[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 142 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7913-H7918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BARRING ACCESS OF LONG-HAUL MEXICAN TRUCKS

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6630) to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from 
granting authority to a motor carrier domiciled in Mexico to operate 
beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United 
States-Mexico border unless expressly authorized by Congress, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6630

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON LONG-HAUL CROSS BORDER MOTOR CARRIER 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Termination of Pilot Program.--Not later than September 
     6, 2008, the Secretary of Transportation shall terminate the 
     one-year cross border demonstration project the Secretary 
     started on September 6, 2007, as described in the Federal 
     Register notices dated May 1, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 23883), June 
     8, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 31877), and August 17, 2007 (72 Fed. 
     Reg. 46263).
       (b) Congressional Authorization Required.--Unless expressly 
     authorized by Congress, the Secretary may not grant authority 
     to a motor carrier domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond 
     United States municipalities and commercial zones on the 
     United States-Mexico border after September 6, 2008.

     SEC. 2. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation shall transmit to Congress the final report 
     required by section 6901(c) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
     Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
     Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28);
       (2) the independent review panel established by the 
     Secretary of Transportation to monitor the demonstration 
     project referred to in section 1(a) shall transmit to 
     Congress a report--
       (A) evaluating the effects that the demonstration project 
     has had on motor carrier safety, including an analysis of any 
     accidents involving motor carriers participating in the 
     demonstration project; and
       (B) containing recommendations for modifications to the 
     process of granting authority to a motor carrier domiciled in 
     Mexico to operate beyond United States municipalities and 
     commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border and for 
     monitoring the future operations of such carriers in the 
     United States, in order to enhance safety;
       (3) the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report 
     detailing the implementation of and the participation of 
     motor carriers in the demonstration project referred to in 
     section 1(a), including--
       (A) the number and names of United States and Mexico 
     domiciled motor carriers that participated in the 
     demonstration project and the number of vehicles each motor 
     carrier utilized in the demonstration project;
       (B) the number of border crossings by motor carriers 
     participating in the demonstration project, including the 
     number of crossings which resulted in a motor carrier 
     traveling beyond United States municipalities and commercial 
     zones on the United States-Mexico border;
       (C) an itemization of safety and operational violations 
     identified among motor carriers participating in the 
     demonstration project in pre-authorization safety audits, 
     compliance reviews, and roadside inspections, including a 
     review of the most frequent types of violations;
       (D) an analysis of the cost to the Federal Government and 
     State partners of implementing the demonstration project, 
     including administrative costs, safety monitoring and 
     enforcement costs, and the cost of installing global 
     positioning system units on participating vehicles; and
       (E) measures taken by the Secretary to terminate the 
     authority of motor carriers participating in the 
     demonstration project to operate beyond United States 
     municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-
     Mexico border after September 6, 2008, and ensure that such 
     motor carriers cease long-haul operations.

                              {time}  1715

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6630.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last Saturday, September 6, marked a dark day in the transportation 
history and the safety of the traveling public in the United States of 
America. It was the 1-year anniversary of the so-called cross-border 
demonstration project of the Department of Transportation under the 
Bush administration.
  When this pilot program began, 1 year and 5 days ago, they assured us 
it would be a 1-year pilot. They further assured us that they would 
fully evaluate the program before opening our border to all Mexican 
trucks. Unfortunately, Secretary Peters, under the tutelage of the Bush 
administration, announced last month that they intend to continue the 
program for two more years.
  You know, given the fact that they have ignored Congress' will on 
this issue repeatedly, I wasn't surprised. But I am outraged. I am 
outraged that the Bush administration, for political purposes, would 
jeopardize the safety of the traveling public in the United States of 
America.
  Since the beginning of this idea in the Bush administration, there 
has been strong and bipartisan congressional objection to the program. 
There are a number of concerns regarding Mexico's less stringent or 
nonexistent regulations on hours of service, vehicle safety, driver 
training and licensing, their nonexistent commercial driver's license 
database, or the meaningless database that they contend is a 
registration of commercial driver's licenses, and the fact that there 
is not

[[Page H7914]]

one single certified drug testing laboratory in Mexico.
  And I am further concerned that our government, under the leadership 
of the Bush administration, has said that, don't worry; they'll take 
care of all of these problems at the border. The Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration will inspect every truck every time, or so they 
purport.
  There are questions about whether or not they're delivering on that 
pledge. There are also certainly questions of diverting our already 
inadequate force of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
officials, officers to the border to just inspect the trucks of a few 
Mexican companies that want to drive long distance in the United 
States.
  The House has already voiced opposition on the implementation of this 
pilot program in three separate pieces of legislation: H.R. 1773, the 
Safe American Roads Act of 2007, which the House passed in May 2007 by 
an overwhelming vote of 411-3, and we'll hear a little bit later from 
the author of that legislation.
  Provisions were also included in the 2007 Iraq war supplemental 
spending bill to impose strict measures to ensure the pilot program 
adheres to safety and security guidelines.
  And then finally, last December, Congress included a provision in the 
2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act to prohibit DOT from using funds 
to, unfortunately, using the Senate's language instead of ours, 
establish a cross-border motor carrier program. The Bush administration 
argues that it was already established and they are just continuing it. 
The legislation that the House had passed would not have allowed them 
to parse those words and to continue to violate what is the very clear 
intent to Congress, despite the bungling of the wording by the Senate.
  Because of DOT's blatant disregard of congressional intent, I 
introduced this bill, H.R. 6630, in July, to ensure the Mexican truck 
pilot is terminated, and that the results are fully evaluated before 
the program is either expanded or continued, and to reassert the 
authority of Congress in this matter. So this is something that should 
be virtually noncontroversial in this House, this House having spoken 
previously on this issue, this House being, on a bipartisan basis, 
fully concerned with the safety of the traveling American public, 
unlike the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield for such 
time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I appreciate the ranking member of our highway 
subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, yielding to me. And appreciate the hard work 
Mr. DeFazio, who chairs this subcommittee, has put into this 
legislation, and also Mr. Oberstar and others.
  I apologize in actually getting in front of my ranking member of the 
subcommittee, but have a number of Senators and Representatives waiting 
on me.
  I just want to weigh in and say that I support this legislation. I do 
want to also set, for the record, the conditions under which this 
administration is acting.
  First of all, I voted against NAFTA back in 1993. It was touted as 
going to be the best thing since sliced bread for the country. While it 
has increased some exports and some opportunities on both sides of the 
border, I believe, overall, it sent many jobs south, and unfortunately, 
it hasn't been all that it was made out to be.
  Additionally, one of the reasons I voted against NAFTA was, as far as 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, trading with Canada was a 
pretty level playing field. Trading with Mexico isn't the same deal. 
And within the original language was a provision that allowed Mexican 
trucks to transverse our borders and come into the United States, which 
I was opposed to then, and am opposed to now. Now, that has been 
contested over the years, both in the Clinton administration, also 
during the Bush administration.
  Within, also, the language of NAFTA, folks should realize that they 
set up a panel, a NAFTA panel, to be the arbiter and the judge of how 
the U.S. must act. We really relegated our sovereignty to a panel, 
again, within NAFTA, which, every time the United States has acted in a 
contrary fashion to the provisions of the treaty, has ruled against the 
United States.
  So here the Bush administration takes a minimal project, moves it 
forward. And it is a minimal. There is a limit on the number of trucks 
that can cross, et cetera.
  But Congress has the authority now to stop that program, and I think 
this is the time to stop that program. There are those in Congress who 
have to make a decision whether they want these trucks now to continue. 
We don't have to comply with some agreement. Actually, we passed the 
treaty, and Congress has the responsibility now to act properly and 
stop, really, what they started, which was not in the interest of the 
United States in having, again, fleets of Mexican trucks come across 
our borders.
  So this legislation stops a whole host of bad decisions that have 
been made in the past. And I strongly support this, in spite of any 
threats from anybody to act in stopping this legislation. We need to 
pass this legislation. We need to act responsibly and act now.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. 
Boyda).
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate all the work that we have been doing on this bill.
  How many times have we done this now? We have been here time and time 
and time again, trying to say that this program of bringing trucks in 
from Mexico into the United States, when, as you so well pointed out, 
all the provisions that the American people expect with regard to 
drugs, with regard to training and maintenance, all of the things that 
the American people have come to expect out of our American trucking 
interests are now being put on the line.
  And so what is this, the third time that we have tried to put this, 
bring this program, this crazy program that, in fact, is making just 
almost a mockery of this Congress, trying to bring this to its final 
conclusion.
  It was a year ago, after we had made, we passed H.R. 1773 by 411-3, 
after the Senate had passed their bill as well, that we thought maybe 
at that time that this program was going to come to an end. And yet, on 
Labor Day, this time a year ago, on Labor Day the President said, no, 
we're going to go through with this bill, even though it is clearly 
against the will of the American people.
  Now, Labor Day. Let's think about what happens on Labor Day. First of 
all, how many families do we have crossing on our highways trying to 
take families from one event to the next, out there? It's an issue of 
safety to keep our families safe on our highways. It was an absolute 
slap in the face of the American people, and it was also a slap in the 
face of our American trucking industry, who has worked hard to live up 
to the standards that we have in this Congress imposed on them with 
safety, training, maintenance and all the environmental controls that 
they have struggled to get, to be in compliance with.
  And so a year ago, the President absolutely refuted the will of the 
American people and said, we're going to go ahead and do this anyway.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. One of the heaviest traveling weekends for our 
families, they went ahead and did it anyway.
  Now, let me just say that I spent many, many years working in the 
pharmaceutical industry. And my concern with this is there have been 
500 trucks on our highways over the year. And, by the grace of God, we 
don't know of any fatal or serious accidents that have taken place.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that the last thing 
we want to do is approve a drug that hasn't killed 500 people in a 
year, and certainly we don't want to take this and say that this 
program is now ready to be opened up into the broader sector.
  We need to stop this now. The American people have spoken. It is 
about our jobs, it is about safety, it is just flat out about common 
sense. And I hope finally, Mr. Speaker, that after

[[Page H7915]]

all of our work on this that we are finally bringing this crazy chapter 
of having trucks from Mexico be on our highways with our families and 
our American trucks. I hope we are finally bringing this to a close.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 6630 
with Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Oberstar, and Ranking Member Mica; and 
I simply want to commend them for the work they have done on this 
legislation, along with the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  On September 6, 2007, the Department of Transportation began a 1-year 
cross-border demonstration project to open the Mexican border to truck 
traffic. According to the Department, they instituted this program in 
order to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  The Department announced on August 4 of this year its intent to 
extend the program for an additional 2 years.
  Like many other Members, I believe there are legitimate concerns 
about continuing this demonstration project, and many of those have 
been outlined by Chairman DeFazio here a few moments ago.
  The bill under consideration today terminates the demonstration 
project 1 year after it began, just as the Department originally 
intended, until certain information is provided to the Congress.

                              {time}  1730

  Additionally, the bill prohibits the granting of new authority for 
Mexican trucks to operate beyond the commercial zone on the border 
without the express authorization of Congress, as I just mentioned.
  Last year, we took up consideration and voted overwhelmingly to pass 
a similar bill, H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007. Like 
the bill under consideration today, H.R. 1773 barred Mexican trucks 
from operating beyond the border zone without Congressional action. 
That bill passed the Transportation Committee unanimously and then 
passed in the House--as Chairman DeFazio has mentioned, passed the 
House by a vote of 411-3.
  The House has expressed its feeling on this issue in a very strong 
and bipartisan way. Before the border is completely open to Mexican 
trucks, we must ensure the safety of motorists on our highways. No 
matter how much we want to have good relations and trade with our 
friends in Mexico--and we do--our first obligation is to the American 
people.
  I want to make clear, though, that this bill does not prohibit 
forever some type of border crossing in relationship with Mexican 
trucking companies. H.R. 6630 simply requires the Independent Review 
Panel established by the Secretary of Transportation and the Department 
of Transportation itself to report to the Congress on the effects that 
the demonstration project had on motor carrier safety. It also provides 
a requirement to submit other required information, such as enforcement 
costs and various safety violations and other things like that, of the 
companies that have participated in the demonstration project thus far. 
Once Congress receives this information, Congress could then act to 
allow Mexican domiciled motor carriers access to the U.S.
  This bill does not permanently prevent this type of program but 
ensures that the border will not be fully open without proper 
protections in place.
  H.R. 6630 will help ensure the safety of our Nation's highways, and 
especially--and this is so important to me and most Members on both 
sides--it will help protect our American trucking companies, our small 
businesses, and our truck drivers. Republicans and Democrats have come 
together in the interest of the Nation and produced a bipartisan bill 
that impacts the entire Nation.
  I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also thank you for 
forging this legislation in a bipartisan way which you will hopefully 
have unanimous support with this Congress. This program we're trying to 
roll back I think is one of the most dangerous programs this 
administration has ever tried to put into effect.
  I represent the entire California-Mexico border. It is my district. I 
know what happens with these trucks at the border. We haven't dealt 
with issues of licensing of drivers, we haven't dealt with insurance or 
safety of the trucks, not even mentioning the jobs that are lost to 
American truckers.
  Let me just tell you two things very quickly about what goes on at 
the border.
  The Federal Motor Carrier Transportation Administration issues what 
it calls a tamperproof sticker, a green sticker to say that this truck 
is safe. I have been in Tijuana and I have seen these windshields which 
have the tamperproof sticker put on different trucks. So they haven't 
tampered with the sticker, but they put it on a different truck.
  I have seen papers that supposedly guarantee insurance of a truck. A 
company that owns 10 trucks will buy an insurance policy for one truck 
and pass that paper around to all of the other ones. They're very 
difficult to distinguish. They pass the muster at the border and 
they're free, under this program that we're trying to stop, to move 
around in our Nation without really having any choice.
  We could go on for hours on this. We have looked at all of these 
different aspects that the administration just refuses to look at.
  So, Mr. DeFazio, thank you for bringing this to us. We have got to 
stop this program. We've got to stop it now and save both jobs and 
lives of American truckers.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6630. This bill 
prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from authorizing any Mexican 
truck from operating beyond the United States-Mexican border unless 
specifically authorized by Congress.
  Many of my constituents and I are greatly concerned over the safety 
and wisdom of the cross-border trucking pilot program. Currently, this 
program allows trucks registered in Mexico to operate beyond the border 
commercial zones in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
  When this program began, the Department of Transportation promised 
Congress that they would inspect, ``every truck every time.'' However, 
an Inspector General report revealed earlier this year that the 
Department of Transportation is not adequately performing critical 
quality control measures. Crucially, the department has been unable to 
provide any assurance that Mexican trucks and drivers are being checked 
at the border as advertised.
  Quality control checks are not the only problem. Increased drug 
smuggling and human trafficking is a grave concern as well. And 
different national regulations mean Mexican trucks are less safe. In 
January of this year, Mr. Speaker, two tractor trailer trucks with 
Mexican license plates crashed on the Mexico-Texas border. Four people 
died.
  If the Department of Transportation and any future administration 
wish to restart the cross-border trucking pilot program, this bill 
would require them to first seek congressional authorization. Simply 
put, the security of our Nation's borders must be of the utmost 
concern.
  Speaking of trucks, Mr. Speaker, I, like all Members of Congress, am 
hearing from truckers in my district about the very high cost of fuel. 
They ask why won't the Democrat majority, and in particular why won't 
Speaker Pelosi allow drilling to lower the cost of their fuel. We need 
to have an all-in energy program.
  Mr. Speaker, back on the bill, I urge all of my colleagues to support 
H.R. 6630 and the termination of the cross-border trucking pilot 
program.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out that I believe that this is a long-standing 
desire on the part of both the President--whose name shall not be 
mentioned at least on the Republican side of the aisle--George W. Bush 
and other members of his administration. In fact, as early as December 
26, 1996, the headline

[[Page H7916]]

of the Journal of Commerce, Texas, ``Governor Berates Clinton Over 
Delay in Border Opening.'' And then June 17, 1996, Texas Governor 
George W. Bush, now the President of the United States, issues a call 
for the start of NAFTA trucking.
  George W. Bush has long been an advocate of fully opening the border. 
In fact, before 9/11 he wanted to move to a borderless state between 
the U.S. and Mexico. Security concerns overrode him there. But he's 
trying to do it with trucks.
  And hand-in-glove with the President is Secretary of Transportation, 
Mary Peters. Her track record on this is disingenuous at best, 
deceitful, or perhaps she perjured herself. She said in her Senate 
confirmation hearing, ``There are no immediate plans to pursue a pilot 
program.''
  But since she made that statement, we find that while she was head of 
the Federal Highway Administration from 2001 to 2005, plans were well 
underway by the Bush administration to open the border. It was first 
raised in the fall of 2004 between former Secretary Mineta and Mexican 
Secretary Cerisola in November of 2004.
  And in early 2005, DOT actually was crafting a proposal. In a 
document entitled, ``Implementing NAFTA's Commercial Motor Carrier 
access Provisions--A Pilot Approach,'' outlined early plans for pilot 
programming. And it said, ``The essence of a pilot would be to create a 
crack in the current impasse and allow the pressure of time, and most 
importantly, the Mexican carriers not participating in the pilot, to 
enlarge the crack, to a point that a complete liberalization of the 
border becomes a fait accompli.''
  They used French despite their disdain for the French position of not 
invading Iraq.
  However, you know, as I said, Ms. Peters contradicted that.
  So what we have here is an administration that is dead set to defy 
the will of the United States Congress as expressed in a bipartisan way 
to protect the safety of the American traveling public and to prevent 
the continuation and/or expansion of this program.
  We should, Mr. Speaker, pass this bill with hopefully a unanimous 
vote or near unanimous vote to send yet one last message to this Bush 
administration and the law defiers and the dissemblers downtown and 
tell them to bring this program to a halt as they promised. It would 
have halted on September 6, 2007.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding.
  I agree that this is a problematic program, and I agree also with my 
colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, that what I am 
hearing at home is from truckers in my district, as well as average 
citizens, who are complaining about the high price of gasoline. And of 
course the truckers are complaining about the high price of diesel. And 
they want to know why is this Congress not doing something about the 
high price of gasoline.
  As we have said often on this floor, Republicans are ready to vote on 
an all-of-the-above strategy to bring down the price of gasoline. And 
we know Americans are going to be facing very high prices for fuel oil 
pretty soon. So we want to do something about the high price of 
gasoline by bringing up the American Energy Act and having an up-or-
down vote on what to do about bringing down the price of gasoline by 
providing more supply.
  As I have said many times on this floor, the Republicans are pro-
American energy. We want to see more American energy supplied to the 
American consumers. We want more oil, we want alternatives, but we 
can't get energy independent without drilling for more oil and having a 
segue into the alternatives. We believe that Democrats are anti-
American energy, and anti-American energy is going to keep the price of 
gasoline very high. It's also going to make the price of fuel oil this 
winter very high, which is going to hurt all of our citizens.
  So we want to help our truckers, we want to help our seniors, we want 
to help other agencies who are struggling with this as well as our 
average citizens. Bring down the price of gasoline and bring down the 
price of fuel oil by bringing the American Energy Act for a vote and 
allow us to have an up-or-down vote. Do we drill in ANWR? Do we drill 
in the Outer Continental Shelf? Or do we allow the Democrats to 
continue to play games with this Congress?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me about the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 7 minutes. 
The gentleman from Oregon has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to restrict this debate to the 
failings of the Republican Bush administration in protecting the safety 
of the American traveling public and the jobs of American truckers. 
Unfortunately, the gentlelady before us apparently has amnesia because 
she forgets that the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and 
the White House for 6 years. And during those 6 years, Vice President 
Cheney wrote an energy policy in secret with the big oil companies.

                              {time}  1745

  George Bush walked hand-in-hand with the King of Saudi Arabia, and 
they designed a policy. That policy that was actually designed to make 
us more dependent on foreign oil rather than less, and many of us who 
opposed it then in the minority said this is not a solution to 
America's energy problems. You are going to make us more dependent on 
foreign oil, and we are, exactly as was designed by Vice President 
Cheney, endorsed by President Bush and passed by the Republican House 
and the Republican Senate. That's the energy policy we're living under, 
that.
  Now, today, they're born again as defenders of the American 
consumers, and they pocket hundreds of millions--sorry, hundreds of 
thousands, millions of dollars in contributions from Big Oil. They want 
to rush forward yet again with a shortsighted policy while giving lip 
service to a long-term solution to our energy needs.
  We will have a comprehensive bill on the floor later this week, and 
we will see where the Republicans really stand on this issues. Do they 
stand with the American people, with American consumers? Will they look 
forward to the future and finally freeing us from the trial and 
enslavement to the OPEC nations? We will see later this week.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend for yielding, and I think the 
underlying bill has some merit.
  I'm curious, my friend from Oregon getting so exercised and excited 
about this debate. I appreciate his passion. I would, however, correct 
his amnesia because bill after bill after bill that resulted in 
legislation passed through this House that would increase American-made 
energy for Americans did so over the previous 6 years before this 
Democrat majority came into office and was stymied in the Senate by 41 
Democrats. That's all it takes in the Senate, as you know, Mr. Speaker. 
That's all it takes.
  So what we heard over the last 5 weeks--I know it's what my friend 
from Oregon heard at home--is that the American people are tired of all 
this. They want action. They want American-made energy for Americans. 
They want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and they want 
action.
  And so over the last 2 days we've been debating bill after bill, and 
they've been some wonderful bills. We've named a number of post 
offices. We've done a lot of interesting work, but what we haven't done 
is address the number one issue of the American people, and that is the 
high cost of gasoline and energy.
  So we look forward with great anticipation to the bill that will be 
rolled out later this week. Granted it hasn't been an open process. 
Granted it hasn't been a fair process. But we hope that an open rule 
will allow that bill to come to the floor so that we can have an 
opportunity to have Members of this House of Representatives, as the 
rules would allow, have input, to represent their constituents, again, 
on the most important issue of the day.
  We hope that the bill doesn't include remarkable tax increases on 
domestic

[[Page H7917]]

oil producers so this Democrat majority takes us further in the 
direction of dependence on foreign oil. We hope that isn't the case.
  We hope that the bill doesn't include ridiculous components that make 
it so that it would be impossible to utilize 80 percent of the 
resources that we have offshore.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. We hope that the Democrat majority has listened 
over the last 5 weeks when they've been home on their vacation. We hope 
that they've listened to their constituents and recognize that folks at 
home want us to explore offshore, not just off four eastern States, Mr. 
Speaker, but off the areas where there is significant resources that we 
know is there. That means off the western coast of Florida. That means 
off the west coast. That means utilizing deep sea exploration in Alaska 
and also onshore exploration.
  We hope that the bill contains limitations on the ability to sue and 
hold up leases. Every single lease that has been let by this 
administration in the last 2 years is now in court, over a thousand of 
them, because of the lax laws on liability.
  Mr. Speaker, we look forward to a commonsense bill. We look forward 
to an all-of-the-above bill. We look forward to a bill that will answer 
the number one concern of the American people, that they want American-
made energy for Americans now.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have the right to close, and I will be the last 
speaker.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I will say this is a bill primarily concerned about the 
safety and fairness to American trucking companies and American 
truckers. I agree with my colleagues that the high cost of energy, high 
cost of diesel fuel has hit especially small trucking companies and 
truckers harder than almost anyone, and certainly Republicans have been 
trying desperately for several months to do everything possible to 
increase energy production in this country, which is the only way to 
bring down these exorbitant costs we've been experiencing over the last 
2 years.
  The cost of gasoline when Speaker Pelosi was sworn in was a little 
over $2 gallon. Now, it's gone to more than $4 a gallon but has started 
coming down now just because of the threat of increased production. And 
we certainly need to do more in regard to that to be fair and helpful 
to our truckers and our trucking companies.
  Now, let me say once again: this is a very moderate, sensible, 
balanced, and reasonable bill. It does not prohibit some sort of 
program for Mexican trucking companies that are safe and don't have all 
these violations. It would allow them to come in after additional 
information is given to the Congress about the results from this 1-year 
demonstration project. That's not much to ask for from the 
administration, and we need that information about safety violations.
  We need to find out whether these Mexican truck drivers have drug 
addictions or they have numerous safety violations, find out whether 
some of these trucking companies are coming in, these trucks are coming 
in here in a very unsafe and uninsured condition.
  So I think this is a bill that all of our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle can support. As I said earlier, practically the same bill was 
passed a few months ago by a vote of 411-3, and I ask all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation which has bipartisan support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for returning to the subject at 
hand, which is the safety of the traveling public and American jobs 
which the Bush administration would disregard by continuing their pilot 
program, violating their promise to only continue the program as a 
pilot for 1 year, 1 year having expired last Saturday, further 
violating and ignoring the intent of the Congress which has on numerous 
occasions expressed concerns regarding this program and its effect on 
the traveling public.
  So I would hope that, on a bipartisan basis, we can send a message to 
the Bush White House by passing this bill unanimously, or nearly 
unanimously, and say that the Congress cares about the safety of the 
traveling public. The Congress cares about the fact there's no 
meaningful commercial driver's license database in Mexico. We don't 
really know who these people are.
  The Congress cares about the fact that there is no meaningful hours 
of service program in Mexico and that many of these drivers may be 
crossing the border fatigued to the point of endangering public safety.
  The Congress cares about the fact that there is no certified drug 
testing laboratory in Mexico, no meaningful program of testing for 
drugs of truck drivers in Mexico.
  The Congress cares about the potential for insurance fraud and other 
things as mentioned by our colleague from California (Mr. Filner).
  And the Congress is determined that this administration, the 
administration of George W. Bush, this Republican administration, 
should stop violating the law and violating the law and jeopardizing 
the American public for their own ideological ends in their hope that 
they can pry this program open wide enough that a future Congress or a 
future administration won't be able to slam it shut again.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 6630, a bill to 
Bar Access of Long-Haul Mexican Trucks. I do so to reject this 
Administration's dismissal of clear Congressional intent and on behalf 
of hundreds of my constituents who contacted me to express their 
opposition to this program.
  Congress has a duty to protect our highways from drivers without 
adequate safety equipment. This bill enables a full examination into 
the potential effects of allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United 
States. Then, Congress can consider whether to allow such entry.
  Congress has come together--on a bipartisan basis--time again to stop 
the pilot program. Unfortunately, we have been conistently disregarded 
by an Administration more concerned with pushing through cross-border 
trade agreements than the safety of our highways.
  In 2007, the Supplemental Appropriations bill explicitly contained 
language limiting the implementation of the pilot program. Despite 
this, the Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the pilot.
  In response, the 2008 Transportation Appropriations bill prevented 
the DOT from using Federal money to fund the pilot program. DOT 
challenged this language and continued with the program.
  At the end of July 2008, the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure unanimously voted to end the DOT pilot program. 
Immediately afterward, the DOT defiantly declared it was extending the 
pilot program--not terminating it.
  The most vocal message from the House came with the passage of the 
Safe American Roads Act in May 2007. The bill posed time limits on the 
pilot program and reporting requirements on the DOT.
  SARA was a powerful, bipartisan effort. 411 members voted for the 
measure and only three voted against it. However, this overwhelming 
effort has been undermined by the Administration in its determination 
to open our borders to unsafe and environmentally damaging 
transportation practices. The Administration has performed legal and 
linguistic contortion upon contortion to find loopholes and semantic 
arguments designed to bypass the very clear intent of Congress; and 
Congress must not stand for it.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation to protect America's highways and push back against such 
blatant Executive disregard for the intent of Congress.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6630. 
This is a bill with a simple purpose: to require a cross-border 
trucking pilot program initiated by the Department of Transportation 
(``DOT'') on September 6, 2007, to terminate immediately, and to force 
the Administration to stay true to its word that this program remain a 
short-term, limited experiment.
  In February of last year, the Secretary of Transportation first 
announced her intent to launch a pilot program to allow up to 100 
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones 
at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Secretary assured Congress and the 
American people that this pilot program would last one year. The 
Secretary made this pledge at news conferences and multiple 
Congressional hearings. DOT further cemented this commitment by 
publishing the details of a one-year pilot program in three separate 
Federal Register notices.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 6630 
reported in July in anticipation of the one-year mark, which occurred a 
few days ago. We considered this bill, which statutorily requires the 
Secretary to shut the program down after one year, because we had no 
reason to believe that the

[[Page H7918]]

Administration would terminate the pilot program and revoke the 
authority of participating carriers--unless compelled to do so by 
Congress.
  We were right. On August 4, 2008, on the first day of the 
Congressional recess, DOT announced that it would extend the program 
for an additional two years, through 2010.
  Since last February, I have expressed my strong concerns over whether 
safety on U.S. roads would be adversely impacted and whether DOT was 
ready to enforce all Federal motor carrier laws and regulations. I have 
also expressed my amazement with the careless way that the 
Administration has violated the will of Congress and the spirit of the 
law over the last 18 months.
  Today, I repeat these sentiments and say enough is enough. It is time 
for DOT to be held accountable for its actions and made to keep its own 
promises.
  The House has already voiced strong, bipartisan opposition to the 
implementation of this pilot program in three separate pieces of 
legislation, each of which DOT has strongly opposed:
  The House passed H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, on 
May 15 by a vote of 411-3.
  On May 25, 2007, the House passed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans 
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 
2007 (P.L. 110-28), which was signed by the President, and which 
included a number of safety prerequisites regarding the proposed pilot 
program. DOT glossed over these requirements and moved ahead without 
fully taking them into account.
  On July 24, 2007, the House passed the FY 2008 Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill 
(H.R. 3074) with a provision to bar DOT from using any funds to 
implement its proposed pilot program. A similar provision was included 
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161), approved 
by the House on December 17, 2007. DOT found a technical ``out'' to 
avoid compliance with this provision.
  DOT pushed past Congressional concerns in establishing this program. 
The Department has pushed on despite strong opposition to extend the 
program, and they will continue to push on. Carriers participating in 
the pilot program have been granted provisional operating authority for 
18 months, after which DOT could allow the authority to become 
permanent.
  Without further Congressional action, this ``experiment'' will turn 
into what opponents of this program have feared all along--a sea change 
in surface transportation policy.
  To date, participation in the pilot program has been underwhelming. 
According to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (``FMCSA'') data, 
27 Mexican carriers operating 107 trucks and 10 U.S. carriers operating 
55 trucks are participating in the pilot program. Pilot program 
participants from Mexico crossed into the United States 9,776 times. 
Only 1,337 of these crossings, or 14 percent, resulted in carriers 
traveling beyond the border zones.
  To accommodate a small fraction of trips taken by these 37 carriers, 
the Federal Government has spent more than $500 million since 1995 to 
prepare for opening of the U.S.-Mexico border to motor carrier traffic.
  This is more than the entire FMCSA budget for all Federal motor 
carrier safety programs in all 50 States for FY 2008.
  While spending thousands of hours of staff resources to implement the 
Administration's cross-border operations, FMCSA has yet to finalize 14 
Congressionally mandated rulemakings--some of which have been pending 
since {999--on critical motor carrier safety issues such as medical 
certification of drivers, commercial drivers license testing standards, 
hours of service, and revocation of operating authority from a carrier 
with a pattern of safety violations. Several reports are also overdue--
including a report on whistleblower protections required in 1998.
  There is nothing in the North American Free Trade Agreement, or any 
other trade agreement, that abrogates the authority of Congress to 
exercise its power under the Constitution to change domestic law. It is 
time for Congress to reclaim its ability to have some bearing on the 
obligations contained in the surface transportation provisions of 
NAFTA.
  I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Mr. 
DeFazio, for introducing the bill, and Ranking Member Mica and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Duncan for joining with us in this effort.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6630.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6630, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________