Mexican truck coming in for border inspection
Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President of OOIDA preaches that complying with our NAFTA obligations is “irresponsible and reckless”. What is more “irresponsible and reckless” is the opposition attempting to inflame the publics passions and prejudices with lies and misinformation about Mexico and it’s trucking industry.
A relatively new website, THE TRUCKERS VOICE is looking for 100 volunteers to help spread the misinformation and lies by having these volunteers;
- Call every politician, even your mayors.
- Email every politician, even your mayor.
- Write (snail mail) ever politician, even your mayor.
- Get all your friends (even your pet if he can legally write) to do the same.
- Start a petition in your town. Sit in front of your grocery store, or bring it to your church.
Kind of cute isn’t it, but in the end, a totally worthless effort.
Heather Pontruff, the publisher of TRUCKERS VOICE seems to be fully on board with OOIDA’s ridiculous claims of Mexican truckers taking over our industry, those truckers being controlled by the cartels. She says;
The public safety is at risk with this one.
A. There is a MAJOR cartel issue in the border states. These cartels grow stronger daily, and sneakier. How are we to keep them from completely taking over if we open the borders to all Mexican trucks? In short, we can’t ensure it.
B. There is an illegal immigration issue. True, the drivers in Mexico honestly make more per mile than American truckers. The issue here is there’s no guarantee that once upon entering, these drivers would actually exit.
C. Our border patrol is overwhelmed as is. With no money going into the system, they can’t afford to hire even more agents more. This means more stuff would get past the screening areas and into the U.S.
The only cartel issue we have in the border states is the baseless claims made by politicians seeking to secure more DHS funds for their districts and departments. Recently, the head of the Border Patrol in the Tucson sector chastised Cochise Country Sheriff Larry Deaver for spreading the lies about the cartels overrunning his county.
The cross border issue has absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration other than to be used as an excuse to bash the program. People ignore the fact that trucks from Mexico, grandfathered in when Reagan signed the Foreign Carrier Exclusion Order in 1982 have continued to operate throughout the United States for more than50 years. And in addition, the dray trucks that operate in the commercial zone do so legally. No trucks are being abandoned as drivers disappear into the heartland. Simply another mechanism to stir the fear and prejudices people have in these times against Mexicans.
Further showing she knows nothing of issue is her claim about the Border Patrol being overwhelmed and can’t handle another hundred trucks crossing the border at the rate of one or two per week.
[pullquote]The agency anticipates an average of one long-haul border crossing per week per truck with each Mexican carrier having two trucks participating in the program. It assumes an attrition rate of 25 percent after 18 months in the project and calculates 46 carriers will suffice to achieve a target of 4,100 inspections within three years – OVERDRIVE MAGAZINE[/pullquote]
The Border Patrol has nothing to do with what crosses the border. That is the area of responsibility of Customs and Border Protection, a separate unit of DHS.
According to the fact sheet released by FMCSA concerning the issue that confuses Ms. Pontruf,
FMCSA has a staff of over 250 distributed at each commercial truck crossing between the
United States and Mexico. Our State partners have an additional 350 personnel to support the
program. These personnel, currently overseeing the safety of the trucks entering the U.S. commercial
zones, are adequate to oversee long-haul operations also.
So we have adequate personnel to oversee the inspection of these additional 100 or so trucks and the infrastructure is in place to screen them as they do all the others when they pass through Customs.
But perhaps the most outrageous statement she makes, and totally baseless and without facts is this;
I remember the last time they did the cross border program with Mexico, I lived in Texas. CMV “at fault” accidents sky rocketed. Why?
A. They brought over the best trucks Mexico across the border for the pilot program. Once they opened the border to a total of 100 outfits, the trucks were scary and unsafe.
B. Unlike Canada, there is no structured method for HOS (hours of service). The truck
crossing into the U.S. border could’ve driven 4 hours straight before entering or 40, there’s
no way of knowing.
CMV accidents might have skyrocketed, but they did not involve trucks from Mexico nor have anything to do with Mexican trucks.
According to FMCSA STATISTICS accident rates involving Mexican domiciles carriers actually went DOWN in 2007, the year the previous cross border program was initiated.
- 2006 – 92
- 2007 – 76
- 2008 – 67
- 2008 – 58
- 2010 – 17
Yes, Mexico has differing regulations than does the US and Canada’s regulations differ from ours, such as more liberal hours of service laws. Mexico’s regulatory environment sets out the rules the drivers and companies are expected to follow and puts the onus on the company and drivers. Traffic accidents in Mexico are criminal, not civil as they are in the US. Fatalities or accidents involving extreme property damage, causes the driver to lose his license and freedom. Yes, they put them in jail and there are no second chances. Perhaps something we should be looking at here.
But articles such as this one, and the ones OOIDA is publishing around the internet are the height of irresponsibility, something we’ve come to expect from Spencer and his gang. But there is no reason people like Ms Pontruf and THE TRUCKERS VOICE should lower themselves to that level.
By Nelson Balido
President
Border Trade Alliance
Nelson Balido – President – Border Trade Alliance
The Border Trade Alliance earlier this month expressed its optimism that a framework announced by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón for setting the trucking issue was a real step in the right direction.
If all this sounds familiar, it’s because the dispute over trucking dates back to the Clinton administration, when bogus claims over truck safety and environmental damage first won out over the need to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement signed with our friends and neighbors, Canada and Mexico.
We’ve been close to settling this issue before, and yet here we are again.
Perhaps no other debate in NAFTA has featured the same level of high-pitched hyperbole as the trucking debate. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), one of the most vocal anti-Mexico trade voices in Congress, once famously called Mexican trucks “rumbling death traps” and painted a picture of Mexican truck drivers as sleep-deprived, drug-addled, 18-wheel drag racers.
But instead of claiming to worry about American jobs while he repeats talking points for Big Labor, the congressman might want to worry instead about the $36 million in retaliatory tariffs his protectionist position has cost Oregon agricultural products like Christmas trees, pears, frozen potatoes, cherries, wine and onions.
Because of the U.S.’ continued failure to live up to its responsibilities under NAFTA, Mexico finally resorted to slapping retaliatory tariffs totaling in the billions of dollars on a host of U.S. goods headed south.
Perhaps nowhere is the economic damage to the U.S. starker than in the agricultural sector, where what is commonly believed to be a U.S.-Mexico border issue has suddenly landed in America’s farms and ranches.
Our friends at Texas A&M’s Center for North American Studies recently completed an analysis of the Mexican tariffs’ effect on U.S. agriculture. They found that nationally nearly $153 billion in U.S. agricultural production has been impacted. They further found that four of the five states most impacted by Mexican tariffs are nowhere near the Mexican border: Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
The trade community is holding out hope that the Obama and Calderón administrations can finally put this debate to an end, but there are powerful labor interests that will surely be reminding the White House of their ability to affect elections.
The importance of U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade has been made clear now to states not usually associated with the intricacies of cross-border trade. The Mexico border is suddenly closer to places like Davenport, Iowa and Madison, Wisconsin. This is just one more reminder of why issues like improved port infrastructure, increased human resources and better technology should be just as important to representatives and senators from the interior of the U.S. as they are to border state delegations.
The pro-trade argument can’t just be won on the border; it has to be won in the heartland, too.
Source Article: Border Trade Alliance
Example of an EOBR to be required on Mexican trucks operating in the US
One of the requirements in the Concept Document for the new Mexican truck program released that is causing a stir and that quite frankly, I vehemently disagree with is the requirement that all Mexican trucks be equipped with Electronic Onboard Recorders or EOBR’s, which in the US is a contentious issue in it’s own right.
Part of the controversy is the idea that FMCSA would pay for these devices to be installed in the Mexican trucks so they would have real time access to the data and would in fact “own” all data collected. Sounds good on the surface as that would prove once and for all that Mexican drivers do not drive 19 hours a day 7 days a week as opponents such as OOIDA and the Teamsters claim.
Under NAFTA, the United States was supposed to treat Canada and Mexico equally,, requiring the same of both countries. Canada, with their more liberal hours of service rules, and their frequent acknowledged violation of our cabotage laws is not being required to have the EOBR’s.
Brian Straight,managing editor of Fleet Owner gets right to the point of this requirement that has so many people up in arms. Not over the requirement that the Mexican carriers, where 85% of the fleets already have Qualcomm communication systems, have EOBR’s, but that money from the Highway Trust fund be used to pay for them.
Brian writes:
I wonder if this provision was put in by the Administration to show Mexico that we were doing everything we could to comply with the requirements of NAFTA, while at the same time creating an out for the public and Congress……..
This revelation seems a lot like a poison pill designed to torpedo the program before it can be resurrected. According to reports, the reason the U.S. wants to pay for the EOBRs is so that the government “owns” the data the devices collect. Until someone can provide a valid reason as to why the government needs to own this data, I question why this is important……….
[pullquote]A spokesperson for the Texas Dept. of Public Safety told the Texas Tribune in January that the resumption of the program would not increase drug trafficking or any other illegal activity coming across the border.[/pullquote]
And if the government feels this data is that vital, might it then want to “own” the data recorded by these devices once they are installed on all U.S.-based trucks? Maybe we’ll be told it’s a national security issue – it will prevent drug trafficking, human smuggling, illegals from entering the country. Doubtful. The proposed trucking program would require EOBRs for Mexican trucks inside the U.S. The government owning the data is not going to prevent any of these things from taking place. Maybe the government just wants to know where these trucks are at all times. Talk about trust issues……….
And it seems to be working. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) firmly in the pocket of the labor unions released this statement:
“As I have said before, three issues must be addressed in the cross-border trucking program: safety, security and job loss,” DeFazio said. “I appreciate the Administration’s attempt to address the very serious safety and security concerns surrounding Mexican trucks, and I am glad we are beginning to address the extortionate Mexican tariffs unfairly slapped on American goods. However, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards. It is outrageous that we would spend tax dollars to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks; equipment which either the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers themselves should be required to pay. I also question the authority to grant Mexican carriers permanent authority to operate on American roads and highways before a pilot program is complete and the results evaluated.”
Well Petey boy! The tariff’s are legal and in no way extortionate, put there because of your kowtowing to Union interests and opposing our legal commitment to NAFTA. Congress does not have to approve the deal since both countries have come to an agreement over how best to resolve the standoff.
But most of us share your concern about taxpayer money being used to fund this requirement, which is nowhere to be found in the original NAFTA agreement nor the arbitration board agreement of the 90′s.
Ironically, Teamsters and OOIDA pushed for this requirement in stakeholder meetings with Secretary Ray LaHood last year, and now that it is close to becoming a reality, they are in opposition to their own proposal.
In the meantime, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk has stated a final agreement should be “weeks, if not days, away”.
And an editorial in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram puts the whole thing in a better perspective:
The United States has been in violation of NAFTA long enough. It is time for Congress to remove any roadblocks and approve the deal agreed on by the two heads of state.
Such a move would add a significant boost to the U.S. economy while eliminating much of the growing frustration and unnecessary hardship caused by this provincial prohibition.
[pullquote]As for the American unions that continue to protest, what are they afraid of? Surely they aren’t saying they can’t compete with their fellow truckers from Mexico.[/pullquote]
Our compliance with NAFTA would in no way impact union LTL drivers nor warehouse workers as the border states are right to work states and the majority of companies are non union, although one imagines Hoffa would pee his panties to change that.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters and Todd Spencer of OOIDA are correct in their opinions of Mexican trucks and 1400 plus trade associations, newspaper editors and business groups are wrong? And the aforementioned duo “speak” for the “majority” of Americans? I think not.
The San Antonio Express News editorial board offered their opinion on the issue this morning.
Read more
It’s only a concept document at this point, but it has opponents of Mexico and Mexican trucking in full propaganda mode.
The results of the former Cross Border Pilot Program proved that that the claims of the Teamsters, OOIDA and public safety groups were baseless and utterly false, but with this new round, that’s not stopping them.
Once again they’ve enlisted Phyllis Schafly, an anti-feminist, anti-ERA conspiracy whackjob to carry the torch for them and thoroughly distort the issue. In her column today in TOWN HALL she writes.
Read more
Todd Spencer – "You can't fix stupid"
As expected, Todd Spencer and OOIDA quickly released a statement opposing any effort by the FMCSA and the Obama administration to comply with out obligation under NAFTA. Our non compliance having cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs and a significant amount of market share due to the perfectly legal retaliatory tariffs Mexico imposed for our non compliance.
Here is OOIDA’s statement: (Our opinion appears in between the paragraphs)
Read more
The Commercial Carrier Journal released today what is says is the concept document that will permit the United States to fulfill it’s obligations under NAFTA to allow Mexican carriers equal access to US highways.
The Department of Transportation says this initial concept document, is a starting point in the renewed negotiations with Mexico, addresses concerns raised during the process that included meetings with lawmakers, safety advocates, industry representatives and other stakeholders to address a broad range of concerns and to listen to the fabrications and misinformation presented by some of the stakeholders who oppose Mexican trucks in this country for purely bogus reasons.
Not surprisingly, the concept document merely reiterates the requirements that were used for the very successful Cross Border Pilot Program. And even more surprisingly, this writer and this website can support, it principle, the requirements being suggested in the concept document. After all, the carriers who participated in the initial pilot program, met and passed these requirement with flying colors.
The document can be downloaded here:
Highlights of the PHASED U.S.-MEXICO CROSS-BORDER LONG HAUL TRUCKING PROPOSAL
Read more
Two key Republican House members are calling on the Obama administration to end an impasse with Mexico over cross-border trucking.
Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI) and Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX) issued the following statements today regarding the Mexican trucking dispute as the NAFTA Commission meetings commence in Mexico:
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses