Senator Moves to Block Mexican Trucks(Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan ND)

worldnetdaily.com ^ | September 10, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[kellynla]

Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan plans to offer an amendment today that would block the controversial federal program allowing Mexican trucks to operate freely on roads across the U.S.

Barry Piatt, spokesman for the North Dakota senator, told WND the amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill essentially will say, "None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration or pilot project or program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border."

Piatt said the amendment could come up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow or Wednesday.

Dorgan has scheduled a 2:30 pm Eastern Time press conference in the Senate today to announce his decision to offer the amendment .

WND reported last week, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., charged the Bush administration with being "hell-bent on opening our borders, but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks."

[wideawake]

And beleiving they will be is, I suppose, part and parcel of what it takes to think this is a good idea.

The I assume you are against the importation of any goods into the United States from outside our borders, because it is naive to believe that any of these goods are inspected.

[Alberta's Child]

Byron Dorgan has been in the U.S. Senate since 1992. It's pretty silly for him to be introducing legislation in late 2007 to block a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that has been in place FOR 15 YEARS, and was originally supposed to be implemented BY 2000.

At least 98% of what happens in Washington these days is nothing more than juvenile, transparent political posturing -- and this is no different.

[1rudeboy]

Closer to a more than a decade.

[off-roader]

GOOD FOR HIM!

Many proponents of this scam have mentioned reciprocal transit into Mexico by US truckers as freely as into Canada. Well, Canada is not rife with highwaymen wearing badges.

Here are two links about vehicle hijacking in Baja.

http://www.baja.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23845

and

http://www.baja.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23856

[1rudeboy]

At least 98% of what happens in Washington these days is nothing more than juvenile, transparent political posturing -- and this is no different.

And people fall for it.

[madison10]

Even Clinton had the common sense not to allow this....but Clinton DID allow it. This trucking debacle is due to the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico. Who do you think signed the treaty in the first place?

President Bush's hands are tied. There is not really anything he can allow/disallow.

I suspect that may be why our borders are porous. We just don't know what's in the treaty.

[ConservativeofColor]

because it is naive to believe that any of these goods are inspected.

With that statement you've made my point. Why make a bad situation worse?

I'm opposed to this program for many reason including the fact that it adopts the inherent dangers you've now agreed exist. It also goes further by allowing unsafe trucks on the same highways I drive say nothing of costing countless American jobs.

[deport]

amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill

---

When does the Fiscal 2008 appropriations go into effect?... I take this to mean the pilot program could continue until the end of the Fiscal 2007 appropriations? Anyone know the technicalities?

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, sure.

Since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this amendment will be passed, Mr. Dorkman may as well have proposed an amendment that outlawed lung cancer.

[wideawake]

With that statement you've made my point. Why make a bad situation worse?

My point is that we allow importation of goods by sea and by air from every area of the world.

Am I really supposed to believe that a Mexican truck is more dangerous than a cargo flight from EgyptAir or a freighter from Brazil?

Importing goods by road from Mexico is no more dangerous than these other imports we take every day.

We do not require Brazil to transfer all their goods from a Brazilian ship to a US ship a few miles offshore before it can be brought into port.

That's a ridiculous waste of time and money.

But now we want to have Mexican-owned trucks offload their goods into an American-owned truck a few miles over the border.

That's just welfare for Teamsters. It makes no logical sense.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“And the Teamsters thank him.”

We all should. There is no benefit to our nation to allow this.
I live 3 miles from a truckstop on the main artery where these trucks will be going. I do not want to have these guys in my neighborhood.

[NapkinUser]

Clinton signed NAFTA which authorized it.

That'd be a much better excuse if Bush himself didn't support and love NAFTA.

I am not buying this "Bush's hands are tied" thing. Some foreign panel ordered it, huh? Is Bush not the president? Is America not a sovereign nation? Who gives a damn what this panel rules?

[VOYAGER]

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., charged the Bush administration with being "hell-bent on opening our borders, but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks.

Just another time(unprotected borders)that Bush is knowingly absent from his oath of office to protect this nation from it's enemies and I don't believe he gives a damn!

This guy is a joke and is playing dumb which shows he(Bush)is immature politically and useless as a leader at least for the remainder of his presidency.

[apocalypto]

I agree. I saw no benefit to this country, only harm in allowing Mexican trucks.

[AuntB]

I don’t see any benefit whatsoever to surrendering our trucking industry to Mexico.

It's benefiting someone, DoughtyOne,but it sure isn't the United states taxpayer.