U.S. officials bicker over Mexican truck trial program

Senators and the Bush administration clashed Tuesday about the legality of a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to travel anywhere in the U.S., a day after the Transportation Department’s inspector general released a report on the program that raised some concerns.

During an oversight hearing by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said the department had gone ahead with the program even though Congress cut its funding in December.

Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters “has found lawyers who are willing to tell her that some technical loophole in the language allows the pilot program to proceed,” he said.

The program allows participating Mexican trucks to travel anywhere in the United States. Until it began, the trucks were limited to an area about 25 miles north of the border, and any cargo headed outside that zone had to be transferred to U.S. trucks.

Giving Mexican trucks greater access to U.S. roads was part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, U.S. states just north of the border were to be opened to Mexican trucks in 1995 and the rest of the country in 2000.

In 2001, a NAFTA dispute resolution panel found that by refusing all Mexican trucks, the United States was violating the agreement’s provisions.

But opposition by labor unions and safety groups delayed implementation of that part of NAFTA. In addition to what they have described as the trucks’ lower safety standards and higher exhaust emissions, critics have cited Mexican drivers’ lack of proficiency in English and suspected drug use among some of them as reasons to keep the trucks off U.S. roads.

The pilot program, with 18 Mexican companies participating, began in September. On Monday, the Department of Transportation’s inspector general released a report on its first six months, showing that despite the fears about unsafe Mexican trucks on roads across the country, only 6.7% had destinations outside the border zone.

Of those 247 trips outside that zone, 89% were to destinations in California. Eight of the companies are based in Baja California.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III told the panel that despite plans to inspect every participating truck each time it crosses the border, methods to check driver’s licenses and inspection decals were not yet in place. “We don’t know that every truck has been inspected every time,” he said.

In response, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, James P. Hoffa, said the six-month report raises more safety concerns about opening the borders.

“They’re not even pretending anymore that they’ll inspect every truck every time it crosses the border,” he said in a statement released by the union. “They’re just saying they will glance at a driver’s license and safety decal, and now the inspector general reports there’s no assurances that’s even being done.”

Scovel told the senators that the low number of participating trucking companies -- 18 of an expected 100 -- meant that he could not draw meaningful conclusions about the trucks’ safety.

More companies are expected to participate once the one-year trial period ends.

In her testimony, Peters said the issues raised in the report were “exactly the kind of things a test program is designed to identify.”

She also countered Dorgan’s assertion that the program was being run illegally because funding had been withdrawn.

He has asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the department is violating a law that prohibits agencies from spending money unless it is appropriated by Congress.

The legislation that removed the program’s funding in December stated that money could not be used to “establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program.”

Peters said because the trucking program was already established, her agency was not breaking the law.

“We certainly do not believe our continuation of cross-border trucking is a violation of that act,” she said.

Dorgan said moving ahead with the program was a “slap in the face of Congress.”

--

sarah.wire@latimes.com