PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 15, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 14, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Safe American Roads Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from granting a motor carrier domiciled in Mexico authority to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border, except that the Secretary may carry out, in accordance with certain federal motor carrier safety and inspection laws and regulations and this Act, a pilot program that allows not more than 100 of such carriers, and not more than 1,000 of their vehicles, to operate beyond such municipalities and zones.
Prohibits the Secretary from implementing the pilot program until: (1) the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) submits to Congress and the Secretary a report verifying that DOT is in compliance with provisions of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 requiring compliance by motor carriers domiciled in Mexico with certain federal motor carrier safety and inspection laws and regulations and that DOT has established sufficient mechanisms to ensure compliance with such laws and regulations by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers who will operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border; (2) the Secretary takes necessary action to address any issues raised by the IG's report and submits to Congress a report on such actions; (3) there is a program in effect for U.S.-domiciled motor carriers to operate in Mexico beyond commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border; and (4) the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register, and provides opportunity for public comment on, certain aspects of the pilot program.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish an independent review panel to monitor and evaluate the pilot program; and (2) address any determination by the panel that the pilot program has had an adverse effect on motor carrier safety or terminate such program.
(Sec. 5) Requires the IG: (1) to monitor and review the pilot program; and (2) not later than 12 months, and not later than 18 months, after the initiation of the pilot program submit to Congress and the Secretary interim reports that include IG findings and certain safety determinations concerning such program.
Requires the Secretary, not later than 60 days after submission of the IG's 18-month interim report, to report to Congress on: (1) any actions the Secretary is taking to address motor carrier safety issues raised in the IG's interim reports; (2) the Secretary's evaluation of whether granting authority to additional motor carriers domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border would have any adverse effects on motor carrier safety; (3) modifications to federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations or special procedures necessary to enhance the safety of operations of motor carriers domiciled in Mexico in the United States; and (4) any recommendations for legislation to make the pilot program permanent or to expand operations of motor carriers domiciled in Mexico in the United States beyond municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.
(Sec. 6) Authorizes the pilot program for three years, except that if the Secretary does not comply with the requirements of this Act, such program terminates. Requires the Secretary, not later than 60 days after the termination of the pilot program, to submit to Congress a final report on such program.
People & committees
Rep. Boyda, Nancy E. [D-KS-2] · D–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 3 (Roll no. 349). (text: CR H4995-4996)
House roll call 349 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 3 (Roll no. 349).(text: CR H4995-4996)
House roll call 349 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5016-5017)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1773.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4995-5001)
Mr. DeFazio moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 87.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-147.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-147.
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1773 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1773 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1773 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1773 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.