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.

[Infidel1571]

“I would not be surprised if the same lawyers who were involved in writing NAFTA are now eager to profit from it by suing the US government.”

So we withdraw from this non-treaty and tell them to just try to sue us. A sovereign nation can only be sued if it allows itself to be sued.

“Heche in Mexico” just plain isn’t worth the national security of the United States.

[governmentstillsucks]

Well, George HW does refer to Clinton as his “other son” from time to time....

A brutha from anutha mutha?

[Infidel1571]

“A brutha from anutha mutha?”

I don’t suppose George Herbert Walker Bush ever visited Arkansas at any time in the 40s, did he? ;)

[stephenjohnbanker]

“However, I have to ask, at what point do we consider our own national interest in all of this? The liberals are demonstrably terrible on the issue, and the Republicans have apparently found a new religion. I’d warn against this “Thank God for the Democrats” spirit, though they may have done what is right in this instance.”

I agree. You didn’t see me cheering for a democrat.
Our national interest is to keep these trucks out.
Why? Because they won’t check the cargo, and massive amounts of drugs and illegals will be transported here.

[Infidel1571]

“Why? Because they won’t check the cargo, and massive amounts of drugs and illegals will be transported here.”

Not to mention all the terrorists and WMDs....

With all the drug labs in Mexico, are they sure they ALL only make drugs?

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Not to mention all the terrorists and WMDs....”

Thank you!!

[governmentstillsucks]

I don’t suppose George Herbert Walker Bush ever visited Arkansas at any time in the 40s, did he? ;)

While Clinton has was dubbed "The First Black President" by Toni Morrison years ago, I don't believe he is a "brutha" in either case.

Perhaps there's something to be said with regard to the confraternity of former presidents. After watching the '92 campaign, I have to wonder if Clinton isn't, at least, H.W.'s prodigal son.

[Infidel1571]

“Perhaps there’s something to be said with regard to the confraternity of former presidents. After watching the ‘92 campaign, I have to wonder if Clinton isn’t, at least, H.W.’s prodigal son.”

It does show that much of the apparent ideological opposition is theater.

[governmentstillsucks]

I agree. You didn’t see me cheering for a democrat. Our national interest is to keep these trucks out. Why? Because they won’t check the cargo, and massive amounts of drugs and illegals will be transported here.

No, you didn't cheer for any Democrats, though there was this sort of bittersweet sense of victory going around. I understand the sentiment, believe me, but it's sort of tragic. The party which has stood in bold-faced opposition to the security and well-being of the United States does the right thing when it shores up votes, only to return to their vomit, as it were. People wonder why some question the true, substantial differences between Democrats and Republicans.

To be honest, I expected to receive a bunch of negative posts in response to the idea that we ought to hold Mexico accountable for supporting La Reconquista. Maybe things have changed, after all.

[Infidel1571]

“Thank you!!”

We have the government, through the good offices of the FBI, ADMITTING that terrorists are infiltrating through our southern border.

What’s most important to the President? Winning the war and protecting the United States or Mexico’s feelings and his campaign contributors?

For those who bring up the “haven’t been (successfully) attacked in CONUS for 6 years” defense, I would have to bring up the fact that we weren’t successfully attacked in CONUS from 1993 (first WTC attack) until 2001.

Was that longer period of “safety” due to some great strategery of Clinton’s? No, he was an utter failure and his inaction brought about the attack on 9/11. History repeats. As the FBI tells us, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when” and we’re still unprotected for the same reasons.

[governmentstillsucks]

It does show that much of the apparent ideological opposition is theater.

Sort of what I was getting at. I respect the office of the presidency, regardless of who holds it. There is a certain bond between men who have held the highest office in the land--sort of like an all-stars team-- but it is apparent to me that the very office itself has undergone a serious change over the years.

[hocndoc]

I assumed that any checks on entering “this country” would be done by US law enforcement.

I don’t get the “either/or.” If this ban is vetoed or fails to pass the Conference Committee, then we won’t have any sort of legal requirement in force to inspect the trucks, either.

[Infidel1571]

“There is a certain bond between men who have held the highest office in the land—sort of like an all-stars team— but it is apparent to me that the very office itself has undergone a serious change over the years.”

Not one for the better.

Clinton got away with things that Nixon was nearly impeached for just talking about doing it. Power corrupts, I guess.

[governmentstillsucks]

History repeats. As the FBI tells us, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when” and we’re still unprotected for the same reasons.

It doesn't instill confidence in the American populace when the head of Homeland Security states that an attack will happen at some point--and that he apparently has consulted Madame Blavatsky and his gastrointestinal tract on the matter.

[Infidel1571]

“It doesn’t instill confidence in the American populace when the head of Homeland Security states that an attack will happen at some point—and that he apparently has consulted Madame Blavatsky and his gastrointestinal tract on the matter.”

All the while saying he doesn’t intend to do anything about it. Can’t annoy Mexico or the Saudis, can we?

[governmentstillsucks]

Clinton got away with things that Nixon was nearly impeached for just talking about doing it. Power corrupts, I guess.

You're treading on Lord Acton's turf, my friend. Just last night I was doing a little reading on the presidency of Warren G. Harding, and thought to myself, "OK, comparisons to the Nixon administration are clear, but what about Clinton?"

To quote Chris Rock, from Saturday Night Live:

Know why I like Clinton? Because he's got real problems. He don't got president problems, he got real problems like you and me, like running out of money, his wife's a pain in the ass, all his friends are going to jail.

Sounds like Harding to me! The difference is that Harding was regarded as the worst president ever in his day; Clinton is still a demigod.

[Infidel1571]

“Sounds like Harding to me! The difference is that Harding was regarded as the worst president ever in his day; Clinton is still a demigod.”

Sir John Harrington comes to mind, too. I’m confident the Hsu matter won’t sink Hillary for Harrington’s reason.

The corruption has always been there, but we didn’t use to tolerate it so.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“For those who bring up the “haven’t been (successfully) attacked in CONUS for 6 years” defense, I would have to bring up the fact that we weren’t successfully attacked in CONUS from 1993 (first WTC attack) until 2001”

Good point......not if, but WHEN!!

[stephenjohnbanker]

“To be honest, I expected to receive a bunch of negative posts in response to the idea that we ought to hold Mexico accountable for supporting La Reconquista. Maybe things have changed, after all.”

They have........Americans are pissed!!

[Infidel1571]

“They have........Americans are pissed!!”

It’s a quiet undercurrent of rage, but rage it is.