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.
All American truckers, not just Teamsters are elated as are most Americans.
If you think Teamsters are thugs why don’t you go to the nearest Teamsters hall and tell them you think they are thugs.
If you do so please post pictures after the event.
I thought Cornyn was one of the heros who helped save us from the amnesty bill. Hmmm....
There isn’t a treaty involved.
>>There isn’t a treaty involved.<<
I’m pretty sure NAFTA is a treaty.
I thought Cornyn was one of the heros who helped save us from the amnesty bill. Hmmm....
Planned obsolescence and all that. ;^D
“It’s called comparative advantage. Basically no one person or nation can do everything more efficiently than another person or nation. Therefore by trading it allows one nation to do what it can do more efficiently while allowing the other nation to do what it does better. Of course, the American trucker may be worse off, that is unfortunate, but American society is made better off by the trade between nations. American workers can then focus on what it does more efficiently.”
I used to 100% believe the above too - then I realized how wrong I was.
Cornyn and Kay B. Hutchison are both “open borders” types but mute this in deference to the political realities in Texas usually. They only came out against amnesty because they knew their political futures were dead if they didn’t.
Both are joined at the hip with Bush. Cornyn is even a buddy of Johnny Sutton the Federal Prosecutor of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. So this “wide Stance” of his on the Border issues does not surprise me in the least.
The ones hurt won't be union. It will be Independent Owner operators or a company driver working for a non union hauler already in some cases making what equals out to minimum wages. I drove in 1984-85 and the illegals were hurting us then. Companies paid by the mile. Then they allowed something like $20 flat rate to unload the truck by hand if needed. Would you unload a 52 footer loaded with bagged onions and lettuce? BTW the stuff even though inside a reefer unit is still iced down. Me and my driving partner could not find any illegal even in 1985 willing to do it so you know who unloaded that truck. The company paid low for the unload because of illegals.
Driving a truck requires having as much going for you as possible. Being in a truck with an American driver who can't read is bad enough. Such was my driving partner. But he could at least understand instructions and read clearance signs etc.
Oh I bet there will be some “Free Traders” show up on this thread....
But the rest of us are awakening to the fact that NAFTA is bad ju ju.
They are free to drive all over Mexico you know.
Oh, about 212 degrees. Rankine.
the American trucker may be worse off, that is unfortunate, but American society is made better off
No we won't be better off pal. You think the American trucker above will keep his standard of living if he has to come down to the Mexican truckers income level? Because that is exactly, eventually what will happen.
Gezzz....
So, you are in favor of siphoning off the freight from our West Coast Ports to Mexican ports?
In favor of, then, loading it on Mexican railcars and trucks, only to carry it through an INTERSTATE highway that has, now, been tolled, which was paid for by the taxpayers, and driven through our Country to Canada, stopping only at the Kansas City Port of Entry?
In favor of handing the livelihood of American truck drivers to Mexican truck drivers?
In favor of, at least, 11 States losing the tax revenue normally generated by trucks and rail?
Is that what you stand for? Or, did I miss something?
Any country in the world has the opportunity to, attempt to, join the United States on our quest...
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Article IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
You want "fair trade"? Petition Congress to become a state, play by our rules, what could be more fair than that?
If they get voted down (for whatever reasons), then special consideration should be granted for, at least, making the attempt.
Which is why I don't mind buying things from other nations. I just don't want them here taking jobs from Americans. They can do that just fine from their own country.
“Blocking the trucks would help Democrats curry favor with organizes labor.........”.
It would also curry favor with me.
You’re making the false assumption that the trucker can only do that particular job.
Hat tip to you, FRiend!
America First!
Spoken like a true Hilary supporter.
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.