Why Is Washington Supporting Mexican Truckers?

[Nbadan]

I thought the administration was elected to do the will of the American people, look after our interests, so why is Washington willing to risk our national security, the safety of our nation's roads, and exacerbate the drug and illegal immigration problem with Mexico just to strike politically at the teamsters?

NAFTA truck dispute in court
Pilot program for Mexican vehicles in U.S. could start Saturday
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT and JENALIA MORENO
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


WASHINGTON — The Teamsters Union and three public-interest groups asked a federal court Wednesday to block the Bush administration from opening U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks as early as this weekend.

The request to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco for an emergency injunction marks the latest effort in a 13-year battle by the Teamsters to stymie cross-border trucking provisions ratified under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The union has long argued the introduction of Mexican trucks would compromise highway safety and cost U.S. jobs.

"What a slap in the face to American workers — opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," Teamsters General President James Hoffa said.

In their court filing, the Teamsters, Sierra Club, Public Citizen and Environmental Law Foundation argue the administration is poised to launch its one-year pilot program before having met all of the requirements imposed by Congress.

Hector Marquez, head of the Mexican Economic Ministry's Trade and NAFTA Office in Washington, deplored the legal challenge.

"It's very unfortunate because certainly the governments of Mexico and the United States have put forth a tremendous effort to put in place all the requirements, all the mechanisms, all the personnel and the resources to make this work and to guarantee the security and safety," Marquez said.

The Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration dismissed the lawsuit as "without merit."

The department this year indicated it would launch a one-year test allowing up to 1,000 Mexican trucks full access to U.S. roadways, beyond the 25-mile buffer zone to which Mexican carriers have been confined since 1982.

The pilot's launch awaits certification from the Transportation Department's inspector general that the government has sufficient inspectors and inspection facilities to ensure that Mexican trucks meet U.S safety requirements.

A Teamsters spokeswoman, Leslie Miller, said union lawyers were advised by Transportation Department attorneys that the inspector general's certification would be provided Friday, allowing the program to proceed the next day.

A Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration spokeswoman said the timeline would be dictated by the inspector general's certification.

Seeing improvement

In an audit report earlier this month, the inspector general reported a number of unresolved hurdles — but also cited "continual improvement" in the transportation agency's border safety program.

But Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, and others in Congress said they remain concerned.

"I would hope that President Bush would reconsider what he's doing," said Lampson, who serves on the House Transportation Committee.

"We need to place the safety of Texans as high as we possibly can place this, and doing this, I think, takes some chances."

Lampson also argued that national security could be affected if the government doesn't inspect all incoming cargo.

With the House having voted overwhelmingly last May to curb the scope of the trucking pilot program, the Teamsters say they will seek additional congressional action if the 9th Circuit doesn't grant the emergency injunction.

The inspector general's audit could give fodder to critics on Capitol Hill.

Investigators noted problems with the database used to check Mexican drivers' records for traffic convictions in the United States — largely because Texas and New Mexico didn't properly report driver convictions to the federal 52nd State System that tracks Mexican drivers.

The audit noted that Texas stopped sharing conviction information with the database in 2006 — an oversight federal officials didn't notice until the inspector general brought it to their attention. New Mexico's data wasn't entered because of incorrect coding, the audit found. Since then, almost half of the Texas backlog of 40,000 Mexican driver convictions has been cleared, the report said.

Companies cool to idea

Even as haggling continues over the cross-border trucking program, some Mexican trucking company officials say it's the politicians — not they — who are interested in opening the border.

"We don't want to go to the United States, and the Americans don't want to go to Mexico," said Rolando Ortega, a delegate from the Matamoros, Mexico, chapter of the National Confederation of Mexican Carriers, which has 280,000 members. "It doesn't reflect the reality of the transportation industry."

Mexican trucking companies that deliver to the U.S. border zone already are struggling with rising insurance rates, longer lines to cross into the U.S. and a lack of credit to buy trucks, said Ortega, who owns 18 trucks.

Only large carriers will haul cargo from Houston to Hidalgo or Memphis to Monterrey, some Mexican trucking company executives say.

"The only companies that want to do that are the trans- national companies and the companies that move their own cargo," said Oscar Garza, a delegate for the Reynosa chapter of the confederation of Mexican carriers.

Many Mexican truckers cannot read signs in English, are unfamiliar with the U.S. highway system and don't know how to find cargo in the U.S. for their return trip to Mexico, said Garza, who once owned 35 trucks and now only has one because of decreased profitability.

Chronicle reporter Jenalia Moreno contributed to this story from Houston.

[braeden0613]

Its globalism..bush and his cronies are huge supporters of the NAU and NAFTA. I dont think he's too concerned about the consequences.

[clambake]

big deal. he wants to sell our ports to arabs and the red cross to dracula.

[boutons_]

"dont think he's too concerned about the consequences."

Wrong. He's concerned, exclusively, about the positives consequences for big business.

[Nbadan]

Why is John Edwards the only candidate standing up for American families?

Edwards Statement On Bush's Open Highways Initiative
Sep 3, 2007 6:23 PM


Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards today criticized the Bush administration's open-highways initiative that would allow Mexican trucks to travel freely within the United States. The initiative is expected to go into effect this week, unless it is blocked on Wednesday by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General.

Edwards released the following statement:

"Our trade policies should put workers and families first. Opening America's highways to Mexico's long-haul diesel trucks puts American jobs and safety at risk. The Department of Transportation has the power to block the program. I urge them to use it.

"Multinational corporations and their Washington lobbyists greased the way to extend NAFTA onto American highways and streets, without regard for the impact on the environment or on the safety of America’s workers and families. Last month, an audit found that the database used to monitor Mexican drivers with license convictions - known as the '52nd State System' - has failed to record thousands of convictions. Mexican diesel trucks will not be required to meet the stricter emissions standards of states like California."

Under the NAFTA-related open-highways initiative, two Mexican trucking companies are initially expected to participate, with 22 more Mexican trucking companies rolling on American roads within a month. Congress passed a law in May requiring that the Bush administration certify that safety and other reporting systems have been implemented before the borders are opened under the new initiative.

John Edwards (http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070903-open-highways)

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif

September 4, 2007

American Farmers Are Crossing the Border for Labor

By JULIA PRESTON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

CELAYA, Mexico — Steve Scaroni, a farmer from California, looked across a luxuriant field of lettuce here in central Mexico and liked what he saw: full-strength crews of Mexican farm workers with no immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) problems.

Farming since he was a teenager, Mr. Scaroni, 50, built a $50-million business growing lettuce and broccoli in California’s Imperial Valley, relying on the hands of immigrant workers, most of them Mexicans and many probably in the United States illegally.

But early last year he began shifting part of his operation to rented fields here. Now some 500 Mexicans tend his crops in Mexico, where they run no risk of deportation.

“I’m as American red-blood as it gets,” Mr. Scaroni said, “but I’m tired of fighting the fight on the immigration issue.”

A sense of crisis prevails among American farmers who rely on immigrant laborers, more so since legislation in the United States Senate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/senate/index.html?inline=nyt-org) failed in June and authorities announced a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants. An increasing number of farmers have been testing the alternative of raising crops across the border where many of the workers are, according to growers and lawmakers in the United States and Mexico.

Western Growers, an association representing farmers in California and Arizona, conducted an informal telephone survey of its members in the spring. Twelve large agribusinesses that acknowledged having operations in Mexico reported a total of 11,000 workers here.

“It seems there is a bigger rush to Mexico and elsewhere,” said Tom Nassif, the Western Growers president, who said Americans were also farming in countries in Central America.

Precise statistics are not readily available on American farming in Mexico, because growers seek to maintain a low profile for their operations abroad. But Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/dianne_feinstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the California Democrat, displayed a map on the Senate floor in July locating more than 46,000 acres that American growers are cultivating in just two Mexican states, Guanajuato and Baja California.

“Farmers are renting land in Mexico,” Ms. Feinstein said. “They don’t want us to know that.”

She predicted that more American farmers would move to Mexico for the ready workforce and lower wages. Ms. Feinstein favored a measure in the failed immigration bill that would have created a new guest worker program for agriculture and a special legal status for illegal immigrant farm workers.

In the past, some Americans have planted south of the border to escape spiraling land prices and to ensure year-round deliveries of crops they can produce only seasonally in the United States. But in the last three years, Mr. Nassif and other growers said, labor uncertainties have become a major reason why more farmers have shifted to Mexico.

While there are benefits for Mexico, as American farmers bring the latest technology and techniques to the rich soil of its northern regions, American farm state economists say that thousands of middle-class jobs supporting agriculture are being lost in the United States. Some lawmakers in the United States also point to security risks when food for Americans is increasingly produced in foreign countries.

Tromping through one of his first lettuce crops near Celaya, an agribusiness hub in the state of Guanajuato, Mr. Scaroni is more candid than many farmers about his move here. He had made six trips to Washington, he said, to plead with Congress to provide more legal immigrants for agriculture.

“I have a customer base that demands we produce and deliver product every day,” he said. “They don’t want to hear the excuses.” Without legal workers in California, he said, “I have no choice but to offshore my operation.”

The Department of Labor has reported that 53 percent of the 2.5 million farm workers in the United States are illegal immigrants, though growers and labor unions say as much as 70 percent of younger field hands are illegal.

As American authorities tightened the border in recent years, seasonal migration from Mexico has been interrupted, demographers say. Many illegal farm laborers, reluctant to leave the United States, have abandoned the arduous migrant work of agriculture for year-round construction and service jobs. Labor shortages during harvests have become common.

Some academics say warnings of a farm labor debacle are exaggerated. “By and large the most dire predictions don’t come true,” said Philip Martin, an agricultural economist at the University of California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Davis. “There is no doubt that some people can’t count on workers showing up as much as they used to,” he said. “But most of the places that are crying the loudest are exceptional cases.”

But some recent studies suggest that strains on the farm labor supply are real. Steve Levy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/steve_levy/index.html?inline=nyt-per), an economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, compared unemployed Americans with illegal immigrant workers in the labor market. “The bottom line,” he concluded, “is that most unemployed workers are not available to replace fired unauthorized immigrant workers,” in part because very few of the unemployed are in farm work.

Mr. Scaroni said he started growing in Mexico reluctantly, after seeing risks to his American operations. At peak season his California company, Valley Harvesting and Packing, employs more than a thousand immigrants, and all have filled out the required federal form, known as an I-9, with Social Security numbers and other identity information.

“From my perspective everyone that works for me is legal,” he said. But based on farm labor statistics, he surmises that many of his workers presented false documents.

An impatient man in perpetual motion, Mr. Scaroni marches through his fields shouting orders to Mexican crew leaders in rough Spanish while he negotiates to buy new trucks in Mexico on a walkie-talkie in one hand and to sell produce in the United States on a cellphone in the other.

Frustrated with experts who say that farmers with labor problems should mechanize, he plunges his hands into side-by-side lettuce plants, pulling out one crisp green head and one that is soggy and brown. After his company invested $1 million in research, he said, “We haven’t come up with a way to tell a machine what’s a good head and what’s a bad head.”

He also dismisses arguments that he could attract workers by raising wages, saying Americans do not take the sweaty, seasonal field jobs. “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did that I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal workforce,” Mr. Scaroni said.

Still, transferring to Mexico has been costly, he said. Since the greens he cuts here go to bagged salads in supermarkets, he rigidly follows the same food safety practices as California. Renting fallow Mexican land, he enclosed his fields in fences and installed drip irrigation systems for the filtered water he uses.

He trained his Mexican field crews to wear hair nets, arm sheaths and sanitized gloves, and held drills on the correct use of portable toilets. In the clean-scrubbed cooling house, female workers in white caps scrutinize produce for every stray hair and dirt spot.

By now about one-fifth of Mr. Scaroni’s operation is on five farms approaching 2000 acres in Guanajuato. A few of his Mexican employees came from California, like Antonio Martínez Aguilar, a seasoned field manager who worked there for fifteen years but could never get immigration documents.

“I tried everything, but there wasn’t anything anyone could do to make me legal,” Mr. Martínez said.

Negotiated among growers and unions over seven years, the agricultural measure in the failed immigration bill, known as AgJobs, had wider bipartisan support than the bill as a whole, lawmakers said. Its supporters have said they hope to bring it before Congress this fall, perhaps attached to the farm bill. It was hurt by the resignation of Senator Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who was one of its chief sponsors.

Mr. Scaroni expects recover his start-up costs because of the lower wages he pays farm workers here, $11 a day as opposed to about $9 an hour in California, although Mexican workers are less productive in their own country, he said.

“It’s not a cake walk down here,” he said. “At least I know the one thing I don’t have to worry about is losing my labor force because of an immigration raid.”

Copyright 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[Wild Cobra]

Without going into detail for responses, since I really haven't read this thread...

Give me a break tonight... I'm drunk...

This whole trucking thing from Mexican trucks. I'm against. When NAFTA was first mentioned in the early 90's, I was for it. In retrospect, I feel it was a mistake. I was aware of the minor negative effect it would have on the American economy, but I was thinking the positive effect it would have on increasing a border neighbor’s economy would outweigh the bad. I still think that would be true., However, since we started tearing down the idea of tariffs... which are supported by constitution... we have gone too far. I am only in favor of free trade with Mexico. Not with China, or any other country that has a dissimilar economies to our own.

I remember a day when controlled immigration for the real jobs Americans wouldn't do allowed migrant workers to come here and pick crops, I don't recall the program name, but somehow, the program no longer exists. I don't recall if it was during president Reagan’s time or not, but if so, it is a negative against one of the best presidents in history. In 20/20 hindsight. He should have never signed whatever legislation that changed these things.

I love the Mexican people as a whole. The problem is that with the vast differences in our economies, we are inviting trouble with the lax immigration policies we have. I would like to see a free border between us an Mexico, but not as long as we have such dramatic differences between our economies. That is why I wish NAFTA wasn't trivialized with the other free trade agreements that followed.

I am completely against these trucking issue. I'm sure some on the Mexican companies will follow the rules and regulations established. However, I think we can expect the same lack of enforcement with truck safety and inspections as we see with immigration. Now what will we have? Just about anything we can imagine. Unsafe trucks involved in accidents, returning to Mexico, and how does the victim get a claim? Paid services foe increased illegal migration. Besides unsafe trucks on the road, what effect might it have on our trucking industry?

People accuse me of towing the republican line. Those who do are flat out stupid or ignorant. I have noted my likes and dislikes enough that that I can safely say is true. Take your pick. I am just not a Bush Hater in general. I have consistently been against his lack of spending control and against him on immigration policies. I will give credit where due, and faults where deserved. President Bush is not a good peacetime president. If it were not for 9/11, I would probably hate the man myself. After 9/11 and before he started showing his liberal colors on spending and Immigration, I made statements saying he could be one of the best presidents in history. I have since then taken back those remarks.

[Nbadan]

The Coming NAFTA Crash: The Deadly Impact of a Secret NAFTA Tribunal's Decision to Open U.S. Highways to Unsafe Mexican Trucks

NEW EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT A NAFTA RULING ALLOWING MEXICAN TRUCKS ACCESS TO U.S. WILL EXPOSE THE PUBLIC TO SIGNIFICANT THREATS


....In fact, there was never any question whether the U.S. could keep its domestic truck safety rules on the books. The issue was whether those safety standards could be enforced in the context of Mexican trucks.

Owners of commercial fleets who wish to operate in the U.S. must apply for operating permits from the U.S. Department of Transportation. According to the NAFTA panel, the U.S. may require that Mexican trucking companies which apply to be able to cross the border will meet all U.S. safety and labor standards. While this sounds good in theory, in practice given the state of Mexican inspection and enforcement, the only way to monitor whether a company is upholding its obligations is to check every truck which crosses the border and maintain good records on the companies and trucks that fail inspection there or elsewhere in the U.S. Although our government has been working with Mexico to develop a common database to do just that since NAFTA was implemented, no system is currently in place, and we are years away from a workable monitoring process.

Additionally, although the imminent NAFTA border opening deadline creates pressure on Mexico to develop a meaningful motor vehicle safety standard and oversight system little progress has occurred. Although some new Mexican laws are on the books, compliance is voluntary for the first year, and there is little evidence on the level of the Mexican government's commitment to enforce the new rules.

What the preliminary panel ruling actually required was that the U.S. must comply with NAFTA and open its borders-- regardless of our state of readiness to enforce critical American health and safety standards. If the U.S. also seeks to try to enforce U.S. safety requirements, it must do so on a truck-by-truck basis. The U.S. inspects approximately 40 percent of domestic trucks with inspections being merely one element of its multifaceted truck safety regulatory system. And the safety standards in Mexico will not do much to assure American safety once the trucks cross the border. As described in this report, Mexico has only a fledgling truck safety system. Our experience thus far has demonstrated the risks. While fewer than 1 percent of Mexican trucks now entering the U.S. are inspected, fully 35 percent of those trucks are forced out of service due to serious safety failures.

To attempt to fully enforce U.S. truck safety standards in the context of Mexican trucks would require that every single Mexican truck be inspected on the border. When President Bush was governor of Texas, he signed a letter to the Clinton Administration criticizing the refusal to open the border. The new administration may argue that the U.S. can ensure safety by inspecting each Mexican truck. But the government and the U.S. trucking industry (which seeks to hire cheap Mexican drivers) know this is impossible.

Currently, 2 million trucks are inspected in the U.S. annually. This includes the 1 percent of 4 million (or approximately 35,000) Mexican trucks now crossing that are checked. DOT estimates that an additional 3 million Mexican trucks would cross yearly if the border were open. Thus, to inspect all entering Mexican trucks, U.S. inspections per year must rise from 2 million to 9 million trucks. Currently, there are about 101 state commercial truck inspectors and 60 federal inspectors at the border who are able to cover 1 percent of the current 4 million Mexican trucks. Thus, to cover every Mexican truck if the border were opened with even a cursory inspection would require 32,000 inspectors. It is unlikely that the administration will guarantee this enormous resource allocation or the necessary funding for the construction of the huge new inspection facilities that would be needed to avoid week-long border backups.

Yet, even if the U.S. had the additional resources to try to enforce U.S. safety standards on a truck-by-truck basis, the preliminary NAFTA truck ruling also included a cryptic reference to a NAFTA provision that could require the U.S. to treat U.S. and Mexican trucks identically for inspection purposes. In typical trade doublespeak, the preliminary ruling contains language suggesting that the U.S. could treat Mexican trucks differently for inspection purposes. However, at the same time, the ruling requires that the U.S. comply with NAFTA's Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, which explicitly forbids domestic and foreign players from being treated differently.

Amid the presidential election chaos, the crucial story of the NAFTA truck ruling received little media coverage outside the "trade press." Yet, the upcoming decision has enormous policy and political implications. President Bush has two basic options:

* to reject the NAFTA tribunal's orders to open the border and compensate Mexico for keeping the border closed until Mexican trucks can meet U.S. safety requirements; or

* to allow Mexican trucks to enter the U.S. and risk that inevitable future crashes will lead to additional loss of life and to a massive public backlash against NAFTA.

The high price to be paid under either response scenario -- either financially, to maintain safety, or personally and politically, with increasing fatalities and injuries if the border is opened to unsafe trucks -- demonstrates that NAFTA is a severely flawed agreement.

President Clinton noted three major problems that were unsolved when he kept the border closed in 1995: major differences between U.S. and Mexican safety regulations;

* major differences in the application and enforcement of the safeguards; and

* the inability of states and federal regulators to effectively enforce U.S. standards on Mexican trucks.

Those concerns are still valid-- permitting greater access for Mexican trucks will endanger U.S. motorists, which is why U.S. consumer and highway safety groups urge President Bush to keep the border closed until the safety issues are addressed and to compensate Mexico as NAFTA's rules require.

President Bush's response to this crisis will significantly impact American public opinion regarding trade and President Bush's public image. Many people in the corporate business lobby that financed Bush's campaign and inauguration are eager for him to open the border and allow underpaid Mexican drivers to transport the corporations' cheap-labor Mexican-made goods to the U.S. for sale (long haul drivers in Mexico earn about 6¢ a mile compared to about 28¢ a mile for U.S. drivers). Most other Americans -- especially in the border states of Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico -- are legitimately concerned that a flood of unsafe, basically unregulated freight trucks from Mexico would pose a significant threat to the quality of life and to highway safety. The safety threat is so significant that a California trucking industry association opposes opening the border, foreseeing a backlash against all trucking when the inevitable accident occurs.

The current NAFTA truck crisis is one of the most dramatic examples of how "trade agreements" such as NAFTA reach far beyond appropriate commercial issues and can threaten vital domestic health and safety standards, even when these standards are applied equally to domestic and foreign commerce. If U.S. federal highway safety officials conclude that Mexican trucks do not meet U.S. safety standards, why should that well-substantiated safety policy be challengeable before a NAFTA dispute resolution tribunal as a trade barrier?

Indeed, raising Mexican truck safety standards would have an enormous benefit for the safety of Mexican motorists and communities. Currently, Mexico has a highway fatality rate more than three times that of the U.S. or Canada. With the opening of the border according to an arbitrary timeline that is set and enforced under the NAFTA agreement without any connection to compelling safety considerations, safety advances in Mexico and the U.S. will lose critical leverage for improving standards.

In short, the panel's decision will force the opening of the border to occur far too soon. The border should remain closed until there is a consensus that meaningful safety standards and oversight are in place.

The continuing trend is that "trade" agreements will undermine safety, health and other domestic social policies. This ongoing diminishment of our hard-won health and safety safeguards fuels the backlash against NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Link (http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6839)

[BradLohaus]

When NAFTA was first mentioned in the early 90's, I was for it. In retrospect, I feel it was a mistake.

I was for it at the time as well. We have been fed a steady diet of globalist propaganda to get us to think that free trade is always great for everybody, end of story.



To a certain extent, we are going to have to yield some of our sovereignty, which will be controversial at home... Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) some Americans are going to be hurt as low-wage jobs are taken away.

That's from a speech titled "Changing Our Ways: America and the New World" that Lord gave at a town hall meeting in LA in 1992. The elites knew what was going to happen with NAFTA, but amazingly, people will still argue with the notion that free trade isn't good for everybody, even though the policy makers who push globalization forward know good and well that it isn't good for many Americans. Winston Lord was an Assistant Secretary of State under Clinton and a former Ambassador to China. And, surprise, surprise, he's also a member of the Trilateral Commision, was the president of the Council of Foreign Relations for 8 years, and is in Skull and Bones. That is all one big coincidence, of course. :lol

[PixelPusher]

I was for it at the time as well. We have been fed a steady diet of globalist propaganda to get us to think that free trade is always great for everybody, end of story.

Ah, so you've read "The World is Flat" by Tom Friedman too?

[BradLohaus]

Ah, so you've read "The World is Flat" by Tom Friedman too?

Ah, Friedman; one of the biggest globalist propagandists. I've read "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and "Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11" a few years ago. I haven't read "The World is Flat". Ever since I read that Friedman said that he supports all free trade deals automatically, without even looking into them at all, I haven't read a word that he has written. He's a shill. His globalist shilling has been rewarded with trips to the Bilderberg meetings, just like our Texas governor.

[mookie2001]

oh so we all agree?
doesnt seem too conservative

im not down with globalism
smeagol

either is CBF

[Nbadan]

LET'S HOPE THIS VOTE IS VETO PROOF...

Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test
Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:51PM EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to block funding for a Bush administration test program to let Mexican long-haul trucks operate in the United States under 1994's North American Free Trade Agreement.

One day after a fiery truck accident killed dozens in Mexico, the Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill that would cut off funding for the test, which the administration authorized last week to run for one year.

The House of Representatives has passed a similar measure.

The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the broad transportation bill because it would spend more money than President George W. Bush requested. It said the administration opposes any restrictions on the cross-border trucking program.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAO00012920070912)

[Wild Cobra]

LET'S HOPE THIS VOTE IS VETO PROOF...

Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test
Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:51PM EDT



Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAO00012920070912)
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If we have no money to implement programs, we cannot monitor if the trucks are following the safety standards, now can we?

Mexico sued in international court because the trucking agreement is part of the NAFTA treaty, and won. President Bush has to honor this agreement voted in by a democrat congress in 1993, and signed into law by president Clinton. The senate consisted of 57 democrats and 43 republicans. The house consisted of 258 democrats and 175 republicans. On 17 Nov 93, the house voted to accept NAFTA 234 to 200. On 20 Nov 93, the senate vote was 61 to 38.

President Clinton signed it 8 Dec 93 and it became Public Law effective 1 Jan 94.

Now please explain to me why we are blaming president Bush?

Haven’t you Kool-Aid drinking lemmings learned yet to wake up and smell the facts?

[xrayzebra]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If we have no money to implement programs, we cannot monitor if the trucks are following the safety standards, now can we?

Mexico sued in international court because the trucking agreement is part of the NAFTA treaty, and won. President Bush has to honor this agreement voted in by a democrat congress in 1993, and signed into law by president Clinton. The senate consisted of 57 democrats and 43 republicans. The house consisted of 258 democrats and 175 republicans. On 17 Nov 93, the house voted to accept NAFTA 234 to 200. On 20 Nov 93, the senate vote was 61 to 38.

President Clinton signed it 8 Dec 93 and it became Public Law effective 1 Jan 94.

Now please explain to me why we are blaming president Bush?

Haven’t you Kool-Aid drinking lemmings learned yet to wake up and smell the facts?

Hmmmmm, strangely quite in here.......

[WHOTTABITCH]

Hmmmmm, strangely quite in here.......


Don't worry i got it covered.


NAFTA!

RON PAUL!

ONE WORLD ORDER!

VICTORIA!

BUKKAKES!

ROFL!

[WHOTTABITCH]

This is the biggest ownage in all of the political forum. And Wild Cobra did it without using Baiting tactics, or changing the issue, arguing semantics, or pasting a Tom Tommorrow cartoon.

Priceless.

[WHOTTABITCH]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If we have no money to implement programs, we cannot monitor if the trucks are following the safety standards, now can we?

Mexico sued in international court because the trucking agreement is part of the NAFTA treaty, and won. President Bush has to honor this agreement voted in by a democrat congress in 1993, and signed into law by president Clinton. The senate consisted of 57 democrats and 43 republicans. The house consisted of 258 democrats and 175 republicans. On 17 Nov 93, the house voted to accept NAFTA 234 to 200. On 20 Nov 93, the senate vote was 61 to 38.

President Clinton signed it 8 Dec 93 and it became Public Law effective 1 Jan 94.

Now please explain to me why we are blaming president Bush?

Haven’t you Kool-Aid drinking lemmings learned yet to wake up and smell the facts?


That's not fair, the daily show doesn't cover this stuff in it's comedy routine, and they don't have this stuff on liberal blogs.

[BradLohaus]

I don't just blame Bush, but I don't believe that the reason Bush isn't going to stop those trucks is because an international court told him so. If anything it's an excuse to fall back on. He can rightly blame Clinton for NAFTA. But I think Bush thinks it's a good thing to always accelerate trade between the countries, no matter the consequences. It's a pretty popular belief in the government these days.

I mean, Bush was all for CAFTA, which barely got through both houses. There's no evidence to make me think that Bush would do anything to stop this situation even if he could.


ONE WORLD ORDER!
Yeah, they want it to happen as well.

[xrayzebra]

I don't just blame Bush, but I don't believe that the reason Bush isn't going to stop those trucks is because an international court told him so. If anything it's an excuse to fall back on. He can rightly blame Clinton for NAFTA. But I think Bush thinks it's a good thing to always accelerate trade between the countries, no matter the consequences. It's a pretty popular belief in the government these days.

I mean, Bush was all for CAFTA, which barely got through both houses. There's no evidence to make me think that Bush would do anything to stop this situation even if he could.


Yeah, they want it to happen as well.

Couldn't agree with you more. Father/Son are both
world order people.

His stand on immigration is more than proof of that.
And he backs NAFTA and even more world trade
agreements.

[BradLohaus]

^I don't know how I forgot about amnesty. Freaking Bush. He wouldn't stop those trucks anymore than Perry would.

[Wild Cobra]

^I don't know how I forgot about amnesty. Freaking Bush. He wouldn't stop those trucks anymore than Perry would.
I think you're wrong, in part at least. I do think he wants a program that checks the trucks and drivers for safety enforcement. Beyond that, I agree. President is in favor of opening up the USA.

[Nbadan]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

If we have no money to implement programs, we cannot monitor if the trucks are following the safety standards, now can we?

Mexico sued in international court because the trucking agreement is part of the NAFTA treaty, and won. President Bush has to honor this agreement voted in by a democrat congress in 1993, and signed into law by president Clinton. The senate consisted of 57 democrats and 43 republicans. The house consisted of 258 democrats and 175 republicans. On 17 Nov 93, the house voted to accept NAFTA 234 to 200. On 20 Nov 93, the senate vote was 61 to 38.

President Clinton signed it 8 Dec 93 and it became Public Law effective 1 Jan 94.

Now please explain to me why we are blaming president Bush?

Haven’t you Kool-Aid drinking lemmings learned yet to wake up and smell the facts?


Your (obviously false) assumption being that all Republicans are globalist, while all Democrats are, what? anti-globalist? Supporting globalism crosses party lines, much like supporting the womens right to choice crosses political affiliation for Republicans....and the Clintons certainly support globalism.....

[Nbadan]

This is the biggest ownage in all of the political forum. And Wild Cobra did it without using Baiting tactics, or changing the issue, arguing semantics, or pasting a Tom Tommorrow cartoon.

Priceless.

What is this your 10th new screen name? Yeah, you know ownage....


:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Your (obviously false) assumption being that all Republicans are globalist, while all Democrats are, what? anti-globalist? Supporting globalism crosses party lines, much like supporting the womens right to choice crosses political affiliation for Republicans....and the Clintons certainly support globalism.....
Idiot.

You are making an assumption of what you think I assume... By my words, I was implying the opposite as well…

You’re right. The split is not partisan. Did I say otherwise?

Hint... If the split were partisan, wouldn't I be likely to have shown the numbers more in depth after looking them up? I was pretty pissed at some of the republicans supporting it and surprised by some of the democrats opposing it.

I figured someone else would look them up and task me on that. Not by making absolutely idiotic assumptions like you just did.

Links to the vote:

House vote (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml)

Senate vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395)

[Nbadan]

Look, Dubya has the votes to over-turn NAFTA....Clinton, eh, maybe not so much....and I find it kinda odd that you attack us for attacking our chosen leader, while attacking Clinton...

[Wild Cobra]

Look, Dubya has the votes to over-turn NAFTA....Clinton, eh, maybe not so much....and I find it kinda odd that you attack us for attacking our chosen leader, while attacking Clinton...
The problem I have is that people like you attack president Bush just to be attacking him rather than with reliable facts.

[Nbadan]

We likes to have our fun, but this is a serious policy matter difference...

[Wild Cobra]

We likes to have our fun, but this is a serious policy matter difference...
Yes, agreed.

Now I don't know the text of the legislation defeated. However, I believe it authorizes money to inspect the trucks and impose our rules on them. The trucks will be crossing our borders with or without the spending. Right?

Do we now have a mechinism to monitor them? When they go unchecked, how many more trucks that do not meet our safety standards will be coming in, once they realize we are not checking?

[boutons_]

"mechinism to monitor them"

we've spent 100s of $Ms on "truck weigh stations". they could be used for pulling MX trucks over to weigh them, inspect them to US standards, like our domestic fleet. They'd carry a US inspection sticker and USDoT number like any other truck. US already has plenty of truck inspection stations. btw, a loaded max-size trailer wears/tears our roads 40x more than a single car. They should be taxed a heavy usage charge. in fact, all vehicules should be taxed by weight.

[WHOTTABITCH]

What is this your 10th new screen name? Yeah, you know ownage....


:rolleyes


It's called a troll. You seemed to spend too much time obsessing about me that you even voted against me in the troll forum :lol . Douche. Go suck a dick hippie.