 years ago.
Taking your argument in its logical direction, let’s ban trade between the states. Then we’d really be rich!
“None can carry hazardous material or haul cargo between U.S. points.
Except illegal aliens, terrorists and their WMD’s.”
You forgot the illegal drugs.
I hear ya.
Agreed!
“Why assume someone born here is of necessity superior to someone not so fortunate as to their birthplace?”
You sound like La Raza!!
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.