Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, let me read from the Chicago Tribune. The headline is ``Honk if you smell cheap politics.'' As political debates go, the one in the Senate against allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. is about as dishonest as it gets. Truth is that Teamster truckers don't want competition from their Mexican counterparts, who now have to transfer their loads near the border to American-driven trucks, instead of driving straight through to the final destination. We can scream and holler; we can be emotional all we choose to be, but this debate has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raw, rotten protectionism. It has to do with violating NAFTA and destroying the good word of the United States of America. The truth is that Senator McCain and I have offered an amendment that would require every Mexican truck to be inspected, that would require every Mexican truck to meet the same safety standards that the United States of America requires of its own trucks, and that those trucks would not be allowed to come into the United States until they had met those standards. But the Murray amendment is not about safety; it is about protectionism. The Murray amendment says because of a 1999 law that we passed, that had nothing to do with Mexico--and was not fully implemented by the Clinton administration, and has not been implemented by the Bush administration--that Canadian trucks can operate in the United States, that American trucks can operate in the United States, but Mexican trucks cannot. So we have not implemented a domestic law and, therefore, we are letting Canadian trucks in, we are letting our own trucks operate, but we do not let Mexican trucks in. That violates NAFTA. American truck companies can lease each other trucks. Nobody objects to that. Senator Murray does not object to it. Canadian companies can lease each other trucks. But under the Murray amendment, Mexican companies cannot. Under the Murray amendment, there is only one penalty for Mexican companies, and that is a ban on operating in the United States of America, even though we have numerous different penalties for U.S. trucks than Mexican trucks. Under the Murray amendment, we basically have entirely different standards for Mexico than we have for the United States of America and that we have for Canada. Under the Murray amendment, basically we say: In NAFTA we said we were equal partners, but we didn't mean it. We are equal partners with Canada, but our Mexican partners are inferior partners that will not be treated equally. The problem is, NAFTA commits us to equal treatment. This is not about safety; this is about protectionism. We are not here tonight because Senator McCain and I wanted to be here. We are here tonight because the majority party would not negotiate with us to come up with a bill that did not violate NAFTA. We have offered two amendments. The first amendment said that any provision of the Murray amendment that violated NAFTA--a treaty, in the words of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land--that violated a commitment made by three Presidents and by the Congress would not be put into place. That was rejected. The Senator from Arizona offered an amendment that said under the Murray amendment Mexican nationals and Canadian nationals would be treated the same. That was rejected by our colleagues who are in the majority party in the Senate. So they say the Murray amendment does not violate NAFTA, but when we offered an amendment to not enforce the parts of it that do violate NAFTA, they rejected it. They say the Murray amendment does not discriminate against Mexico and Mexicans, but when we offered an amendment forbidding that they be discriminated against relative to Canadians, they rejected it. The truth is, this is about special interest as compared to the public interest. I ask my colleagues--I understand politics; I have been in it a long time--is it worth it to destroy the good word of the United States of America on an issue such as this on an appropriations bill? I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. Mr. President, I assume my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for allowing me to be recognized. Let me also say that we have a fair number of Members on this side who want to speak before we have our final cloture vote tonight. Whatever we can do to provide time for people to speak would be appreciated. Obviously, I understand the majority have their rights in terms of those. Let me try to explain to my colleagues what this debate is about, at least as I see it. Obviously, the greatness of our individual personalities and of being human is, as Jefferson once observed, that good people with the same facts are prone to disagree. I would like to try to outline how I see the issue before us, why it is so important to me, why I believe it is important to Senator McCain, and why I want to do this so people will understand what this debate is about. First of all, there is no debate about safety. Senator McCain and I have an amendment that requires every Mexican truck to be inspected-- every single one. Under our current procedures, 28 percent of all American trucks are inspected at least once during the year. Forty- eight percent of all Canadian trucks are inspected at least once during the year. Currently, 73 percent of all Mexican trucks coming into the border States--which is the only place they are allowed to operate--are inspected. Senator McCain and I believe in establishing our safety standards and assuring that Mexican trucks meet every safety standard that every American truck and every Canadian truck must meet. We think the logical way of doing that, to begin with, until we establish a pattern of behavior and until clear records are established is to inspect every single truck that comes across the border. Under NAFTA, we cannot impose requirements on Mexican trucks that we don't impose on our own trucks and that we don't impose on Canadian trucks. But we have every right under NAFTA--I believe every obligation to our citizens--to assure that Mexican trucks are safe and to be sure they meet every safety standard that we set on our own trucks. Let me also say that if we raise safety standards on our own trucks-- in some areas I believe that is justified--we then would have every right to impose the same standards on Mexican trucks. In 1994, the President of the United States, the President of Mexico, and the Prime Minister of Canada met in San Antonio to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was the most historic trade agreement in the history of North America. Under President Clinton, and through his leadership and exertion of efforts, the Congress ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement by adopting enabling legislation which the President signed. We are now in the final stages of implementing NAFTA. One President signed NAFTA--a Republican President. A Democrat President fought for its ratification, and now a Republican is seeking to comply with the final procedures of NAFTA that have to do with cross-border traded services. Our obligation under the treaty is very simple. It says each party shall report the service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in like circumstances to its own providers. In fact, the little heading ``National Treatment'' really defines what we agreed to that day in San Antonio and what we ratified here on the floor of the Senate. We agreed that we have every right to have every safety standard we want. We can impose any safety standard on any Mexican truck and on any Canadian truck so long as we impose it on every American truck. No one disagrees that we can't have a different safety protocol for Mexico as they establish their pattern of behavior. As I said, Senator McCain and I have proposed that we initially inspect every Mexican truck. But let me explain what is not allowed under the treaty which the Murray amendment does. Under the Murray amendment, there is a provision that says we adopted a bill in 1999, and that bill had to do with highway safety. In fact, it was called the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. It in essence said Congress was not happy with motor safety in America and we wanted changes. We wrote that law in 1999. President Clinton found writing the regulations for the laws so onerous that those regulations have not yet been written. President Bush is trying now to comply with this law. We have every right to ask that American law be complied with. But the point is this: We haven't written the regulations. The regulations are not being enforced, but yet there are thousands of Canadian trucks operating in America. There are thousands of American trucks operating in America. The Murray amendment says that until we implement this law by writing the regulations and enforcing them--something that probably cannot be done for 18 months or 2 years--no Mexican trucks will be allowed into America. Under NAFTA, we can say until this law is implemented, no truck shall operate in the United States of America--American, Canadian, or Mexican. That would be NAFTA legal, because we would be treating Mexican trucks just as we treat American trucks and just as we treat Canadian trucks. We would all go hungry tonight. But we could do that. What we cannot do under NAFTA is we can't say that American trucks can operate even though we have not implemented this law, and Canadian trucks can operate even though we have not implemented this law, but Mexican trucks can't operate because we haven't implemented this law. That is a clear violation of NAFTA; no ifs, ands, buts about it. It is no less arbitrary since the law has nothing to do with Mexico or Mexican trucks. It is no less arbitrary than saying that no Mexican trucks shall come into the United States until a phase of the Moon and a phase of the Sun reach a certain level on a certain day that might not occur for a million years. That is how arbitrary this is. Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Senator Murray, while opposing amendments that say things that violate NAFTA don't have to be enforced from her amendment, continues to say: My amendment doesn't violate NAFTA. Let me give you some other examples. Most Canadian trucks have British insurance. Most Canadian trucks have insurance from Lloyd's of London. Some of them have Dutch insurance. Some American trucks have British insurance, Dutch insurance, German insurance, and American insurance. As long as that company is licensed in America, and as long as it meets certain standards, those trucks can operate in the United States. In fact, we have Canadian trucks operating today when virtually none of them has American insurance. But the Murray amendment says, if you are operating Mexican trucks, those Mexican trucks must buy insurance from a company that is domiciled in the United States of America. We have every right and obligation to require Mexican trucks to have good insurance. NAFTA allows us to do that. Logic dictates we do it. But we do not have the right to dictate where the company that sells the insurance is domiciled unless we are willing to do that to our own truckers, which we do not do. Currently, most trucking companies lease trucks. The untold story of this whole debate is when Mexican truckers start operating in interstate commerce, they are not going to be driving Mexican trucks. By and large, they are going to be driving American trucks because trucking companies do not own many trucks. They lease their trucks. The Mexican companies are going to lease the trucks from the same companies that American companies lease their trucks. Currently, when a company has leased trucks or purchased trucks, if something happens and they can't put those trucks on the road--and that something can be that they lose business or they are under some kind of suspension or restriction or limitation--they lease those trucks out to other companies. You can't be in the trucking business by having $250,000 rigs sitting in your parking lot. Canadian trucking companies lease trucks when they cannot use them. American trucking companies lease trucks when they cannot use them. And at any time any big trucking company in America or Canada has at least one violation--at any time--often many because there are so many different things you can be in violation on. The Murray amendment says if you are under any kind of limitation, and you are a Mexican trucking company, you cannot lease your trucks. What that does is not only violate NAFTA--clearly a violation because we do not have the same requirement for American trucking companies; we do not have the same requirement for Canadian trucking companies--and if you cannot use your trucks, if you are under any kind of restriction or limitation, then, obviously, you cannot be in the trucking business. So what the Murray amendment does is it not only violates NAFTA, it writes a procedure that no one could stay profitably in the trucking business if they had to meet that requirement. In the United States, there are a whole range of penalties you can get. You can get a penalty if your blinker light does not work. It may look as if it works inside, but it does not work outside. Your right mud flap is off. You are hauling too much cargo. Gravel is blowing out of the top. There are hundreds--maybe thousands; I don't know, but I will say hundreds--of potential violations you can have. In America, those violations can mean a warning or a fine of $100; some of them that are serious may be more. It may be a warning to the company; it may be a consent decree with the company. But under the Murray amendment, all that regime stays in place if the company is an American company, and it all stays in place if they are a Canadian company, but if they are a Mexican company, and they are found to be in violation, they get the death penalty; they get banned from operating in the United States of America. Look, we could write a law that said, if you are in violation on anything, you are out of the trucking business in America. That would be crazy. The cost of trucking services would skyrocket, but we could do it, and it would be legal under NAFTA to do it to Mexican trucks. But you cannot have one set of rules for American trucks and another set of rules for Mexican trucks or Canadian trucks. The amazing thing is that when so many people are talking about this debate, they write as if Senator McCain and I want lesser safety standards. Senator McCain and I want exactly the same safety standards for Mexican trucks that we have for American trucks, only we are willing to inspect every single truck until they come into compliance. What we are opposed to is not tougher safety standards; what we are opposed to is protectionism, cloaked in the cloak of safety, where restrictions are written that, for all practical purposes, guarantee that Mexican trucks cannot operate in the United States--clearly in violation of NAFTA. There are a few newspapers that are getting this debate right. The Chicago Tribune says today, in its lead editorial: Truth is that Teamster truckers don't want competition from their Mexican counterparts, who now have to transfer their loads near the border to American-driven trucks, instead of driving straight through to the final destination. But to admit that would sound too crass and self-serving, so Sen. Patty Murray, and others pushing the Teamster line, instead are prattling on about road safety. That is the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune believes this is not about safety, that this is about protectionism, cloaked in the garb of safety. Finally, let me explain to my colleagues why Senator McCain and I have us here on this beautiful Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock. Let me say to my colleagues that I am not calling these votes. In fact, I would be very happy to have no vote until we have the cloture vote tonight. The majority leader is calling these votes to try to get people to stay here, which is fine. It is his right. But why we are doing this is because our Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, and they established the rules of the Senate, as it evolved, recognized that there would be those issues where the public would be easy to confuse. There would be those issues where special interest groups were paying attention, and they would be out the door of the Senate Chamber where they have every right to be. They would be lobbying. And there would be issues where you could cloak from the public what the real issue was. Our Founders, in recognizing there would be those issues--and I personally believe this is one of them--gave to the individual Senator, whose views were not in the majority that day on that issue, the right to require that there be full debate, the right to require that those who wanted to end the debate get 60 votes. Senator McCain and I are using those rights today because we believe it is wrong and rotten for America, the greatest country in the history of the world, to be going back on a solemn commitment that it made in NAFTA. We think it hurts the credibility of our great country, when we are calling on people all over the world to live up to the commitments they made to us, for us to be going back on commitments we made to our two neighbors. We also think it is fundamentally wrong to treat our neighbors differently. To listen to the debate on the other side, you get the idea we are trying to have different standards for Mexico. We want the same standards for Mexico, but we do not want provisions that, in essence, prevent Mexico from having its rights under NAFTA. That is what this issue is about. I urge my colleagues--I know we are getting late in the day and I know people are pretty well dug in; and I know a lot of commitments have been made--but we need to ask ourselves some simple questions: No. 1, do we want to go on record in the Senate in passing a rider to an appropriations bill that clearly violates a solemn treaty commitment that we made in negotiating NAFTA? And it was not some President who made it. A Republican President signed it. A Democrat President fought to ratify it. We ratified it. And now a Republican President is trying to implement it. Do we really want to go on record today--on a Friday night--for going back on our word to NAFTA? No. 2, we have a President in Mexico who is the best friend that America has ever had in a President in Mexico. He virtually created a political revolution in Mexico when he defeated a party that had ruled Mexico for almost all of the 20th century. He is pro-trade and pro- American. But he does not have a majority in either the House or the Senate in Mexico. He had to put together a coalition government where his Foreign Minister opposed GATT, opposed NAFTA, and the best his Foreign Minister will say with NAFTA is: Well, we agree to it. What kind of position are we putting President Fox in when we pass a bill that violates our agreement in NAFTA and treats Canadians one way and Mexicans another? What kind of signal does that send? And does anybody here--since we are all involved in politics, and we understand that when you have a vulnerability, your political enemies exploit it-- does anybody doubt that all the ``hate America'' crowds in Mexico--and there are a lot of them--does anybody doubt that they are going to use this as an issue against President Fox, that we violated our agreement, that we are their neighbor but we are not their equal neighbor, that we don't treat them that bad but we don't treat them as good as we treat the Canadians, that the U.S. Congress said what is good enough for Americans and good enough for Canadians is not good enough for Mexicans? It is not a question of safety. We have every right to force them to do everything we do. We have a right to have a more strict regime until they prove they are doing it. What we do not have a right to do is to have a bunch of things that claim to be safety that really say: You can't operate Mexican trucks in the United States. That is what this issue is about. Obviously, it is frustrating when the word does not get out and people don't necessarily understand what the debate is. Tonight we are using powers that the Founding Fathers thought Senators ought to have. It is up to each individual Senator's conscious as to when they use those powers. We have used those powers on this bill. It is wrong what we are trying to do. It will hurt America. It will hurt Texas. It will hurt the 20 million people I work directly for and the 280 million people I try to represent. At least that is my opinion. Since that is my opinion and I believe it and believe it strongly, I intend to use every power we have. We will have a cloture vote tonight. I hope it will be defeated. I am prayerfully hopeful that perhaps a few of our Members will have some enlightenment or an enlightening experience between now and the appointed hour. But we have three more cloture votes after this one, and we intend to use our full rights as Senators to see that if we are going to abrogate NAFTA, if we are going to slap President Fox in the face, if we are going to run over President Bush, we are not going to do it without resistance, without strong, committed resistance. That is what this debate is about. How much time do I have?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is not often we get an opportunity to have someone speak in the Senate who has built a successful business, who has been engaged in international commerce, who has negotiated contracts for millions of dollars. I would like to take this opportunity, since he has a few minutes left, to pose some questions to the Senator about the debate before us. As the Senator is aware, we entered into a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1994. A Republican President signed the agreement in San Antonio, TX--George Bush. The agreement was ratified with the vigorous support of a Democrat President, Bill Clinton. We are in the process of implementing it under another Republican President. So this is an agreement that was supported on a bipartisan basis by three Presidents. In that agreement, in the section having to do with the question before us, we have chapter 12, which is on cross-border trade and services. The language of the trade agreement is very simple. I would like to read it to you, and I would like to ask you some questions. First of all, the language says very simply what America's obligation is under what it calls ``national treatment.'' It is very simple. Our obligation to Canada, our obligation to Mexico, and their obligation to us is the following: Each party shall accord to service providers of another party treatment no less favorable than that it accords in like circumstances to its own service providers. First of all, with regard to trucking companies, if you had to convert that legal statement of obligation into English, what do you think it would say?

Mr. GRAMM. We would treat them the same. Whatever requirement we would have, they would have.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me raise some issues in the time we have and see if the Senator believes that these issues violate the provision. The Murray amendment says that under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which we adopted and which has to do with motor safety in America, in general, Canadian trucks can operate in America. Let me explain the problem. We have not yet implemented this law. Under President Clinton and now under President Bush, the difficulty in writing the regulations this bill calls for are so substantial that the provisions of this law have not yet been implemented. Even though they have not yet been implemented, a thousand Canadian trucks are operating in the United States under the same regulations American trucks are operating. Many thousands of American trucks are operating. But under the Murray amendment, until the regulations for this law are written and implemented, no Mexican trucks can operate in the United States on an interstate commerce basis. Would the Senator view that to be equal treatment?

Mr. GRAMM. Clearly, we are letting our trucks operate even though that law is not implemented; we are letting Canadian trucks operate even though it is not implemented, but in singling out Mexican trucks, it seems to me that violates the NAFTA agreement. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. GRAMM. In the time we have, let me pose a couple more questions. Currently, most American trucks are insured by companies domiciled in America, though some are insured by Lloyd's of London, which is domiciled in Great Britain. Most Canadian trucks, it is my understanding, are insured by Lloyd's of London, which is domiciled in Great Britain. Some of them are insured by Canadian insurance companies domiciled in Canada. The Murray amendment says that all Mexican trucks must have insurance from companies domiciled in America, a requirement that does not exist for American trucks, a requirement that does not exist for Canadian trucks. Does it not seem to the Senator from Utah that is a clear violation of the requirement that 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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I am sorry. I am focused south from Texas, but in the Chamber maybe it is obvious from the votes we are focused more north from here. In any case, A, does the Senator see that as a violation; and, B, does the Senator see that again as one of these things which goes beyond a violation, where the objective is basically to prevent competition, more than just discriminate against Mexico but to create these artificial barriers which they cannot overcome?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, reserving the right to object, may I ask a question?

Mr. GRAMM. With that understanding, I have no objection.

Mr. GRAMM. I would be perfectly happy to go to morning business, but I want to be assured that tonight we are not going to go back on the bill.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I have no objection.

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object. Posing a question to the Chair, the time that is being used this evening will not count against any individual Senator's time; is that right?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me yield myself 3 minutes off my time. If you would let me know when that time is up, I will stop. And I thank Senator Byrd, who came over to speak, for letting me do this. Mr. President, when I was a boy and my brothers and I got into arguments, my mama would always say: Argue about whether something makes sense, but don't argue about facts. So I am not going to get into an argument with our dear colleague from North Dakota. But I want to reiterate what the facts are. When we entered into NAFTA, we had every right in our obligations under NAFTA to enforce safety standards in the United States of America. Any safety standard that we impose on our own truckers and Canadian truckers, we can impose on Mexican truckers. We could inspect every single truck coming into the United States from Mexico so long as we can show that inspection was needed to assure Mexican compliance with American law. But what we cannot do, what NAFTA clearly says is a violation, is setting one standard for American trucks and Canadian trucks, and then another standard for Mexican trucks. It is interesting that our colleague decided to talk about Mexican truckers, because even though Mexican trucks are operating only in the border States now, our experience with inspecting the Mexican drivers has been very encouraging. In fact, of all the drivers inspected in America last year--where the truck was inspected and the driver was tested in terms of their log, their license, and their training-- Canadian truckdrivers failed that test 8.4 percent of the time. American truckdrivers failed that test 9 percent of the time. Mexican truckdrivers failed that test 6 percent of the time. Why is that so important? Because they are operating only in border areas. The trucks coming across are not even big 18-wheelers; they are small trucks basically carrying produce. The point I want to make is that we cannot have two different sets of rules under NAFTA. Many of the Mexican drivers that are going to be driving 18-wheelers are college graduates. Our experience, thus far, indicates that we are going to have many problems, but drivers are not going to be one of them. My point is that under NAFTA we can set whatever standards we want on Mexican trucks, but they have to be the same standards that we set on our own trucks.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I would respond that if you are trying to get somebody to live up to their agreement, are you in a stronger position if you live up to your end of it, or is your position weakened when you stop living up to your end of it? If you want to enforce the agreement, then we need to live up to it. We need to be like Caesar's wife; we need to be above suspicion.

Mr. GRAMM. Obviously, the Senator shares with me the fact that we represent States that border Mexico, and in that process we both have had an opportunity to work with President Fox. Would the Senator agree with me that of all the people who have ever been heads of state in Mexico, that he is, perhaps, the most pro-American in terms of his outlook and willingness to work with us of anyone we have ever dealt with?

Mr. GRAMM. Could I ask another question? You obviously know President Fox, and know Mexican politics. What kind of position do you think it puts President Fox in when he has staked his whole political future on a good relationship with the United States, and has committed himself to enforcing NAFTA in his own country, when the Senate is in the process of adopting a provision on an appropriations bill that clearly violates the NAFTA agreement? What kind of position do you think it puts him in?