Members of Congress have found some sticking points in the agreement struck recently between the United States and Mexico that would permit Mexican trucks to operate throughout the United States.
As part of the deal, Mexican trucking firms agreed to install electronic devises that would help ensure that the trucks were complying with U.S. safety and operating regulations. However, for its part, the United States agreed to pay for the devises. And that has gotten some in Congress up in arms.
For example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Highways and Transit Subcommittee, has called for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to provide for details on the deal, which would require paying for the devices out of the Highway Trust Fund.
DeFazio, a long-time critic of allowing Mexican trucks access to the interior, asked LaHood to provide the "specific legal authority" upon which DOT will spend trust fund money on these devices. Additionally, DeFazio voiced concern about a portion of the deal that would provide a path to permanent operating authority for Mexican carriers that meet certain standards.
"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards," DeFazio wrote in a letter to LaHood. "It is outrageous that we would spend tax dollars to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks; equipment which either the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers themselves should be required to pay. I also question the authority to grant Mexican carriers permanent authority to operate on American roads and highways before a pilot program is complete and the results evaluated."
If U.S. laws and regulations require U.S. trucks to be outfitted with the devices, DeFazio has a good point. However, if the United States requires Mexican –– but not U.S. –– trucks to install those devises, he may be on somewhat shakier ground. International trade rules are relatively clear that treating imported goods and services differently than domestic goods and services is not permitted. Doing so opens the offending country to litigation, either under the auspices of the World Trade Organization or, as would be more likely in this case, under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
