Mexico Trucker Online Articles

Opposing Mexican Trucking program with lies is irresponsible

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;

1. Call every politician, even your mayors.
2. Email every politician, even your mayor.
3. Write (snail mail) ever politician, even your mayor.
4. Get all your friends (even your pet if he can legally write) to do the same.
5. 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.

USDOT releases details of Cross Border Trucking Plan and OOIDA’s Todd Spencer is “furious”

Safe, well maintained trucks from Mexico such as this Kenworth T-660 driven by professional safe Mexican drivers would finally be permitted access under the proposed Pilot Program released today by the US DOT

The US DOT and the Obama Administration this afternoon released it plan to finally bring the United States into compliance with it’s obligations and promises made in regards to allowing Mexican trucking companies equal access to the United States.

The DOT said the proposed new program prioritizes safety, while satisfying the U.S. States’ international obligations.

According to THE TRUCKER and other highly reliable industry sources, the proposed program parameters are that;

• The scheduled life of the pilot program will not exceed three years.

• The Mexico-domiciled motor carriers that participate in this pilot program would proceed through a series of stages prior to issuance of a permanent operating authority.

• A Mexico-domiciled motor carrier that participated in the 2007-2009 demonstration project and operated under provisional operating authority in that pilot would receive credit for the amount of time it operated under authority in calculating the 18-month provisional operating authority period.

• Mexico-domiciled motor carriers participating in the pilot program would designate the vehicles and drivers they wish to use in the pilot program. All designated vehicles and drivers must be approved by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration prior to the participating motor carrier using the vehicles or drivers for transportation beyond the commercial zones along the United States-Mexico border. The requirements for FMCSA approval of drivers and vehicles are described in this notice.

• In compliance with section 350 (a)(3), FMCSA will ensure that at least 50 percent of participating drivers’ licenses are checked when crossing the border. This may be accomplished during Level I, II or III inspections.

• FMCSA would submit information on the applicant motor carriers and their drivers designated for long-haul operations in the pilot program to the Department of Homeland Security for security screening. Motor carriers and/or drivers that fail DHS’s security screening would not be eligible for participation in the pilot program.

• The FMCSA would equip each vehicle approved for use by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers in this pilot program with an electronic monitoring device such as a global positioning system and/or electronic on board recording device. As part of participating in this pilot program, the device must be operational on the vehicle throughout the duration of the pilot program.

• A driver may not participate in this pilot program unless the driver can read and speak the English language sufficiently to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records required by FMCSA.

Sounds reasonable to me as it satisfies the arbitration panels decision that the United States can set standards to be followed for Mexican trucks while they are in the United States, and although the requirements listed technically keep the US in violation of NAFTA, since the same is not required of US and Canadian trucks, other considerations int he proposal should overcome this technical point.

THE SAME BAD ACTORS, THE SAME TIRED EXCUSES

It didn’t take the usual crowd of opponents to chime in and chime in they did. First out of the gate was Todd Spencer of OOIDA who sent out a press release to the nation.

“This is the wrong plan at the wrong time for numerous reasons,” said Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President of OOIDA. “It’s irresponsible and reckless. The Administration must reconsider or Congress must step in again to force them to do the right thing.”

The wrong plan at the wrong time? After nearly 20 years of OOIDA and their cronies in Congress throwing up roadblocks that the Mexicans have met, complied and excelled at overcoming, when will be “the right time”?
I can answer that in a few words. NEVER! as long as it involve Mexicans and Mexican trucks.

Spencer goes on to spread the lies he has been telling for so long, it is entirely conceivable he believes himself.

“The onus is on Mexico to raise the safety, security and environmental standards for their trucking industry,” added Spencer. “We should not allow ourselves to be harassed or blackmailed into lowering ours.”

Actually, he is wrong or it is wishful thinking on his part. Nothing in NAFTA, nor the arbitration panels decision says Mexico has to do anything to their regulatory standards. Be they safety, security or environmentally related. The onus on Mexico is to be able and willing to comply with United States regulations and laws when operating within the boundaries of the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. The same as we require the Canadians who regularly break our cabotage laws and HOS rules, since HOS regs in Canada are much more liberal than ours.

Spencer went on to reinforce his claims by saying that Mexico does not have an even remotely equivalent regulatory regime for its trucking industry and drivers. Perhaps Mexico doesn’t have the regulatory regime that the United States has that seeks to micro manage every second of a drivers life and time behind the wheel, but what it does have seems to work. Practically daily, you see or hear on the news about big truck wrecks, some with fatalities. In Mexico, maybe once a month at best, and FMCSA statistics bear this out.

But if that wasn’t enough, in his presser, Spencer goes on to use his ultimate weapon. Fear and scaring the hell out of anyone who reads his presser without bothering to stop and think about what is being said.

They need to stop placating Mexico’s government and start fighting for the Americans they are supposed to represent,” said Spencer. “If they follow through with this, the Administration will be jeopardizing the livelihoods of millions of Americans.”

Perhaps you Spencer, and your organization should stop worrying about a few well qualified companies and their drivers, bringing their own freight up here and backhauling their customers freight to Mexico and concern yourself with things that can really effect the American trucker, such as the ridiculous hours of service proposal, EOBR’s, Speed Limiters, forced sleep apnea studies, Certified Medical Examiners and the oter crap Wshington is trying to push down our throats.

OPPONENTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH NAFTA ARE IN THE MINORITY

More than 1400 trade organizations have been pressing the administration to resolve the issue and it appears their voices were heard loud and clear.

American Trucking Association’s President Bill Graves issued the following statement:

“The American Trucking Associations welcomes the progress that the United States and Mexico are making to resolve their ongoing dispute over cross-border trucking. This proposal requires Mexican carriers to follow all the same rules and regulations that their American counterparts are subject to and takes steps to monitor Mexican trucks to ensure that those rules are being followed.

This announcement is good news for the U.S. businesses that have been hurt by Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs, including the trucking industry, and we look forward to the U.S. finally living up to its commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

To read the proposal for yourself and make up your own mind and not be persuaded by those such as the OOIDA or TEAMSTERS who will continue to spin the facts to suit their agenda, you can follow THIS LINK to read the entire proposal

SOURCES:

• OOIDA PRESSER
• THE TRUCKER/OOIDA
• TRUCKINGINFO
• ATA STATEMENT
• THE TRUCKER – CROSS BORDER PROPOSAL RELEASED
• OOIDA OFFICIAL WHINE

More reasons to call or write your Congress Critter to oppose Mexican Trucks

We all need a good laugh some of the time, and the Teamster or OOIDA member who takes their “Calls to Action” to heart has struck again.

We posted an example of his idiocy last weekend and he’s struck again, once again proving why following the direction of OOIDA and others is a guarantee that the Mexican trucks will be rolling soon.

Here’s the letter posted in its entirety from CONGRESS.ORG. We’ve highlighted the parts that proves the writer ain’t got a clue or is simply being a mouthpiece for one of the groups who has been spreading the misinformation about Mexican trucks.

Subject: MEXICAN TRUCKERS ON OUR U.S. HIGHWAYS

To: Sen. Rob Portman

April 6, 2011

Sen. Portman:

As you know, the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted in January of 1994 by a simple majority in Congress, calling for a free flow of people and commerce across our common borders with Mexico and Canada.

Since that time, we have experienced a clash of cultures that is anything but positive at the hands of illegal migrants. I recently wrote you about the higher percentage rate of Latinos who drunk drive, drag race, murder and rape compared to White (more than double that of white people), Native American and Black U.S. citizens. These figures probably suggest that Latinos, legal and illegal, represent the most dangerous drivers on the road. So what’s in store for us with Mexican truck drivers on our highways which usually bumper to bumper as our population increases by three million every year? Our U.S. Treasury is broke and our infrastructure is crumbling. More trucks? Get real!

And now thanks to the NAFTA agreement we are to be exposed to drunken Mexican truckers and their substandard trucks on our highways because Obama has no regard for the people of this nation or U.S. truckers who stand to lose their jobs.

George W. Bush initiated a trial period during which Mexican truckers could enter this nation, but were made to stay within an area only 25 miles north of our southern border. But then it was determined that Mexican trucks and their drivers were unsafe for our highways.

Mexican Pres. Filipe Calderon whined recently to President Obama about this “injustice,” pointing to the NAFTA agreement and the “free flow of people and commerce” flowing among the three nations. But we have to believe that Calderon believes NAFTA applies only to The U.S. and Canada because the people of this nation are not permitted entry into Mexico without an up-to-date Visa and we surely can’t go there to take jobs at U.S. industries that moved there because Mexico protects them for its own people. And it has the nerve to call us “Protectionists.”

Calderon calls NAFTA a binding treaty, which it is not. It is simply an agreement that passed Congress with a simple majority, not a 2/3 majority. So the United States should not be bound to that one-way street agreement in any way, especially since Mexico isn’t keeping up its end of the agreement.

We are still a sovereign nation. The people of this nation did not vote for NAFTA; nor have we ceded our country to Mexico and Canada. And if we must fight a war to protect our rights, brother will we.

So Obama tries to smooth our feathers by saying that Mexico must allow U.S. trucks into Mexico; but who would want to risk life and limb, subjecting themselves to highway robbers, murderers who behead their victims and let us not forget Montezuma’s Revenge. (This fool has Montezuma Revenge of the mouth)

According to Obama, all Mexican truckers must learn English and adhere to the same stringent standards required of U.S. truckers-all tongue in cheek of course. Even if Obama were sincere, we don’t have the manpower at our border to check each and every Mexican truck and trucker entering this nation carrying drugs and more illegal migrants.

Mexican truckers won’t learn English, and new signs in Spanish across this nation to accommodate them are too expensive and out of the question. Our debt is so heavy now that the dollar promises to crash any day, taking all of us–including you–with it.

Mexican truckers will not be required to carry liability insurance, keep their trucks in top running order or pay road taxes to pay for the wear and tear on our highways their trucks cause, as must our own truckers. Consequently, they will be able to truck in this country more cheaply than our own people and will soon destroy the U.S. trucking industry, causing the loss of thousands more jobs. How much longer must the American people be made to carry the burden of the NAFTA experiment?

Senator Portman are you going to acquiesce to all this or are you going to do what your constituents elected you to do–protect the people of this nation, our jobs and our industries by keeping Mexican trucks off our highways.

Illegal aliens can’t take your job from you as easily as they take ours; but they can kill members of your family with their trucks. Someone is going to die at the hands of Mexican truck drivers and it very well could be one of your friends, a member of your family or you, God forbid. Even the POTUS riding on U.S. highways in his sleek limousine will not be safe. No Mexican trucks on our highways and byways. Allowing them just opens up another can of worms.

Fredericktown , OH

Yep! With ignoramus racist peckerwoods like this and those that made similar comments during the comments for 07-28005, the former pilot program, we don’t have anything to worry about.

Can’t blame him for not signing his name. Ignorance such as his should remain anonymous.

Amidst the hysteria of OOIDA, in reality, it’s much ado about nothing

Trucks traveling the highway between Nuevo Laredo and Monterrey

As resolution to the longstanding stalemate over allowing Mexican trucks access to our highways, as we agreed to do almost 20 years ago, is weeks, if not days away, OOIDA has issued another of their silly little “Calls to Action” exhorting it’s diminishing membership to call and annoy their Representatives about this inconsequential issue. The continued opposition by Teamsters, OOIDA and their allies continues to cost tens of thousands of American jobs and tremendous loss of market share in the agribusiness sector. Not that it matters to either of these organizations if they can keep a handful of Mexicans out of the country.

At issue this time, is a letter that well-known Mexico basher Duncan Hunter of California wrote to Secretary Ray LaHood urging him to cancel the upcoming program. And, as usual, Hunter is long on rhetoric and short on facts.

However, a competing letter has been issued by freshman congressman Francisco Canseco, urging other freshman congressman to do just the opposite. It’s concise and on point without the union talking points seen in Hunters letter.

Anyone care to guess which one will be most effective?

WHAT IF THEY OPENED THE BORDER AND NOBODY CAME?

Intriguing question and entirely possible as Mark B. Solomon, senior editor at DC VELOCITY suggest in an article titled “MUCH ADO ABOUT NADA”

Coincidentally, Mark’s article confirms and affirms what we’ve been preaching and teaching on Mexico Trucker Online for almost 5 years. It’s what has made this site well-regarded and used extensively throughout the transportation industry and by government agencies to learn the real truth about Mexican trucking.

The lead off question he asks is

What if they threw open the U.S.-Mexican border to all qualified trucking companies, but no Mexican truckers showed up?

Here’s some excerpts from Marks article.

It would indeed be an ironic outcome of a battle that has dragged on for more than 11 years, culminating in March 2009 in a mini-trade war that has cost U.S. exporters billions of dollars in lost revenue and, according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates, led to the loss of more than 25,000 American jobs.

Yet it is entirely plausible, according to various experts. For all the publicity surrounding the March 3 announcement by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón of a tentative resolution to the cross-border dispute, few expect the status quo to change for years to come. The agreement would allow carriers on both sides of the border to operate beyond a 25-mile “commercial zone,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll take advantage of that freedom. In fact, Mexican truckers will have little, if any, desire to operate deeper into U.S. commerce than they already do, these experts say.

So much for the claim by Teamsters and as recently as today, that tens of thousand of Mexican trucks are waiting to access American highways. We’ve been saying that for years.

Con-Way Truckload CEO Herb Schmidt had this to say about the situation;

“The majority of Mexican truckers don’t want any part of it. We estimates that only 5 percent of the 80 Mexican truckers that have cross-border interline relationships with Con-way Truckload have even considered serving the U.S. market beyond the commercial zone.”

CEO Derek J. Leathers of Warner Inc. added;

“There’s less interest on the part of Mexican truckers than many people think”

According to the article, Werner generates about 10% of its revenue from its Mexican operations.

The article also points out who would be the winners and losers when the border is opened. Obviously, US producers and manufacturers who have been hit hard by the tariffs would be the immediate winners.

According to Solomon, the losers could be Mexican customs brokers, about half of whom own drayage companies that move freight between Mexican and U.S. trucks for line-haul service into either country. Because the agreement allows Mexican truckers to operate beyond the commercial zone and haul freight directly to U.S. destinations, the need for those drayage services would diminish, if not disappear, experts say.

However, with the volume of freight moving between the countries, both way, losses would be minimal for decades, we believe.

Some other points made in the article that bear consideration.

• It’s likely to be business as usual along the border. U.S. carriers operating southbound to Mexico will continue to drive to the commercial zone and tender their trailers to their Mexican interline partners for the line-haul. The same  is likely to prevail on the northbound routes, with Mexican truckers turning over trailers to their U.S. counterparts for movement into the U.S. interior
• Mexican truckers would be loath to enter the U.S. market because the liability exposure in the United States would be too great for many Mexican truckers to tolerate, Herb Schmidt pointed out.

And finally, the point we’ve been hammering on every time we hear someone erroneously claim that the disparity in drivers wages between Mexico and the United State will drive down our wages and give the Mexicans and unfair competitive advantage is further debunked.

Mexican carriers looking to expand into the United States would face significant upfront costs for labor, maintenance, facilities, and equipment. The typical Mexican trucker has a fleet of six trucks, hardly enough to justify the kind of capital investment needed to play in the world’s biggest economy, experts say. In addition, the agreement bars Mexican carriers from accepting loads moving between U.S. points, thus keeping the intra-U.S. market off-limits to competition with U.S. carriers.

THE DEBATE GOES ON

Further debunking the campaigns of misinformation and fear put forth by OOIDA and the TEAMSTERS, the article points out more of what we’ve been saying over the years.

In the meantime, the debate over easing restrictions on Mexican truckers continues. The agreement’s opponents—chief among them the Teamsters union and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the trade group representing the nation’s independent drivers—have warned that cheaper Mexican labor will undercut U.S. driver wages and siphon off jobs. Leathers of Werner says the argument is a red herring, contending that any labor cost advantage enjoyed by Mexican drivers will be more than offset by their companies’ higher costs of capital and equipment, as well as the increased liability exposure.

Schmidt of Con-way Truckload adds that should Mexican drivers enter the United States with more frequency, they will, over time, demand wages that are comparable to U.S. drivers’. Schmidt compares that possible scenario to what has occurred over the years at Mexican “maquiladoras,” plants in Mexico where raw materials imported on a duty-free basis are assembled into goods, which are re-exported back to the United States or another destination market. At Mexican “maquilas,” Schmidt says, rising labor costs have forced businesses to relocate deeper into Mexico to procure inexpensive labor.

Lana R. Batts, a partner in transport advisory firm Transport Capital Partners and vice president of government affairs for the American Trucking Associations in the 1980s and early 1990s, says the Teamsters have little to fear from Mexican drivers jeopardizing their livelihood. Batts adds that union concerns that the agreement will give Mexican drug lords and other unsavory characters an open supply chain into the United States are unfounded, noting that border security is not disappearing and that the situation will be no worse than if there were no agreement.

An apt title, “much ado about nothing”. Take out the overt racism of the issue, the lies and spin being pushed by opponents of the US finally complying with our obligations and especially, take the word “Mexican” out of the equation, and as Mark Solomon points out..

“The dispute over Mexican truckers’ access to U.S. markets is close to resolution. The industry’s response: A collective shrug”

CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin says cross-border trucking will be secure

CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin expressed strong confidence Wednesday in San Diego at a seminar to mark the 10th anniversary of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, most commonly known by its acronym C-TPAT, that Mexican trucks and the Mexican trucking program will be secure and successful.

C-TPAT was started after the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York as a way to keep the global supply chain flowing and while securing the country from an outside attack. Seven companies were involved with the program when it began as a method in which global shippers share cargo data and enact security strategies as they build a level of “trust” in Customs officials. Today, more than 10,000 trucking companies have C-TPAT certification.

During his speech, Bersin gave his approval to the recent agreement between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to resolve the longstanding dispute over America’s compliance with our NAFTA obligations.

In his speech, Bersin said;

“The president agreed there would be a program whereby in a very certified way, in a very careful and deliberate way, Mexican long-haul trucks would be able to travel with their cargo across the border and on into the states.
It’s a big breakthrough for NAFTA, for North American competitiveness, for support of the Mexican economy and the US economy”

Despite claims to the contrary by opponents of Mexican trucking and Mexico in general, Mexican trucking companies have been eligible to join the C-TPAT program since 2008 and a good number of them have joined the program. Bersin expects the C-TPAT program to play an even stronger role at the US-Mexico border.

Bersin went on to say;

“C-TPAT is an important way to approach the problem. For that reason, we are cooperating with Mexican Customs to help Mexico to establish its own version of C-TPAT. Mexico’s Alliance for Secure Business is adopting many of the security strategies and principles of C-TPAT.

Downstream, I expect that we will be able to have mutual recognition — that is that a company recognized by C-TPAT will be recognized by the Mexican program and visa versa.”

Guest Editorial – Mexico trucking issue hits home for U.S. agriculture

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

Friday Rants and other nonsense about Mexican trucks

Mexican trucks lined up for inspection into the United States

Anybody have the chance to listen to Landlinenow on Friday when senior editor Terry Scrotum got his panties in a bunch over the upcoming renewal of the Mexican truck program? It was good for a chuckle or two, especially Terry’s feigned indignation.

At issue was a recent comment by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood regarding the Mexican truck program.

Secretary LaHood stated:

“We’re working with the trucking industry on their ability to continue to be competitive. They weren’t particularly enamored of some of the proposals that were being floated around with respect to the Mexican truck – the cross border, uh, but we met with them and we worked those out.”

And Scrotums sarcastic reply:

Excuse me? You worked what out, exactly? And with whom? Which trucking industry did you work with, Secretary LaHood? It certainly wasn’t the same one that I work with. The trucking industry that I work with still doesn’t like the new proposed Mexican trucking program any better than the old program.

Strange but the trucking industry I’ve spent the past 37 years being a part of, is largely ambivalent about the Mexicans coming here. If they follow the rules, pay the penalty if they don’t, as we do, most truckers I’ve spoken with don’t have a problem.

Scrotum goes on to complain and push the same worn out theory that has been debunked time and again:

You want to know why? Let’s start with jobs. If this program goes through, American truckers will lose jobs. Period. Oh, but American truckers would be able to go down to Mexico and haul loads from there as well. Have you looked at the news from Mexico lately? Drug cartel violence. Kidnappings. It’s not a place I would want to be hauling valuable cargo into.

I would challenge Terry Scrotum and the rest of the fear mongers at OOIDA present irrefutable facts to support their contention that American truckers will lose jobs. PERIOD!!! There is none and the statistics available show that this is nothing but another fear tactic to get unknowing truckers on board with their agenda.

Yes, Terry, I have looked at Mexico lately. I was in Monterrey a couple of days ago. No trucks being targeted. The violence is between the cartels. It has nothing to do with the proposed admittance of Mexican trucks or our ability to continue operating into Mexico.

And while we’re on the subject of safety, let’s just talk about how safe those trucks coming up from Mexico will be. Mexico does not have the same safety infrastructure in place as we do here in the U.S. They just don’t. Oh, but we’re going to solve that by putting Electronic On-Board Recorders into each and every truck crossing the border, right? I see. And who’s going to pay for those EOBRs? Mexico? Guess again. We can’t even pay for our own transportation needs and now we have to foot the bill for Mexico too?

Let’s do talk about how the trucks coming up from Mexico are and will be. The 18 month pilot program showed them to be in compliance with our rules and regulations and showed they had a better safety and compliance history than our very own trucks. Your right. Mexico does not have the same safety infrastructure as we do and for good reason. The infrastructure they have in place to regulate their trucking industry seems to work for them. They don’t seem to be having major truck involved crashes everyday of the week as we seem to.

I haven’t even scratched the surface of the problems with this program. Let’s not forget the fact that after 18 months in the program trucking companies from Mexico will get their permanent authority, which means they get to keep operating here even if the program is shut down. And did I mention the Mexican carriers involved in the first pilot program that was shut down will get credit for the time they operated in the U.S.?

That’s the idea. Full compliance with out obligations under NAFTA and full operating authority after they prove their fitness, AGAIN! Nothing new and nothing that more than 850 Mexican trucking concerns don’t already have. No Terry, scratching the surface isn’t quite right. What you really mean is you just haven’t come up with more worthless excuses why we should continue to ignore our international obligations.

Meanwhile, down on the pig farm;

Since letters are flying back and forth around this issue, The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) sent Congress a letter urging their support for the renewal of the Mexican truck program.

NPPC has pointed out that Mexican trucks were proven as safe as American trucks in a 2007 pilot program, which Congress defunded in 2009.

The organization also pointed out that should this agreement not be ratified, it is likely that Mexico would increase the current tariffs on U.S. goods. Since they were imposed on U.S. pork in August 2010, the tariffs have reduced U.S. pork exports to Mexico by 9% from August to December 2010, compared with the same period in 2009. In that same time, Canadian pork exports to Mexico have grown by 99%.

Mexico, the second-largest market for U.S. pork in 2010, purchased $986 million of U.S. pork in 2010.

And finally, further proof that people don’t have a clue about Mexican trucks or our obligations under NAFTA, in this LETTER TO OHIO REP. BOB GIBBS.

From Congress.org (BOLD highlights illustrate the absurdity clueless nature of the writer)

Subject:
MEXICAN TRUCKS ON U.S. HIGHWAYS

To:
Rep. Bob Gibbs

March 27, 2011

Congressman Gibbs:

Obama wants to admit Mexican trucks to our U.S. highways and roads at a time when our unemployment rate grows.

And if we are to believe Todd Spencer, executive V. Pres. of the Owner-Operated Independent Drivers Association, “U.S. truckers would be forced to forfeit their own economic opportunities while companies and drivers from Mexico, free from equivalent regulatory burdens, take over their traffic lanes.”

Yes, Obama says Mexican truckers will be scrutinized for their abilities to meet U.S. trucker’s standards in safety issues, emissions. and will undergo border inspections at the “normal border inspection rate” –which means that only a few violators will get caught. They must acquire English proficiency etc. You and I know this is pure double-speak.

It’s my understanding that Mexcio claims that our ban on Mexican trucks violates our NAFTA treaty obligations. But as Phyllis Schafly points out, NAFTA isn’t a treaty. A treaty requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate and NAFTA was passed by a simple majority vote. She further points out that, with the drug war in full battle-mode at our border, this is no time to start admitting Mexican trucks. But if Obama and Calderon have their way, many Mexican trucks will be hauling illegal aliens and illegal drugs into our country.

If China ignores NAFTA regulations, why must we be made to adhere to them? We need some legislators in our Congress with cajones; someone who will fight for us instead of Mexico.
[pullquote]If China ignores NAFTA regulations, why must we be made to adhere to them?[/pullquote]

Congressman Gibbs, the people of this nation have been made to sacrifice their jobs to developing nations. What kind of monsters do we have in Washington who would hand the remaining jobs to people here illegally and then allow Mexican trucks into our country to destroy the U.S. trucking industry? The families of those U.S. truckers will suffer because there are no jobs in this country. Will Obama never cease in his effort
to destroy our middle class and force our destitute poor farther into poverty? And why would our Congressmen ever approve of this?

Yes we were the wealthiest nation; that distinction earned by the sweat of our brows. And we helped developing nations raise themselves up but they, unlike our forebears who fought and died to draw up a Constittuion that benefits everyone and anyone willing to earn a living by the sweat of his/her brow, don’t seem to have the gumption to fight for their rights.
We are the greatest nation in the world because we the people made it so; not because some other country came along and gave us a free ride.

We have always shared our wealth. Why is our government now treating us like lepers; bad people who don’t deserve good-paying jobs and who should work as slaves to the wealthy elite within a socialist government?

Please don’t allow Mexican trucks on our highways. And don’t forget that NAFTA is NOT a treaty. We owe Mexico nothing regarding giving Mexican trucks free access to our highways. Sure our truckers will be given free access to Mexico’s highways, but who would want to risk life and limb to do so? They don’t want to drive into Mexico and I don’t blame them.

Don’t let Obama have his way and watch him like a hawk because he will try to have his way by maneuvering behind closed doors. Too bad we have to put up with this mistake until 2012. Blessings.

Fredericktown , OH

Isn’t that a hoot? Never knew China had anything to do with NAFTA.

But, the lunacy and idiocy continues on as we start another week. One can only wonder what the wackadoodles will come up with this week.

OOIDA continues to defraud and mislead American truckers on cross border trucking issue

Mexican trucks at the border! Que Yonke!!!!

As the reality of a new and final cross border program to allow Mexican trucks access to American highways as we promised almost 20 years ago, comes closer to fruition, the desperation coming coming from the offices of OOIDA or Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association, is palpable.

For instance, OOIDA spokesman Norita Taylor appeared on an interview on Houston radio station KTRH News Radio 740 along with Congressman Kevin Brady giving counterpoint, and alleged that Mexican carriers have no regulatory costs in their country. You can listen to the interview here. What Taylor doesn’t say is not only does Mexico have to comply with their regulatory costs, but the additional costs of complying with US requirements also. OOIDA doesn’t want you to know this.

As a matter of fact, Mark Reddig sounded as if he had tears in his eyes this afternoon in his pleas for people to call Congress and try to stop this small handful of Mexican trucks that he fears his membership cannot compete with.

DEBUNKING OOIDA CLAIMS THAT MEXICO MUST MIRROR OUT REGULATORY CLIMATE

One of the biggest lies coming from OOIDA and others, such as the Teamsters, is that according to the 2001 NAFTA Arbitration panel agreement, the United States had the right to set standards for Mexican trucks that Mexico would be forced to abide by in their own country, is very easy to debunk.

First off, common sense should tell you that FMCSA has no statutory right to force any rules upon the sovereign country of Mexico. All they can do is set the standards that Mexican and Canadian trucks must adhere to when operating within the United States. Period! It leaves no room for discussion.

Let’s take a look at the decision of the NAFTA ARBITRATION PANEL in 2001.

Mexico v United States—Cross-Border Trucking

The NAFTA obligates the United States and Mexico to open restricted areas near their mutual border to cross-border trucking services three years after the date of signing, and to broadly open their territories to cross-border trucking services 6 years after entry into force of the agreement. Chapter 9 NAFTA sets forth rules applicable to the setting and maintenance of technical standards. Under the technical standards rules, each party is entitled to adopt and maintain measures relating to human safety (Art. 904 (1) NAFTA) at a level it considers appropriate (Art. 904 (2) NAFTA) in accordance with certain risk assessment rules (Art. 907 (2) NAFTA). Mexico alleged national treatment and violations of the ? most-favored-nation clause (‘MFN’) with regard to regulatory measures, as well as national treatment and MFN violations with respect to investment.

This sets the rules and the dispute

The US argued that fundamental disparities between US and Mexican regulatory systems legitimized a blanket restriction on allowing Mexican cross-border trucking into the US. It claimed that it was only required to provide national treatment under ‘like circumstances’, and that deficiencies in the Mexican regulatory system meant that US and Mexican trucks were not in ‘like circumstances’. The United States made a similar argument with respect to the denial of MFN treatment as compared with Canada

This is the US argument and the basis of OOIDA’s claims.

In its decision, the panel invoked principles established in GATT-WTO jurisprudence, including panel and appellate body reports, as well as customary international law, decisions of the ? International Court of Justice (ICJ), and expert commentators. The panel stated that the NAFTA and WTO national treatment principles are basically the same, and common to the field of international trade. In looking at conduct by the United States, it indicated it would avoid inquiring into motivation, for example union pressure on the Clinton Administration

What the arbitration panel is saying is that it recognizes the interference and pressure being brought upon the Clinton administration by the Teamsters and would abstain from exploring the protectionist motivations of the unions, none of which have to do with safety, as has been alleged.

The panel rejected the US defense to the claim of national treatment violation, holding the United States was obligated to treat US and Mexican truckers performing similar functions in the same way. Each Mexican trucking license application must be reviewed on its own merits, just as were US national applications. The panel said that if harmonization of regulatory systems was required as a precondition of national treatment, this would undermine the concept of national treatment. Regarding the MFN claim, the panel said that the United States was obligated to provide equivalent treatment to cross-border trucking from Canada and Mexico, and that the United States had not done this.

In this paragraph, the panel summarily rejected the US claims that they had the right to deny Mexico access to the US because of what they consider an inferior regulatory environment. Applications by Mexican carriers must be considered on their own merits, as are US and Canadian applications. HARMONIZATION of REGULATORY SYSTEMS is what OOIDA maintains must occur before the US must allow Mexican trucks access. The panel soundly rejected this idea. It further stated in the last sentence, that the US is obligated to provide EQUIVALENT TREATMENT. This has not been done and the US remains in violation of their obligations.

The US invoked Art. XX (b) GATT analogue of NAFTA to justify failure to provide national and MFN treatment. Regarding the burden of proof, the panel said that, as a general matter, a party alleging an inconsistency with the NAFTA generally has the burden of proof to establish it. It says that the party invoking an exception also has the burden of proof to establish its entitlement. Thus, the US had the burden to show its restrictions on Mexican trucking were ‘necessary’. The panel invoked, inter alia, the WTO appellate body decision in United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products ([12 October 1998] WT/DS58/AB/R) to support its holding that the US could have pursued less trade restrictive conduct

This paragraph deals with the burden of proof and who is responsible for providing it. The US failed to provide that proof and the panel ruled the US could have pursued less restrictive conduct.

In response to Mexico’s claim that the US had failed to permit non-discriminatory national and MFN investment, the US argued that since there was no demonstrated Mexican interest in investing in US trucking, Mexico could not demonstrate violations. The panel said that under WTO law it is not necessary to demonstrate ‘actual’ trade effects—ie nullification or impairment. An imbalance in competitive conditions is adequate

This is pretty self explanatory, but to take it one step further. If you consider the Mexican carriers who have invested in US through establishment of subsidiaries in the US, since this ruling was rendered, Mexico’s claim is further substantiated and the US has no defense for it’s non compliance.

The panel concluded by emphasizing that it was not holding that the United States should lower its trucking safety standards, but rather that it must allow Mexican truckers to demonstrate compliance with them.

This final paragraph both supports OOIDA’s statement that the US should not lower our standards, a position I support. As you can see though, it says absolutely nothing in this paragraph or the others, that Mexico must establish regulatory standards identical to ours before the US is obligated to allow them access as OOIDA continues to maintain. Instead, it states firmly that the US MUST ALLOW MEXICO TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH OUT RULES. During the 18 month cross border demonstration program, Mexico showed that not only could they comply, but their compliance and safety standards exceeded those of comparable US and Canadian trucks.

CONTROVERSY OVER EOBR’s IN MEXICAN TRUCKS

As we’ve talked before, the controversy over requiring EOBR’s or Electronic Onboard Recorders in Mexican trucks continues to heat up and with good cause.

I have two problems with it. First being requiring the recorders, period, and secondly, having the FMCSA paying for them, although I understand why they plan to do so.

It gives them ownership of the data and real time access to the data which in the end, will debunk they claims of OOIDA, the TEAMSTERS and others that Mexican drivers work 20 hour days 7 days a week.

But under the provisions of NAFTA, as we saw in the breakdown of the Arbitration Panels decision, it is supposed to be equal treament for US, Canadian and Mexican trucks. Not one set of rules for US and Canadians and a third more stringent set for Mexicans, but equal. All three countries play by and comply with the rules of the country they are operating in.

Requiring Mexican carriers, 85% of whom already have Qualcomm tracking and communication systems in their fleets, violates this provision. Equal and comparative treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ironically, Teamster, OOIDA and other “stakeholders” pushed for this provision, and now the same ones are opposed to it.

FMCSA can require it, in violation once again of NAFTA and require Mexico to pay for it. However, without similar legislation or regulation requiring US and Canadian trucks to have the same systems, FMCSA would have no right to access the data except during safety audits. We can’t have it both ways.

I’m hoping that this is a “throwaway” point for negotiation. Otherwise, it is likely to hasten the installation of these same devices in US trucks, something the CTA (Canadian Trucking Association) is already pushing for.

To sum it up folks. Follow OOIDA’s “Call to Action” and call your Senator’s and Congressmen and whine about how the 4,000,000 US CDL holders are incapable of competing with a 100 or so Mexican carriers or truckers. Be sure to tell them about all the illegals and drugs and terrorist and all the other objects of the oppostions fantasies that will be coming into this country, although there is no evidence of it. And in the end, cross border trucking with Mexico will become a reality. It must or the next round of tariff’s with be even more devastating than the last.