Posted on 05/16/2011 10:03:15 AM PDT by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) In a recent letter to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a bipartisan group of 44 lawmakers urged the Obama administration not to reinstate a cross-border program involving Mexican trucks.
The lawmakers cited cost, safety and security concerns as reasons for not reviving the U.S. Department of Transportations proposed program.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) are leading the bi-partisan effort, which includes 13 Republicans and 31 Democrats.
We have concerns that this proposed program could impact the safety and may create a security breach along our southern border, the lawmakers wrote in a May 4 letter.
With the recent rise in and the changing tactics of the Mexican drug cartels, we are also concerned that moving forward with this cross-border trucking program at this time is not in the best interests for security along our border, added the letter. The El Paso Intelligence Center reports that commercial vehicles are widely-used by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
The program would allow certified Mexican long-haul trucks to deliver goods inside the United States. Mexican trucks entering the U.S. would be required to abide by all U.S. safety and security regulations.
Currently, truckers on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border are permitted to travel only within a 20- to 25-mile radius of a trade port.
The current system of Mexican carriers operating within a defined commercial zone is working well for both safety and border security, concluded the letter. We strongly oppose the Administrations cross-border trucking proposal.
The program originally was established under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, but amid safety, security, and environmental concerns, the U.S. suspended the pilot program. In 2009, Congress killed it.
As a result, the Mexican government slapped tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods, and those tariffs are still in place today.
While we understand the need to work to remove the unfair tariffs that Mexico has imposed on U.S. agricultural products as a result, doing so should not come at the expense of the safety of our highways, the lawmakers said in their letter.
The lawmakers object to taxpayer funds (from the federal Highway Trust Fund) being used to pay for on-board electronic monitors that the Mexican trucks would be required to carry. American truckers, on the other hand, would have to purchase the same equipment themselves. Thats adding insult to injury, Rep. Hunter said in a statement.
Simply put, the cross-border trucking program is a straight handout to Mexico at the expense of American jobs, taxpayer dollars and security, Hunter said. He noted that the proposed program will give Mexican truckers unrestricted access to U.S. roadways, leaving their American counterparts at a serious disadvantage, which is one reason why labor unions also object to the program.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) said inspection failures and security lapses at the border could result in the entry of unsafe vehicles and drivers that pose a threat to the safety of the public. He said he is also concerned about Mexican providing drug traffickers with another potential avenue to exploit at a time when crime and violence in Mexico are on the rise.
In March 2011, President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon agreed to re-start the program.
As part of the agreement, Mexico will lift the current agricultural tariffs in two phases. Half will be eliminated when the two countries sign the agreement, and the other half when the first Mexican truck is allowed to travel freely on U.S. roadways.
Several trade unions such as Teamsters and AFL-CIO have criticized the Obama administrations intentions to revive the cross-border trucking program, saying that opening the U.S. roads to Mexican truckers could kill U.S. jobs.
However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Foreign Trade Council, an association of 250 U.S. corporations involved in international trade, support the Mexican trucking deal.
A September 2009 report by the Chamber of Commerce estimated if the U.S. did not implement the NAFTA trucking provisions, "the impact on U.S. employment ... coupled with Mexican retaliation equals 25,600 jobs. The report also estimated that the suspension of the program has caused U.S. exports to decline by $2.6 billion.
Mexico is the second largest U.S export market.
13 Republicans and 31 Democrats
Bass ackwards?!
People shouldn’t kid themselves, this is about turning another sector of our jobs over to foreign nationals. If the Mexican trucks gain access, there won’t be one U. S. Citizen trucker in five years.
Ah, no thanks!
No, Canadian trucks come into the US all the time. They are required to carry higher insurance in Canada than the US.
However, most states(except MI) do not allow b-train trucks.
This double trailer arrangement allows more weight/axel and a higher overall gross weight and length. This is the way most freight moves in Canada. So logistically it makes it more expensive to move product into the US unless it is on this rig arrangement. Therefore, they will often offload the freight at the border of the US and load it onto a different trailer set up to travel in the states. They will also split the load at the border and deliver half at a time.
The other configuration of a Tri-axle rig or Maxi is used in ME, OR , WA , ID , MT & ND. This rig is only allowed in these states and typically does not travel into Canada.
I call BS on that. You just have to make sure they are bonded with a US bank/insurance company.
This is all about protecting THE TEAMSTERS UNION.
A trailer sent into Mexico with new tires often returns with bald tires a week later;their roads must be terrible!(From conversations with drivers of several large national trucking companies.)
You call B.S. on my statement, then suggest that all we need to do is bond them with US bank/insurance company. Why would we need to bond them if they weren’t taking over our complete trucking industry?
Why would you make a comment about the Teamster’s Union if you didn’t agree with my overall assessment?
And since when did the teamsters rule 100% of the trucking industry?
Evidently you think replacing all U.S. independent truckers with Mexican drivers and rigs, would be a great idea.
Count me out on that agenda.
Thanks. Years ago I believe our companies would reload our product on Mexican trucks at the border, we must be sending the trailers in now, the bigger companies may have done it then too.
There you have it!!!
There you have it!!!
I read somewhere that in 1975 when Smokey And The Bandit was filmed over 70% of the trucks on the road were independent owner / operators. Now there are less than 20% of independent trucks on the road.
Perhaps the kneebreakers have something to do with this as well
Does not the Legislative Branch make up the laws?
Now, if they are begging Obama not to veto the law that they create, that's a different story.
If they are going to allow Obama to make law, then they should all quit and we'll save money not paying for the entire Legislative branch.
I don’t know if you were being sarcastic or not. They come back with bald tires because they get swapped out at some point in their trip down south. Eight trailer tires will run in the vicinity of $2,000. I have sent trailers over the border before and can tell you any and all equipment that goes over with the trailer does not come back. Drivers have to strip out their trailers at a local agent before sending them over. They always come back with something wrong. It could be dents, smashed lights, graffiti, or the infamous tire switch.
Bingo. It's all about the unions. There are plenty of crappy domestic trucks on our roads. At least, on the border, you could monitor or inspect what comes in.
I could care less if Mexico makes Mexicans pay higher taxes. This tariff was retaliatory and was done to force the US to lose revenue and force the US into accepting Mexican trucks.
If Mexico wants to punish the U.S. by punishing Mexicans by taxing them harder, I would just stand there pointing and laughing, but hey, that’s just me. The only people having money taxed out of their pockets are Mexicans. American have a 100% effective tax avoidance trick - don’t sell anything on the tariff list to Mexico. Sell it in some other country. No revenue loss.
Notice how effective the retaliation was. If it wasn’t mentioned in the article no one would notice it, including you.
A September 2009 report by the Chamber of Commerce estimated if the U.S. did not implement the NAFTA trucking provisions, "the impact on U.S. employment ... coupled with Mexican retaliation equals 25,600 jobs. The report also estimated that the suspension of the program has caused U.S. exports to decline by $2.6 billion.
This is the tariff retaliation they are talking about. Real numbers. Real people. Right now. Sorry you didn't notice it.
And why waste time finding new markets for stuff that Mexico won’t buy, which is your “solution”? That’s where the tax on funds flowing from the US to Mexico comes in. Unless that’s what you are trying to avoid.
As for the Chamber of Commerce they want the full 48 state NAFTA trucking program, so I put no reliance on any of their statistics. And they ignore the costs of unsafe Mexican trucks in dead, injured, and property damage, which tab will have to be picked up by Americans, because the Mexicans sure won't. But maybe that doesn't bother you.
The Chamber of Commerce does not have the American people's back on this issue. Believe them at your peril.
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.