• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

DOT Goes Against Congress

A

Anonymous

Guest
I watched part of this hearing- and it was great watching Dorgan tear the DOTs lawyer apart-- and questioning how one young attorney could arrogantly rule that he knew more than the Congressional staff attorneys that drew up the law- the Congress that passed the law and make a ruling on the basis of how he interprets one word- and in doing so possibly endanger US citizens....
But as Dorgan commented- GW doesn't let the law stand in the way of arrogantly doing anything he wants to- even when Congress overwhelmingly bipartisanly voted to cut funding for this more Mexicanization of America project......
As was pointed out in the hearings by the Inspector General- these Mexican truckers not only don't have to meet the requirements of the US/Canadian truckers- but don't even have to know how to speak or read English..... :shock:

Senator rails against DOT for 'arrogance,' disrespect of Congress

By Kevin Jones
The Trucker Staff

3/11/2008


WASHINGTON — Repeatedly comparing the implementation of a cross-border trucking plan to the sanctioning of torture, a U.S. Senator took the Bush administration to task Tuesday — emphasizing “there will be consequences” for defying the will of Congress.



“I would say we don’t want to make a federal case out of this, but that’s why we’re here. The fact is, the U.S. Congress passes appropriation bills, we fund the Department of Transportation, and we fully expect the DOT comply with the funding requirements,” Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said, early-on in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.



Other than a brief discussion of a recently released DOT Inspector General’s report, the nearly two-hour session featured little new information about the trucking component of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but multiple accusations by Dorgan of bureaucratic arrogance and disrespect for Congress by the DOT.



At issue is the DOT’s continuation of a test plan to open the U.S.-Mexico border to long-haul trucking, despite several legislative moves to close the gate.



Introducing Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, Dorgan said he had supported her nomination to the post, but “I now regret it.”



“I think there’s an arrogance here with respect to federal agencies, not just yours, but there would not be a hearing if the DOT had complied with congressional intent,” Dorgan said.



Dorgan emphasized the issue at hand wasn’t about NAFTA or relations between the U.S. and Mexico but about safety differences in long-haul trucking in the two countries.



“You can certify one truck, you can certify one company, you can certify 10 or 100 and inspect every nut and bolt and every gasket, but that still does not justify a decision that suggests there is some sort of equivalency with respect to safety standards between Mexican trucking and American trucking. That does not exist,” said Dorgan.



Peters, in her statement and testimony, defended the DOT’s decision to go forward, emphasizing that the program meets previously set congressional standards to ensure safety, and that the program benefits U.S. trucking by guaranteeing long-haul opportunities south of the border.



As for the DOT’s decision to continue the program — despite an approved and signed appropriation package containing language to deny funding for the “establishment” of such a program — General Counsel D.J. Gribbin explained the DOT’s legal argument that a “plain language” interpretation of the law refers only to future projects.



“You know better than that,” Dorgan countered, calling the argument a “creative way to read a word.”



Dorgan quoted comments by the staff who drafted the law, an interpretation which supported an intent to halt the program. He referred as well as to initial reactions from Senate opponents of the law and that of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Administrator John Hill — all pointing, according to Dorgan, to an awareness that Congress clearly meant to shut down the cross-border program.



The DOT, however, stuck by the position it has argued since the law was passed six months ago. Gribbin also explained that no government agency could act in a way contrary to a law as it is written, regardless the perception of intent.



“I’ve been involved in a fair number of close calls on ‘what does this word mean?’ and I don’t think this is even a close call,” Gribbin said, referring to court decisions dating to the 1800s. He also noted courts have been “highly dismissive” of “post-enactment communication” meant to clarify a challenged interpretation.



“But I go back to my point. This is not a hearing in which we’re having a couple of lawyers debate a word,” Dorgan replied. “I think there’s an arrogance here that is all too common in this administration. The arrogance of saying ‘we’ve found a way to deal with this.’ They found a way to deal with torture, in fact. Just a write a memo and say that torture is fine. Write a memo and say that cross-border trucking is fine despite the fact Congress said you can’t use money for that purpose.”



Pressed repeatedly by Dorgan as to what conversations, if any, she’d had with the White House regarding the program, Peters said she specifically discussed with the Office of Legislative Affairs “the U.S. commitment to fulfill international obligations under the NAFTA trade agreement.”



“Based on the interpretation of the law not requiring that we shut the program down, I made the decision not to shut the program down,” Peters said of her role.



In dismissing Peters from the hearing, Dorgan again criticized the DOT for looking for “room to slither through the side” and ignore Congress.



“There are too many examples of this to add more,” Dorgan said, encouraging Peters to consult the White House and reconsider the cross-border program. “It angers me even more, having had this discussion because I believe that government works when people of good faith are doing what they believe to be right.”



Even as Peters insisted the DOT was acting on the belief that it was right, and that there was no disrespect for Congress intended, Dorgan continued.



“There are too many examples in this administration, starting at the White House down through the Department of Justice and to the agencies with respect to torture and a dozen other issues when this administration has decided what the Congress has done matters little to them, and this appears to be one of them, regrettably,”
he said.



In closing remarks, returning to his promise of consequences for defiance of Congress, Dorgan noted that appropriations would be coming up, and that he is “an appropriator” who would “dig some spurs into this issue.”



“The secretary and her legal counsel will not have the last word,” he concluded. “The United States Congress will have the last word.”



In other questioning, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) asked for an explanation as to how Trinity Industries, a Mexico-based carrier with hundreds of recorded safety violations, received program approval.



Peters explained the carrier had withdrawn from the program, and that many of the violations were for equipment never meant to be used in the long-haul operations — but ultimately characterized the carrier as “an anomaly” in the review process that otherwise showed the approved Mexico-based carriers had better safety records than the U.S. commercial vehicle fleet.



Dorgan requested that the Inspector General look into the matter.



Also, Paul Cullen, legal counsel for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association — whose pending court case to halt the program also calls into question the safety record of program participants — told Dorgan that the truckers’ group wasn’t simply looking out for its membership’s commercial interests.



“There is a direct line relationship between profitability and adequate compensation and safety,” Cullen said, referring to the ramifications for American drivers forced to compete with less expensive Mexico-based trucks and drivers.
 

Steve

Well-known member
the nearly two-hour session featured little new information about the trucking component of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but multiple accusations by Dorgan of bureaucratic arrogance and disrespect

Wouldn't his time been better spent representing the American public in this important matter, and actually finding out a little more new information then worrying about his damaged ego?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
the nearly two-hour session featured little new information about the trucking component of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but multiple accusations by Dorgan of bureaucratic arrogance and disrespect

Wouldn't his time been better spent representing the American public in this important matter, and actually finding out a little more new information then worrying about his damaged ego?

Actually they say little new information- because most was info that is already known to the trucking interests....(This article is from The Trucker)- but the info wasn't in the record of the Senate....

The Inspector General brought up much info that I was not aware of- and I'm sure the public wasn't either -because they are being sold a snowjob by GW and crew...
Like the fact the Administration is putting out info that all trucks are inspected crossing the border, making everyone believe it is a safety check- when actually that border inspection only goes so far as to check and see if they are an approved company...Many of the trucks entering have never been inspected by a DOT inspector....
The company that finally withdrew from the program ( wasn't kicked out like they should have been) had been caught operating in the country on over 1100 safety violations-- mostly because they were slipping in different uninspected trailers each time.....

They also had several others from safety organizations testify to safety problems with the program.....Also a young lady who's whole family was killed when a defective Mexican truck drive train broke- and the truck crashed into their car killing her parents and brother....

Peters said Monday that the agency is not violating the law. The law prohibits using funds to establish the program, she said, but the money is being used on the existing program.

This is the snidely way GW and the D.O.T are getting around the law- which I remember quite well when it was passed- and the intent was for them to stop the program....But like I said before--GW never has let the truth, or the law, or the Constitution stand in his way of doing what he wants..
 

Steve

Well-known member
“Based on the interpretation of the law not requiring that we shut the program down, I made the decision not to shut the program down,” Peters said of her role.

as with every issue brought up. all Congress had to do is to create a law. that said "Stop the Mexican trucking program" (even if that law violated Nafta) ..

instead of hiding a bunch of ear-marks and political favors.. and this would have been solved.

I am not and have never been for the Mexican trucker entering this country.. but the congress's blame every one else is getting a bit old..

if the law said it would not fund any new Mexican trucking programs.. is a hell of alot different then saying shut this Mexican trucking program down..

Then they made a big media event to say they stopped it.. and it wouldn't go forward.. shows what idiots they are!.. they can't even make a bill say "stop the Mexican trucking program.".


no they make it eight hundred pages, load it with pork and ear-marks and are either to stupid, or forgot to say "stop the Mexican trucking program"

and you say it was a snow Job from Bush.. every liberal on here makes it out that Bush is dumb,.. yet with out even trying,, he outsmarted and entire capital filled with idiots.. :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
When they were debating the law, it was crystal clear what Congress was intending. Bush is taking a page out of Clinton's book by playing a stupid word game. Everybody knows damn good and well what that law was intended to do.

I suggest bringing in a lie detector machine to see if the DOT REALLY thinks their "interpretation" is correct. Their employment should depend on the test results.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Mexican truck drivers take
English exam in Spanish
DOT chief's admission to Senate panel
contradicts administration's assurances


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 14, 2008
12:45 am Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily




Mexican truck drivers allowed to travel throughout the U.S. under a Bush administration demonstration project may not be proficient in English, despite Department of Transportation assurances to the contrary.

A brochure on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's website instructs Mexican truck drivers, "Did you know … You MUST be able to read and speak English to drive trucks in the United States."

Still, at the Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing Tuesday, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters and DOT Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III reluctantly admitted under intense questioning from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that Mexican drivers were being designated at the border as "proficient in English" even though they could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish.

In the tense hearing, Dorgan accused Peters of being "arrogant" and in reckless disregard of a congressional vote to stop the Mexican trucking demonstration project by taking away funds to continue the project. Toward the end, the senator asked if it were true Mexican truckers could explain U.S. traffic signs only in Spanish when given English proficiency tests at the border.

"Does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration test for English proficiency at the border include questions about U.S. highway signs?" Dorgan asked.

"Yes," Scovel replied. "The FMCSA English proficiency test at the border did not originally include U.S. highway signs, but now it does."

"Do you show a driver an octagonal 'STOP' sign at the border and qualify him if he explains the sign means 'ALTO'?" an incredulous Dorgan pressed.

"Alto" is the Spanish word for "Stop."

"Yes," Scovel answered reluctantly. "If the stop sign is identified as 'alto,' the driver is considered English proficient."

Dorgan drew the obvious conclusion, "In other words the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is allowing Mexican drivers in the demonstration project to prove their proficiency in English by responding to the examiner's questions in Spanish"

Peters responded, "U.S. highway signs comply with international standards. I drive frequently in Mexico and I always recognize the octagonal 'ALTO' signs as 'STOP' signs."

Dorgan interrupted.

"Excuse me, Madame Secretary," he interjected. "The question is not whether you understand Mexican highway signs when driving in Mexico but whether Mexican drivers entering the U.S. in your demonstration project can pass an English proficiency test by answering questions totally in Spanish."

Peters persisted: "But answering in Spanish, the drivers explain they understand the English-language highway signs."

Dorgan appeared astounded at the explanation.

"If you answer in Spanish, you're not English proficient," he insisted.

"My main concern is safety," Dorgan emphasized. "We've established that there are no equivalencies between Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks. There are no equivalent safety standards. Mexico has no reliable database for vehicle inspections, accident reports or driver's records.

"Now you tell us Mexican drivers can pass their English proficiency tests in Spanish," the senator continued, obviously outraged. "The Department of Transportation is telling Congress, 'We're doing this and we don't care.'

"I've treated you respectfully today, Secretary Peters, but I don't respect your decision," Dorgan said. "You have angered me further with your testimony and you reflect a Bush administration that obviously doesn't care what Congress thinks."

As WND reported yesterday, Dorgan accused Peters of defying Congress by parsing words to continue to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S. under the demonstration project, despite the clear intent of Congress to take away funds to bring the program to a halt.

WND also has reported Dorgan joined with Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Reps. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn, and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., in a bipartisan, bicameral request for the General Accountability Office to investigate the DOT's decision to continue the project.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58843
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sandhusker
When they were debating the law, it was crystal clear what Congress was intending.

I believe what congress said and what was put in the bill were two different things.... mired somewhere in hundreds of pages of amendments, pork, earmarks they forgot to actually say anything about the existing Mexican trucking inspection program and Nafta..

these are a bunch lawyers.. either they are to stupid to realize that unfunding future programs doesn't stop the existing program,

or they think we are to stupid to catch their deliberate error..
 

Steve

Well-known member
I was never fully in favor of Nafta as it gives an arbatration board final say over our Sovereignty,.. I am in favor of free fair trade,.. and while I agree with most that Mexican Truckers shouldn't be on our roads.. this issues could have been solved by congress.. but instead they choose to tell the US public one thing, while writing a bill that actually complies with Nafta... (must be where Obama learned that tactic).. :roll: :wink:

In a move that critics say may bring large numbers of unsafe Mexican trucks to California highways, a trade tribunal yesterday ordered the United States to end its longtime ban on cross-border cargo haulers or pay Mexico damages that could reach billions of dollars.

The ruling by the five-member panel was the first major U.S. defeat under the little-known arbitration process of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The decision caps a three-year process under which Mexico challenged then- President Bill Clinton's decision to suspend the clause of NAFTA that allowed free passage for each nation's trucks. No further appeal of the ruling is possible.

So to actually solve this Nafta would have to either be repealed, or we would have to allow 2 billion in export tariffs on US products and services..

and it seems congress is unwilling to solve the issue.. instead they hold hearings and tell US one thing while writing a bill that says something entirely different.. and hold hearings whining about their damaged egos.. :cry: :? :cry:
 

Latest posts

Top