Thread: Heads to roll? Mexican trucks in U.S. sparks firing call

Heads to roll? Mexican trucks in U.S. sparks firing call
Transportation secretary 'breaking law' by allowing foreign vehicles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 06, 2008
8:36 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Teamsters are launching a nationwide campaign to fire U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters for what they say is her "unlawful decision" to keep the American border open to Mexican trucks.

As WND reported, the Bush administration has decided to ignore a provision passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush as part of the 2008 omnibus spending bill that was intended to remove funding from the 2008 DOT appropriations bill for the Mexican truck demonstration project.

"It's a disgrace that Mary Peters is still in office," said Teamsters General President James Hoffa in a news release today. "She has broken the law and defied the will of the American people by exposing them to dangerous trucks from Mexico."

The Teamsters have created FireMaryPeters.com, a website complete with downloadable "Fire Mary Peters" windshield signs, recommended actions and an e-mail component urging citizens to ask their elected representatives to find Mary Peters in contempt of Congress.

The Teamsters have mailed a "Fire Mary Peters" bumper sticker to thousands of union members and supporters.

"Transportation Secretary Mary Peters is the latest member of the Bush administration to break the law," the Teamster website proclaims. "She continues to give dangerous Mexican trucks access to our highways despite overwhelmingly bipartisan measures passed by Congress and signed by President Bush."

The Teamsters have also placed posters and floor graphics in the Navy Yard Metro stop in Washington, D.C., near the DOT building.

Planned as well is a leafleting campaign at the Metro stop, where DOT employees will be handed cards asking them to call a "Fire Mary Peters" hotline to report other laws Peters has broken.


Transportation Secretary Mary Peters is labeled 'lawbreaker' in this bumper sticker campaign



A "Fire Mary Peters" radio ad prepared by the Teamsters can be heard on the website.

A series of videos on the website shows a Teamster rally at the San Diego border and testimony Hoffa has given Congress opposing NAFTA.

The "Fire Mary Peters" campaign has a special focus in Peters' home state of Arizona, where letters and bumper stickers have been mailed to thousands of Teamsters, urging them to take action.

Although not yet announced, widespread rumors persist that Peters is planning to run for governor of Arizona in 2010.

In a separate legal action, the Teamsters Union will argue in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Feb. 12 that Peters broke federal laws aimed at ensuring American voters are not endangered by allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.

WND telephoned the Department of Transportation asking for comment on this story, but received no return call.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=55778

I just joined www.FireMaryPeters.com and I sent the letter below to our Tennessee Governor, Phil Breseden: my two Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker: my Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn: my two State Representatives Joey Hensley and Steve McDaniel and the Honorable John Wilder of Tennessee.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Dear ________________,

I urge you to take this issue/matter/situation very seriously and stop this before it gets out of hands.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters is the latest member of the Bush administration to break the law: She is opening our border to unsafe Mexican trucks despite a law passed overwhelmingly by Congress that forbids her from implementing the reckless pilot program. The law was enacted with bipartisan support and signed by President Bush.
Thumbing her nose at Congress and the American people, Mary Peters has displayed the height of Bush administration arrogance by authorizing the expenditure of funds that Congress has expressly declined to appropriate.

Peters is an out-of-control bureaucrat spending taxpayers' dollars on a dangerous program without any authority to do so. In fact, Congress expressly forbid her from spending a dime on her pilot project to open the border to trucks from Mexico. Peters chose to defy Congress and the will of the American people.

Do you think government bureaucrats should be allowed to spend taxpayer money on whatever they want, even though the people's representatives told her not to? Even though they endanger American lives? Of course you don't.

Congress knows Mexican trucks aren't as safe as U.S. trucks. That's why it passed laws requiring Mexican trucks to meet U.S. safety standards before they travel freely on our highways.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________

Below are the Facts and Fiction on this Situation:

Fiction: The Bush administration found a loophole in the Dec. 26, 2007 law banning funding for the Mexican truck pilot program. The program can therefore go forward legally.

But the Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole in the new law, which prohibits the government from spending any money to "establish" the program. The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September. (Associated Press, Jan. 4, 200

Fact: There is no loophole. Congress intended to stop Mexican trucks and the agency must abide by that intent.

The Supreme Court in 1984 ruled "if the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter" (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43).

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said in a news release that the purpose of the law he sponsored was "to stop the Bush Administration's pilot program that now allows Mexican trucks to haul freight throughout the United States." (Sept. 11, 2007.)

During legislative debate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the amendment would "prevent the pilot from going forward." (Congressional Record, Sept. 11, 2007.) Sen. Dorgan said the "provision would stop this pilot project." (Congressional Record, Sept. 11, 2007.)

When the amendment passed, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Administrator John Hill called it "a sad victory for the forces of fear and protectionism." (Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2007.)

The Senate Legislative Counsel maintains the provision was "drafted to prohibit the use of funds for a demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond certain commercial zones." (Dec. 28, 2007 letter from Senate Legislative Counsel Polly Craighill to Sen. Byron Dorgan.)

This year's budget law says, "None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico." (Section 136 of Title I of Division K of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.)

Fiction: The Mexican truck pilot project meets all the legal requirements.

"We feel like we have met the requirements," said John H. Hill, who oversees the program as administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (Copley News Service, Aug. 31, 2007.)

Fact: The program breaks at least seven laws. It is illegal.

The law (49 U.S.C. 31315c) says that FMCSA pilot programs can't go forward unless "The safety measures in the project are designed to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would otherwise be achieved."

The safety measures for Mexican trucks and drivers are lower than the level of safety that U.S. trucks and drivers must achieve. FMCSA has even acknowledged that there are differences between U.S. and Mexican safety laws, including commercial drivers' license requirements, medical requirements, hours of service requirements and drug-testing procedures. (72 Federal Register notice 46263, Aug. 17, 2007).

Mexican drivers don't lose their commercial drivers licenses if they're convicted for crimes in their own vehicles, as are U.S. drivers.

Mexican drivers do not have mandatory safety training, as do U.S. drivers.

Mexican drivers are not required to comply with U.S. hours-of-service laws while operating in Mexico, so a Mexican driver could drive 10 hours in Mexico and then another 11 hours in the U.S.

There are no certified drug-testing laboratories in Mexico. Mexican drivers do not have to meet U.S. standards for pre-employment drug testing as do U.S. drivers.


The law requires FMCSA to demonstrate that it will provide statistically valid data about how cross-border trucking will work in practice (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, Section 6901).

FMCSA doesn't even know how many trucks from Mexico will participate in the program (72 Federal Register 31877, June 8, 2007.)

FMCSA has never demonstrated how letting a handful of clean, safe Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways will prove scientifically that opening the border to commercial vehicles from Mexico won't harm highway safety in the long run.


The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires the inspector general to submit a report to Congress "verifying compliance with each of the requirements" before the program can start. One requirement is that the states must be able to inspect Mexican trucks and enforce highway safety laws during the pilot program. According to the Sept. 6, 2007 inspector general report, five states said they are not ready. According to the same report, seven states are not prepared to enforce point-to-point delivery restrictions.


The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires any FMCSA pilot program to include a proper oversight plan. The inspector general report dated Sept. 6 states "FMCSA has not developed and implemented complete, coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the demonstration project as they cross the border."


The law (49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115) requires motor vehicles entering the United States to display a certificate from a dealer or a manufacturer that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards. FMCSA unlawfully says Mexican truck companies can break that law by certifying themselves (72 Federal Register 462755).


The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires the inspector general to verify that FMCSA has enough inspectors to make sure that all commercial vehicles can be inspected at border crossings. The Aug. 6, 2007 inspector general report states that at one high-volume crossing, "physical space and capacity limitations prevented inspections during high-volume holiday periods. This means that Mexican buses granted long-haul operating authority in the United States may not be inspected during busy periods."


The law forbids federal agencies from spending money without Congress's permission. The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), states "Making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law." An officer or employee who breaks the law "shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office." 31 U.S.C. §§ 1349(a), 1518.


In addition, an officer or employee who "knowingly and willfully" violates any of the three provisions cited above "shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both." 31 U.S.C. §§ 1350, 1519.
Fiction: Mexican trucks and truck drivers must meet the same or higher safety standards than U.S. trucks and truck drivers.

Trucks from Mexico "are the most vetted, the most scrutinized and the most inspected trucks on American roads today." (Melissa DeLaney, FMCSA spokeswoman, to McClatchy newspapers, Jan. 3, 2008.)


Checks on Mexican companies, vehicles and drivers are identical to, and in some instances more stringent than, those of their U.S. counterparts. (FMCSA press release, September 24, 2007.)
Fact: U.S. trucks and truck drivers face tougher safety standards than trucks and truck drivers from Mexico.

U.S. trucks must have antilock brake systems; Mexican trucks do not.


U.S. truck drivers must have pre-employment safety training and drug testing from a certified lab; Mexican truck drivers do not.


U.S. truck drivers lose their commercial licenses if they're convicted of a serious traffic violation in their personal vehicle; Mexican truck drivers do not.


U.S. truck drivers have to stop driving after 11 hours; Mexican truck drivers can drive for 10 hours in Mexico and then another 11 in the U.S.


U.S. truck driver must meet stiffer physical qualifications than Mexican drivers.
Fiction: Every truck will be inspected every time it crosses the border.

"They will inspect every Mexican truck every time it goes across the border, which is more than they do for American trucks," said the spokesman, Clayton Boyce. (New York Times, Sept. 9, 2007.)

Fact: The trucks will not be inspected every time.

They will receive a cursory glance at a safety decal and drivers may have their drivers' licenses checked. Both can be falsified. The agency stated (Federal Register, June 5, 2007, p. 31882) that "When crossing the border these trucks will, at a minimum, be checked to verify that the driver is properly licensed and that the vehicle displays a current CVSA inspection decal."

Fiction: FMCSA has the capacity to inspect every long-haul Mexican truck that crosses the border.

We are ready with modern inspection facilities, and we have hired and trained hundreds of inspectors. All told, 540 federal and state inspectors are already on the job, standing by to screen trucks coming across the border from Mexico to ensure that both the drivers and their vehicles are safe to make deliveries in the United States. (Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, remarks to Border Trade Alliance, March 1, 2007).

"More than 500 inspectors have been deployed to enforce safety, vehicle and driver standards." (Melissa DeLaney, FMCSA spokeswoman to McClatchy newspapers, Jan. 3, 2008.)

Fact: The border crossings are so busy that inspectors may not even be able to make the cursory checks that they've promised.

FMCSA's Cross-Border Truck Safety Project states: "...Every truck that crosses the border as part of the pilot will be checked – every truck, every time."

"This could be problematic because, to identify project participants, FMCSA will need to simultaneously screen these vehicles among the high-volume commercial traffic crossing the border and continue to inspect other vehicles and drivers.... We observed hundreds of vehicles entering the United States at the Laredo crossing each day. FMCSA inspectors selected vehicles for inspection from the line of trucks waiting to exit the border crossing. However, once an inspector selected a vehicle and diverted it for an inspection, no FMCSA personnel remained at the screening point to monitor carrier traffic." (Inspector general report to Congress, Aug. 6, 2007).

GovExec on Jan. 4, 2008, reported "Both national security and economic growth are jeopardized by an overtaxed and dysfunctional system for inspecting people and goods at U.S. land ports of entry. That was the picture painted by government officials, federal employee representatives and business leaders testifying Thursday at a House Homeland Security Committee field hearing in El Paso, Texas.

"Staffing shortages and poor training among border personnel, along with outdated facilities, an overwhelming workload, and the absence of standardized, tamperproof travel document requirements are contributing to long wait times and security lapses at U.S. borders, officials said.

"...Last November, the Government Accountability Office reported, and CBP concurred, that "several thousand" people who should have been denied entry into the United States were allowed in through land ports of entry. GAO cited several reasons, including the high volume of traffic border officials contend with and the limited time they have for making decisions. In addition, high attrition levels contributed to inadequate and insufficiently trained staff.

"A shortage of inspectors has led to miles-long traffic backups at many ports of entry on a routine basis. "Three-hour wait times, which have become common at our international ports of entry, do not equate to greater national security," said Bob Cook, president of the El Paso Regional Economic Development Corporation. According to Cook, more than 15 percent of total trade between the United States and Mexico passes through El Paso ports of entry.

"We should be seeking to aggressively expand the use of technologies and procedures that identify and expedite low-risk traffic in order that we may spend the majority of our time and financial resources on the potentially high risk individuals and cargo carriers," Cook said."

Fiction: There are thousands of long-haul Mexican trucks using U.S. highways and they are safer than U.S. trucks.

But more than 1,000 south-of-the-border companies are already allowed to drive cargo beyond the border zone under a long-standing exemption to the U.S. moratorium on Mexican long-haul trucking. And these Mexican drivers and trucks have had better driver and vehicle safety records than their U.S. counterparts in recent years, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Of the exempted companies, 859 were active from 2003 to 2006, and their drivers and trucks were subject to U.S. inspections for violations that would put them out of service until corrected. The "out-of-service" rates for long-haul Mexican trucks was 21.3 percent, compared to 23.5 percent for U.S. trucks, and the rate for Mexican drivers was 1.2 percent compared to 7 percent for U.S. drivers, said FMCSA communications chief Melissa Mazzella DeLaney. (Associated Press, Oct. 30, 2007)

Fact: The Transportation Department is basing its argument on secret data.

It has never revealed to the public how it obtained those numbers. They do not appear in a docket, legal brief or Federal Register notice. Freedom of Information Act requests for documents supporting those figures have never been honored.

Fiction: The U.S. has a treaty obligation under the North American Free Trade Agreement to open the borders to Mexican trucks.

Just before breaking for the holidays Congress effectively reneged on the North American Free Trade Agreement's promise to give Mexican truckers full access to U.S. roads. A provision in the omnibus spending bill approved Dec. 19 eliminates funding for the one-year demonstration program that began in September.

The program, which allowed 100 Mexican trucking companies to travel throughout the United States, was a first step toward fulfilling this long-delayed treaty obligation. Pulling the plug on this pilot program signals the Mexican government that Congress has no intention of honoring that obligation. (The Daily News, Longview, Wash., Dec. 28, 2007.)

Fact: NAFTA is a trade agreement, not a treaty.

Fact: A North American Free Trade Agreement panel ruled that the United States may not have a "blanket refusal" of Mexican trucks, but also said the U.S. doesn't have to open the border to Mexican trucks that don't meet U.S. truck standards.

"The safety of trucking services is a legitimate regulatory objective" and that the United States is "responsible for the safe operation of trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is U.S., Canadian or Mexican." (NAFTA arbitration panel ruling, Feb. 5, 2001.)

Fact: The NAFTA arbitration panel found that the United States may implement different admission procedures for Mexican carriers than apply to U.S. or Canadian carriers, so that Mexican carriers will be able to comply with U.S. regulations.

Fact: The NAFTA arbitration panel said the U.S. may impose requirements on Mexican carriers different from those imposed on domestic or Canadian carriers, so long as the decision to impose such requirements is made in good faith and with respect to a legitimate safety concern.

Fiction: The Teamsters oppose the cross-border trucking program because they are against Mexicans and fear the competition.

The Senate Republican leader, Trent Lott of Mississippi, has described the moves to restrict Mexican trucking as "anti-Mexican" and "anti-Hispanic." (New York Times, July 30, 2001.)

Fact: The Teamsters are allied with Mexican truck drivers who also oppose the program.

Mexican truck drivers believe it will destroy the Mexican trucking industry.

Elias Dip Rame, president of the Mexican National Truck Drivers Federation, told a reporter, "This program really hurts the trucking industry, this famous pilot plan, where the borders are opened, it really worries us." (El Financiero (Mexico City) in Spanish on December 7, 2007.)

"It is irresponsible of the Mexican Government, of Felipe Calderon, to allow the interests of a powerful 2 percent of people in the Mexican economy to hand Mexican trucking over to the Americans," Dip Rame said. (El Financiero (Mexico City) in Spanish on December 7, 2007.)

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

It is time to put a stop to Mary Peters' lawlessness. I want Mary Peters and President Bush to be held accountable for their reckless and illegal acts.

We cannot stand for government bureaucrats who blatantly violate the law. Please hold Mary Peters in contempt of Congress. Tell them to Fire Mary Peters!

Best Regards and Long Time Supporters,

As long as they are due paying members, the teamsters will do everything they can to protect the illegals. Anyone recall it was the teamsters(AFL-CIO) that sued in Federal Court seeking an injuction to stop the no match letters from going out last year that would have forced business to terminate any employee who's SS number did not match up.

I guess we have to take the victories where ever we can find them. I just wish the teamsters position on this issue was a little more consistent.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the teamsters have a sudden change of heart after an "international fund" was set up in which Mexican Drivers contribute so much per month towards "representation" while hauling loads in this country.

Yes, while they have said and done all the right things with respect to the Trucking issue, they have not publicly denounced amnesty for IAs. No one single thing has been more destructive (allowing millions of illegal workers to remain here) to poor, blue-collar American workers... many of whom, happen to be fellow workers represented by other unions.

I am deeply disappointed in such a narrow and self-serving view of this and related issues.