You'll soon being seeing safe, modern Mexican rigs driven by professional drivers on US highways as the US finally complies with it's obligations under NAFTA
During the scheduled meeting of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee in Alexandria Virginia yesterday, those were the words of Carlos Sesma, an attorney representing Mexican trucking interests before the committee.
And Sesma was correct.
The MCSAC is a subcommittee of the FMCSA charged with overseeing the Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program.
OOIDA Executive Vice-President Todd Spencer who is a member of the committee was making the usual asinine and totally false claims about the program.
“What’s behind this is access to cheaper sources of labor,” Spencer claimed after the meeting, repeating the thoroughly debunked claim that it will put American jobs at risk and raises numerous safety concerns.
Mexican trucks have historically shown to have a lower percentage of Out of Service violations for vehicles and drivers than their US counterparts.
A representative of the Teamsters Union who sits on the committee, Lamont Byrd, director of safety and health for the Teamsters union, said he had concerns also, but refused to elaborate on what they might be. (As if we can’t guess)
But the agreement will not take jobs from U.S. truckers, Sesma said, because Mexican drivers won’t stay in this country for work. As for safety, he said, cross-border truckers from Mexico are from areas near the U.S., so most read and speak English and understand U.S. traffic laws.
Bill Quade, a program administrator for the FMCSA, countered, “I suspect the Mexican government will put billions of dollars of tariffs back onto U.S. goods, if the program is delayed again.” Quade is correct.
Mexico reserved the right to reestablish the $2.5 billion dollars in legal tariff’s against US exports they put on US produced goods and agricultural products when the Obama Administration caved to pressure from union interests and reneged and defunded the previous highly successful cross border demonstration project. Those tariff’s cost US workers 25,000 jobs and more than 14% market share in the agriculture sector.
Though all the misinformation and hysteria being promoted by the Teamsters and OOIDA, Quade also revealed that to date, only 5 Mexican trucking companies had submitted applications to participate in the program.
Carlos Sesma said the creation of an open border for commerce is inevitable, which is why the agreement makes practical sense. He said the current method of carrying long-distance freight across the border, in which a truck drops a trailer and another picks it up, is inefficient.
It also makes practical sense as it put the United States in compliance with it’s international obligations and with a promise made and evaded for more than 17 years.
But that wasn’t good enough for Spencer, who continued with his naysaying and fear mongering.
Spencer characterized Sesma’s statement “unbelievably exaggerated.” He questioned the ability of U.S. and Mexican states to police drivers with poor records and he claimed that the scarcity of low-sulfur diesel in Mexico, which is needed for most newer-model U.S. trucks, would be a handicap for American truckers trying to penetrate the Mexican market.
“Any real, meaningful truck travel in Mexico isn’t going to be possible,” Spencer said.
Spencer is the master of “unbelievable exaggeration”. As a member of the committee, Spencer is well aware of the FMCSA and individual states ability to access Mexican driver databases and that ultra low sulfur diesel is readily available in Mexico along the lanes that US truckers would run, not that they would need to buy any.
And Spencer ignored the fact that 4 US trucking companies are still successfully and very profitably operating in Mexico after being allowed access under the 2007 cross border trucking agreement with Mexico. That’s right folks! When the US was hurrying to renege on our obligations with Mexico in 2009 by de-funding the previous program, Mexico allowed continuous operation by US participants in their country, to the consternation of CANACAR, the association which represents the majority of major Mexican trucking firms.
OOIDA’s Mark Reddig said in a recent blog entry;
Let me be clear about one thing, though. We intend to fight the opening of this border tooth and nail, with every ounce of energy we have. And we intend to win.
So far, not only have we won every round, but in fact we’ve had most of Congress and numerous other organizations with us.
If you call “winning” using lies, fear mongering, misinformation and other underhanded tactics, winning, then perhaps they have, but it’s nothing to be proud about, but this time fat boy, you lose!
Comments for the Federal Register
FMCSA–2011–0097
by Daniel Griswold
These comments were submitted on May 4, 2011.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed restoration of long-haul cross-border trucking with Mexico in compliance with our commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
My name is Daniel Griswold. I’m director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. Cato is a non-profit, non-partisan educational institution supported by voluntary donations from individuals and foundations who share our core values of individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace.
The suspension of the cross-border pilot trucking program by Congress in 2009 has been a breach of our international commitments, an embarrassment to our nation, and a barrier to two-way U.S. trade with the people of Mexico. The time is long overdue to correct this injustice and economic distortion by fully implementing the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
Under the 1994 agreement, the United States and Mexico were to allow trucks from each country to deliver goods to destinations inside the other country, provided the trucks and their drivers met all safety regulations mandated by the host government. According to Annex I of the agreement, licensed and qualified Mexican trucks were to be allowed to make deliveries in U.S. border states by 1995, a year after the agreement went into effect, and throughout the U.S. by 2000. U.S. trucking firms were to be granted the same access to Mexico. But under pressure from the Teamsters union, President Clinton unilaterally suspended implementation of the provisions in 1995, citing safety concerns.
President George W. Bush, to his credit, tried to fulfill the U.S. obligation under NAFTA. His administration launched a pilot program in 2007, which allowed a limited number of Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods to U.S. destinations beyond the 25-mile commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexican border. Citing unsubstantiated safety concerns, and in the face of ongoing union pressure, a bipartisan majority in Congress voted to cut off funding for the program in 2009.
The Obama administration has sought to reinstate the program under the “concept document” released in January 2011. The document and the attending regulations would go a significant way toward implementing the original NAFTA obligations and should be adopted as soon as possible.
Suspension of the pilot program in 2009 was based on protectionism and prejudice, not legitimate safety concerns. Although Teamsters union leaders talk about safety, their real agenda is not to promote safer roads but to protect themselves from increased competition. The broader agenda of their congressional allies is to thwart full implementation of a successful trade agreement with Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. The real objection they have to Mexican trucks making deliveries to U.S. cities is not that they are unsafe but that those trucks are driven by Mexicans. In the eyes of too many members of Congress, “driving while Mexican” remains an unacceptable public hazard.
In contrast to those stereotypes, experience from the pilot program has demonstrated that Mexican trucks and their drivers are fully capable of complying with all U.S. safety requirements. An August 2009 report from the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General found that only 1.2 percent of Mexican drivers that were inspected were placed out of service for violations, compared to nearly 7 percent of U.S. drivers who were inspected. The “out of service” rate for Mexican trucks was slightly lower than the rate for U.S. trucks, even though Mexican trucks were inspected six times more often than the U.S. trucks.
The Congressional Research Service confirmed the superior safety record of Mexican trucks and drivers in a February 2010 report to Congress:
The safety of Mexican trucks [in the demonstration program] is now comparable with U.S. trucks. ‘Out-of-service’ violations are those that are serious enough to keep the truck from continuing its journey until the violation is resolved. … However, recent data provided by the FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] … indicate that other Mexican trucks [those operating just in the 25-mile "commercial zone" across the border] are as safe as U.S. trucks and that the drivers are generally safer than U.S. drivers.
The failure of Congress to allow implementation of the NAFTA trucking provisions has proven costly to the United States in three important ways.
First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived our economy of the efficiencies of moving goods across our mutual border at lower cost. With the ban in place, trucks approaching the border are required to unload their cargo into warehouses in so-called commercial zones within 25 miles of the border, only to have that cargo reloaded onto short-haul vehicles and then onto domestic trucks for final delivery. This inefficient system causes delays, increased pollution and added costs at busy border crossings such as Calexico East; San Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo, Texas. Because more than 70 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban on cross-border trucking imposes an additional $200 million to $400 million in transportation costs each year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S. exporters to perfectly legal sanctions imposed by the Mexican government. Under the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting patiently for more than a decade, the Mexican government imposed sanctions in 2009 on more than $2.4 billion in U.S. exports affect 100 products, from Washington apples to Iowa pork. The sanctions would be lifted in two stages as the U.S. government implements the proposed program to comply with Annex I.
Third, failure to comply has compromised the U.S. government’s reputation as a good citizen of the global trading system. Simply put, the U.S. government has failed to keep its word to our Mexican neighbors. Our government has been in flagrant violation of a major trade agreement for more than 15 years. This breach of trust has undermined the U.S. government’s standing to challenge other governments, from Mexico to China to the European Union, who may also be in violation of various trade agreements. The Obama administration’s promise to more vigorously “enforce” our rights in the World Trade Organization and other agreements will lack credibility as long as the U.S. government fails to comply with such clear commitments as the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
For all these reasons, the U.S. government should act as quickly and as thoroughly as possible to implement the proposed regulations to bring our nation into compliance with our mutually beneficial agreement with our Mexican neighbors on cross-border trucking.
Griswold, Daniel. “The Pilot Program on NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions.” May 4, 2011. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13075 (accessed May 5, 2011).
WASHINGTON — A “frustrated” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., late Monday said she had included language in the Fiscal Year 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill that calls on the Obama administration to put forward a plan that would end retaliatory tariffs on Washington state agricultural products by Oct. 1.
The bill passed the THUD subcommittee, which Murray chairs, as well as the full Appropriations committee, and will now head to the full Senate for consideration.
“I am extremely frustrated that the administration has not yet acted while farmers across my home state of Washington continue to suffer under Mexico’s retaliatory tariffs,” Murray said. “I am urging both the Obama administration and the Mexican government to solve this issue and allow Washington state farmers to compete on a level playing field. Since there has been inaction for too long, I included specific language in the transportation spending bill giving the administration a clear deadline of Oct. 1 to solve this problem.”
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses