Senate votes to ban Mexican trucks

AP via Yahoo! News ^ | Sep. 11, 2007 | Suzanne Gamboa

[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.

[scarface367]

Thought you were a business professor? Do you think all items are shipped in full truck load lots. Why do you think trucking companies have freight terminals. I'll give you an example: a friend of mine has a dozen trucks and for years he hauled general motors freight. The companies in Mexico load a full trailer of their product. It was shipped to the boarder and mixed with other general motors freight then it was delivered to Memphis Tennessee, there it was unloaded and reloaded with different amounts going to different plants. The function of the terminal was to get the most load gong to the correct plant for a single drop. If the single load out of Mexico had gone to ten different drops it would have taken days extra and cost the shipper more for each drop. No way to run a just in time manufacturing business.

You realize that by your analysis that you are factoring in the costs associated with Mexican truckers?

If these costs and the wages paid to Mexican truckers are indeed lower than what is paid to American truckers is lower than what is paid to them, then we are better off. If not, the marker will reflect that and the Mexican truckers will lose out to Americans

[businessprofessor]

I do not want to ignore the total costs of the less restrictive trade. The cost of reasonable safety enforcement should be passed to the companies who will factor the costs into the prices of goods. If the enforcement costs are higher than cost savings from labor and no border unloading/loading, companies will not use the Mexican truckers.

[dragnet2]

I'm tired of economic pie in the sky theory who's practical result is a slowly declining standard of living for Americans, while everybody else sees improvement.

And that's what all this crap is about.

Forcing Americans to compete with Communist Chinese peasants and 3rd world countries like Mexico where their elite live like kings while their people live in squaller.

We're suppose to compete with all this? Our truckers now have to be more efficient?

What a load of BS.

The fat cat elites won't be happy until everyone will work for $6.00 per hour, so we can *compete*.

Profits for the fat cats regardless of consequences.

We are surrounded by freaking traitors.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, I understand. I would be a great day when tens of thousands of truckers in the U.S. lost their jobs. I get it.

Look, give up you job if you think this is a good deal. Spend a couple of years looking for one and take one half the salary when you’ve finally found a new job. Do the U.S. a favor. Come on...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Low confidence in Mexican records and procedures will make enforcement more expensive.<<

Expensive?

Mexico has no significant driver records. How about "The fact that Mexican records and procedures do not exist will make enforcement impossible."

[CutePuppy]

He was, is and he did. This bill has nothing to do with illegal (or legal) immigration, and everything to do with Democrats paying off the unions and at the same time jerking the chain of those who think that this highway is somehow going to lead to loss of our freedom and sovereignty, instead of creating a lot of opportunity and good well paying non-union jobs in “inland ports” along the highways in the heartland, as well as actually improving some of our highways. It’s a non-issue that’s been promoted with a lot of falsehoods by a charlatan Jerome Corsi, mostly revolving around a name “NAFTA Super Highway”.

A lot of people who have not looked into the real issues are being led by the nose into opposing these highways and infrastructure improvements. And no, I don’t have or will derive any direct or indirect benefit from the project.

[businessprofessor]

Well spoken. The usage of Mexican truckers may not be cost effective in some or even many situations. I do not know the economics of the shipping industry. The shipping companies can determine if using Mexican trucks makes sense after factoring safety enforcement costs.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“We will stomp the dems on Foreign Policy and the WOT in ‘08. Their only choice is to look for domestic issue weaknesses. Why in the world they are being given any ammunition to use against us is nuts.”

NUTS is right!

[jedward]

“Yes, I understand. I would be a great day when tens of thousands of truckers in the U.S. lost their jobs. I get it.”

And a sad tragic irony here is the Truckers will be hauling some products produced in Mexico, some of which once helped employ United States workers to produce. Not that continued US manufacturing production capacity has anything to do with what’s best for the US. (sarc)

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with the comments regarding the conditions in Mexico being problematic, but that is second hand. I’m hearing our truckers aren’t interested.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the inefficiencies at the border issue you touched on. This is however trade between the two nations. It seem that some issues of inefficiencies or inconveniences if you will, would be absorbed by the process instead of slashing jobs to make it better.

If you want the trade, then some sacrifice or problems should be tolerable.

[ArmyTeach]

Superiority is not the issue.(Where'd that come from, anyway) I'm no expert on this issue, but two points come to mind. 1: Mexican trucks are not always maintained to American road standards. 2: Mexican drivers have given us little cause to believe that they understand or respect our rules of the road.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Home  |  Ranking  |  Explore  |  Top 10  |  Downloads  |   FAQs  |  About

Top 10 Countries

Your search included the following criteria:

• Year: 2007
  

  	Country	Year	Overall Score	Business Freedom	Trade Freedom	Fiscal Freedom	Freedom from Gov't	Monetary Freedom	Investment Freedom	Financial Freedom	Property Rights	Freedom from Corruption	Labour Freedom
  	Hong Kong	2007	89.3	88.3	80.0	95.3	91.6	91.1	90	90	90	83	93.6
  	Singapore	2007	85.7	94.6	80.0	93.0	86.2	89.5	80	50	90	94	99.3
  	Australia	2007	82.7	91.7	73.8	75.4	70.1	84.8	70	90	90	88	93.1
  	United States	2007	82	94.5	76.6	79.4	67.5	83.8	80	80	90	76	92.1
  	New Zealand	2007	81.6	93.7	74.0	74.2	63.6	84.5	70	80	90	96	89.9
  	United Kingdom	2007	81.6	92.1	76.6	74.6	54.2	79.3	90	90	90	86	82.7
  	Ireland	2007	81.3	92.8	76.6	81.1	73.1	85.1	90	90	90	74	60.4
  	Luxembourg	2007	79.3	90	76.6	75.4	55.9	80.2	90	80	90	85	70
  	Switzerland	2007	79.1	83.3	77.0	78.6	68.6	83.6	70	70	90	91	78.4
  	Canada	2007	78.7	96	78.2	83.9	61.8	80.6	60	70	90	84	82.7

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Why does China keep popping up in my mind? (lol)”

Yeah....might they be the worst offenders??

[jedward]

Thank you for the cool-aid Toddsterpatriot. But no thanks, I’m not drinking it :)

[endthematrix]

"A lot of people who have not looked into the real issues are being led by the nose into opposing these highways and infrastructure improvements."

The "real issue" is hemispheric integration, and I haven't read any CFR papers of then benefits of merging economies of sovereign nations because it will make the roads smoother!

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate your comments. In fairness, I’m going with my gutt on this. I’ve had the free trade issue discussions out the cazoo so I’m not inclined to go through them again. It usually winds up with the Free Traders furious, and me just sick and tired of going round and round. They can’t convince me and I can’t even get them to admit giving away secrets that could aid an enemy to destroy millions of us, is bad. It’s pointless.

Admitting that, I’ve come to my own decision on this. The Free Traders will simply have to accept it.

You take care.

[dragnet2]

Mexican drivers have given us little cause to believe that they understand or respect our rules of the road.

For Pete sake, they're entire country has no respect for our laws, our borders or our sovereignty.

To those that haven't figured it out, Mexico laughs in our faces, breaks our laws, and then makes demands on us.

Beware of those that support actions such as this.

[Hatband]

Are you saying that trucks are obsolete and truck drivers are no longer needed in the US? Horses and buggies are obsolete so that is why there is no great demand for buggy drivers. (Actually, they’re called ‘Teamsters’)

[jedward]

China gaining the top spot in Foreign Trade Dominance accounced a few weeks ago comes to mind...thanks of course to our wonderful ‘trade policies’. China & Bill O’Reilly...’their lookin’ out for us’ :)

[stephenjohnbanker]

And your point is?