Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 12, 2008 21:36:04 GMT -6
from nbc11 news:
Union Angry At Bush For Giving Mexican Trucks Greater Highway Access
"SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court considered Tuesday whether the Bush administration can go ahead with a pilot program that allows a small number of Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways, despite a new law by Congress against it.
Members of the Teamsters Union and their supporters packed a courtroom at 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where an apparently divided three-judge panel heard arguments in the case....
(the program) allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States.
The Teamsters, Sierra Club and Public Citizen sued the administration in August to try to stop the program, which the U.S. agreed to as part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.
In December, Congress passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program that allows U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border and into the country. But the Department of Transportation (re-)interpreted "establish" as meaning to start a new program rather than to stop the current one, which was launched in September."
(In a separate story, the Bush administration has issued a new executive order—
officially redefining the word "banning," as to mean "permitting, allowing, or authorizing.")
"The U.S. Senate voted 75 to 23 and the U.S. House voted 411 to 3 to keep the border closed until truck standards are met. Many U.S. business leaders have said that many Mexican trucking companies have worse safety records than their Mexican counterparts.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has claimed her inspectors carefully checked Mexican trucks before they were permitted to use American highways as part of her cross-border trucking pilot project. (Maybe Peters should have "carefully checked" the law passed by Congress, which doesn't allow her to make that decision.)
"The congressional intent is unambiguous," said Judge Dorothy Nelson, one of three appellate judges who will decide the issue. "The intention was to halt the pilot program."
But colleague Judge Andrew Kleinfled seemed satisfied by the administration's position that the new law only prevents new programs and doesn't address the current one.
The issue may hinge on the vote of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, who didn't tip his hand during the hearing.
American inspectors are required to certify the Mexican trucks and drivers for safety before they enter the country and the vehicles will be inspected at the border before they are let into the United States.
Some 42 Mexican trucks owned by 12 carriers have entered the United States since the Bush administration launched the hotly contested program, which permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican companies full access to U.S. roads.
The Teamsters and environmentalists argue that the cross-border program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. They also say there are insufficient safeguards to ensure Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.
A lawyer for the Sierra Club said not enough Mexican carriers have qualified to enter the United States to provide the necessary data to show the pilot program is safe. He said the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had planned to have about 100 carriers certified by now, but only a dozen Mexican companies have been cleared.
"The agency never considered there would be so few carriers," Sierra Club lawyer Jonathan Weissglass said. "It means the pilot program is a sham."
Department of Justice attorney Irene Solet said the program requires border agents to ensure all Mexican truck drivers who intend to drive more than 25 miles into the U.S. have valid Mexican commercial drivers licenses.
She further argued that if Congress intended to "turn its back on the NAFTA agreement" with the law it passed barring establishment of cross-border trucking programs "much more clarity from Congress would be expected.""
How much more clarity is necessary? If Congress passed a law "barring establishment of cross-border trucking programs," how much more clarity is needed? How much more is even possible?
Does it need to be tranlated into hieroglyphics? Sign language? Latin?
Union Angry At Bush For Giving Mexican Trucks Greater Highway Access
"SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court considered Tuesday whether the Bush administration can go ahead with a pilot program that allows a small number of Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways, despite a new law by Congress against it.
Members of the Teamsters Union and their supporters packed a courtroom at 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where an apparently divided three-judge panel heard arguments in the case....
(the program) allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States.
The Teamsters, Sierra Club and Public Citizen sued the administration in August to try to stop the program, which the U.S. agreed to as part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.
In December, Congress passed legislation banning funding to "establish" a program that allows U.S.-certified Mexican trucks to carry loads across the border and into the country. But the Department of Transportation (re-)interpreted "establish" as meaning to start a new program rather than to stop the current one, which was launched in September."
(In a separate story, the Bush administration has issued a new executive order—
officially redefining the word "banning," as to mean "permitting, allowing, or authorizing.")
"The U.S. Senate voted 75 to 23 and the U.S. House voted 411 to 3 to keep the border closed until truck standards are met. Many U.S. business leaders have said that many Mexican trucking companies have worse safety records than their Mexican counterparts.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has claimed her inspectors carefully checked Mexican trucks before they were permitted to use American highways as part of her cross-border trucking pilot project. (Maybe Peters should have "carefully checked" the law passed by Congress, which doesn't allow her to make that decision.)
"The congressional intent is unambiguous," said Judge Dorothy Nelson, one of three appellate judges who will decide the issue. "The intention was to halt the pilot program."
But colleague Judge Andrew Kleinfled seemed satisfied by the administration's position that the new law only prevents new programs and doesn't address the current one.
The issue may hinge on the vote of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, who didn't tip his hand during the hearing.
American inspectors are required to certify the Mexican trucks and drivers for safety before they enter the country and the vehicles will be inspected at the border before they are let into the United States.
Some 42 Mexican trucks owned by 12 carriers have entered the United States since the Bush administration launched the hotly contested program, which permits up to 500 trucks from 100 Mexican companies full access to U.S. roads.
The Teamsters and environmentalists argue that the cross-border program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs. They also say there are insufficient safeguards to ensure Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. carriers.
A lawyer for the Sierra Club said not enough Mexican carriers have qualified to enter the United States to provide the necessary data to show the pilot program is safe. He said the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had planned to have about 100 carriers certified by now, but only a dozen Mexican companies have been cleared.
"The agency never considered there would be so few carriers," Sierra Club lawyer Jonathan Weissglass said. "It means the pilot program is a sham."
Department of Justice attorney Irene Solet said the program requires border agents to ensure all Mexican truck drivers who intend to drive more than 25 miles into the U.S. have valid Mexican commercial drivers licenses.
She further argued that if Congress intended to "turn its back on the NAFTA agreement" with the law it passed barring establishment of cross-border trucking programs "much more clarity from Congress would be expected.""
How much more clarity is necessary? If Congress passed a law "barring establishment of cross-border trucking programs," how much more clarity is needed? How much more is even possible?
Does it need to be tranlated into hieroglyphics? Sign language? Latin?