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.

[spectre]

We take I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis quite abit.

There are more 18 Wheelers than cars on that Freeway. And unfortunately most of the road is still only two lanes on each side.

Adding hundreds of potentially unsafe big rigs going 70 mph would be very dangerous. It's bad enough as it is..

sw

[hocndoc]

Senator Cornyn agrees with you. His amendment would have been new law. it would have required our DOT Inspector General to verify the certifications. The program would have been shut down if any party didn't comply. From the Senator's speech on the Senate Floor:

The solution to me is simple, and it is embodied in my amendment, which we will have an opportunity to vote on. My amendment, for the first time, will make it U.S. law that every truck participating in the demonstration program must be inspected every 3 months to the same standard as U.S. trucks. Every driver entering this country under the program will have to verify compliance with safety requirements, and they would have to do so every time they entered the United States.

The Department of Transportation's inspector general will be required to certify soon after the program is fully implemented that the Department has, in fact, inspected every truck and verified every driver. This is the Department of Transportation of the United States Government; no other government. They must verify every truck inspection and verify every driver. If the inspector general of the Department of Transportation fails to certify such, then funding for this program will be automatically suspended.

Under this approach, for the first time, we will statutorily enshrine in American law the principle that we inspect and certify every Mexican truck that enters the United States through this program.

It is also worth noting that this will be the first time in the history of the program that there will be an actual congressional requirement for the inspector general to certify the program. Previously, Congress has only required the inspector general to review the program.

Finally, my amendment will require the administration to provide 60 days' notice to Congress should they wish to extend or otherwise continue the demonstration project. Such notice will give this body ample time to consider the merits of the program as implemented and what modifications, if any, we want to make.

But, it's moot now.

[Infidel1571]

“Pottage? How about some nice Mexican pottery instead? It’s all psychoceramic, after all.”

They could pay us for it with tequila. We’d be much more tractable.

[Pencil]

Illegals disappointed.

[Pencil]

NAFTA is a law, that would require another law to overturn it.

Bush/Clinton brought us NAFTA, so don’t expect Bush/Clinton to repeal NAFTA.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>The program would have been shut down if any party didn’t comply.<<

Theoretically, but I really doubt anything would have been shut down. True compliance would have been impossible because of Mexican corruption, but I’ll bet the boys at DOT would have claimed that the program was in compliance, taking Mexico’s word for it that they have honest-to-goodness driver records.

[RedStateRocker]

“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.”

Senator- when even most of the Democrats in the Senate have more brains or guts than you, it is time to go.
Actually makes me a nanometer less embarrassed for having Feinstein as my senator;-)

[gondramB]

>>It’s not a treaty, and has no legal teeth whatsoever. You’re bloviating.

We need to keep those trucks out, period.<<

Why would an international agreement that both houses and the President signed “have no legal teeth?” Has it been invalidated?

[editor-surveyor]

The “agreement” is completely contrary to the provisions of our constitution that provide a method for making such agreements. There is no constitutional basis for enacting this statute.

[gondramB]

>>The “agreement” is completely contrary to the provisions of our constitution that provide a method for making such agreements. There is no constitutional basis for enacting this statute.<<

Are you saying that you view all international agreements below the treaty level to be unconstituional?

Has there ever been a President or Supreme court who agreed with you?

[editor-surveyor]

There is a constitution that agrees with me.

[gondramB]

>>There is a constitution that agrees with me.<<

Isn’t it hard to claim founders intent when the founders said and did otherwise?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Isn’t it hard to claim founders intent when the founders said and did otherwise?<<

I think we have established that NAFTA is not a treaty, because it never got approval of 2/3 of the senate. I don't know of any instance in which the founders would have allowed an international arbitration panel to award fines that the USA was obligated to pay. I personally think the founders were wise in avoiding such quagmires as international arbitration that would be enforceable in the USA.

Warning for the text below: I am not a lawyer.

In 1958 the USA, Canada, and Mexico signed New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. As fas as I can tell, this is a real treaty.

There are some options for victims of an arbitration award to avoid paying. One of them is that enforcement of the award would be contrary to "public policy." If the appropriations bill we are discussing becomes law and survives being overruled by insane judges, I would say that our "public policy" is not to fund this stupid program.

Is that as clear as mud? Gives me a headache. The US congress really should do something to at least amend NAFTA to prohibit programs which are in such clear conflict with our driver requirements and endanger the public.

[1rudeboy]

Our colleague e-s is arguing that fast track authority is unconstitutional under the legal doctrine of "only I know what the Constitution means, and the legislative, executive, and judicial branches do not." And excellent discussion of the legal/constitutional reasons he is incorrect can be found in the following opinions. The District Court opinion is here. The 11th Circuit dismissed, and remanded with orders to dismiss and vacate here, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari (I am too bored to look it up). The citation for the appellate decision is Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, 242 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001), I think.

The fact of the matter is (and I came across this argument a couple days ago on an unrelated matter) that Congress has the authority to grant (and remove) the fast track power. Some people believe that when the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to "regulate commerce" between foreign nations, that authority is limited, which places them in the uneviable position of arguing that the authority is not really authority (limited vs. plenary). As soon as that argument is made, a departure is made for uncharted Constitutional waters.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

So what happens if, after the appropriations bill becomes law without funding the Mexican trucks, the NAFTA arbitration panel awards damages against the US government? Suppose congress refuses to authorize money for the award?

My opinion is that congress should amend the NAFTA authorization law to put limits on what damages the US will honor. In this case, the panel could award damages even though Mexico has no legitimate and effective tracking of driver records, so allowing Mexican trucks in will endanger public safety and perhaps national security.

Also, I am not a lawyer, but perhaps there would be a way to challenge such an award in the courts on the grounds that the safety concerns outweigh any arbitration panel’s decision, although I don’t know exactly what legal arguments would be used.

[editor-surveyor]

But they didn’t say or do otherwise. Your constitution seems to resemble Congresswoman Ellen Tausher’s “little blue dress.’

[nitzy]

I have had a family of Mexicans staying in the lobby of my realty office for the past two days. Could you please empty your basement and come get them? If you won't I may have to take part of the commission I have been getting from others in your neighborhood and make some donations to the sheriff. Then you will have no choice in the matter.

Please do not try to argue with me. I have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' and I am quite sure you will benefit by the sum of $237.50 ($250 rent - $12.50 for my commission). It is in everyone's best interest if you cooperate. We know what is best for you.

[1rudeboy]

The United States’ twenty-year-old dispute with Canada over softwood lumber probably is the best example of how we are able to ignore NAFTA arbitration rulings.

[governmentstillsucks]

They could pay us for it with tequila. We’d be much more tractable.

I'd rather have oil than that swill, frankly. Implement a variation of Michael Savage's Oil-for-Illegals program: one barrel per non-diplomatic, illegal Mexican national inside the U.S.

[Infidel1571]

“I’d rather have oil than that swill, frankly. Implement a variation of Michael Savage’s Oil-for-Illegals program: one barrel per non-diplomatic, illegal Mexican national inside the U.S.”

Per day.