House votes to end Mexican truck program

This bill removes the transportation secretary's ability to grant authority without the process outlined in our Constitution. FMCSA should not have any authority to grant anything which effects the American people without approval from the American people through our Constitutional administrative process. And as for the NAFTA arbitration board...I do believe it would also uphold our position for Mexico to implement equivalent vehicle and driver safety regulations and a certification system. Canada has done this...why hasn't Mexico?

Take note that this statement of yours points out that Olympic Transport and Fernado Paez Transport are American truck companies...required to adhere to U.S. Regulations to continue this activity. Their business information and drivers are identifiable within our system and are subject to our regulations. The point being made is the pilot program will lead to an open border to a country without the same safeguards as America. The companies you are pointing out have taken the proper steps to legally run in the United States. Opening the border will not be comparable to your example.

They are doing business in the U.S. as American companies, the same as the two companies you previously commented about. Once again these 800-1300 carriers you refer to is identifiable within our system and are subject to our regulations. Opening our border to a country without equivalent vehicle and driver regulations and a certification system is not comparable to this example either.

Provide some company names which don't have dual status transporting drayage to Canada. And your statement of the cross border drayage trucks being allowed to do this is incorrect. Those trucks are OP2 status and are not allowed outside of the 20 mile commercial zone.

I say "raise their tariffs." Maybe then there will be no incentive for American companies to move their business (American jobs) to Mexico, or other countries, for cheap labor, and import through Mexico. See how long wal-mart lasts then when they can't under-cut the mom & pop business's.

I apologize to everyone else for my shreading of his post, but this seems to be the way he wants to communicate...then this is how I will communicate back.

-ss-

 

This can actually be viewed in a different perspective. Information is being posted back at this individual. Information which would possibly not be posted otherwise. Just don't let him get your dandruf up...treat it as a debate (which is how it should be when discussions of this nature arise.)

Opps...how ya doing darling?

-ss-

 

I'm done arguing with you. The Pilot Program will continue no matter what Congress says, it'll be tied up in court for years after the program ends anyway.

But, if you feel you got a victory with a vote in Congress, have a cookie.

 

I'm sorry you feel we've been arguing...I thought we were debating two sides of an issue. The manner of your responses was not appreciated, but none the less I still considered it to be a debate.

And your statement of "no matter what Congress says" speaks volumes of your disrespect for our Constitution.

-ss-

 

One final thought.

Your post about the company having thousands of violations:
It was actually 1100 total violations.
TRINITY INDUSTRIES SA is the Mexican subsidiary of TRINITY INDUSTRIES of Dallas Texas.The violations discovered were mostly on US plated trailers being pulled across the border to be given to Trinity Industries US fleet for delivery in the US! These were US trailers, not MEXICAN trailers.

 

That's why we have three branches of government.

 

Those 1100 violations was on ONE vehicle. They had several involved in the program. Because of their violation situation and the requirements to correct those violations...they removed themselves from the pilot program and was allowed (and I completely disagree with FMCSA's allowance of this) to revert back to OP2 status.

And as for the three branches...which has the true power among the three? And I will not accept the judicial because it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. Please don't take this request as anything more than my way of assessing who I am having a discussion with.

-ss-

 

If you insist.

The first company to remove itself from the Cross Border Program was TRINITY INDUSTRIES DE MEXICO SA de C V the Mexican subsidiary of Trinity Industries with worldwide headquarters in Dallas Texas. Leonel Olivares, terminal manager at Trinity Industries in Eagle Pass, Texas, said its Mexican affiliate “never had intentions of the drivers actually driving into the States. They just wanted to look at the program,” he said.


Jimmy Hoffa, slammed the Department of Transportation for allowing a Trinity Industries of Mexico, based in Piedras Negras, Mexico, to join the program after racking up an average of 112 safety violations per truck in the previous year.
DOT spokesman Brian G. Turmail said the carrier was approved because the “vast majority of (violations) were relatively minor.”
But how true are these numbers? Larry Craig of OOIDA used similar numbers recently when filing the brief with 9th Circuit in the frivolous lawsuit to be heard next week. According to Craig, the numbers come from FMCSA’s own database, Safersys.org.
So we took a look. Running USDOT #610385, brought us to the facts about TRINITY INDUSTRIES DE MEXICO S DE R L DE C V, based in Piedras ?Negras Coahuila, across the border from Eagle Pass Texas.
According to Hoffa and Craig, Trinity Mexico amassed an average of 112 Out of Service (OOS) violations PER TRUCK, in the preceding year.
However, the numbers from the Safersys database do not back up these deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.
In reality, in the period 2/2006 through 2/2008, Trinity Mexico had it’s trucks inspected 1448 times. That is 144.8 inspections per truck in a 24 month period. Breaking it down further, that is 6 inspections per truck, per month. Keep in mind that this is the number of inspections, not the number of violations found as Hoffa and other claim. There is no information that I can find on Safersys to prove the claim of the Teamsters.
Now, of these 1448 inspections conducted randomly on a fleet of 10 trucks in a 24 month period, 161 of these inspections resulted in an OOS order. This breaks down to 0.6 trucks put out of service per month during the period.
The OOS percentage for Trinity Mexico was and remains at 11.1% for equipment OOS violations. The US National average is 23.14%
During this same period, the 10 drivers employed by Trinity Mexico were given Level 3 and 4 inspections 1745 times or 7.2 times per month resulting in an OOS order being given to just 4 drivers. This puts the average at 0.2% while the National average for drivers OOS is 6.8%.

 

As you have pointed out...those numbers are correct and I will concede to those stats only in the way you have presented them. But I will point out that one truck racked up the majority of those violations, and any American trucker will attest to the fact that no American trucker would ever be allowed to receive that many violations without some type of suspension action. We don't have that type of authority over Mexican truck drivers...but then if we did they'd only go buy another license. Mexico has not implemented a valid commercial driver's license database to prevent this.

-ss-

 

September 8, 2008
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of ever size, sector, and region, urges you to oppose H.R. 6630, which would effectively terminate the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Cross-Border Trucking Program with Mexico.
The Cross-Border Trucking Program allows for carefully scrutinized trucks to operate across the U.S.-Mexico border on a reciprocal basis, and is a long overdue step toward reducing congestion and air pollution at the U.S.-Mexico border while promoting growth and jobs.
The United States promised under NAFTA to open its border to Mexican trucks—with full reciprocity for U.S. carriers—and it is vitally important that the U.S. maintains its commitment. NAFTA dispute settlement panels have consistently ruled that the United States is in violation of its obligations for not implementing the agreement’s cross-border trucking provisions, which were to be phased in beginning in 1995. Under the terms of the agreement, it is estimated that Mexico could be entitled to levy retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports approaching $1 billion, which would greatly undermine the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service providers in the second largest U.S. export market.
Under NAFTA, trade with Mexico has quadrupled—from $81 billion in 1993 to $332 billion in 2006—according to the Department of Commerce. Trucking is vital to this trade partnership since trucks move more than 80% of the value of our trade with Mexico. The Chamber urges you to oppose H.R. 6630 and may consider using votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten
​