The U.S. House of Representatives late Tuesday passed a bill that would immediately end the controversial Mexican cross-border truck pilot program.


The White House has threatened to veto the measure, saying that U.S. and Mexican officials have already addressed safety concerns and that cutting off the program would damage trade with Mexico and hurt U.S. trucking companies participating in the program.

FMCSA Administrator John H. Hill Wednesday issued a statement in response to the House action: "The world is watching how we choose to honor our international commitments. At a time of surging exports and growing demand by U.S. truck drivers for new opportunities, it is simply irresponsible for Congress to deny American drivers the opportunity to compete in Mexico and American shippers a more efficient and timely way of getting their goods south."

The House action followed the Bush administration's decision this summer to extend the year-long program for another two years.

The program is designed to let up to 100 Mexican and U.S. carriers provide long-haul trucking north and south of the border to see if the FMCSA's safety control system will work. There are currently 27 Mexican carriers running 90 trucks and 10 U.S. carriers running 52 trucks in the program.

"This bill puts the brakes on a program that was forced on the Bush Administration after President Clinton supported NAFTA provisions that required admitting Mexican trucks across our border," said Rep. John Mica,a co-sponsor of the bill.

The bill, which passed by an overwhelming margin, 395-18, still must be taken up by the Senate, where there is also considerable sentiment against the program.

The Senate already has a transportation appropriations measure that would cut off funding for the program, but it's unlikely Congress will pass any appropriations bills until next year, after the new president and Congress get to work.

This is not the first time the Congress has tried to stop the program. Transportation spending legislation signed into law late last year prohibited the Department of Transportation from spending any funds to establish such a program. The government, however, argued that since the program was already established, the law, which did not specifically use language forbidding them from continuing an existing program, did not apply.