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 · Sep 9, 2008
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to terminate, by September 6, 2008, the one-year cross-border pilot project started on September 6, 2007, as part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cross-border motor carrier provisions, to demonstrate the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate safely in the United States beyond the commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Prohibits the Secretary, unless expressly authorized by Congress, from granting authority to a motor carrier domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond U.S. municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border after September 6, 2008.
Requires certain reports to Congress, within 60 days after enactment of this Act, by: (1) the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation; (2) the independent review panel established to monitor the demonstration project; and (3) the Secretary of Transportation on the project's implementation and the participation of motor carriers.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 395 - 18 (Roll no. 575). (text: CR H7913)
House roll call 575 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/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): 395 - 18 (Roll no. 575).(text: CR H7913)
House roll call 575 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7929-7930)
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. 6630.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7913-7918)
Mr. DeFazio moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 535.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-833.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 110-833.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Discharged.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.6630 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.6630 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.6630 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.6630 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.