Corrupt little congress critter Peter DeFazio, waving the key to the TEAMSTERS bank vault after once again bowing to their demands and introducing a bill designed to hinder cross border trucking with Mexico. Silly smile on his face reminds us of the Commandant in "Police Academy" when the hooker was under the table. Another Teamsters perk perhaps?
It didn’t take long after today’s announcement of the official signing of the Cross Border Pilot Program agreement in Mexico City for opponents to come out swinging with the lies, fear mongering and preying on the ignorance of those too apathetic to look for the truth for themselves. And as expected, OOIDA is headed to court.
In a “Special Report” senior editor Jami Jones writes:
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association immediately filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Association is asking the court to review the program and to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.”
“Implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law,” the Association’s petition states.
Noted in the petition is a “final agency action” that occurred on June 29, well in advance of the final plan being released to the public or signed.
We imagine this lame attempt to stop this perfectly legal program will be rejected by the DC Court of Appeals as it was in 2009 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
OOIDA is also excited by the actions of three of the Congressmen they and the TEAMSTERS have in their hip pocket.
In an earlier presser, Norita Taylor informed members of the introduction of a silly little bill titled “Protecting America’s Roads Act”.
The presser stated in part that the bipartisan bill seeks to restrict the cross-border trucking program to a pilot program that lasts no more than three years. The bill prohibits the Department of Transportation from granting operating authority that extends beyond the duration of the pilot program – which effectively ends any attempt to grant permanent operating authority to Mexican motor carriers.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio along with Representatives Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., and Daniel Lipinski, D-Illinois and has not yet been assigned a number. Passage in the House is considered unlikely.
The bill also shifts the financial responsibility of electronic monitoring of Mexican motor carriers participating in the program back away from U.S. taxpayers and truckers.
What are the chances of this bill or PARA gaining any traction? Depends on the number of co-sponsors it gets. There is not much energy in Congress to oppose the pilot program fortunately.
But if the bill should pass, higher retaliatory tariffs are almost certain to be imposed costing even more US jobs. Strange that OOIDA and TEAMSTERS don’t address the 25,000+ jobs lost because of the tariffs, job losses brought on by their illogical opposition to the US meeting their promises and obligations.
A Mexican embassy official Karen Antebi, speaking at a June 29 event organized by the Washington International Trade Association (WITA), noted that if the US reneged on its agreement, sought to sabotage it through efforts to stop it in the Highway Appropriations Bill or similar legislation, Mexico would retain its right to retaliate, which could include increasing or changing the retaliatory duties.
Asked what Mexico would do if [the program] gets canceled again, or if it doesn’t get funded, I think most of you know the answer,” Antebi said. “We’ve reserved our right to reimpose, change, increase, [or] deepen the retaliation list.”
And if that happens, once again, OOIDA, The TEAMSTERS and their bought and paid for members of Congress will be responsible for more horrendous job losses and losses of market share to Canada and China. Let’s not allow that to happen.
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”
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
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.
MEXICO CITY – Mexico will maintain punitive tariffs on 99 U.S. products but will not add any more goods or change the list pending negotiations over a new program to allow Mexican cargo trucks on U.S. roads, the government announced Monday.
Economy Secretary Bruno Ferrari said the move is a show of goodwill as the two countries begin discussing an initiative the U.S. presented last week to lift a U.S. ban on Mexican trucks.
“As of this moment we stop that rotating process” — the expansion of the taxed list and the periodic changing of goods subject to the punitive tariffs, Ferrari said after a meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.
The Mexican government has protested the U.S. ban on Mexican trucks as a violation of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mexico initially levied higher tariffs on 89 U.S. products in March 2009, after the U.S. Congress failed to renew the pilot program that let a limited number of Mexican trucking companies haul freight beyond a 25-mile (40-kilometer) border commercial zone.
Last year, Mexico added 10 more goods and changed some of the products on the list after the U.S. failed to present a proposal for resolving the dispute.
Mexico’s punitive tariffs range from 5 percent to 15 percent on everything from cheese, fruits, juice and pork products to wine and toilet paper.
The tariffs have caused U.S. companies about $2 billion in commercial losses, Kirk said.
SOURCE: AP STORY
By Sam Carney
U.S. pork exports to Mexico are falling, and it’s not because Mexicans have lost their taste for pork.
Since August, the price of getting U.S pork into the Mexican market has increased because of a tariff Mexico slapped on it, retribution for the United States failing to live up to a trade obligation.
That duty makes U.S. pork more expensive for Mexicans to buy compared with, say, Canadian pork, which enters Mexico at a zero tariff rate.
In fact, from August to September, U.S. pork exports going south of the border fell 20 percent while Canada’s increased 49 percent.
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
Mexico released the list of revised tariffs today is response to the Obama Administrations continued refusal to comply with our obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The biggest impact comes in new agricultural and processed food products. The Mexican government imposed tariffs of 10-20 percent on products like chocolate, ketchup, chewing gum and cheese — all products of the manufacturing sector, made in American factories by American workers.
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses