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.
Ah, yes, there is the real John Cornyn. The same guy who has introduced a bill to create the SPP for years in the senate and tried to push that language into the last Senate Amnesty.
“Free traitors deeply saddened.”
Reagan was for free trade. Was he a traitor?
You can support free trade and still demand that your trading partners adhere to basic safety rules, you know....
“I won’t be buying into this great plan.”
And that’s a good choice.
I am supportive of reasonable safety regulations, inspections, and driver training. I am not in favor of unsafe Mexican trucks and drivers. There is a legitimate question about enforcement. I am persuaded that states will enforce safety regulations if the federal government does not.
This agreement is asymmetrical regarding driver access. Access to Mexico by US drivers is difficult because of the condition of Mexican roads and lawlessness. I think that Mexico should be pressured to improve law enforcement on their roads. I am not sure improvement is possible given the chaos in Mexico.
I could be persuaded to oppose this agreement if there is not reasonable enforcement of safety standards and American trucks do not get fair access to Mexican roads.
Are US trucks allowed in Mexico?
“I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.”
It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.
Too many people here are equating illegal immigration with free trade...which isn’t about people, but goods and services, regulated by the rule of law. NAFTA never authorized increased legal immigration rates, let alone illegal immigration.
I simply ask you a question about union meetings and your knowledge of someone being attack at one. Are you or are you not personally aware of such an attack.
I do favor competition and a see unions as a part of the competitive dynamic in a demand driven economy. Unions represent their members in the market for labor. Unions certainly seek to achieve higher wages for their members. That’s something I support.
On the other hand you evidently oppose legislation that benefits hourly workers. But I believe you don’t oppose legislation such as NAFTA or any legislation that is detrimential to hourly employees while wildly favoring corporate interests to the detriment of of our nation.
That particular one, no.
Because the Dems are globalists as well....the exception with them is that there will be no US border if they follow their Commie lunatic fringe...which they seem to do consistently.
Imagine there's no country..it's easy if you try.
“which isn’t about people, but goods and services”
You must not have been presented with the “Degrees of Freedom” presentation by the free-traders amongst us here at FR. It talks all about individuals and their rights. It’s cool-aid, and it’s not to be consumed.
This reads more like your own wishful thinking than fact.
Comparative advantage is a measure of natural resources, economies of scale and technological innovation. Your brand of classical economics of the industrial revolution with the attendant grinding poverty for wage earners really sucks. Not only is it an indeterminate system (it has more unknowns than equations) the notion that profits can only be maintained if wages are reduced to meet a decrease in demand leads to an increased rate of decline in demand. IOW, fewer people making less money leads to a decreased demand for goods and services. Henry Ford was excoriated by fellow industrialists for the ‘exorbitant’ wages that he paid his labor force. Of course, those wages along with the technological innovation of the assembly line brought the automobile out of its status as a rich man’s toy. scarface 367 apparently wants to return to the ‘good old days’ when only the wealthy enjoyed any amenities or leisure.
Hey, Big Brother, I suggest you only do business with your family. Remember, it’s for the children.
“sovereignty”
We don’t need no stinking sovereignty!
Sorry, I couldn’t help it!
Never mind.
I agree with you. Also he was instumental in defeating the Comprhensive Immigration Reform Act.
Well aren't you just an innocent little thing. Trouble is, one post earlier you hinted that he'd get roughed up by union thugs if he told them they were thugs. Your line of reasoning is similar to the Islamonuts who threaten to kill anyone who suggests they're not peaceful.
It's not lunacy. It's greed. There's a chunk of change in there from the ligitimate US laborer for them somehow. Could be just a few hundred dollars worth of stock in some free traitor corp. like Walmart, etc, ad naseum.
It’s a shame a Democrat had to do this and make the party look good.
Then again, at least someone did it.
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.