Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House OKs Mexican truck program (despite a new law by Congress against it)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 1/4/08 | Andrew Taylor - ap

Posted on 01/04/2008 2:48:57 PM PST by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is going ahead with a controversial pilot program giving Mexican trucks greater access to U.S. highways despite a new law by Congress against it.

The decision to proceed with the four-month-old program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States, comes despite language in the recently signed catchall spending bill aimed at blocking it.

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.

"The U.S. Department of Transportation will not establish any new demonstration programs with Mexico," said Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration spokeswoman Melissa Mazzella DeLaney. "The current cross-border trucking demonstration project — established in September — will continue to operate in a manner that puts safety first."

Congressional opponents of the programs insist that it's clear what lawmakers were trying to do last year when both House and Senate voted against allowing the program to go forward.

The provision, as signed by President Bush last month, 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."

"They know what the law says," retorted Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who won a 74-24 vote to block the program. "And they're not above the law." Dorgan warned they better follow the law.

The hotly contested program, opposed by labor, independent truck owners and environmental groups, permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads.

Opponents have been fighting the measure — part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement — since it was first proposed, saying the program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. And they say that there are insufficient safeguards exist to make sure that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.

"When you open up U.S. highways to long-haul Mexican trucks without equivalent safety standards, it poses risks for American drivers," Dorgan said.

Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. And they say U.S. trucking companies will benefit since reciprocal changes in Mexico's rules permit U.S. trucks new access to that country.

Since 1982, Mexican trucks have had to stop within a buffer border zone and transfer their loads to U.S. trucks.

Still, there's widespread opposition to the program within Congress. The House voted without a roll call in July to block the program and the Senate's 3-to-1 margin in September to block it came despite administration assurances that safeguards are in place to "ensure a safe and secure program."

The Teamsters Union, Sierra Club and Public Citizen joined together in a lawsuit filed in August seeking to block the program.

A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 12 before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Teamsters spokeswoman Leslie Miller said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: mexican; mexicantrucks; program; truck; trucking; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2008 2:49:06 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

We better setup a road block on this one..... What the $#&^#$ is Bush thinking???? This is up there with his immigration and Dubai controlling our ports deals. We need to shoot this down quick....


2 posted on 01/04/2008 2:52:43 PM PST by AmericanGunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Kinda smacks of a dictatorship when the enforcement branch of the government simply disregards the law making branch.


3 posted on 01/04/2008 2:55:19 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanGunner
What the $#&^#$ is Bush thinking????

Let them eat cake.
4 posted on 01/04/2008 2:56:33 PM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The ruck drivers I know say this is bad for them. Keeps wages low.


5 posted on 01/04/2008 2:56:58 PM PST by Dubya (Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Seems like the Congresscritters deliberately did this.. created a ban, but with a loophole. They can go home to their peons and say “we tried” while knowing all along that Bush would go ahead anyway.


6 posted on 01/04/2008 3:01:47 PM PST by bshomoic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Kinda smacks of a dictatorship when the enforcement branch of the government simply disregards the law making branch.

Do you really think it was an accident that the word establish was used?

This is the same congress that keeps passing legislation to build a border fence and then undermining or not funding the fence before it gets built.

Those words were used because much of congress wants to appear to oppose the Mexican truck program without actually stopping it from going forward.

7 posted on 01/04/2008 3:01:56 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September.

Curses, foiled again! ROTFLMAO

8 posted on 01/04/2008 3:03:05 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

BUMP


9 posted on 01/04/2008 3:04:06 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Kinda smacks of a dictatorship when the enforcement branch of the government simply disregards the law making branch.

Kind of makes one wonder why voting is even worth it when you see those charged to protect and defend the nation let it be overrun, both culturally and economically... and then you look at what wins primaries in the heartland..

January 2009 can’t get here fast enough..

What does it profit the nation to win the WoT only to lose the homeland thru backdoor means?

give credit where credit is due, nothing more.


10 posted on 01/04/2008 3:04:55 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE’s toll-free tip hotline —1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRGeT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmericanGunner

Because the NAFTA trade agreement signed by president Clinton and ratified by the Senate dictates that this happens. Bush is following the law.

Treaty agteements supercede Federal law, always have.


11 posted on 01/04/2008 3:05:43 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Muchas gracias, Jorge! Por nada.


12 posted on 01/04/2008 3:08:11 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

There go the truckers jobs. Bush = bozo the clown!


13 posted on 01/04/2008 3:08:31 PM PST by GinaLolaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic; All
Guy from Boston comments on Mexican Truck Drivers (language warning)
14 posted on 01/04/2008 3:09:38 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AmericanGunner

“What the $#&^#$ is Bush thinking????”

He’s obsessed with depressing wages in this country. He’s a traditional class warrior country clubber.

Rationalizes with various covers, such as “growth” and “globalism”.


15 posted on 01/04/2008 3:10:03 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The Federal Government is like the HAL9000 in A Space Odyssey and has turned on its masters. The solution is to deactivate it just like in the movie.


16 posted on 01/04/2008 3:11:44 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The Teamsters Union, Sierra Club and Public Citizen are deeply saddened.
17 posted on 01/04/2008 3:12:15 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (What came first, the bad math or the goldbuggery?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Impeach Bush! When President Bush does things that upset even many of his most loyal supporters, then he’s going too far politically! President Bush has definitely “jumped the shark” when he agrees to sign off on McCain’s “campaign finance reform” legislation, frequently agrees to “out of control government spending legislation” while the Republicans were still in the majorities in both Houses of Congress, allies himself with Senator Ted Kennedy on both education legislation and “amnesty for illegal immigrants” legislation, and completely ignores truly conservative politicians including ignoring both Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Duncan Hunter on a variety of issues when both Tancredo and Hunter seriously want to personally and directly talk to President Bush on a variety of issues!


18 posted on 01/04/2008 3:21:13 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Impeach Bush! When President Bush does things that upset even many of his most loyal supporters, then he’s going too far politically! President Bush has definitely “jumped the shark” when he agrees to sign off on McCain’s “campaign finance reform” legislation, frequently agrees to “out of control government spending legislation” while the Republicans were still in the majorities in both Houses of Congress, allies himself with Senator Ted Kennedy on both education legislation and “amnesty for illegal immigrants” legislation, and completely ignores truly conservative politicians including ignoring both Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Duncan Hunter on a variety of issues when both Tancredo and Hunter seriously want to personally and directly talk to President Bush on a variety of issues!


19 posted on 01/04/2008 3:24:26 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

I didn’t think of that angle, but it makes perfect sense. Political posturing, top to bottom.


20 posted on 01/04/2008 3:24:28 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore

Sorry for the repeat.


21 posted on 01/04/2008 3:25:38 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: microgood
"The Federal Government is like the HAL9000 in A Space Odyssey and has turned on its masters."

Good analogy.

22 posted on 01/04/2008 3:26:40 PM PST by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and if you have 1440 clocks . . . .”


23 posted on 01/04/2008 3:26:48 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
And they say U.S. trucking companies will benefit since reciprocal changes in Mexico's rules permit U.S. trucks new access to that country.

That is insane. Gringo truck drivers aren't gonna roll into Mexico so Bush is talking about opening up Mexico for his illegal alien drivers.

Bush has total hostility for working people. He can't depress the wages of truck drivers through his usual means of flooding the US with poverty-laborers and he can't offshore their jobs, but Bush will find a way to screw you if you are the type who does an honest day's work.

24 posted on 01/04/2008 3:40:54 PM PST by Perchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I have to put up with this CHIT in my area day in and day out! Unfortunately the Mexican drivers don’t know how to read ENGLISH road signs!! This really pisses me off! Those truckers AREN’T suppose to drive through a residential school zone area but they do it anyway. I called my rep and he said that the company who hires those drivers will be notified. WELL, you guess it...they’re still doing it!! One reason I’ve lost faith in President Bush. WHAT A DANGEROUS Proposal!!
25 posted on 01/04/2008 3:41:52 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Read my post 11. You are totally wrong on point. The United States MUST honor the NAFTA trade agreement. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to render this or any Treaty invalid.

Which is what their phony law may have been trying to do. Though I don’t even believe that is true, it’s more likely they needed to pass this law to show the UNIONS that they are still tere for them even though Clinton sold them out on NAFTA.

I do love the irony of all this.


26 posted on 01/04/2008 3:46:11 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore

Exactly WHEN did congress get the power to pass laws which invalidate U.S. Treaty agreements?

Answer: They don’t.

Bush IS following the law. Congress is passing phony unconstitutional laws. Now we know Bush doesn’t have a problem singing unconstitutional laws, but this is solely the FAULT OF NAFTA, not Bush.


27 posted on 01/04/2008 3:54:14 PM PST by Diplomat (Are you people Iowaians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

NO THEY ARE NOT!!

The Teamsters are worried about union dues so they have tried to organize the Mexican truckers.

The Teamsters are TRAITOR!!


28 posted on 01/04/2008 3:56:16 PM PST by chicagolady (Mexican Elite say: EXPORT Poverty Let the American Taxpayer foot the bill !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

NO THEY ARE NOT!!

The Teamsters are worried about union dues so they have tried to organize the Mexican truckers.

The Teamsters are TRAITOR!!


29 posted on 01/04/2008 3:56:22 PM PST by chicagolady (Mexican Elite say: EXPORT Poverty Let the American Taxpayer foot the bill !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perchant

Gheesh, when did America honoring it’s treaty agreements become to mean Bush hates working people?

I’m so tired of the ignorant BDS whining on this forum. We’ve become DU w/o the profanity.

Do any of you have the courage to admit that Ronald Reagan supported NAFTA before Bill Clinton? I seriously doubt it.


30 posted on 01/04/2008 4:02:23 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
NNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!

WHAT IS BUSH THINKING?????

WE the People of the United States of America do not want a North American Union. Why is that so hard for President Bush to comprehend???

BUSH is ruining the Republican Party single handedly.

31 posted on 01/04/2008 4:07:47 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (http://auntiecoosa.blogspot.com -- read, learn, blog, or get out of my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

32 posted on 01/04/2008 4:11:40 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
This guy is a jewel, of course in the rough, but on this topic it needs to get rough. And of course he is Right Fn On!
33 posted on 01/04/2008 4:16:56 PM PST by ImpBill ("America ... Where are you now?" --Greg Adams--Brownsville, TX --On the other Front Line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

The closest I’ve seen anyone get (and I’ve been arguing this issue here since my sign-up date) is their acknowledging that NAFTA was Reagan’s idea, but claiming he wouldn’t have supported its present form. Yeah, nonsense.


34 posted on 01/04/2008 4:28:34 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AmericanGunner

Good for Bush. He stood up to the Teamster thugs and their puppets in Congress.

If we discriminate against legal Mexican trucks, we must stop Canadians at the border


35 posted on 01/04/2008 4:31:59 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Moveon is not us...... Moveon is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Nothing to see here, let’s move along to the latest “Pray for President Bush” or “Day in the Life of President Bush” thread. Oooh look, there’s Barney the dog! Aren’t you such a sweet little doggie, yes you are!


36 posted on 01/04/2008 4:34:17 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

LOL—why don’t you head over there? Those threads function like bug-zappers.


37 posted on 01/04/2008 4:37:04 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I assume Tijuana. I assume photos. I assume blackmail. I assume a Mexican paternity case that was hushed up. I assume kickbacks. There has to be some reason why a President of United States of America loves Mexico and illegals MORE than his own country. Someone want to explain this guy’s actions to me?


38 posted on 01/04/2008 4:37:22 PM PST by Doc Savage (The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Do any of you have the courage to admit that Ronald Reagan supported NAFTA before Bill Clinton? I seriously doubt it.

I didn't think The Gipper would have realized that it would become the sovereignty-robbing agreement that it is now.

39 posted on 01/04/2008 4:37:45 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
LOL—why don’t you head over there? Those threads function like bug-zappers.

Uh no thanks, the Mods are like Eastwood with the zot gun thingy.

40 posted on 01/04/2008 4:38:45 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Nothing to see here, let’s move along to the latest “Pray for President Bush”...

I keep wanting to post: "I pray Bush learns to say nuclear instead of nukyaler."

I just can't.

41 posted on 01/04/2008 4:39:49 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

I assume Tijuana. I assume photos. I assume blackmail. I assume a Mexican paternity case that was hushed up. I assume kickbacks. There has to be some reason why a President of United States of America loves Mexico and illegals MORE than his own country. Someone want to explain this guy’s actions to me

Exactly-what the Heck is it????????? It’s very fishy indeed.


42 posted on 01/04/2008 4:46:54 PM PST by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat; Perchant; Extremely Extreme Extremist
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented on January 1, 1994. Its purpose was to remove tariff barriers between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The Agreement includes two supplemental agreements on environmental and labor issues that address cooperative efforts to reconcile policies and procedures for dispute resolution between the member countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation (NAFTA) Act may be found at P.L. 103-192 or 107 Stat. 2057 (1993).

NAFTA was preceded by an agreement between the United States and Canada entitled the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted on January 1, 1989, but has now been superseded by the NAFTA.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, known usually as NAFTA, is a comprehensive trade agreement linking Canada, the United States, and Mexico in a free trade sphere. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.

To say Reagan supported NAFTA is not true. He supported a trade agreement with Canada. NAFTA didn't even exist when Reagan was in office.

43 posted on 01/04/2008 4:48:24 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: ImpBill

We need to bombard Congress, Presidential Candidates, Congressmen, Senators, etc. with letters communicating our outrage with the border issues. Collectively we can help force our leaders to pay attention and take action. Have any of you seen the new Chris Burgard Film, “Border: the Divide between the American Dream and the American Nightmare”? Just saw it last weekend. It is a documentary that will make your blood boil. Fact is, we as one giant loud and clear voice, have to pressure our representatives to pay attention and be engaged to resolve the border/immigration problem.


45 posted on 01/04/2008 5:09:10 PM PST by Body Snatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Because the NAFTA trade agreement signed by president Clinton and ratified by the Senate dictates that this happens. Bush is following the law.

Treaty agteements supercede Federal law, always have.

What treaty?

Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38.

A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2].

Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.

NAFTA is not a treaty.

NAFTA has the force of law. As with any law, it can be changed or abolished with the passage of another law.


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450 )
Vote Number: 395 Vote Date: November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 3450
Measure Title: A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Vote Counts: YEAs 61

NAYs 38

Not Voting 1

More details on Senate vote here: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

U. S. House FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3450      RECORDED VOTE      17-Nov-1993      10:36 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT


Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 102 156    
Republican 132 43    
Independent   1    
TOTALS 234 200    

More details on the House vote here: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 575


46 posted on 01/04/2008 5:16:28 PM PST by Colorado Buckeye (It's the culture stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Exactly WHEN did congress get the power to pass laws which invalidate U.S. Treaty agreements?

Gheesh, when did America honoring it’s treaty agreements become to mean Bush hates working people?

See post above. Sorry to have made you look like a real idiot here; but next time, you might want to do some homework before posting.

47 posted on 01/04/2008 5:25:13 PM PST by Colorado Buckeye (It's the culture stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This is NOT A GOOD THING.
Anytime I agree with the Teamsters, you know there's a problem.
I was an independent contract carrier for 5 years and have seen the trucks coming out of Mexico.
You'll see a lot of those trucks parked at scale houses waiting for a mechanic.
48 posted on 01/04/2008 5:59:04 PM PST by concretebob (If liberals aren't traitors, their only defense at this point is they are incredibly stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

And to think I actually voted for Jorge twice.

In the primaries, I’m not hearing much about illegal immigration from candidates of either party. Yet polls show it’s the number one issue of voters. A helluva lot of money must be changing hands.


49 posted on 01/04/2008 6:01:53 PM PST by Veto! (Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veto!
In the primaries, I’m not hearing much about illegal immigration from candidates of either party. Yet polls show it’s the number one issue of voters. A helluva lot of money must be changing hands.

It's the same old story year in, year out.

50 posted on 01/04/2008 6:06:17 PM PST by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson