Safety, not protectionism, should be Congress' goal in setting tough but fair regulations for Mexican long-haul truckers operating in the United States.

Labor unions and their allies in Congress, mostly Democrats, want to frame the ban on Mexican trucks as an issue of highway safety. It's a sneaky tactic that seeks to close a reasonable middle ground by playing off American fears. The federal government doesn't need to choose; it can make the highways safe and expand U.S.-Mexico trade.

President Bush has threatened to veto the $60-billion transportation bill if Congress doesn't allow long-haul truckers to operate on both sides of the border. The House wants to keep Mexican trucks within 20 miles of the border; the Senate bill imposes restrictions that would effectively keep Mexican trucks from operating long-haul routes for years. Bush wants to open the long-haul business on both sides, both to promote free trade and to advance broader U.S. goals in Mexico.

Organized labor and protectionists in Congress -- many of whom also opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement -- have used false figures and racist images to paint an inflated picture of the risk Mexican trucks pose. True, there are legitimate safety concerns, and they should be addressed. Mexico doesn't impose restrictions on its trucks and drivers comparable to those that make their American counterparts safer. Yet opponents have tried to polarize the debate by comparing American long-haul trucks with short-haul vehicles in Mexico. Short-haul trucks are generally kept in worse condition, because breaking down on local routes doesn't carry the same implication as losing a long-haul load.

Rather than compare two different classes of trucks, the federal government should find a way to overcome the maintenance and inspection gap. If safety is the issue, Mexican trucking companies could be forced to comply with the same safety standards as their U.S. counterparts. Mexican firms would have to be cleared by the Transportation Department and pay federal and local taxes. Few firms in Mexico would be likely to undertake the long-haul routes under those circumstances, but those that did would be among the largest and most professionally run in the country. There is every reason to believe these firms would comply with the letter and spirit of the law, especially given the attention the Teamsters union has brought to the debate.

Discriminatory laws don't just damage the goals of free trade. In this case, they also are counterproductive for the broader relationship with Mexico that serves our national interest. As Congress works to reconcile the bills, it should be driven by one goal -- establishing fair safety standards for all trucks on U.S. roads.

The Teamsters have tried to paint the image of a Mexican peasant driving a bucket of bolts, but U.S. and Canadian trucks have their own safety problems, too. If safety -- not protectionism -- is really the issue, Congress can give the White House a bill that protects Mexico and the traveling public as much as it does the Teamsters union. And it won't delay billions of dollars in airport and highway construction in the process.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page