Safe, fully inspected Mexican trucks such as this one would be allowed access to US under the proposed Pilot Program with Mexico
It never ends. Citing bogus concerns over safety, security and cost, a bipartisan gang Congressmen, bought and paid for with Teamster funds is demanding that the federal Department of Transportation cancel plans to re-introduce a cross-border trucking program with Mexico.
Taking the lead with a letter on 4/4/2011, Rep. Duncan Hunter (D-CA) along with Rep. Daniel Lipinski, (D-Ill), Rep. Rep. Bob Filner, (D-Ca) and 19 other Democrats along with 12 Tea Party Republicans, has a letter that is to be delivered to La Hood and made public on Wednesday afternoon, DEMANDING LaHood dump the plans for a renewed cross border program with Mexico.
The cross border program would bring the US in compliance with our obligations under the NAFTA agreement and permit Mexico to lift the $2.4 billion in legal retaliatory tariffs instituted after 17 years of the United States refusing to comply with their promises.
Before 198, trucks from Mexico and Canada were permitted into the U.S. with proper licensing, although they did not extend the same courtesy to U.S. truckers. In the wake of a moratorium, Canada quickly resolved its differences. Mexico did not. However, more than 800 Mexican carriers were “grandfathered” in under the 1982 executive order prohibiting foreign carriers in the US.
In a draft copy of the letter sent to Mexico Trucker Online, the usual bogus concerns about safety on U.S. roads, the ability to properly inspect all trucks at the border and the prospect of drug cartels using the cross-border program as a shipping outlet for drugs are raised. The government’s funding of electronic tracking systems for Mexican trucks, which we oppose but which has been modified is also mentioned.
Some of the highlights of the letter include:
The cross-border trucking program clearly puts foreign interests above our own. It’s bad for the American economy. It’s bad for American truckers and the entire commercial trucking industry.” – Duncan Hunter
In our opinion, what is bad for the economy and bad for the image of the United States, is our continued non compliance with our international obligations which have cost the US more than 30,000 jobs and 15% or more of market share in our agri business sector, lost to Canada, that will take decades to recover, if ever.
The letter goes on to say;
“While we understand the need to work to remove the unfair tariffs that Mexico has imposed on U.S. agriculture products as a result, to so should not come at the expense of the safety of our highways”
And again, nothing unfair about the perfectly legal tariff’s Mexico finally instituted and will certainly raise, if we fail to act upon our obligations this time. Historically, Mexican trucks and their drivers have proven to be safer and more compliant with US safety laws and regulations than have our own people.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill, chimes in, proving he knows nothing of what he has been paid to oppose by stating;
“Past inspection failures and gaps in security at the border show that opening our roads to Mexican truck traffic could result in the entry of unsafe vehicles and drivers that pose a threat to the safety of the public.”
It is glaringly apparent none of them have seen the results of the past demonstration program, the FMCSA/CVSA inspection reports of the OP-2 carriers operating in the border zone nor realize just exactly how each and every vehicle legally entering this country is subjected to an inspection of varying degrees. And with a limited number that would operate under the proposed pilot program, EVERY SINGLE ONE would and could be thoroughly inspected as set out in the proposed new pilot program.
Lipinski goes on to opine;
“The fact that the agreement would also require taxpayers to subsidize required equipment for Mexican truckers that American truck operators would have to pay for themselves is yet another reason that it should be rejected”
Which is something we happen to agree with. We reject the notion of requiring EOBR’s in any truck, without regard to nationality or domicile. However, Lipinski and the rest fail to realize that Mexican OP-2 carriers and others, pay their proportionate share of highway taxes through fuel purchases and IFTA payments. However, DOT has revised the proposal to allow GPS systems to be used for tracking purposes to ensure compliance with US cabotage and hours of service regulations. 85% of Mexican carriers are equipped with Qualcomm communications suites which would comply with this requirement.
Interestingly enough, this requirement and all the others in the proposed pilot program documents, were demanded by those now opposing implementation of the program. Go figure. It ain’t about safety people!
And finally, they get to the latest excuse, which is baseless, about the big boogie men of the cartels using the trucks to smuggle drugs.
The letter claims;
“Setting up a program that allows Mexican long haul trucks to cross the border and move freely through the U.S. could increase this method of smuggling by the drug cartels and serve as a resource for their criminal activity”
Adds Lipinski,
“Inviting trucks from Mexico to freely transport goods throughout the U.S. provides drug traffickers with another potential avenue to exploit at a time when crime and violence in Mexico are on the rise.”
They ignore or in their ignorance, don’t realize that dues to the post 9/11 security at the border, commercial trucks and others sometimes wait for hours in line to make their way across the border. Waiting in that line, permits CBP and Customs inspectors to “walk the dogs”, observe drivers reactions or act on gut instinct to single out trucks for a secondary inspection or more.
Sure, drugs are crossed on occasion in semi’s, and generally are caught. Those that aren’t have usually been loaded on the US side, with drivers taking advantage of the idea of making a quick buck.
Mexican trucks or not. Pilot program or not. Drugs will continue to flow into this country as long as the demand is there.
We’ll have the text of this letter, bought and paid for by the TEAMSTERS and other opponents when it is released officially tomorrow, probably in a circle jerk of glad handing on Capitol Hill.
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”
Or perhaps that is too strong of a statement because it disrespects a horse’s hind end.
Tom Tancredo, Colorado representative who tried to run a Presidential campaign on one issue, ridding the US of all Hispanics, while in the past he hired illegals to remodel his Boulder mansion amongst other things. This man is a hypocrite and a fraud.
Members of the Texas Border Coalition are sparring with Colorado Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo over his muttered suggestion that if politicians think a border fence will disrupt the region’s multiculturalism, the best place for it might be north of Brownsville.
Tancredo sent a letter to Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada and Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster on Thursday “clarifying” the comment, which came during a congressional field hearing Monday at the University of Texas-Brownsville, which could lose land to the fence.
Tancredo and U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., strong proponents of the fence, were at odds with Democrats on the panel who said the fence will be an ineffective blight for a region that thrives on social and economic ties with Mexico.
“Securing the border is not a local issue,” Tancredo wrote to Ahumada. “Local communities have expressed multiculturalist sentiment by suggesting that ‘there is no border’ between the U.S. and Mexico, and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities over the congressionally approved border fence.
“This is a matter of national importance, and the American public should not be asked to sit back and allow a handful of local governments and their friends in the ‘open borders’ lobby to exercise veto power over something that impacts not only our national security, but our national sovereignty.”
Ahumada and Foster responded Friday by accusing Tancredo of misquoting them and suggested Tancredo take Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s advice to “grow up.”
Chertoff made the comment during a January interview with the Associated Press. He was referring to critics of new documentation rules at border crossings.
“We have never said, ‘there is no border,’” the mayors wrote. “The Rio Grande … has been our border since the agreement to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. To ascribe that quote to us, even by inference, in your tirade is ridiculously juvenile.”
Their letter ends, “Best wishes in your post-congressional career.”
“Best wishes in your post-congressional career.”
That probably went over some of your heads. What they are referring to, and I am still laughing my ass off over this is that Tancredo, during his first campaign, he promised to only be a two-term Congressman. But, he lied! What new with that.
Tom the tool! e’s just another pathetic tool who abandoned his integrity to become a permanent, mediocre fixture in Washington D.C.
Loading ...
Readers Reponses