Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I want people to see this amendment because the amendment requires that every Mexican truck be inspected. It requires that the most stringent safety standards are met before Mexican trucks come into America, but it does it in a way that complies with NAFTA, a treaty obligation of the United States. It does it in a way that is common sense, to use the Senator's words, and that deals with legitimate safety concerns. Rather than going on all day, let me try to do the following thing, which I think represents about as fair a way of responding to the Senator from Washington as one can respond. She sets the standard that it be common sense and that it meet legitimate safety concerns. I wish to add to that that it not violate treaty obligations of the United States. I would like to take four provisions of the amendment of the Senator from Washington, and I would like to submit it to those tests. I have to say that I am quite pleased that the major newspapers in America have not been confused by this debate. In fact, the Chicago Tribune probably put it best in their lead editorial entitled ``Honk if you smell cheap politics.'' The truth is that Teamsters truckers don't want competition from their Mexican counterparts. I am pleased that people have not been confused. But in case anybody still has any confusion about what we are talking about, I want to take five provisions from the Murray amendment and submit them to her test of common sense, legitimate safety concerns, and do they violate NAFTA. The first has to do with a provision of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This is a bill that was adopted by Congress, that has not been implemented fully by either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration, and it has to do with safety. These provisions apply to every truck operating on American highways. They apply to United States trucks, to Canadian trucks, and to Mexican trucks. The Senator from Washington says in her amendment that until this 1999 law is fully implemented, even though it applies to American trucks, American trucks can continue to operate; and even though this law applies to Canadian trucks, Canadian trucks can continue to operate; but until this law is fully implemented, until the regulations are written--and the administration says that these regulations cannot be written and this bill cannot be fully implemented for at least 18 months--until that is the case, no Mexican truck would be allowed to operate in interstate commerce in the United States. And that provision would be clearly in violation of NAFTA. I ask a question: If it is common sense that we don't want trucks to operate until this law is implemented, why don't we say all trucks? In fact, if we said all trucks, we probably would not be able to eat lunch this afternoon. But it would be common sense and it would not violate NAFTA. The first provision of the Senator's amendment, in essence, says that something that cannot happen for 18 months has to be done before we are going to comply with a treaty related to Mexican trucks. That is as arbitrary as saying that Mexican trucks can't come into the United States until the 29th of February falls on a Tuesday. It is totally arbitrary, and it is aimed at only one objective; that is, to treat Mexican trucks differently than American trucks, differently than Canadian trucks, and in the process of violating NAFTA. I think any objective person would say that requiring an action that has nothing to do with Mexican trucks to be undertaken by the U.S. Government before we are going to live up to a solemn treaty obligation of the United States has no element of common sense in it, nor does it have anything to do with legitimate safety. If it had anything to do with legitimate safety, we would restrict all trucks until this law was implemented. Finally, the final test: Does it violate NAFTA? Our requirement under NAFTA is very simple. It is one sentence. It is in the section on cross-border trade and services on page 1129. It says: Each party shall accord the service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in like circumstances with its own service provider. This is the point: We are saying to American truckers that you can operate every day, even though this 1999 law is not implemented. We say a few Canadian trucks can operate today, even though this law is not implemented, but Mexican truckers can never operate, even though in NAFTA we promised they could. They can never operate until this law is fully implemented and the regulations are written. That is clearly not equal protection of the law; it is clearly not equal treatment; and it clearly violates NAFTA. The second provision of the Murray amendment that doesn't make common sense, that has nothing to do with legitimate safety, and that violates NAFTA has to do with truck leasing. Let me set it in context. Big trucking companies don't own trucks anymore. They lease them to each other. The last thing any trucking company can afford to do is have trucks that cost $250,000 sitting in their parking lot. (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank Senator Cochran for his great statement. The question before the Senate is: do we want a reasonable package that will help farmers now that is within our budget, that we set out funds for, that can be delivered next week, or do we want a political issue that comes from a proposal which is full of provisions that have nothing to do with direct aid to farmers, that dramatically expands spending on programs that have nothing to do with an agriculture emergency, and a program that will almost--well, it will certainly be, since the President has now issued the veto message--be vetoed? Ultimately, people have to come down to reaching a conclusion in answering that question. What I would like to do today is make a few points. First, Senator Cochran is right. If we want to get aid to Texas and Mississippi and Iowa farmers next week, we need to pass the bill that passed the House or something very close to it. And passing the bill that passed the House, which can go directly to the President, which can be signed this week, is the right thing to do. The second issue has to do with non-emergency matters in an emergency appropriations bill. I could go down a long list, but let me mention a few. Changing the conservation reserve program: Maybe it needs to be changed, but do we have to do it in an emergency bill where we are trying to get assistance out the door by October 1? I think, clearly, we do not. Expanding a yet-to-be-implemented program about farmable wetlands: I don't understand, in an emergency bill, expanding a program that has never gone into effect. Maybe we will want to expand it after it goes into effect, and we know what it is. But, A, I can't imagine we would want to do it now, and, B, why would we want to clutter up an emergency farm bill that desperately needs to become law this week or next by getting in that debate here? Expanding subsidies for paper reduction in lunch programs: Maybe we need to increase subsidies for reducing the amount of paper that is expended in serving school lunch programs. Maybe that is a worthy objective. But why are we doing it on an emergency farm bill? I know of no critical shortage of paper in making plates and cups. So far as I am aware, we are capable of producing virtually an infinite quantity, not that that would be desirable public policy, but the point is, what does this have to do with the emergency that exists on many farms and ranches throughout America? The answer is nothing. Additional funding for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program: That may be a meritorious program. If I knew more about it, I might think it was one of the most important nutrition programs in America. On the other hand, maybe I would not think it is even meritorious if I knew more about it. The point is not whether it is meritorious or whether it is not; the point is, it has absolutely nothing to do with an emergency on farms and ranches all over America, and it has no place in an emergency farm bill. Making cities eligible for rural loan programs and credits: I guess other things being the same, I do not think cities of 50,000 ought to qualify for programs that are aimed at helping rural America. I have a lot of cities of 50,000. Just looking at it, it does not strike me that this is a great idea, but it may be a great idea. Maybe I just do not understand. The point is, what does this have to do with the emergency that is occurring in bank loans that our farmers and ranchers all over America are having trouble paying? It has absolutely nothing to do with it, and it should not be in this bill. There is an increase in funding bioenergy loan subsidy programs in this bill. Maybe bioenergy should receive additional funding. Maybe it receives too much funding. The point is, what does that have to do with an emergency in rural America? What does it have to do with farmers and ranchers trying to make that payment on that loan at the local bank? It has nothing to do with it, and it should not be in this bill. Paying researchers at USDA beyond the civil service scale: I think highly of researchers. Some of my best friends are researchers. I used to be a researcher. Maybe this is God's work, changing the Civil Service Act to let researchers at the Department of Agriculture make more money. The point is, should we not look at that in the context of civil service? Shouldn't this be looked at by the committee that has jurisdiction, the Governmental Affairs Committee? Isn't this something on which we ought to have a fairly substantial debate? Are we going to do this at all the labs in America? Are we going to do it at the Department of Energy? Are we going to do it in oceanography? Is this the beginning of a major program? No one knows the answer to this. I do not even know if a hearing ever occurred on this subject. The point is, whether it is meritorious or not, what does it have to do with this farmer in plain view making that payment at the bank? It basically has to do with the pay of people who are fairly well paid. Maybe they are not paid enough. This has absolutely nothing to do with the crisis in rural America. This is something that ought to be dealt with next year. This brings me to the second point I want to talk about, and that is the $2 billion we are spending in this bill above the amount we said we were going to spend in the budget. I have sat in the Budget Committee and I have sat in this Chamber and have heard endless harangues about how we are about to spend the Medicare trust fund--how dare we spend the Medicare trust fund. My response has been, there is not a Medicare trust fund. We are running a surplus in Part A, we are running a deficit in Part B, and so there is no surplus, but that is not the point. The chairman of the Budget Committee has given us endless orations pleading that we not spend the Medicare trust fund, much less the Social Security trust fund. In fact, in committee and in the Senate Chamber, he and others have endlessly harangued about not spending these trust funds. Yet I hear no harangue today. We are in the process today of considering a bill that is $2 billion above the amount we included in the budget to spend in fiscal year 2001 for the agriculture emergency--$2 billion above the amount we have in the budget. Having harangued endlessly about every penny we spend, every penny we give back to the taxpayer in tax cuts is imperiling the Medicare trust fund, where is Senator Conrad today? When we are in the process of adding $2 billion of spending above the budget, does anybody doubt that when the re-estimate comes back in August, when the new projections of the surplus come forward, given the economy has slowed down, does anybody doubt this $2 billion will come out of exactly the same Medicare trust fund about which we have heard endless harangues? Does anybody doubt that? No, they do not doubt it, but where are the harangues today? Those harangues were on another day focused on another subject. The harangues were against tax cuts, but when it is spending, there are no harangues. Lest anybody be confused, I do know something about the Budget Committee, having been privileged to serve on that committee in the House and the Senate. I understand the rules. Basically, the budget is whatever the chairman of the Budget Committee says the budget is. We have before us a bill that is $2 billion above the amount we wrote in the budget for fiscal year 2001, but the chairman of the Budget Committee says it is okay to take $2 billion from 2002 and spend it in 2001 because in 2003, we can take the same $2 billion and spend it in 2002. Actually, we cannot. If he reads his own budget, he will see that in 2003, unless we have a sufficient surplus so that all funds are going into the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund and reducing debt or being invested, we will not be able to make the shift from 2003 to 2002. One can say, as Senator Conrad did yesterday, that he makes the determination in advising the Parliamentarian that this does not have a budget point of order. So by definition, if he says it does not have a budget point of order, it does not have a budget point of order, but does anybody doubt it violates the budget? We wrote in the budget $5.5 billion, black and white, clear as it can be clear, that is how much we were going to spend. Now we are spending $7.5 billion, but it does not bust the budget? Why doesn't it bust the budget? Because the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, advises the Parliamentarian that it does not bust the budget. He is the chairman of the Budget Committee, so how can it bust the budget when he says it does not bust the budget? The pattern is pretty clear. Senator Conrad is deeply concerned-- deeply concerned--about spending these trust funds as long as the money is going for tax cuts, but the first time we bring to the Chamber an appropriation that clearly busts our budget, that spends $2 billion more than we wrote in the budget, that is all right because Senator Conrad said it is all right. He said it does not bust the budget because we are going to take the $2 billion from next year. If that creates a problem in writing the farm bill, I say to three Members who will be very much involved in writing the farm bill, Senator Conrad has the solution: It is no problem, just take the $2 billion from 2003. There will be a problem, as I pointed out. Basically what we have before us is an effort to take $2 billion and to spend most of it on non-emergency programs that do not affect directly the well-being of farmers who are in crisis today in a clear action that busts the budget. I want to say this, not to go on so long as to be mean or hateful about it. I do not mind being lectured. I get lectured all the time. I guess I am about as guilty as any Member of the Senate in lecturing my colleagues. It comes from my background where I used to lecture 50 minutes Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and an hour and 15 minutes on Tuesday and Thursday. My students paid attention because they wanted to pass. Here is the point: I don't see how any Member of the Senate who stands idly by and watches us spend $2 billion more than we pledged in the 2001 budget that we were going to spend on this bill, how that Member can remain silent or support that effort and have any credibility ever again when they talk about concern over deficits or spending trust funds. Ultimately, the debate is: Is it words or is it deeds? Are you really protecting the budget when we are on the floor spending $2 billion more than we said we were going to spend in the budget? It seems to me if you vote for this $7.5 billion appropriation--it is an entitlement program and an authorization, in addition to the $7.5 billion--if Members vote for this $7.5 billion spending bill, which violates that budget by spending $2 billion more than we committed to, you cannot ever, it seems to me, have any credibility again in arguing you are concerned about the deficit or that you are concerned about spending the Medicare or Social Security trust fund. There is no question when the August re-estimates come in, this $2 billion is going to come right out of the Medicare trust fund. We will have a vote. If Members want to live up to the rhetoric in saying we don't want to spend that trust fund, and we don't want to bust the budget, Members can vote for the Lugar amendment because it has three big advantages: First, it will become law this week, the President will sign it; and, second, it doesn't bust the budget. Third, it doesn't take money out of the Medicare trust fund. I think every argument that can be made that should carry any weight in this debate is an argument for the Lugar amendment. I urge my colleagues not to get into an argument that will delay the assistance to our farmers and ranchers. We are going to debate a farm bill in the next fiscal year. I don't know whether we will pass one or not. We are going to debate one. Why start the debate by taking $2 billion we have to finance a new farm bill and spend it now on non-emergency items, by and large? Why not live within the budget today, get a bill to the President that he can sign, let him sign it this week, and let the money next week go out to help farmers and ranchers. In the next fiscal year, after October 1, we can debate a new farm bill. It is at that point that many of these issues need to be decided. If Members do not want to bust the budget and Members want this bill to become law, and become law soon, vote for the Lugar amendment. I intend to vote for the Lugar amendment. I intend to oppose the underlying bill. It violates the budget. It spends $2 billion more than we pledged to limit spending in the budget. I intend to resist it as hard as I can. I think it sends a terrible signal that here we are, despite all our high-handed speech about spending trust funds and living within the budget, and we come to the first popular program that we voted on and now we are busting the budget by 40 percent. Forty percent of the funds in the bill before the Senate represents an increase in spending over the budget that we adopted. That is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lugar substitute. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Let me pose just two more questions. Under the Murray amendment, a Mexican trucking company--let me start, if I may, by stating what the policy is today. As you are probably aware, most trucking companies do not own trucks; they lease trucks. The interesting thing about this whole debate is that we are debating as if Mexico is going to go out to some junkyard somewhere and put together a truck and drive it to Detroit. The reality is that they are going to rent the truck from Detroit just as American companies do. But we have this vast system where companies lease to each other because the last thing on Earth they want as a trucking company is to have a quarter-of- a-million-dollar rig sitting in their parking lot. So if an American company has some restriction put on it, it is subject to some suspension or to some restriction or some limitation. And there is not a big trucking company in America that at one time or another has not been subject to one of these things. In the United States and in Canada today, if a company is subject to some limitation so they cannot use the truck, then they lease it to somebody else. The Murray amendment says if a Mexican company is subject to some suspension, restriction, or limitation, the Mexican company cannot lease a truck to anyone else. In light of the fact we committed that each party shall accord to service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that which it accords, in like circumstances, to its own providers, does the Senator believe one can possibly justify, under NAFTA, allowing Canadian truck operators to lease their trucks and American truck operators to lease their trucks when they are under some restriction or limitation but not allow Mexican trucking companies to lease their trucks under exactly the same circumstances? Would the Senator not see that as a flagrant violation of NAFTA?

Mr. GRAMM. No such requirement.

Mr. GRAMM. That is right.

Mr. GRAMM. I will. It says--and this is the national treatment standard, and maybe I should pose this as a question. Is the Senator aware that the language in the national treatment standard says this? And this is a commitment we made to Canada and Mexico when the President signed this agreement in 1994 and the agreement that we committed ourselves to when we ratified it. The language is simple: Each party shall accord the service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in like circumstances to its own service providers.

Mr. GRAMM. If they are subject to some limitation, they will be unable to lease their trucks to another user, say, in the United States or Canada.

Mr. GRAMM. No, it is not for American trucks. It is not for Canadian trucks. It is for Mexican trucks. In other words, there is one regime of penalties for American trucks and Canadian trucks, but there is another regime for Canadian trucks, and the regime is focused on the death penalty.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, so many issues have been talked about. I want to begin my short remarks by reading the amendment which is pending, because we are going to vote on this amendment when a motion is made to table it. What the amendment does is it accepts everything in the Murray amendment with the following proviso: Provided that notwithstanding any other provision of the act, nothing in this act shall be applied in a manner that the President finds to be in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In other words, unless something is in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, every provision in the Murray amendment will stand if this amendment is adopted. Senator Murray and her supporters say nothing in her provision violates NAFTA. If nothing in her provision violates NAFTA, then this amendment will have no effect. This amendment, in essence, shows the emperor has no clothes. We are having a lot of discussion on how tough a safety standard we want. Under NAFTA, we can impose any safety standards we want on Mexican trucks, but we have to impose the same standards on Canadian trucks and on American trucks. Everyone is in agreement; we need to have safer trucks. Our own trucks need to be safer, Canadian trucks need to be safer, and Mexican trucks need to be safe to come into the country. What is at issue is not safety but protectionism. What is at issue is, we had a President, George Bush, in 1994, who signed a solemn agreement with Mexico and Canada called the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then under another President, President Bill Clinton, we ratified this agreement by enacting a bill in Congress that President Clinton signed. Now, under another Republican President, President George W. Bush, we have an effort to enforce the agreement we entered into. Now we have an effort on an appropriations bill to violate the treaty we negotiated and signed in 1994 and that we ratified under a Democrat President. Our colleagues keep talking about safety, but nothing having anything to do with safety would be stricken by this amendment. This amendment would strike provisions that violate NAFTA. What are some of those provisions? Provisions that say Mexican trucks have to carry a different type of insurance than American trucks and Canadian trucks. Provisions that say Mexican truckers cannot lease their trucks in the same way American truckers and Canadian truckers can lease their trucks; penalty provisions where the penalties are different for Mexican trucks than they are for American trucks and Canadian trucks; provisions that say until we promulgate regulations that have to do with the bill passed in 1999 that Canadian trucks can operate, American trucks can operate, but Mexican trucks cannot operate. There is no more logic to that provision in the Murray amendment than there would be in saying we are not going to live up to a treaty obligation we made until February the 29th occurs on a Sunday. It is totally and absolutely arbitrary and totally and absolutely illegal, and it violates an agreement we entered into and have enforced under three Presidents. What our amendment does is simply say, take everything in the Murray amendment and it becomes the law of the land unless it violates NAFTA-- unless it violates an agreement we entered into and Congress ratified. That is exactly what the amendment does; no more, no less. If you vote against this amendment, obviously you stand up on the floor of the Senate and say anything you want to say; it is a free country. But if you vote against this amendment, you can't say, it seems to me, that you believe the Murray provision does not violate NAFTA. If you think it doesn't violate NAFTA, why not vote for this amendment and settle this issue? Obviously, anybody who votes against this amendment believes this amendment, despite all the denials of all the proponents, violates obligations we have in an agreement we entered with Mexico. All over the world we are trying to get countries to live up to their agreements they have with us. What kind of credibility are we going to have when we go back on a solemn commitment we made to our neighbor to the south? What kind of credibility are we going to have when we treat our northern neighbor in one way, have one set of rules for them, but then we say to our southern neighbor, we have an entirely different set of rules for you. In fact, we have to implement laws we passed in the past before you are even going to get an opportunity, in violation of NAFTA, to ever have a chance to compete. The plain truth is, as the Chicago Tribune pointed out this morning, Teamster truckers don't want competition from their Mexican counterparts. This is not about safety; this is about raw, rotten protectionism, and it is about a willingness to go back on a solemn commitment that our Nation made. I believe this is very harmful to America. I think it undercuts the best ally we have ever had in a President of Mexico. I reiterate, this may happen, but it is not going to happen until every right that every Member of the Senate has is fully exercised. This is an important issue. Some of our colleagues might wonder; in fact, people watching this probably wonder, when Senator McCain and I clearly don't have the votes, why don't we give this thing up? Our Founding Fathers, in establishing the structure of the Senate, understood there would be times when there would be issues that were important to America that were confusing, that people wouldn't understand, that could be cloaked in other issues. They understood there would be vital national interests at stake. For those circumstances, they gave one Member of the Senate the right to have extraordinary powers. It seems to me that having been blessed to have the opportunity to serve here, as we all have, when we believe that a fundamentally important issue to the future of America and, in this case, our relationship with our neighbor to the south and our credibility in the world are at stake, any Member has an obligation to use those rights. I don't like inconveniencing my colleagues, but let me make it clear, at 8:42 tonight we will be in a position where cloture can occur on the bill. I am ready to vote. But I am going to exercise my full rights. The people of Texas hired me to represent their interest and the national interest, and Texas and the national interest are both violated by going back on a treaty we made with Mexico. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMM. Could I pose a question on that? With practical experience, I can only speak within my own lifetime, but in my lifetime we have never had a President of Mexico who was as committed in dealing with Mexico's problems and problems we have between the two countries or who was as remotely pro-American as President Fox. This is a President who does not have a majority in his own Congress. In fact, he was elected President defeating the PRI, which is the old established party, but he does not have a majority in either the House or the Senate. He has numerous critics, and he has a coalition government where his Foreign Minister opposed NAFTA when NAFTA was adopted. He is a person who has, in essence, gotten way out on a limb in saying we can be a partner with the United States of America. Something that means more than that in Mexico is, we can be an equal partner with America. How do you think it affects him in his political situation where, because he didn't have a majority in the Congress in either house, and he had been elected in almost a revolutionary election, he felt compelled to put together a coalition government where his Foreign Minister opposed NAFTA and who now will simply say, it is an agreement we entered into? That is as far as he will go. What kind of position do you think it puts him in when we are no longer talking about idle speculation? I went through four different areas where, based on your legal background, you clearly concluded that there is no question, not even a gray area, that there are four--at least those are the only ones we went to--outright violations of NAFTA in the Murray amendment. No question about that, he said. In what kind of position do you think it puts President Fox in when the United States Senate adopts provisions that violate the commitment we made to Mexico when we entered into NAFTA, we said Mexico was an equal partner with Canada and the United States, but they are not quite?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAMM. Yes, Canadian. Some are insured by Canadian companies; some are insured by American companies. Most American trucks are insured by American companies, but not all American trucks. Lloyd's of London, as I understand it, insures some trucks. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to tell with a modern company where it is domiciled. The Murray amendment says that Mexican trucks, unlike Canadian trucks and American trucks, have to have insurance bought from companies that are domiciled in the United States. Now, American trucking companies are required to have insurance. Mexican trucking companies are required to have insurance. The insurance has to meet certain standards. Canadian trucking companies are required to have insurance. But the Murray amendment says, unlike American trucking companies and unlike Canadian trucking companies, Mexican trucking companies have to buy insurance from companies domiciled in the United States of America. In light of the language I just read, would the Senator see that as about as clear a violation of NAFTA as you could have?

Mr. GRAMM. If I may, I will follow up by again, calling on the Senator's knowledge of the law and experience with it. Let me give the Senator some examples of provisions in the Murray amendment. In light of this provision that President Bush signed and we ratified with the support of President Clinton and which we are now trying to enforce under the new President Bush, I wanted to get your reading as to whether these provisions would violate the agreement that we made. Currently, Canadian trucks are almost all insured by companies from Great Britain; Lloyd's of London, I think, is the largest insurer of Mexican trucks.

Mr. GRAMM. If I could pose the following question: Does it seem to the Senator that it might not only be discriminatory but pernicious in the following sense, that obviously this amendment was written by somebody who knew something about the trucking business?

Mr. GRAMM. I ask the amendment be read.

Mr. GRAMM. I would like to have the opportunity to speak. I don't know exactly how long it is going to take. I will not speak for any extended period of time, but I want to hear what else is said.

Mr. GRAMM. They have not had enough rest. As a result, recognizing not all of these violations are equal, in the United States we have a list of penalties one can get, which might be a $50 fine, a $100 fine, and for serious things they might take someone out of their truck. They might not let one drive for a month. They might penalize the company. They might fix that kind of a problem by entering into an agreement with the company. In America and in Canada today, we have a variety of penalties. In the Murray provision, if one is in violation of any of these requirements, one can be forever banned from operating trucks in the United States of America. Does that sound as if it is complying with NAFTA?

Mr. GRAMM. In response to the question from the distinguished Democrat floor leader, I believe the adoption of this amendment would make this debate an honest debate. We would all then agree that it does not affect NAFTA. I think that would be a major step in working out this whole thing. With the adoption of this amendment, I think in a fairly short period of time we could probably work this out in a way that, A, the Department of Transportation can implement, and, B, the President of Mexico and the President of the United States are not embarrassed by us abrogating NAFTA. I think this would be the linchpin for working something out, if we adopt it.

Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAMM. There is not a sufficient second.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask this. Under the Murray amendment, there is a provision that says while American trucks are obviously operating all over our country, and Canadian trucks are operating--about a thousand of them--and they are operating under current law, because of a bill we passed in 1999 called the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act--and I want to read you a short part of this which is relevant. Basically, what this bill finds is that the Department of Transportation is failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadlines for completing rulemaking proceedings on motor carrier safety and in some significant safety rulemaking proceedings, including driver hour of service regulations; extensive periods have elapsed without progress toward resolution and implementation. Congress finds that too few motor carriers undergo compliance reviews, and the Department's database and information systems require substantial improvement to enhance the Department's ability to target inspection and enforcement resources. Finding these things, Congress, in 1999, passed a bill mandating that the Department of Transportation promulgate rules related to truck safety nationwide to apply to all trucks operating in America. Under President Clinton and now under President Bush, those rules, which turned out to be time consuming and complicated, have not been implemented. Canadian trucks are still operating even though these rules have not been implemented. American trucks are, obviously, operating even though these rules have not been implemented, or else we would not be eating lunch today. But the Murray amendment said that because we have not promulgated these rules, until they are promulgated and until this bill is implemented, even though it applies to all trucking in America--until this happens, Canadian trucks would not be allowed into the United States of America. Now I ask, is that any less arbitrary a discriminatory provision than saying they would not be allowed until a full Moon occurred on a day where the Sun was in eclipse?

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAMM. I think if we decided to, we could solve this problem within 2 hours. Working with the Department of Transportation, we could come up with an agreement that the Department of Transportation could make work. That is the first requirement. And, second, that does not violate our obligations under NAFTA.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.