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.
If we do not follow the NAFTA agreement and block the trucks, Mexico will retaliate with unilateral tariffs. The result will be less trade and higher prices. As I understand, the US cannot unilaterly change the NAFTA agreement. The Mexican trucks are coming. We need to ensure reasonable safety regulations, English speaking drivers, and no contraband and illegal immigration.
Loading and unloading goods at the border is highly inefficient. Allowing freer movement of goods will lead to lower prices for consumers and ultimately more jobs and economic growth. If you favor the current inefficient practice, do you also support restrictions on airline travel? Should you be required to fly a Mexican airline when crossing into Mexico? Should Mexicans be required to fly a US airline when flying into the US?
Knew you'd see it that way. Because you still don't understand it.
And since you don't understand nationhood except within the context of a socialist state, then I guess you'll just have to admit that you're a boy without a country. All you got is the dog, right?
And of course the rest of the planet will see that as a righteous path and respect your independence and defend your property and rights without question. Of course they will. You need no one and no one...needs you.
Of course they will.
thanks you for that very clear response -
now, having read it, why is President Bush being made the fall guy?
Of course, it has become obvious he is willing to take blame, to be a scape goat, for others’ questionable actions, since his time is short
I’m not entirely deaf to your arguement. I just don’t see any benefit of surrending a whole industry to foreign nationals on U.S. soil.
Make the case that some manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico might help them down there and help us too, I might buy some of it. I just don’t buy this.
I’m going to do you a favor. I’m a tough nut to crack on this issue. I’ve gone round and round with people for days on the subject. You may be right and five times more intelligent, I just don’t buy into the current accepted practice. You’ll be beating your head against the wall as will I.
I do appreciate your comments. I’m not saying that in all instances I disagree. I will say that as a general rule I do.
Your inclusion of the retraining was reasoned IMO.
Thanks for the comments. Take care.
D1
BUMP!
What you say makes perfect sense to me..but not to he emotional nativists around here.
Security? of course.
Banning legitimate trade? Stupid and misguided.
The only way to compete with a second rate economic power is to lower yourself to that second rate economic level and work for less . I’m with the Teamsters on this, as it affects ALL American truckers , not just the Teamsters .
I don’t want the U.S. to become like Mexico, do you ?
Free trade isn’t .... It has a cost ...
“...and may amount to discrimination against Mexico.”
It’s more like “discrimination” against the traitors that want the American people to “say ah” as they ram Mexico — the juggernaut of the NAU in train — down our collective throats!
No it's not. The way to compete with any economic power is to focus on what you can do more efficiently than they can.
Your argumentive skills are poor consisting of personal attacks. Who taught you how to argue and persuade?
I was responding to the suggestion that someone who voiced a contradictory opinion at a union meeting deserved to be assaulted. I think that such behavior would be criminal if your local Democrat would enforce the law.
I am proud to stand against monopolists: OPEC, unions, and organized crime. Scab is a derogatory word for a competitor. The foundation of our economy is competition. Are you against competition? Competition is created by competitors. Why can’t unions compete?
Efficiency? You will open up the US to potential chaos and put the average US citizen at risk for increased crime and decreased income for efficiency?
Come on..you had better do better than that.
As for the “50 year old driver”...or teacher...or anyone else who refuses to keep up with innovation and efficiency that comes from competition ...too darn bad.
To all: Beware of hyper emotional appeals to nativism such as those posted by dragnet2.
What we could do to Mexico economically would be immeasurable and devastating to Mexico, not the US.
So because I disagree with you on this issue I must be a liberal?
Lunacy is right! Freepers willing to cut truckers pay by 80% to compete with Mexican labor!! Good Lord!!!!
I don’t think the Mexican trucking firms will be held to the same regulatory standards as U.S. companies, so it is already an unfair playing field .
It’s the same as trying to “compete” with the government subsidized companies in China . It’s impossible for us to compete with certain countries on a cost level, without lowering our wages and standard of living.
What hypocrites. They’re all for amnesty for illegal aliens, but, hey, Mexican trucks taking money away from our Union contributors? No way, Jose...
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.