Mexico Trucker Online Articles

OOIDA & Teamster demand Obama to “protect the trees”

Say it ain’t so people! James P. Hoffa and his Teamsters, and Todd Spencer with his minority of American truckers are aligning themselves with the left wing enviro-wackos in a last desperate attempt to stop fewer than 100 late model Mexican trucks from entering the country?

Politics and nativist protectionism make strange bedfellows sometimes as the latest press release from the Teamsters points out.

In comments submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Sierra Club raised frivolous and baseless concerns with what they claim is the failure of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to adequately assess the environmental impacts associated with the upcoming U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.

Hoffa erroneously claims:

“With this assessment, the FMSCA is recklessly ignoring the true environmental impact Mexican trucks will have if permitted to travel without restrictions throughout our country. We contend that the FMSCA has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not addressing the full, cumulative effects on our environment prior to starting the cross-border pilot program.”

The “assessment” he is referring to is the  announcement last month of the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) that evaluates the
potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of its United States-Mexico cross-border long- haul trucking pilot program in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

But Hoffa and his Teamsters as well as Spencer and OOIDA are blowing smoke up the asses of the American public and US truckers. They’re bringing up an issue that was resolved years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States.

It started back in 2002 when Public Citizen sued the FMCSA claiming an environmental impact study was required before any effort could be made to open the southern border to Mexican trucks as required under our NAFTA obligations.

At that time, FMCSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), but they did not prepare and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as PUBLIC CITIZEN claimed was required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

The EA focused mainly on the environmental impact from doing more inspections, not on the impact from more trucks driving the roads.

Public Citizen sued to stop the possibility of cross border trucking until an EIS was prepared.Public Citizen argued that the increased number of trucks on US roads was liable to have a significant environmental impact, and therefore an EIS was required. There claim was that more than 30,000 older polluting trucks burning high sulphur diesel would have an impact on our environment.

The trial court found in favor of the defendent, FMCSA. The Trial Court found that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.

The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.

The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.

Now in their desperation to keep a handful of late model, closely monitored Mexican trucks from entering this country, they ally themselves with the tree huggers. They ignore the more than 30,000 Mexican rigs that access the United States daily, some with authority to run anywhere in the country they desire.

Take OOIDA for instance. They’re always preaching against more government regulations and fighting CARB, the California Air Resources Board, which has some of the most stringent environmental rules in the country (and rules that Mexican trucks follow daily). A good example of that is OOIDA’s statement in opposition to new fuel economy rules for big trucks.

OOIDA says;

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) called the administration’s announcement today for greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks a flawed, one-size-fits-all rule. The new rule ignores input from small-business trucking, overlooks less expensive options to achieve EPA goals of reduced emissions, and will ultimately increase new truck costs.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a first-ever rulemaking for new large tractor-trailer trucks that requires trucks to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018.

“By totally ignoring the impact on small-business trucking, the EPA has demonstrated yet another example of our wretchedly broken regulatory process,” said Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs for OOIDA.  “Congress should take action when they return in September to rein in the bureaucracy and push forward regulatory reform legislation that has already been introduced.”

Notice the hypocrisy and desperation? They oppose the new mileage standards and are demanding the Administration to stand down from all the excessive regulations they’re putting on us, a position I totally agree with, yet in the next breath, they demand more regulations against a few Mexican trucks.

In an article published on August 12, 2011 titled FMCSA’s environmental assessment of cross-border program falls short, OOIDA claims,

Currently, Mexican emission standards for diesel-powered truck engines are only aligned with U.S. EPA emissions standards for six criteria pollutants through the 2003 model year. This means that newer engines for Mexican trucks need not comply with the more stringent U.S. emissions standards that came into play in 2004 through 2010.

The comments point out that since Mexico has not aligned its diesel engine emissions standards to U.S. EPA 2004 standards, the differences can be stark – as much as 20 times the nitrogen oxides and 10 times the particulate matter, based on using diesel with a sulfur content of 500 parts per million.

The ability to add additional fuel tanks makes it possible for trucks from Mexico to fill up with the low-sulfur diesel available in Mexico and never have to fuel up while in the states – polluting at a higher level than corresponding U.S. trucks.

OOIDA’s comments propose two options to FMCSA to ensure a minimal environmental impact the cross-border program may have.

The first, would be to only allow trucks that meet U.S. EPA model year emissions standards for the year in which the engine was manufactured. We don’t have a problem with that and indeed, that is stated in the proposal for the new cross border program. Guess that part went over their heads at OOIDA.

The second is ridiculous and nothing in the section of NAFTA regulating cross border trucking, nor int he arbitration panel ruling requires this.  OOIDA’s idea would force trucks arriving from Mexico either to have ULSD fuel purchased in Mexico on board or to have possibly to one-fourth tank or less of fuel not meeting the U.S. ULSD standard – so they could purchase compliant fuel once crossing the border.

Even if Mexican trucks were using diesel fuel consisting of 5000 ppm of sulfur, the environmental impact of less than 100 trucks would be absolute zero.

This is simply another method by the opponents to throw up more roadblocks to our compliance with our international obligations. Fortunately, they’ll lose this fight too.

OOIDA asks “Is it racist to oppose the Mexican cross-border program?”

Mexican truckers take pride in their rides such as this Kenworth photographed in Laredo Texas. This is what opponents refer to as "dangerous", "sub standard Mexican junk"

That’s the question being posed on the Landline Now Media blog by Sandi Soendker, and it’s a valid question.

The obvious answer to the question is of course, no. However, in their absence of a credible argument opposing the cross border trucking program with Mexico, OOIDA and other opponents are knowingly and willfully preying on the ignorance and prejudices of their members and the public at large, to turn opinion against Mexican truckers.

So far once we can agree with OOIDA when Soendker writes;

If American truckers are opposed to cross-border trucking with Mexico, are they racists? If they are concerned with issues like safety, jobs, national security, fair treatment – is that racism? Concerns for other issues like immigration, customs, reduced tax revenue for roads, lack of clear enforcement – is that racism? Of course it isn’t.

The safety issue has been debunked. Mexican trucks and their drivers have been shown to be as safe, and in most cases safer, than their US and Canadian cousins.
[pullquote]

A Good Example of the drivel from Mark Reddig

The countdown has started to the opening day of cross-border trucking with Mexico.

And even as that date approaches, efforts by OOIDA to stop the program dead in its tracks continue as well.

Truckers and others are also hitting the phone lines, calling members of Congress, federal officials and more, trying to get the message across to a Congress bullied and bruised from the heavy-handed lobbying of the ATA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that clearly doesn’t deserve the name,) and the huge multinational companies that crave the cheap labor south of the border.

For some folks, it’s all a bit much. They are tired of having to fight this battle over and over, tired of the fact that even when Congress votes 411-3 to stop this idea, that the friends of big business keep bringing it back again and again, like some kind of monster in an old horror film that – no matter how many times you shoot it – just keeps shambling forward.

But this battle is too important. And those people should not be rewarded for their attempts to thwart the will of the American People, and of Congress.

We need to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls, letters, faxes and emails.

You’re likely to receive a response, but it very well may not say what you’d like to hear.

Don’t let it get you down or dissuade you from continuing this fight.
I recently called all three of the folks who represent me in Congress – my representative and both of my senators.

I received, in return, form letters. That’s not a big surprise.

However, what was a big surprise to me is that the members’ letters indicated that at least one of them is accepting this drivel from DOT that they’ve fixed all the problems and we’re good to move ahead with this.

Believe me, I will call and correct that error. I hope all of you will join me.

[/pullquote]
Absent any proof, opponents continue to scare the hell out of Americans into thinking that 100 or so Mexican trucks will put tens of thousands of US truckers out of business and into the welfare line.

Ridiculous when you consider Canada has 37,000 or more trucks with free access to the US, and they have not cost us jobs. Landline Now host Mark Reddig doesn’t miss an opportunity to warn US truckers that 100 Mexican trucks will “destroy” the US trucking industry. And because of ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, people believe such an incredulous lie.

When they refer to “national security”, they want you to believe that terrorists are lining up to hitch a ride on the first Mexican trucks to cross the border while ignoring the fact that their are more than 25,000 Mexican drayage trucks who cross the border daily. They also pointedly ignore the fact that to our north, across one of the longest unsecured borders in the world, is the largest population of people from the middle east, the so called “New Canadians”, who can cross our border at will. And with a Canadian commercial license, they can do so in a big rig.

They talk of “fair treatment” which is nothing more than equal access. Many people don’t know that after we slammed the door in the face of the Mexicans in 2009, they continued to allow American carriers total access to their country. Four US carriers continue that access today.

OODA President Jim Johnston stood at a stakeholders meeting in 2009 before Secretary Ray LaHood and when asked about Canadians breaking our cabotage laws, shrugged his shoulders and said “It happens” and in the next breath insisted Mexican carriers should be barred because they “might” be inclined to break cabotage, notwithstanding the fact that if a Mexican breaks our cabotage laws, he is also violating his H2b visa and can have it cancelled and himself deported.

On the other end of the debate, we welcome pieces of crap such as this old FLD Freightliner from Canada into this country and onto our roads, without the least bit of worry about the safety and mechanical condition of the rig

They’ll have you believe that the Mexican carriers who will enroll in the program will be waiting to carry drugs and illegals into this country. 100 of the most closely monitored, strictly controlled trucks on our roads, while ignoring the report of the one of the largest cocaine busts in Nevada history, on a Canadian truck, a story which only garnered a mention on LandlineNow. Had it been a Mexican truck, all hell would have broken loose over at OOIDA.

OOIDA and other opponents have stooped as low as to turn to acknowledged hate groups such as FAIR, to spread their agenda against Mexico and their trucking industry, while keeping a safe distance from the results of their efforts. Using the hatred and bigotry of these fringe nutcases to get their message out. Disgusting!

Another Mexican Kenworth (KenMex) in Laredo Texas. How different is this from what you're driving?

So is it racist to oppose cross border trucking with Mexico? Not in the least if you have a valid reason and proof to back up your position. But to use the ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of some to promote hatred and violence against the Mexican truckers is decidedly racist.

OOIDA concedes defeat – Mexican trucks to roll in August or September

Safe, fully inspected Mexican trucks such as this one would be allowed access to US under the proposed Pilot Program with Mexico

In an interview with Mark Reddig on Land Line Now Friday, Laura O’Neil of OOIDA’s Washington office conceded there is not much left to do to prevent the Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program from beginning next month.

O’Neil, saying that OOIDA continues to look for any roadblock they can throw up to stop the program, conceded that with the August recess upon us, the debate over the debt ceiling increase and the fact that their is not much interest in Congress in stopping the program, that they are out of options. She did suggest that members approach their representatives in their home districts and whine and complain about EOBR’s and those “dirty old polluting” Mexican trucks, the latter that has been thoroughly debunked.

O’Neil did say however that when the trucks start to roll, that OOIDA will be watching very closely for anything they can use to try once again to hamper or sabotage the program as they have in the past. Their bogus claims about Trinity Industries, is the first example that comes to mind.

MEXICAN TRUCKS TO ROLL IN AUGUST/SEPTEMBER

Mexican trucks will begin shipping long-haul freight far into U.S. territory at the end of August or in early September the Mexican government said.

“We hope that by the end of August or early September the first company can enter with full rights,” Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari told reporters in Washington after a three-day visit that ended Thursday and included meetings with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

That first company, based in Monterrey, will be joined later by another 20 that had requested the right to transport cargo on U.S. roads before Washington barred access to Mexican trucks in 1995, Ferrari said, adding that those other firms could begin shipping freight deep inside the United States “before year’s end,”

Mexico expects other companies that are now submitting their paperwork for the program to be able to enter the United States within 18 months after the application date, as stipulated in the bilateral accord signed on July 6.

Ferrari said he was optimistic about the Cross Border Freight Truck Program deal and hailed the fact that the applications that Mexican trucking firms submitted two decades ago for access to U.S. roads remain valid.

“In the talks we stressed that we didn’t want a new program, but just to give effect to the previous one, which was not interrupted for reasons in Mexico but rather due to problems in this country (the United States),” the secretary said.

“I think there’ll be a lot of interest from Mexican companies,” the secretary said, noting that trucks transport roughly $275 billion worth of annual cargo shipments between the two countries, or 70 percent of the total.

Mexico’s Communications and Transportation Secretariat estimates that the new agreement will expedite the 4.5 million annual truck crossings, generating some $675 million in cost savings.

NEW PROGRAM IS A BIG NON ISSUE

“The new agreement will probably not open us any more to criminal enterprise than we are now,” said David McIntyre, a homeland security expert and vice president for academics at National Graduate School of Quality Management. “But we have a big problem with criminal enterprise right now.”

U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee and whose district includes Laredo port of entry, said that when the Bush administration tried a pilot program for the cross-border trucks, only a few carriers participated.

“If anybody expects huge lines of Mexican trucks to come in across the border revving their engines, that’s not going to happen that way,” Cuellar said. “It’s expensive for a lot of those trucking companies … because they have to meet so many requirements on this side.”

James Clark, director of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce’s Mexico Business Center, said security concerns are unfounded because U.S. and Mexican trucks get the same degree of scrutiny and inspection.

Clark rejected concerns that Mexican drivers won’t understand English, noting that language proficiency has long been required to drive a truck in the United States.
“Aeromexico pilots speak Spanish, too, but they land planes at LAX,” he said.

Efforts by OOIDA and their allies in Congress seem to be going nowhere, Rep. Peter DeFazio’s HR-2407, which would limit the program to 3 years, has garnered only 14 co-sponsors and is not made it out of committee.

OOIDA’s lawsuit attempting to stop the program, which on the surface, appears without any merit, has not been given a hearing date by the DC Court of Appeals.

And perhaps more telling, The TEAMSTERS and their ineffectual leader, James P. Hoffa, have made no moves to interfere this time as they did back in 2007.

Opponents of Cross Border Trucking enlist hate groups and their spokesmen to mislead the public

Absent any proof that allowing a few more Mexican trucks access to the United State under the upcoming Cross Border Pilot Program, will encourage more smuggling of contraband or worse, opponents of the pilot program, their allies and spokesmen on trucking talk radio are making an all out effort to fabricate a problem that does not exist, and enlisting acknowledged hate groups with ties to white supremacists, and convicted child murderers to to further spread fear and misinformation about Mexican trucks.

There have been posts by OOIDA members on hate sites such as STORMFRONT.ORG which have titillated and agitated the wannabe “turd reichers”, but not much has come of it. But on July 8, two days after resolution of the impasse on cross border trucking with Mexico was reached, that all changed.

On that day the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known by it’s acronym FAIR, released a statement that closely mirrors Teamster President James Hoffa’s ludicrous and debunked charges about unsafe and dangerous Mexican trucks.

For those not familiar with them, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a group with one mission: to severely limit immigration into the United States. Although FAIR maintains a veneer of legitimacy that has allowed its principals to testify in Congress and lobby the federal government, this veneer hides much ugliness. FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIR’s founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who enter the country.

BACKGROUND ON FAIR

John Tanton founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform on Jan. 2, 1979, in Washington D.C. Roger Conner, an environmental lawyer, was appointed executive director, while Tanton served as the chairman of the board of directors. Before establishing FAIR, Tanton had experience working with groups concerned about how population growth affected the environment. Tanton served in several Sierra Club leadership posts, and he had been the president of Zero Population Growth, a group founded by biologist and longtime FAIR adviser Paul Ehrlich, from 1975 to 1977.

The founding of FAIR was a major change for Tanton. But he was driven to shift his efforts to the battle against immigration by his increasing concern that it was the primary cause of population growth. As a result, FAIR focuses exclusively on immigration issues. Its goal, according to its website, is to set immigration quotas “at the lowest feasible levels” and to prevent all illegal immigration. The group attempts to appear moderate, even though its record is extreme, particularly on racial issues. This strategy has paid off: In August 2009, FAIR President Dan Stein boasted that FAIR leaders had testified before Congress about 100 times.

On Oct. 9, 1988, the Arizona Republic published excerpts from embarrassing memos that had been sent by Tanton and Conner to members of FAIR’s leadership. The documents were known as theWITAN memos; they came from an October 1986 conference in which Tanton met with a number of anti-immigration activists for a strategy session. The memos revealed Tanton’s innermost, and controversial, thoughts. Tanton warned of a “Latin onslaught,” complained of Latinos’ allegedly low “educability.” He asked, “Will Latin American migrants bring with them the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.?” He also wondered: “Can homo contraceptivus[meaning whites] compete with homo progenitiva [meaning Latinos] if borders aren’t controlled? Or is advice to limit ones [sic] family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space?”

You can read the entire history of FAIR here.

Some of FAIR affiliates are THE SOCIAL CONTRACT PRESS routinely publishes race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists. The press is a program of U.S. Inc, the foundation created by John Tanton, the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement. TSCP puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today’s immigrants

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES (CIS) bills itself as an “independent” think tank that seeks “to expand the base of public knowledge”about immigration, the Washington, D.C.-based group is only interested in one thing. CIS’s reams of reports, as well as its blog postings, editorials, and frequent panels and press conferences, incessantly push the idea that America’s immigration system is an unadulterated evil and that the only way to save America from impending doom is to cut drastically the number of immigrants. CIS has blamed immigrants, both legal and undocumented, for everything from terrorism to global warming. To make its case seem as strong as possible, CIS often manipulates data, relying on shaky statistics or faulty logic to come to the preordained conclusion that immigration is bad for this country. But CIS studies have been regularly debunked by mainstream academics and think tanks including the Immigration Policy Center, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and America’s Voice.

Minuteman child killer and FAIR spokesman Shawna Forde now sits on death row for the murders of Brisenia Flores and her father Raul

Shawna Forde, 41, the nativist extremist who was recently convicted of the home invasion robbery in Arizona where 9 year old Brisenia Flores and her father were murdered, is known as the leader of Minuteman American Defense (MAD), a hard-line group opposed to undocumented immigration. But six years ago, appearing on a televised immigration roundtable organized by a local Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) affiliate in Washington state, Forde was repeatedly identified as a representative of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Shawna Forde is currently on Arizona’s Death Row.

It is shameful that opponents of cross border trucking, groups such as The Teamsters and OOIDA have resorted to such underhanded methods to push their agenda, especially in the absence of any credible data to support their positions.

OOIDA enlists talk radio to spread misinformation and lies

OOIDA, a strong advertiser on satellite radio service SIRIUS/XM has long reached out to popular radio hosts such as Dave Nemo and more controversial hosts such as Steve Sommers of America Truckers Network and his father, Dale “Trucking Bozo” Sommers. While Nemo and Steve Sommers have always been fairly moderate, Dale Sommers is less so, allowing fruitcakes from the trucking industry such as his friend Rusty “Yoda” Wade and others who agree with his North American Union theories and Mexico is the cause of all our ills viewpoint to blather on.

Dave Nemo, in the past a moderate voice presents us with an “expert” to further press the idea that 100 or so, closely monitored, rigidly inspected trucks will give the cartels a leg up in their efforts to move more contraband across our borders.

Dr. George W. Grayson, member of the Center for Immigration Studies Board of Directors, has transformed himself into an expert on Mexican trucking issues courtesy of Dave Nemo and other opponents of cross border trucking

George W. Grayson, who is the Class of 1938 Professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, is a member of the Center for Immigration Studies Board of Directors. He is also a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He has made more than 200 research trips to Mexico and authored approximately twenty books and monographs on Mexico, Latin America, and international affairs. (Hell, I’ve got him beat. I live in Mexico and have made thousands of safe trips)

Bringing Grayson on today to spread his theories which seem tailored to the oppositions desperate last ditch effort to sabotage the cross border program, shows that Nemo has finally crossed the line and lost any relevance as a truckers advocate.

It’s a shame with all the hatred in the world, organizations such as TEAMSTERS, OOIDA and their allies and spokespeople see the need to use this hatred to spread their misinformation.

Stop the Madness: A Public Thank You For Correcting a Broken Trucking Promise

Sun sets over potato fields owned by Koompin Farms in American Falls Idaho

By Cheryl Koompin – American Falls, Idaho
Amid all the partisan fights in Washington over budgets and debt ceilings, the Obama administration quietly solved a $2-billion problem earlier this month.

On July 6, the United States signed an agreement with Mexico that ends a vexing dispute over trade and trucks. It wipes out Mexican tariffs that have hurt potato farmers like me as well as many other Americans during the toughest economic times many of us have ever experienced.

We already face enough challenges on America’s farms, from worrying about the weather to figuring out how we’re going to pay for skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer costs. The last thing we need is interference from Washington—but that’s precisely what we received when Congress decided to break a treaty promise to Mexico.

The White House deserves congratulations for putting a stop to this nonsense. The controversy never should have erupted in the first place and it dragged on for far too long. Right now, however, I’m just glad it’s over—and I’m pleased to give the Obama administration the credit it deserves for negotiating a good settlement.

The root of the problem has been the refusal of Congress to abide by a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Clinton-era economic compact aimed at easing the flow of goods and services across the borders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

NAFTA has achieved its main goal of boosting trade ties with our closest neighbors. Because of the agreement, U.S. exports are up and our costs as consumers have gone down.

At the behest of special-interest groups and their allies in Congress, however, one provision of NAFTA failed to become a reality. Long-haul Mexican truckers were supposed to receive access to U.S. highways as they delivered products to American consumers who wanted them. This aspect of the treaty made economic sense because it eliminated many of the delays and inefficiencies associated with border crossings, which translate into higher prices for ordinary Americans. It also guaranteed that Mexican truckers would meet U.S. safety standards.

Just as this part of the deal was going into effect, Big Labor launched an ugly campaign against Mexican truckers, suggesting that they drive dangerous jalopies that threaten murder and mayhem on American roads. This was pure propaganda. Mexican trucks that were certified to drive on U.S. highways were as trustworthy as American trucks. Safety data proved it.

Unfortunately, the smear job worked. Congress blocked the trucks from entering the United States, even though this meant backing out of an international treaty obligation.

So the Mexican government retaliated. They legally slapped stiff tariffs on a wide range of American products, including the frozen potato products that are at the heart of my farming operation here in Idaho. They also targeted dozens of other U.S. agricultural goods, such as cherries, pears, and Christmas trees.

My farm’s sales to Mexico plummeted. Processing plants in our region laid off workers. A couple of them shuttered.

Who benefited? The Canadians. Their business went up as much as ours went down.

I was furious—not at the Mexicans, who simply wanted a fair shake, but at our own government for flouting its commitments and essentially inviting this retaliation. Farmers like me became casualties in a trade war that we neither started nor wanted.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that American businesses lost $2 billion. This was Washington’s accomplishment in the service of a special interest.

So I’m glad this madness is finally over. Better late than never.

“We have an agreement that not only will ultimately eliminate punitive tariffs, but it also provides opportunities to increase U.S. exports to Mexico and helps to expand jobs,” said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

The deal also restores our country’s reputation because it finally puts us in compliance with treaty obligations we had ignored for years. If we refuse to keep promises to one of our closest trading partners, other nations will be reluctant to lower tariffs on anything made in America.

Let’s hope that the Obama administration now builds upon this success and finds new ways to help us export our goods and services.

Cheryl Koompin is a partner in Koompin farms, producing commercial and seed potatoes, feed corn, fresh peas, wheat, medicinal safflower and mustard in Power County, Idaho. Cheryl is a guest author for Truth About Trade & Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org

 
Cross posted from AGWEB

FMCSA refuses demand by OOIDA to delay cross border program with Mexico

You'll soon being seeing safe, modern Mexican rigs driven by professional drivers on US highways as the US finally complies with it's obligations under NAFTA

It’s all procedural, but FMCSA has refused demands by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to halt implementation of the Cross Border Pilot Program pending resolution of the frivolous and baseless lawsuit filed against the agency earlier this month.

OOIDA’s legal counsel, Paul Cullen Sr. with The Cullen Law Firm, sent a letter to FMCSA on July 8 asking the agency to consent to stay the program pending resolution of the petition for review.

FMCSA’s counsel denied the request on July 13.

Under rules of procedure, OOIDA was  required to ask FMCSA for the stay because a party to such an appeal, (OOIDA) cannot ask the court for a stay unless it first asks the agency (FMCSA) and is turned down.

On July 6, OOIDA filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. OOIDA is demanding that the court  review the program and to “enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.”

OOIDA claims that “implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.”

This is just another of OOIDA’s attempts to mislead the public and prevent the United States from complying with their obligations under NAFTA.

Implementation of the cross border program will finally put us in compliance and cause Mexico to lift the legal retaliatory tariff’s put on more than 90 US export good when the Obama administration defunded the previous pilot program. Those tariffs have cost Americans more than 25,000 jobs and 14% market share in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencers admitted in a “Call to Action” that neither the lawsuit, nor a bill before Congress, HR-2407 , has a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the program.

In their desperation, OOIDA resorted to filing this lawsuit which on it’s face is “arbitrary, capricious and frivolous” inasmuch as the issues raised have already been resolved by the US Supreme Court in the case “PUBLIC CITIZEN v FMCSA”  In the unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with the defendants.

The D.C appeals court is likely to rule against OOIDA in this lawsuit also.

US & Mexico sign agreement for Safe Secure Cross-Border Trucking Program

Safe, compliant Mexican trucks will soon be allowed access to the US under a Cross Border Trucking proposal signed today in Mexico City

It’s official folks! U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Dionisio Arturo Pèrez-Jàcome Friscione joined today in Mexico City to sign agreements resolving the dispute over long-haul, cross-border trucking services between the United States and Mexico.

This agreement paves the way for Mexico to begin to lift 50% of the $2.4 billion in retaliatory tariffs that have been in place for more than two years, a result of the Obama Administration caving to pressure from the TEAMSTERS and OOIDA and defunding the previous highly successful Cross Border Demonstration Project.

Pursuant to an agreement signed by the United States Trade Representative and the Secretaría de Economía of the United Mexican States, lifting of the retaliatory tariffs will provide opportunities to increase U.S. exports to Mexico and expand job creation in the U.S.

The agreement provides that Mexico will suspend 50 percent of the retaliatory tariffs within ten days. Mexico will suspend the remainder of the tariffs within five days of the first Mexican trucking company receiving its U.S. operating authority. As a result, Mexican tariffs that now range from five to 25 percent on an array of U.S. agricultural and industrial products such as apples, certain pork products, and personal care products would be immediately cut in half and will disappear entirely within a few months

These perfectly legal tariffs have cost Americans and estimated 25,000 jobs and more than 15% of market share in the agri business community, much of which has gone to Canada.

Secretary LaHood said: “The agreements signed today are a win for roadway safety and they are a win for trade. By opening the door to long-haul trucking between the United States and Mexico, America’s third largest trading partner, we will create jobs and opportunity for our people and support economic development in both nations. I thank President Calderon and Secretary Perez-Jacome for their leadership and for their partnership as we build a safer, more prosperous future for North America and the world.”

As a result of these meetings, and in consultation with Mexico, trucks will be required to comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and must have electronic monitoring systems to track hours-of-service compliance. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation will review the complete driving record of each driver and require all drug testing samples to be analyzed in Department of Health and Human Services-certified laboratories located in the U.S. The Department will also require drivers to undergo an assessment of their ability to understand the English language and U.S. traffic signs. The new agreement also ensures that Mexico will provide reciprocal authority for U.S. carriers to engage in cross-border long-haul operations into that country.

The notice in the Federal Register has been published as required by law and can be obtained here

U.S. truckers shocked by agreement with Mexico

Predictably, OOIDA was out of the gate with a purely sophomoric pre-prepared press release.

In it, OOIDA President Jim Johnston declares:

“If the agreement is good for the U.S. why the hell is he (Secretary LaHood) sneaking down there to sign it?” So much for their supposed transparency. Why not let the public see the details before signing the agreement? Seems like the Administration is dead set on caving to Mexico’s shakedown regardless of the costs to the American public and our tax coffers.”

Apparently early senility has set in upon Mr. Johnston since details of the program have been made available to the public for months and a mandatory 30 day comment period was established for interested parties to voice their concerns. We doubt Mr. LaHood “snuck” down to Mexico, rather he simply didn’t call and ask OOIDA’s permission before he went, as if he needed it.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer went on to repeat his totally baseless and debunked claims about Mexico and it’s truckers:

“This program will jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of U.S.-based small-business truckers and professional truck drivers and undermine the standard of living for the rest of the driver community.”

Yeah? Right Spencer. 100 trucks and drivers are going to jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of US truckers (OOIDA members) and for the rest of us, undermine our standard of living?

Spencer has also insinuated that OOIDA and their allies have lawsuit waiting to be filed against the cross border program, a lawsuit that basically has no merit. Attempts are also being made to stop this with provisions slipped into the current highways authorization bill currently being debated in committees on capital hill. Fortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much interest by legislators in pursuing that tactic.

HOFFA CONDEMNS MEXICAN TRUCK PILOT PROGRAM

As expected, James P. Hoffa opened his pie hole regurgitating the same lame bullshit that he’s been passing around as “truth” for almost a decade.

Hoffa said the program is probably illegal because it grants permanent operating authority to Mexican trucks after 18 months in the so-called “pilot program” outlined in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register. Congress has not granted DOT the legal authority to do so, Hoffa said. Further, DOT would use money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for electronic on-board recorders for Mexican trucks. Hoffa questioned whether DOT can do that legally. Hoffa has apparently not read the FMCSA’s Federal Registry Notice that addressed and totally debunked his ludicrous condemnation.

“Opening the border to dangerous trucks at a time of high unemployment and rampant drug violence is a shameful abandonment of the DOT’s duty to protect American citizens from harm and to spend American tax dollars responsibly,” Hoffa said.

“This so-called pilot program is a concession to multinational corporations that send jobs to Mexico. It erodes our national security. It endangers motorists. It ignores the rampant corruption among Mexican law enforcement. It lowers wages and robs jobs from hard-working American truck drivers and warehouse workers.

“It adds insult to injury to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for monitoring equipment on Mexican trucks so Mexican carriers can take away their jobs,” Hoffa said. “The DOT shows more loyalty to the Mexican people than it does to Americans.”

“This pilot program doesn’t even meet NAFTA’s requirement that the Mexican government grant comparable authority to U.S. trucks. No trucking company or driver in their right mind would travel in Mexico under the State Department’s current travel warning,” Hoffa said.

Since 2007, violence has worsened as drug cartels compete for trade routes to the U.S. More than 40,000 people have been killed, and kidnapping and torture are rampant.

Further, a Homeland Security incident report from Oct. 15, 2010 indicates that drug traffickers have hijacked and cloned legitimate trucks to transport illicit cargo across the border. According to the document, criminals hijacked over 10,000 commercial trucks in 2010 in Mexico. No legitimate confirmation of this can be obtained.

Hoffa said DOT cannot guarantee the safety of Mexican trucks.

“Mexican trucks simply don’t meet the same standards as U.S. trucks,” he said. “Medical and physical standards for Mexican trucking firms are lower than for U.S. companies. And how can Mexico enforce highway safety laws when it can’t even control drug cartels?

Again numbnuts, read the register notice!

DeFazio Fights Cross-Border Trucking “Pilot” Program under orders from Hoffa and other “contributors”
Today, corrupt Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, and longtime being in the pockets of special interests such as the TEAMSTERS, wrote Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood challenging the administration’s cross-border trucking “pilot” program that opens the U.S.-Mexico border to the free flow of truck traffic.

He also submitted legislation to limit the administration’s authority to implement the program. This agreement will have a significant impact on the safety of American drivers, security on the border, and American jobs. (Where have we heard those false accusations before?)

“As I have said many times, three issues must be addressed in the cross-border trucking program: safety, security and job loss,” said DeFazio. “I have sent several letters to DOT asking them to address these issues. My calls for caution have gone unanswered. My legislation puts the brakes on a bad deal for American truck drivers and the traveling public.”

DeFazio’s bill will limit the use of scarce Highway Trust Fund dollars to pay for the Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) for Mexican trucks.

“As we debate deep and harsh cuts to programs that help middle class families, it is outrageous that taxpayers are being told to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards. My bill would stop the Department of Transportation from raiding the Highway Trust Fund to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks. Let the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers pay for their equipment and let’s use U.S. gas tax revenue for its intended purpose of putting Americans to work rebuilding our roads and bridges,” said DeFazio. (Like Hoffa, DeFazio doesn’t have a clue)

In March, DeFazio sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood requesting additional details regarding the proposed pilot program theU.S.negotiated with Mexican officials.

The pilot allows Mexican trucks to operate on U.S.highways beyond the current border commercial zone and it allows Mexican carriers to obtain permanent operating authority from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) after 18 months in the pilot program. That permanent authority could not be rescinded were Congress or the Administration to terminate the Mexican truck pilot program.

DeFazio continues to questions the legal authority of DOT to implement a permanent program.

DeFazio continues to be an idiot and a pawn of James P. Hoffa and other opponents of this program.

FMCSA Plans August Restart for Mexico Trucks Program

Mexican truck pilot program on track for August start.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration hopes to relaunch its controversial Mexican trucks pilot project by mid-August, according to an agency official.

A formal agreement between the United States and Mexico could be signed in the next few weeks, William Quade, FMCSA’s associate administrator for enforcement, told Transport Topics last week.

In a briefing last week to the agency’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, Quade said the agency received nearly 2,000 public comments on its proposal to allow trucks from Mexico to deliver to destinations in the United States as mandated under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

The agreement to let Mexican trucks into the U.S. interior was completed in part to end $2.4 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products imposed by Mexico after Congress shut down a pilot cross-border program in 2009.

The United States and Mexico reached an agreement in principal in March, and in recent months have been negotiating details of a new pilot program.

The agreement would end a more than 16-year dispute over whether the United States was violating NAFTA by not allowing Mexican trucks deliver freight here.

FMCSA plans to include a discussion addressing the comments when it publishes its final rule on the pilot program, expected shortly after the agreement is signed, he said.

Quade declined to comment on whether the final rule will include any significant changes to the proposed rule, first announced in April.

The advisory panel last week appointed a subcommittee to monitor the three-year-long pilot project and report back to the agency on how well it went and assess the safety performance of Mexican carriers who participated.

The MCSAC is a 20-member committee that studies and makes recommendations on far-reaching, thorny and sometimes controversial regulations and issues. Its members range from trucking and bus industry executives to safety advocates and law-enforcement officials.

The committee does not have an operating budget, but borrows staff and expertise from FMCSA for its projects, said its chairman, David Parker, who is also senior legal counsel for Great West Casualty Co. Parker said the committee’s recommendations go straight to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro’s desk.

In an interview, Quade said he expects the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General’s office to complete its audit in late July assessing FMCSA’s readiness to grant operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers under the pilot.

The IG is required to submit the audit to Congress before the agency begins the pilot project. However,Quade said congressional approval of the pilot is not required.

During the briefing and in a question-and-answer session afterward, Quade told MCSAC members that 29 Mexican carriers registered for a 2007 Mexican trucks pilot project that was shut down in 2009 when Congress yanked its funding. However, only about 8% of the carriers’ trips during that test were beyond the 25-mile border commercial zone.

A total of 10 U.S. carriers participated in the 2007 program, but only four are still operating in Mexico, Quade said.

Quade said that Mexican carriers who participated in the 2007 pilot and who sign up for the new program will be able to receive credit for “time served” toward the 18-month requirement for permanent operating authority in the United States. “One carrier could get permanent operating authority if it passes another safety audit,” he said.

Quade said that, if granted permanent operating authority, Mexican carriers that operate safely for 18 months will be allowed to travel to the U.S. interior for the entire three years, or until the agency makes a decision on whether to make the program permanent.

But Quade told the committee he has concerns that the sudden shutdown of the earlier pilot program in 2009 left carriers with a “bad taste in their mouth.”

“We did pull the rug out from under them very quickly,” he added.

“Mexican carrier participation is going to be, in my opinion, the biggest challenge to the program becoming a success,” he said.

Not only is it costly for a Mexican carrier to start up a U.S. long-haul operation, it will also require trucks to wait in line for hours at the U.S. border, Quade said.

For the agency to properly evaluate the success of the pilot there must be a collective total of 4,100 vehicle inspections or “safety snapshots” of Mexican carriers. The proposal estimated that to reach the inspections goal, on average, 46 carriers must make one border crossing a week.

Although there wasn’t enough data to properly evaluate the 2007 pilot, the data that were collected showed that on average, Mexican carriers performed more safely than U.S. truckers, Quade told the committee.

Quade said a Mexican carrier’s inspections done at the border for the first three months during the initial phase of the pilot will not be counted toward the inspections total.

The rule, proposed April 13, calls for Mexican carriers to pass an initial 11-step safety check, including acceptable hours-of-service compliance and drug and alcohol testing plans.

Fleets that pass the initial check will be granted provisional authority and be inspected each time one of their trucks enters the United States.

Source: TRANSPORT TOPICS – JUNE 27 Print edition