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.
You can pretend that the United States did not give up soveignty here. You can even use the phony language the U.S. government used to get around the Senate confirmation.
BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO PRETEND THAT THIS IS NOT AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TREATY AGREEMENT THAT DOESN'T FORCE THE UNITED STATES TO ACCEPT THE TRIBUNALS RULINGS.
NAFTA has the force of law. As with any law, it can be changed or abolished with the passage of another law
This isn't true with NAFTA in the context that we cannot escape any actions currently in play. Nor could we escape any judgement in which the loss to the Canadian or Mexican citizen is to have occurred before we opted out.
As to the notion that congress/president has the power to pass laws which alter NAFTA. Those changes are completely irrelavent and meaningless UNLESS Canada and Mexico agree to them also. Should I slow down here so you can gasp our loss of soveriegnty. For you see, via NAFTA we've agreed to be HELD TO THE RULE OF THE NAFTA TRIBUNALS. Do you for one second believe that an international tribunal will believe that NAFTA allows the U.S. to change clauses therein without the consent of the other NAFTA memebers, but Canada and Mexico does not have that power?
It really doesn't matter what the heck you of the U.S. Congress calls NAFTA. It is de-facto international law and WE ARE BEHOLDEN to it. Bush is trying to save the U.S. millions in penalties and fees.
Place "NAFTA tribunal ruling" into a search engine and educate yourself. This monster has as much chance of being abolished as the Income Tax. Will this Supreme Court rule that a law could not be passed effecting trade without an official U.S. Treaty agreement? Great question, my money is no cowardice.
Thank you lawdog for grabbing a quote on what is going on here. From his post 54:
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.
As always, moeny talks.
I hear that most of the Mexican trucks are headed for New Hampshire and South Carolina where demand for new drivers licenses with voter registration cards are sky rocketing.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Now I know you anti-American globalists are enemies of US Constitution but to most of us in the USA it is the law of the land. You can take your unconstitutional international law and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Actually my point was that the Constitutionally established process was not followed..I say they want to enforce it let them collect the money...
First the fence was authorized in legislation, but never funded that year.
Then they finally got congress to both authorize and fund it, but the Bush administration drug it's feet and built only a handful of miles of fencing last year.
Now congress has changed the language on how the fence is to be built in such a way that it makes it even easier for the administration to not build the fence, or to build an ineffective fence instead.
Can't blame this one on congress.
You can't blame it on congress alone, but they aren't significantly less guilty than Bush either.
Precisely. They passed a law that would not allow funding for additional programs. If teamsters feel threatened by the existing program let them do what they always do....strike! What's the problem? A nationwide truck strike would kill any border crossing deal.
Ditto on that. I don’t get the guy. He has to know american conservatives are fully opposed to this bologna...He can’t even say, ‘these are the jobs americans just don’t want to do’ this time!
Bush has been dealing with a troubled economy since he took office. He inherited a recession. He inherited a mess caused by lax accounting rules and enforcement under the Clinton administration which eventually blew up with Enron and Worldcom. Clinton made a mess out of the economy during the dot com boom. He inherited a growing economy from his predecessors and not screwing up the economy sooner was the only thing he really accomplished during his presidency, but the growth wasn't healthy growth, and it led to the dot com bust, lots of accounting scandals, and even contributed to the housing boom and bust.
Bush's policies have in many ways helped, in some ways continued problematic policies of the Clinton administration, and in some ways made things worse (Medicare prescription plan).
Bush's economic policies have been far better than Clinton's, but Bush is to a large extent a big government liberal.
It really is amazing that we have kept the economy growing despite the dot com bust, accounting scandals, 9/11, the war on terror, and the housing bubble.
However, one of the ways the economy has been kept going has been by keeping inflation low. Two things that have contributed significantly to that have been trade with China (and other countries with low labor costs) and importing cheap labor from Mexico.
There are good and bad things about both of those. I don't argue for completely ending either, but the poor regulation of both is starting to cost us more than we gain from them.
We need limited, legal immigration.
We need to put more restrictions on what we trade with China by way of technology. We can't stop China from modernizing their economy, and as they do so, they are going to be increasingly an economic force to deal with. Stopping trade with them is also not in our best interests, because it isn't going to help us more than it hurts us. However, we do need to do our best to make them compete fairly and keep them from stealing intellectual property.
We also have to keep in mind that they are very likely going to be a real military threat in the future. We also have to recognize that while they don't appear to have stolen much military technology during the Bush administration, they stole a lot during the Clinton administration. They are trading partners, but they aren't our friends.
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.