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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Mrs. Boyda).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

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

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. Speaker, can you tell me about the remaining time?

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.

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.

I have the right to close, and I will be the last speaker.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

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. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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. 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

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

Madam Speaker, due to illness that required hospitalization, I missed the following votes. I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall vote 567--S. 2403--A bill to designate the new Federal Courthouse, located in the 700 block of East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr. Federal Courthouse''--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 568--S. 2837--A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse''--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 569--S. 2135--Child Soldiers Accountability Act-- ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 570--H. Con. Res. 344--Recognizing that we are facing a lobal food crisis--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 571--H. Res. 937--Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the emergency communications services provided by the American Red Cross are vital resources for military servicemembers and their families--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 572--H. Res. 1069--Condemning the use of television programming by Hamas to indoctrinate hatred, violence, and anti- Semitism toward Israel in young Palestinian children--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 573--H. Res. 1307--Commemorating the Kingdom of Bhutan's participation in the 2008 Smithsonian Folklife Festival and commending the people and the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan for their commitment to holding elections and broadening political participation--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 574--H.R. 6168--Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building--``yes,''

Rollcall vote 575--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--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 576--H. Res. 1419--On Ordering the Previous Question Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008--``yes.''.

Rollcall vote 577--H. Res. 1419--On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of H.R. 3667, Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 578--H.R. 1527, The Rural Veterans Access to Care Act-- ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 579--S. 2617, The Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 580--H.R. 3667, On Motion that the Committee Rise-- ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 581--Grijalva of Arizona Amendment to H.R. 3667-- ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 582--H.R. 3667--Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 583--H.R. 3667--On passage of the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2008--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 584--H.R. 4081, The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2007--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 589--H. Res. 1200, Honoring the dedication and outstanding work of military support groups across the country for their steadfast support of the members of our Armed Forces and their families--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 590--H. Con. Res. 390, Honoring the 28th Infantry Division for serving and protecting the United States--``yes.''

Rollcall vote 591--H.R. 6889, To extend the authority of the Secretary of Education to purchase guaranteed student loans for an additional year, and for other purposes--``yes.''

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

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.

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.