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

Skip to comments.

Mexican truck pilot continues despite funding cut
Today's Trucking Online ^ | 01/02/2008

Posted on 01/03/2008 6:31:23 AM PST by SwinneySwitch

WASHINGTON -- It doesn't look like the pilot project allowing Mexican trucks deep into U.S. territory will be around for much longer.

Still, even though a bill to cut funding for the controversial program was signed by President George W. Bush recently, the DOT hasn't made many moves to halt it yet.

A $555 billion omnibus appropriations spending bill, which signed into law last week, contained a provision that cuts funding from the cross-border program. "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," the bill states.

However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration says the program will continue because the bill's language refers to funds "to establish" a program, and doesn't apply to the program already underway.

The Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association, a longtime opponent of the Mexican truck pilot, reacted angrily to the FMCSA's decision to press on.

"Apparently, this rogue administration wants to play word games and intends to thumb its nose at the clear Congressional intent behind the unambiguous legislation," said OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer.

While FMCSA is keeping the program in place, it still faces court challenges by OOIDA and other groups.

In OOIDA's official publication, Land Line, Spencer said is group would likely push forward its impending lawsuit to stop the program if FMCSA doesn't cancel it soon.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Mexico; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: congress; trucking; trucks; wordgames
OPINION POLL

Would you like to see the Mexican border open up soon?

Absolutely. I'd love access to a new market; or be able to run less costly truckers up here. 18%

No Way: Just think how Mexican competition would erode our domestic linehaul rates. 82%

1 posted on 01/03/2008 6:31:26 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; Jaded; Tigen; flattorney; bigjoesaddle; FryingPan101; AnimalLover; backtothestreets; ...

Ping!

If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.


2 posted on 01/03/2008 6:34:56 AM PST by SwinneySwitch (US Constitution Article 4 Section 4..shall protect each of them against Invasion...domestic Violence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

Why does this program need federal funding?


3 posted on 01/03/2008 6:47:16 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Inspections on Mexican trucks maybe ?


4 posted on 01/03/2008 6:50:57 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Why does this program need federal funding?

According to most politicians...EVERYTHING needs federal funding.

5 posted on 01/03/2008 6:53:46 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; pissant; Calpernia; Man50D

Safety inspections?


6 posted on 01/03/2008 6:57:41 AM PST by SwinneySwitch (US Constitution Article 4 Section 4..shall protect each of them against Invasion...domestic Violence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Safety inspections are exactly what the funding cuts are targeting. The unsafe Mehican trucks will be allowed to run the US roads with no base plates, insurance, etc......

LAWYER and GOVERNMENT SHILL: "It''ll be a complicated matter of suing the Mehican Co. whose drive and junk truck killed your family member. The State Dept. has to become involved to resolve this issue and that will take time."

7 posted on 01/03/2008 7:07:16 AM PST by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Why do I suspect that the words "to establish" were intentionally used in the bill?

Democrats get to tell the teamsters, and other constituents with isolationist policies, that they tried to stop the program.

Republicans have their own isolationist constituencies as well.

They also get to say they did it to increase border security.

However, they did it in such a way that it won't have any real effect.

It's just like how they keep passing bills to construct border fencing and then not funding the fence, or changing the wording so that the fence doesn't actually have to get built.

They understand that such things are unpopular with voters, so that create an illusion that they are trying to do something about it, without actually doing anything about it.

8 posted on 01/03/2008 7:31:42 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

The Gov is right on this one. Words matter and the program was already established. If it had said “operate” it would have been different.

Clue: The people who inserted the language into the bill knew that when they did it.


9 posted on 01/03/2008 8:28:55 AM PST by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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