And after all, as Mellissa Delaney has pointed out in the past, there is no requirement for a Pilot Program, Demonstration Project, call it what you will.

The Sierra Club argument, in my judgment, is frivolous, All of the trucks in Mexico, with exception of the Dina’s and a couple of other marques, that are not sold outside of Mexico, are in compliance with EPA directives in force on date of manufacture.

As the attorney for the government pointed out in her reasoning why the program was allowed to continue. In the same bill, and concerning transportation issues, there were a couple of other amendments to kill programs that used stronger language than the word “establish”. Dorgan’s amendment had the same language initially, but was stripped down to the word “establish”.

Another interesting thing I came to understand listening to the audio, was the majority of the outrageous claims that have been made over the past year by the Teamsters, OOIDA, Public Citizen and others, were glaringly absent in the arguments before the court. Why was this? Did the lawyers simply “forget” these “important” statements, or could they have been, as I have pointed out many times, gross fabrications and mangling of the facts.

Personally, I wish that President Bush, as his last great act of defiance, would lift the 1982 Moratorium, which he has the power to do, and put an end to this farce of a lawsuit.

I do think the FMCSA staff is wrong to continue this program after the funding was cut by the Congress….

I also think the number of Mexican companies is not sufficient to warrant an accurate test….but I also think they should not have been invited to participate in the test program either…. I was not in favor of NAFTA….and think our own elected leaders and bureaucrats are “selling us down the river” ….. Has anyone looked at our so called “balance of trade” and the devaluation of the dollar of late???

Don Link