SAN FRANCISCO — In politics, how a word is phrased and interpreted is everything.

Words, depending on how they’re massaged, can solidify the legacy of an entire presidency. Think Clinton’s (Bill, that is) nuanced take on the meaning of the word “is” or Chrétien’s “the proof is the proof.” Ah, good times.

In the U.S., the future of the controversial Mexican truck cross-border pilot program may come down to interpretation of the word “establish.”

Yesterday, the project’s most vocal opponents — Public Citizen, the Teamsters, the Sierra Club, and OOIDA — got their day in court, arguing to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco that the Department of Transportation’s cross-border program is illegal and unsafe.

The pilot allows pre-selected Mexican carriers to haul freight beyond the established 20-mile commercial zone at the Mexico-U.S. border.

DOT argues Congress ordered it not to ‘establish’ any new
Mexican truck programs, and the law doesn’t apply to the pilot
underway. A court will decide whether that’s just semantics.

The groups insist that DOT secretary Mary Peters is breaking the law by forging ahead with the program after Congress passed (and President Bush begrudgingly signed) a bill to immediately cut funding for the program, arguably halting it in mid-stream.

The DOT, however, reasons that it is within its right to continue the pilot because the bill’s language refers to canceling funds “to establish” a program, and doesn’t apply to the cross-border project already underway.

Is that semantics or just clever legalese? The three-judge court is now deciding.

According to the Associated Press, one of the three judges said Congress’ intention with the bill was clear, and he would probably vote to stop the program. Another reportedly leaned towards the government’s argument that the law only prevents new programs. The future of Mexican trucks in the U.S., then, could likely come down to the third judge, says AP.

Not only does the DOT argue that it has not established any new demonstration programs with Mexico, it also assures the program is safe since all of the approved Mexican carriers are subject to the same safety and administrative regulations that apply to domestic and Canadian truckers.

However, one of the 12 Mexican carriers that was part of the program, Trinity Industries, recently backed out. Reportedly, the Mexican fleet withdrew from the program after it found out its record was going to be cited by the plaintiffs in court.

“It makes no sense that while safety and security laws are continually being ratcheted up on U.S.-based drivers and companies, the DOT wants to allow their Mexico-based counterparts to get by with lower standards,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice-president of OOIDA.

Outside of the courthouse, the Teamsters were making sure their opinion was heard loud and clear. A rally drew hundreds of protestors, some bearing “NAFTA Kills” signs.

“The ink hadn’t even dried on the action taken by Congress when Transportation Secretary Mary Peters authorized this reckless pilot program,” Teamsters Western Region Vice President Chuck Mack said at a rally outside of the courthouse. “It’s outrageous what the Bush administration is trying to get away with in the last few months they have left in office.”

Fightin’ words, for sure.