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.
No kidding. There are six billion people on this planet, the vast majority of whom live in third-world conditions. You do the math on the impact on U.S. wages.
I agree with you. Also he was instrumental in defeating the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. Cornyn is one of the good guys who just happens to be imperfect.
“If we can’t let Mexican trucks into the country, what idiot believes that we’re just going to merge with Mexico (and Canada)? Oh, right, Corsi. LOL!”
The Senate and House are paying more attention to the voters on these issues, but there are still plenty who want Mexican trucks into the US, as they now are on a test basis. First on the list who want them in the US is Jorge Bush and many compatriots. And not allowing them does go against provisions of NAFTA, which is fine with me.
It’s not over yet, and all Congress is doing now is cutting off Dept. of Transportation funds from use in this test program, and their basis for withholding funds is still safety issues.
Corsi might not be so far off. This is just another in a long line of temporary holds on this part of NAFTA.
Who da thunk it ...
One could do a lot worse than have the new Teamsters under Hoffa Jr. as an ally in any cause. Look up what he did in the Adams case, re-reported here in the last few days.
Unions are against competition. If you are for unions, you are against labor competition. Unions would not exist without coercive legislation. I would support workers and owners of capital through less regulation, litigation, and taxation.
NAFTA is a very complex agreement. I am sure there are parts of NAFTA that I support and parts that I oppose. On balance, I support less restrictive trade but the details are important in the trade agreements. On balance, I support more efficient movement of goods but I have concerns about safety and illegal immigration that may result.
errr, yes, if wading hip deep in illegal immigrants is your idea of growth.
I drove an OTR flatbed for several months, my favorite destination was Mexicali. Here you made sure you pulled every light bulb and reflector from the trailer you were dropping off, left your truck running and got the hell out before the mexicans stripped the chrome and mirrors off. I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread that don't understand that 80,000lbs of un-inspected 3rd world truck coming down the highway at 70 mph is....errrrr.....a bad idea. Your trust in the us government is misplaced......
In other words, you support third world status for American workers as long as it doesn’t cause you any discomfort or danger.
Let me ask you a question. Just how many trucks do you forsee going south from the U.S. into Mexico, when U.S. wages will be anywhere from three to five times higher? It seems a given to me than unless U.S. wages dropped by 60 to 80%, that no U.S. trucks would be hired to go into Mexico.
Imagine there’s no Heaven... I hate that song, but believe me John knows there is a hell, its his home now.
“What a load of distorted bull as it applies to the specifics of this issue.”
That was phrased quite direct yet reasonable. Nice.
They’re tearing themselves to pieces over there over free trade and illegal immigration. They use the same arguments as you do here. They want jobs for folks here in the U.S. Lots of them have lost jobs, including those whose jobs have gone to India or H1-B holders.
Perhaps there is room for limited cooperation on this issue with those DUers and other Democrats who are really concerned about jobs.
It’s the ‘train’ ...
The problem that you keep doing is looking at this from the perspective of truckers instead of what the overall benefit of shifting to areas of more efficiency will be to Americans as a whole.
“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?”
A false comparison.....American truckers don’t WANT to reciprocate by driving into Mexico. It isn’t safe. Have you ever owned a business, or do you just teach?
We have no NAFTA obligation; its a one way street.
I’d love to see the teamsters get burned, but this NAFTA crap is a bad deal every way you look at 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.