Posted on 01/04/2008 2:48:57 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is going ahead with a controversial pilot program giving Mexican trucks greater access to U.S. highways despite a new law by Congress against it.
The decision to proceed with the four-month-old program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States, comes despite language in the recently signed catchall spending bill aimed at blocking it.
But the Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole in the new law, which prohibits the government from spending any money to "establish" the program. The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September.
"The U.S. Department of Transportation will not establish any new demonstration programs with Mexico," said Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration spokeswoman Melissa Mazzella DeLaney. "The current cross-border trucking demonstration project — established in September — will continue to operate in a manner that puts safety first."
Congressional opponents of the programs insist that it's clear what lawmakers were trying to do last year when both House and Senate voted against allowing the program to go forward.
The provision, as signed by President Bush last month, says: "None of the funds made available under this act may be used to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."
"They know what the law says," retorted Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who won a 74-24 vote to block the program. "And they're not above the law." Dorgan warned they better follow the law.
The hotly contested program, opposed by labor, independent truck owners and environmental groups, permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads.
Opponents have been fighting the measure — part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement — since it was first proposed, saying the program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. And they say that there are insufficient safeguards exist to make sure that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.
"When you open up U.S. highways to long-haul Mexican trucks without equivalent safety standards, it poses risks for American drivers," Dorgan said.
Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. And they say U.S. trucking companies will benefit since reciprocal changes in Mexico's rules permit U.S. trucks new access to that country.
Since 1982, Mexican trucks have had to stop within a buffer border zone and transfer their loads to U.S. trucks.
Still, there's widespread opposition to the program within Congress. The House voted without a roll call in July to block the program and the Senate's 3-to-1 margin in September to block it came despite administration assurances that safeguards are in place to "ensure a safe and secure program."
The Teamsters Union, Sierra Club and Public Citizen joined together in a lawsuit filed in August seeking to block the program.
A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12 before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Teamsters spokeswoman Leslie Miller said.
I keep wanting to post: "I pray Bush learns to say nuclear instead of nukyaler."
I just can't.
I assume Tijuana. I assume photos. I assume blackmail. I assume a Mexican paternity case that was hushed up. I assume kickbacks. There has to be some reason why a President of United States of America loves Mexico and illegals MORE than his own country. Someone want to explain this guy’s actions to me
Exactly-what the Heck is it????????? It’s very fishy indeed.
To say Reagan supported NAFTA is not true. He supported a trade agreement with Canada. NAFTA didn't even exist when Reagan was in office.
We need to bombard Congress, Presidential Candidates, Congressmen, Senators, etc. with letters communicating our outrage with the border issues. Collectively we can help force our leaders to pay attention and take action. Have any of you seen the new Chris Burgard Film, “Border: the Divide between the American Dream and the American Nightmare”? Just saw it last weekend. It is a documentary that will make your blood boil. Fact is, we as one giant loud and clear voice, have to pressure our representatives to pay attention and be engaged to resolve the border/immigration problem.
Treaty agteements supercede Federal law, always have.
What treaty?
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.
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 |
Gheesh, when did America honoring it’s treaty agreements become to mean Bush hates working people?
See post above. Sorry to have made you look like a real idiot here; but next time, you might want to do some homework before posting.
And to think I actually voted for Jorge twice.
In the primaries, I’m not hearing much about illegal immigration from candidates of either party. Yet polls show it’s the number one issue of voters. A helluva lot of money must be changing hands.
It's the same old story year in, year out.
Bush is a globalist...no other reason...
Everyone's fed up. That's why candidates promising CHANGE are doing so well. Trouble is, they don't specify what kind of change and how they'll achieve it. Almost certainly the change will be worse than the status quo. Horrible thought.
Correct...
NAFTA is not a treaty. It was never submitted to the Senate as a treaty and did not receive the two-thirds majority vote that treaty ratification requires, but instead was enacted in 1993 by a congressional-executive agreement.
Furthermore...
On February 6, 2001, a five-member international tribunal established by NAFTA declared the United States to be in breach of its obligations to Mexico because of restrictions on the entry of foreign trucks. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ignored U.S. domestic statutes (including the National Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Air Act) and ordered implementation of the decision.
IMPEACH BUSH !!
Duncan Hunter's fence was funded- the ONLY problem with it was Jorge Boosh. It was his sworn duty to defend the border, and he is derelict in doing his duty. Can't blame this one on congress.
I think that’s what the Sierra Club and Public Citizen argued, but the U.S. Supreme Court shot them down.
Nafta did not supercede the safety of vehicles on public highways,and you want a wholesale disaster,unleash the tens of thousands of trucks that will cross everyday,carrying drugs,illegals,bad tires,bad brakes,untrained drivers,this is another disaster we will bring upon ourselves so American companies in Mexico get direct trucking to the consumers.
The cost to the public will be enormous,but I’m positive that statistically,government sources will show us what a bonanza we have.
In an election year, I just don’t see how this will help the Republican cause. Terrible move!
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.