Thread: Don't Bet Mexican Trucks Will Soon Be Allowed on U.S. roads

Don't Bet That Mexican Trucks Will Soon Be Allowed on U.S. roads
E.J. Rangel, MATT Contributing Writer
OPINION

You’ll have to forgive James Giermansky and José Luís Mastretta for not rejoicing over the news that the United States government will finally allow Mexican trucks on American roads.

“I’d like to believe that this time is for real, but we’ve heard this before,” said Giermansky, a professor at Belmont Abbey College in Belmont N.C. and a NAFTA expert who has testified before Congress on cross-border transportation issues.

“I’ll believe when I see it,” said Mastretta, director of Centro de Estudios Sociales del Noreste, a think tank in Monterrey, Mexico.

“The Bush government has promised this before and then at the last minute something happens,” said Mastretta who was director of the Monterrey Chamber of Commerce in December 1995 when the Clinton administration, under tremendous pressure from the Teamsters union and other interest groups, reneged on the NAFTA provision that is supposed to allow Mexican trucks to travel beyond a 25-mile border zone.Giermansky and Mastretta are right to be skeptical.

When the Bush administration took office six years ago, it promised to lift the Mexican truck ban the following year. But that promise has run into all kinds of speed bumps. First it was a lawsuit filed by environmental groups in California. This was settled two years later when the U.S. Supreme Court struck a lower court ruling calling for an environmental impact report.

Then when it looked like Mexican trucks would finally be allowed on American highways, the U.S. Department of Transportation demanded rigorous inspection of the vehicles – before leaving Mexico.

That’s where the issue stood till February 22 when the Bush administration announced, again, that the U.S. would lift the 12-year-old ban. Although no specific date has been set it is widely believed that it could happen as early as April.

However, as it happened in previous occasions, those who are against cross-border trucking will do everything possible to keep Mexican trucks off U.S. roads on grounds that they are a safety hazard.

“We are going to be contacting members of Congress because we are very concerned about public safety,” Teamsters president Jim Hoffa told the Wall Street Journal.

So, since the Teamsters plan to lobby the members of Congress, things are looking good for them, at least for the time being.

U.S Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., chair of the transportation subcommittee in the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she will hold a hearing on March 8 to discuss the issue. The hearing will determine whether the U.S.-Mexican arrangement meets all the safety requirements. The panel has the power to prohibit the entrance of Mexican trucks, even if it is only temporary, if the majority of its members agree that the vehicles are indeed unsafe.

The Murray hearings are the Teamsters’ best hope for blocking the entrance of Mexican trucks because the union and other opponents of Mexican trucks have exhausted all their legal recourses.

However, should the Murray subcommittee give the green light to Mexican trucks a legislator the Teamsters and opponents of Mexican trucks can count on is Congressman James Oberstar, D-Minn.

“For him, anything that is Mexican is negative,” Giermansky said of Oberstar. “I’m exaggerating some but really, this guy has always found something to object to about Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers.”

Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has long opposed allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads because he, too, thinks they are unsafe.
“The U.S. is obligated to live up to its agreements under the North American Free Trade Agreement but not at the expense of the safety of our citizens,” he once said.

If the opponents of Mexican trucks succeed again, the U.S. image will take another hit, not just in Mexico but throughout Latin America, Mastretta said.

He’s right on that count, too. Recent opinion polls in Mexico and Latin America show that the majority of people do not have a good opinion of the U.S government

Whether Americans like it or not, it is a perception that is deeply rooted abroad. And if Congress or another group succeeds at delaying the entrance of Mexican trucks into the U.S. market, the U.S. image abroad will take another big hit.

At this point in history, that’s something Uncle Sam does not need.





Your Comment: Sending Comment
Your Comment has been sent successfully.
Your comment has problem, try again.


Comments from 1 to 1 of 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ricardo 28 March, 2007 02:03:59
I find it odd that the lawmakers mentioned in this article as being opposed to cross border trucking are closer to the Canadian border than they are to the Mexican border. What makes this even more interesting is the fact that American trucks entering into Canada face a higher standard than they do when working in the United States. The reason for this is that Canada has a different set of laws pertaining to emmisions and weight tolerances therefore any commercial vehicle working in Canada must comply with their laws.

The same rules must apply apply to all trucks, trailers, busses, or mass transit vehicles that runs on American highways. So, if that means that commercial vehicles comming in from Mexico must meet a higher standard then so be it.

The xenophobia being shown by these lawmakers may be due to preconcived notions or other interests that support them. But in either case they are being completely shortsighted. By allowing Mexican carriers to work in the United States and having them meet the standard that American carriers must meet would force many of these carriers to update their equipment. Where do you suppose this equipment would come from. If I have to buy a truck that meets American standards why not just buy an American truck?

This creates a huge opportunity for big ticket sales in the United States since the prices for these vehicles range from $25,000 to upwards of $100,000.

I guess it just seems silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of fear, special interests, or any other emotional reason.

http://link.toolbot.com/matt.org/74487

This is not just about safety on the highways this is also about not wanting the North American Union and first and formost American Jobs. NO MORE OF OUR JOBS TO MEXICO!!! GOT IT!!!!

Who care what latin America thinks of us or the World for that matter! The other countries scream when their livlihoods and jobs are threatened. They only think of their people and jobs and so should America!

April 20, 2007


SPECIAL REPORT: Effort to slow cross-border trucking moving forward



Friday, April 20, 2007 – The first legislation to slow the Bush administration’s push to open the border to 100 Mexican motor carriers – with an unlimited number of trucks – could be one step away from hitting the president’s desk.

Section 4001 of the U.S. Senate’s supplemental appropriations bill, passed in early April, was added by Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA.

The amendment proposing to delay the program was submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee after it was cleared with Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-MO.

The amendment would restrict spending any money on allowing Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the border zone until three conditions are met. Those conditions are:

Granting such authority must first be tested as part of a pilot program;
The pilot program must comply with the requirements of Section 350 of the 2002 appropriations legislation and the requirements of Section 31315(c) of Title 49, United States Code, related to the pilot programs; and
Simultaneous and comparable authority to operate within Mexico is made available to motor carriers domiciled in the United States.


Murray submitted the amendment to the committee and it was accepted on a voice vote – with no opposition.

The full bill passed with Section 4001 in tact and must now be reconciled with the House of Representatives supplemental appropriations bill.

Both chambers of Congress have selected conference committee members who will meet to decide on a final version of the bill to be sent to the president for a signature. Those meetings were expected to begin Friday, April 20.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is pushing hard for Section 4001 to make it into the combined bill.

“This is must-pass legislation – in one form or another – and it’s on a tight time schedule. That gives Section 4001 a good shot at becoming law simply because the stand-alone bills face almost certain veto,” said OOIDA Director of Regulatory Affairs Rod Nofziger.

“Now is the time for OOIDA and anyone wanting this ill-advised program from going forward to call their House and Senate members who are members of the conference committee.”

Nofziger said even if you cannot speak directly to your lawmaker, talking to a legislative assistant in support for Section 4001 will be relayed to the lawmaker.

“Time is of the essence. Opportunities like this don’t come along often,” Nofziger said.

The main number to the Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Simply call the main number and ask to be connected to the office of one of the conference committee members listed below.

Senate conferees
(alphabetical by state)
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Dianne Feinstein, D-California
Wayne Allard, R-Colorado
Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
Larry Craig, R-Idaho
Richard Durbin, D-Illinois
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana
Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland
Thad Cochran, R-Mississippi
Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Missouri
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey
Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico
Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania
Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island
Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
Robert Bennett, R-Utah
Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont
Patty Murray, D-Washington
Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
Herbert Kohl, D-Wisconsin

House Conferees
(alphabetical by state)
Jerry Lewis, R-California
Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida
C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Florida
Jack Kingston, R-Georgia
Peter Visclosky, D-Indiana
Harold Rogers, R-Kentucky
John Olver, D-Massachusetts
Joseph Knollenberg, R-Michigan
Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi
Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-New Jersey
Nita Lowey, D-New York
Jose Serrano, D-New York
James Walsh, R-New York
David Price, D-North Carolina
David Hobson, R-Ohio
John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania
James Clyburn, D-South Carolina
Chet Edwards, D-Texas
Frank Wolf, R-Virginia
Norman Dicks, D-Washington
Alan Mollohan, D-West Virginia
David Obey, D-Wisconsin

http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Repo ... o_slow.htm