Rolling across the border
Create Post
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Rolling across the border

    Mexican trucks roll on despite opposition
    Congress unified on bill to halt Bush administration program

    Posted: December 13, 2007
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Michael Howe

    The Bush administration continues to push forward with its controversial project allowing Mexican trucks to move freely on U.S. roads despite strong protests from both chambers of Congress, where legislation is pending.

    "Congress has stated clearly that it believes going forward with such a program, without the information needed to assure safety on American roads, is not safe," said Barry Piatt, spokesman for Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

    Dorgan successfully amended the Senate Transportation Appropriations Bill to include language to stop the Mexican Truck Demonstration Program, hoping the Bush administration would respond.

    However, even though the House and Senate agreed to retain the language, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, is continuing with the program.

    According to the conference report on the House bill, HR 3074, issued Nov. 13, "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, however, awaits approval by both the full House and the full Senate.

    Jenny Tallheimer, spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, told WND, "At this point the transportation appropriations bill is being lumped with the other appropriations bill into a larger omnibus bill.

    "Both the House and the Senate are currently negotiating the details of the larger appropriations bill, and once that is complete the legislation will be introduced in the House and the Senate," she said. "No time table has been set at this point however."

    There also is no guarantee that the language in the conference report designed to defund the Mexican Truck program will remain in a new omnibus bill.

    Without an appropriation bill containing such language, the program can continue.

    FMCSA's website lists 10 Mexican carriers with a total of 55 trucks that are approved to transport goods throughout the U.S.

    The FMCSA was asked to comment but did not reply to phone calls or e-mails.

    About 40 more Mexican carriers will soon join the 10 already approved. The agency, according to its website, said it "has notified an additional 37 Mexico-domiciled motor carriers that they have successfully passed a Pre-Authorization Safety Audit."

    The FMCSA says there are four U.S. carriers participating in the cross-border program.

    Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., continues to show frustration with the Bush administration.

    His spokesman, Joe Kasper, told WND, "Rather than working with Congress to ensure the program is implemented in a manner that is safe and efficient, the department has instead decided to continue its plan of opening our roadways to an increasing number of Mexican trucking companies."

    Kasper called it "a dangerous program that threatens our security and the safety of vehicle motorists."

    "It now appears the only way Congress can make the department listen is by ensuring it does not have the funds to move the program forward as currently planned," he said.

  2. #2
    Just how far will this go.
    I and many others are boiling under the surface but some have the balls to say it.
    Please President Bush you can stop this now.

  3. #3
    Totally jacked the hell up. A huge arzed mistake, kissing the arze of the illegal lobby for sure.

  4. #4
    Marine Free Member jrhd97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Rocky Mount,NC
    Those in favor are trying to say the trucks are safe, and U.S drivers won't loose loads. Total B.S. I have hauled many loads to El Paso, and Laredo TX. Those trucks are far from being safe by the standards we have to abide by.
    If the Mexican truck pulls the load from Mexico to N.Y, what does the U.S driver do that used to haul that load from the border? When that Mexican hauls a load back, what will the U.S driver haul to the border now that his load has been given to the Mexican? The wages will sufer when a broker can pay a Mexican carrier 55% of the load as opposed to a U.S company 75% or more.
    This is more NAFTA, free trade B.S.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Marine Free Member jrhd97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Rocky Mount,NC
    I GOT IT!! Congress pushed the fuel prices high in an effort to stop this. Our fearless leaders screwed the pooch so bad that fuel prices went throw the roof. Now the Mexicans can't afford to drive up here. ........ Ah, only one problem.............. we can't either.

  7. #7
    Marine Free Member sparkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    The Kingdom of Nye
    Got it,,,, Mex drivers can bring a load up,,, I will help with desel if they take a load of illegals back.

  8. #8
    Bush Administartion Ignoring Legislation President Signed By Allowing Mexican Trucks on U.S. Roads

    By Tom DeWeese

    The Bush Administration has directly defied, not only the will and intent of Congress, but it is now openly ignoring legislation that the President himself signed into law. As a result a Constitutional crisis is rapidly developing over a project to let Mexican trucks on U.S. roads. As a result, many are now calling for the firing of U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.

    In September 2007, the Bush Administration began a pilot project to allow Mexican trucks to drive on U.S. highways. The project is, frankly, necessary if goals for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are to be achieved. The SPP openly calls for “harmonizing” the borders between the U.S. Mexico and Canada. In fact, the Bush Administration sites the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as its authority to push the project.

    Congress was not happy with the program. Several members immediately sighted problems with safety of the Mexican trucks, including the inability of Mexican drivers to read English road signs in the US. Within weeks of the beginning of the project, both houses of congress began to draft legislation to put a stop to it.

    Quickly, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced an amendment to the Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations bill to remove funding for the project. The amendment was passed by a bi-partisan majority of 74-24 and subsequently became part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007.

    To make it perfectly clear that the legislation was a demand for the Administration to stop the Mexican truck project, Senator Dorgan received a letter from the Senate Legislative Council to confirm the law’s intent. The letter said, “No funds made available under the Consolidation Appropriations Act, 2008, were to be used in fiscal year 2008 to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico.”

    Can it be more clear? Further, it is the Constitutional duty of the Congress to fund or not to fund programs. Yet, in defiance of this clear intention of Congress, Secretary Peters continues to move forward, spending funds for the truck project unabated and against federal law.

    Melissa Delaney, spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), indicated the administration will simply ignore the congressional funding issue. In an all-too-familiar display of contempt for the concerns of the American people and in defiance of Congress, Delaney said, “We are committed to incremental steps in demonstrating the safety of the cross-border program, but there is no requirement to have a demonstration project.”

    Apparently hoping to convince Congress to back off its plan to kill the program, on October 17th Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters called a press conference. She then instructed a Maryland state trooper to inspect a Mexican truck in front of DOT headquarters, claiming this action would “prove” that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks.

    This childish charade prompted Teamster President James Hoffa to ask, “Does the Bush administration think we’re stupid? It’s insulting to the intelligence of the American people to suggest that a staged truck inspection before the news media proves anything.”

    In fact, actual inspections of the Mexican trucks prove that they are not safe to be on U.S. highways. A law firm (Cullen Law Firm of Washington, D.C.) has been compiling safety inspection reports on Mexican trucks in preparation for a lawsuit to stop the trucks from crossing the border. Their findings on Mexican truck safety are frightening and very telling about the agenda of the Bush Administration.

    According to the Cullen documentation, in the span of one year, September 2006 to September 2007, four of the Mexican companies participating in the Bush administration’s test trucking program collected more that 1,700 safety violations. One company was Trinity Industries de Mexico, which was cited more than 1,100 times, averaging 112 violations per truck.

    Another major concern about the safety of the Mexican trucks crossing our border is the ability of the drivers to read and understand highway signs. The Bush Administration has falsely assured that the drivers are required to be proficient in English before crossing the border. A brochure aimed at Mexican drivers on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website says, “Did you know? You MUST be able to read and speak English to drive truck in the United States.”

    Yet, under heavy questioning during a Senate hearing in March, 2008, Transportation Secretary Peters and DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel reluctantly admitted that Mexican drivers were being approved at the border as “proficient in English” even though they could only explain U.S. traffic signs in Spanish.

    Here is the verbatim exchange between Senator Dorgan, Peters and Scovel. Dorgan asked, “Does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration test for English proficiency at the border include questions about U.S. highway signs?”

    “Do you show a driver an octagonal STOP sign at the border and qualify him if he explains the sign means ‘ALTO,” Dorgan asked with obvious agitation, “ALTO is the Spanish Word for STOP,” he said.

    “Yes,” Scovel answered, hesitatingly. “If the stop sign is identified as ‘alto’ the driver is considered English proficient.”

    “In other words,” said Dorgan, “the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is allowing Mexican drivers in the demonstration project to prove their proficiency in English by responding to the examiner’s questions in Spanish?”

    Mary Peters responded, “U.S. highway signs comply with international standards. I drive frequently in Mexico and I always recognize the octagonal ‘ALTO’ signs as ‘STOP’ signs.”

    “Excuse me, Madame Secretary,” said Dorgan, “the question is not whether you understand Mexican highway signs when driving in Mexico but whether Mexican drivers entering the U.S. in your demonstration project can pass an English proficiency test by answering the questions totally in Spanish.”

    Answered Peters, “But answering in Spanish, the drivers explain they understand the English-language highway signs.” Countered Dorgan, “If you answer in Spanish, you’re not English proficient.”

    Continued Dorgan, “My main concern is safety. We’ve established (in the Senate hearing) that there are no equivalencies between Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks. There are no equivalent safety standards. Mexico has no reliable database for vehicle inspections, no accident reports or driver’s records. Now you tell us Mexican drivers can pass their English proficiency tests in Spanish. The Department of Transportation is telling Congress – ‘We’re doing this and we don’t care’--” Senator Dorgan concluded.

    In a news release issued just prior to the March 10, 2008 Senate hearing, Peters tried to take the offensive against Senate efforts to stop the Mexican truck project. In the release she said, “Our drivers and our workers don’t deserve a timeout for success and prosperity. So my message to Congress is clear. If you want to help American businesses thrive, support American agricultural success, and champion American highway safety, then keep on trucking with cross border shipping.”

    Obviously Secretary Peters is pandering to American workers. None of what she said is true. American workers are being destroyed by agreements like NAAFTA and the SPP. Wages are down. American jobs are disappearing and America’s trade deficit is out of control because of these agreements.

    Moreover, American trucking companies are not seeking “markets” in Mexico. They don’t want to drive their trucks into that country. As James Hoffa said, “It’s ridiculous when the State Department issues regular warnings to alert U.S. citizens to the dangers of kidnapping and murder if they travel Mexico’s roads…No trucker wants to drive a load of automobiles into Mexico to park them somewhere.”

    Hoffa went on to say, “It’s a disgrace that Mary Peters is still in office. She has broken the law and defied the will of the American people by exposing them to dangerous trucks from Mexico.” The Teamsters Union has filed suit to stop the Mexican trucks from crossing the border and has called for Mary Peters to be fired.

    The fact is, the Bush Administration, represented by Mary Peters, is determined to force the Mexican truck project on the American people because of agreements it has made with Mexico to open our borders. Further, it has made agreements with international corporations, through Public/Private Partnerships, to use the power of government to allow them to plunder the U.S. economy with little regard as to the impact on the American people.

    As Senator Dorgan said, the Bush Administration doesn’t care what Americans think about these policies. Mary Peters should be fired as a way to send a very strong message to the Bush Administration that the American people are fed up with its arrogance. Her firing would be a major blow to efforts to impose the North American Union, which of course President Bush denies exists. Fire Mary Peters first, and we’ll get the rest of the gang later.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not Create Posts
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts