Posted on 02/12/2008 3:06:35 PM PST by NormsRevenge
A federal appeals court considered Tuesday whether the Bush administration can go ahead with a pilot program that allows a small number of Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways, despite a new law by Congress against it.
Members of the Teamsters Union and their supporters packed a courtroom at 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where an apparently divided three-judge panel heard arguments in the case, which may boil down to the meaning of "establish."
Several tractor trailers also were parked outside the courthouse and union members and their supporters carried signs opposing the program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States.
The Teamsters, Sierra Club and Public Citizen sued the administration in August to try to stop the program, which the U.S. agreed to as part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.
In December, Congress passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program that allows U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border and into the country. But the Department of Transportation interpreted "establish" as meaning to start a new program rather than to stop the current one, which was launched in September.
"The congressional intent is unambiguous," said Judge Dorothy Nelson, one of three appellate judges who will decide the issue. "The intention was to halt the pilot program."
But colleague Judge Andrew Kleinfled seemed satisfied by the administration's position that the new law only prevents new programs and doesn't address the current one. The issue may hinge on the vote of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, who didn't tip his hand during the hearing.
American inspectors are required to certify the Mexican trucks and drivers for safety before they enter the country and the vehicles will be inspected at the border before they are let into the United States.
Some 42 Mexican trucks owned by 12 carriers have entered the United States since the Bush administration launched the hotly contested program, which permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican companies full access to U.S. roads.
The Teamsters and environmentalists argue that the cross-border program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. They also say there are insufficient safeguards to ensure Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.
A lawyer for the Sierra Club said not enough Mexican carriers have qualified to enter the United States to provide the necessary data to show the pilot program is safe. He said the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had planned to have about 100 carriers certified by now, but only a dozen Mexican companies have been cleared.
"The agency never considered there would be so few carriers," Sierra Club lawyer Jonathan Weissglass said. "It means the pilot program is a sham."
Department of Justice attorney Irene Solet said the program requires border agents to ensure all Mexican truck drivers who intend to drive more than 25 miles into the U.S. have valid Mexican commercial drivers licenses.
She further argued that if Congress intended to "turn its back on the NAFTA agreement" with the law it passed barring establishment of cross-border trucking programs "much more clarity from Congress would be expected."
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.
The "program gives U.S. truck drivers opportunities to compete and succeed in a market they've never before been allowed to enter while ensuring the safety of our highways," Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chief John Hill said in statement after the hearing.
Of the drivers who said they don’t want to drive in Mexico, almost all of them said their reason was fear for their personal safety. Apparently Mexican bandits routinely hijack trucks for their cargo which is then sold on the black market.
I understand that . . . I’m simply remarking that it is odd to complain that someone is stealing the job one refuses to do, for whatever reason.
On what matter have I been in agreement with them in the past?
P.S. You’re frightening me with the suggestion that I may have an “inner Teamster” :-)
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.