Friday, May 20, 2011
Status of Mexican Trucks in the United States: Frequently Asked Questions
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which took effect in January 1994, the United States and Mexico agreed to allow each other’s trucks to carry goods across the border to make deliveries anywhere inside their respective countries. This provision was controversial in the United States, and a trial program begun in September 2007 by the Bush Administration was defunded by Congress in March 2009. Mexico imposed tariffs on certain U.S. goods in response to the program’s termination, as permitted by NAFTA. After bilateral negotiations, the Obama Administration recently announced a new pilot program to allow long-haul Mexican trucks into the United States.1
This report answers frequently asked questions regarding the current plan to permit Mexican trucks into the United States. For more detailed information on the background of this program, the customs processes at the border, and the economics of cross-border trucking, see CRS Report RL31738, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation: The Future of Commercial Trucking Across the Mexican Border, by John Frittelli.
Date of Report: May 16, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R41821
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 112th Congress
Bart Elias, Coordinator
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs has been an issue of considerable interest during the first session of the 112th Congress. The previous FAA authorization, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of FY2007. Attempts to enact a successor law failed in the 110th and 111th Congresses. As a result, aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority have continued under a series of short-term extensions. The latest of these, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-7) will expire on May 31, 2011.
The House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear FAA reauthorization legislation (see S. 223 and H.R. 658), and the Senate has requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. Whereas the Senate bill only covers FY2010 and FY2011, the House bill would authorize FAA programs through FY2014. For FY2011, the only year the two bills overlap, the House-passed total authorization level for FAA is $2,082 million less than that specified by the Senate. Moreover, the House-passed bill calls for further reductions in authorized FAA funding for FY2012 through FY2014. While these levels reflect broader government-wide efforts to reduce deficit spending, they could pose considerable challenges to ongoing air traffic modernization efforts, and affect FAA’s ability to address its future needs for controllers and technical specialists to operate and maintain the nation’s air traffic system. The Senate bill proposes an increase in jet fuel tax for general aviation and a new jet fuel surcharge for fractionally owned aircraft, while the House bill does not include any changes to existing aviation taxes and fees. Neither bill includes proposals to increase the cap on passenger facility charges, and the House bill does not include the controversial provision passed by the House in the 111th Congress to bring non-aviation employees of express carriers under the National Labor Relations Act instead of the Railway Labor Act.
Key issues addressed in the FAA reauthorization bills include provisions intended to improve the management of and accelerate progress on the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen); address FAA workforce and facility consolidation issues; improve the safety of air ambulance operations; improve runway safety; increase oversight of air carriers and foreign repair stations; integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system; and address aircraft and airport noise and emissions.
While there are many similarities in language between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills, particularly with respect to major issues affecting FAA, several important differences remain to be reconciled. Provisions that may be of particular interest during this process include
Specialist in Aviation Policy
Reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs has been an issue of considerable interest during the first session of the 112th Congress. The previous FAA authorization, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of FY2007. Attempts to enact a successor law failed in the 110th and 111th Congresses. As a result, aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority have continued under a series of short-term extensions. The latest of these, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-7) will expire on May 31, 2011.
The House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear FAA reauthorization legislation (see S. 223 and H.R. 658), and the Senate has requested a conference to resolve the differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. Whereas the Senate bill only covers FY2010 and FY2011, the House bill would authorize FAA programs through FY2014. For FY2011, the only year the two bills overlap, the House-passed total authorization level for FAA is $2,082 million less than that specified by the Senate. Moreover, the House-passed bill calls for further reductions in authorized FAA funding for FY2012 through FY2014. While these levels reflect broader government-wide efforts to reduce deficit spending, they could pose considerable challenges to ongoing air traffic modernization efforts, and affect FAA’s ability to address its future needs for controllers and technical specialists to operate and maintain the nation’s air traffic system. The Senate bill proposes an increase in jet fuel tax for general aviation and a new jet fuel surcharge for fractionally owned aircraft, while the House bill does not include any changes to existing aviation taxes and fees. Neither bill includes proposals to increase the cap on passenger facility charges, and the House bill does not include the controversial provision passed by the House in the 111th Congress to bring non-aviation employees of express carriers under the National Labor Relations Act instead of the Railway Labor Act.
Key issues addressed in the FAA reauthorization bills include provisions intended to improve the management of and accelerate progress on the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen); address FAA workforce and facility consolidation issues; improve the safety of air ambulance operations; improve runway safety; increase oversight of air carriers and foreign repair stations; integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system; and address aircraft and airport noise and emissions.
While there are many similarities in language between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills, particularly with respect to major issues affecting FAA, several important differences remain to be reconciled. Provisions that may be of particular interest during this process include
- significant differences in authorized funding levels and aviation fuel taxes between House and Senate versions;
- •a labor provision in the House bill that would overturn recent regulations that make it easier for certain employees covered under the Railway Labor Act to unionize;
- provisions regarding the allocation of takeoff and departure slots at Reagan National Airport; and
- •provisions in the House bill to end the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, which subsidizes air carrier service to small and isolated communities.
Date of Report: April 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 51
Order Number: R41798
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present
Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government
American federalism, which shapes the roles, responsibilities, and interactions among and between the federal government, the states, and local governments, is continuously evolving, adapting to changes in American society and American political institutions. The nature of federalism relationships in surface transportation policy has also evolved over time, with the federal government’s role becoming increasingly influential, especially since the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956 which authorized the interstate highway system. In recent years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They contend that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states. Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.
Congressional attention to federalism issues in surface transportation policy tends to increase during reauthorizations of the federal highway and mass transit program. The current highway and mass transit program, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), after being extended several times, is set to expire on September 30, 2011. Its reauthorization is expected to generate considerable legislative activity during the 112th Congress. Issues addressed by Congress in the recent past, and expected to receive continued attention, include SAFETEA’s funding level and financing, especially proposals addressing the Highway Trust Fund’s fiscal sustainability, state funding guarantees, and congressional earmarks.
This report provides an historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy that are likely to be addressed by Congress during the 112th Congress, including possible devolution of programmatic responsibility to states and proposals to change state maintenance-of-effort requirements and state cost matching requirements.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: R40431
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Senior Specialist in American National Government
American federalism, which shapes the roles, responsibilities, and interactions among and between the federal government, the states, and local governments, is continuously evolving, adapting to changes in American society and American political institutions. The nature of federalism relationships in surface transportation policy has also evolved over time, with the federal government’s role becoming increasingly influential, especially since the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956 which authorized the interstate highway system. In recent years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They contend that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states. Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.
Congressional attention to federalism issues in surface transportation policy tends to increase during reauthorizations of the federal highway and mass transit program. The current highway and mass transit program, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59), after being extended several times, is set to expire on September 30, 2011. Its reauthorization is expected to generate considerable legislative activity during the 112th Congress. Issues addressed by Congress in the recent past, and expected to receive continued attention, include SAFETEA’s funding level and financing, especially proposals addressing the Highway Trust Fund’s fiscal sustainability, state funding guarantees, and congressional earmarks.
This report provides an historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy that are likely to be addressed by Congress during the 112th Congress, including possible devolution of programmatic responsibility to states and proposals to change state maintenance-of-effort requirements and state cost matching requirements.
Date of Report: April 20, 2011
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: R40431
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Railroad Access and Competition Issues
John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Beginning in the late 1970s, Congress gave railroads flexibility to set rates and to enter into confidential contracts with their customers. Over the last decade, large railroads have consolidated and, particularly in recent years, have achieved higher profitability. These changes have left some bulk shippers, particularly those that claim to be “captive” to a single railroad, frustrated with what they perceive as poor rail service and exorbitant rates. “Captive shippers” claim that the railroad serving them acts like a monopoly—charging excessively high rates and providing less service than they require.
Such complaints have led Congress to consider whether the present, largely deregulated, regime should be revised to accommodate the interests of “captive shippers.” A major point of contention is whether current railroad industry practices should be changed to guarantee such shippers more railroad routing options. Legislation, supported by captive shippers and opposed by the railroads and other shippers, failed to reach the floor of either the House or Senate in the last Congress, and has been reintroduced in the 112th Congress (S. 49 and S. 158).
In the wake of renewed congressional interest, the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board), successor agency of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), is reviewing its policies with respect to railroad access and competition issues. It announced a hearing on “bottleneck rates” and “competitive access” matters. Changes in these policies might benefit some shippers of bulk products, such as coal and grain, but could be disadvantageous to shippers of other products, such as maritime containers and domestic truck trailers, that want railroads to maintain high levels of investment in order to provide fast, reliable service for high-value shipments.
The captive shipper issue has wider economic implications than just the division of revenue between railroads and their customers. Higher fuel prices, congestion on certain segments of the interstate highway system, and rising domestic and international trade volumes are driving shippers to demand more rail capacity. Freight revenues are a significant means of financing rail capacity because the railroads receive negligible public financing. If it acts in this area, Congress would face consideration of how a legislated or regulatory solution to the “captive shipper” problem would affect the development of a more robust and efficient railroad system.
Date of Report: April 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL34117
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Specialist in Transportation Policy
Beginning in the late 1970s, Congress gave railroads flexibility to set rates and to enter into confidential contracts with their customers. Over the last decade, large railroads have consolidated and, particularly in recent years, have achieved higher profitability. These changes have left some bulk shippers, particularly those that claim to be “captive” to a single railroad, frustrated with what they perceive as poor rail service and exorbitant rates. “Captive shippers” claim that the railroad serving them acts like a monopoly—charging excessively high rates and providing less service than they require.
Such complaints have led Congress to consider whether the present, largely deregulated, regime should be revised to accommodate the interests of “captive shippers.” A major point of contention is whether current railroad industry practices should be changed to guarantee such shippers more railroad routing options. Legislation, supported by captive shippers and opposed by the railroads and other shippers, failed to reach the floor of either the House or Senate in the last Congress, and has been reintroduced in the 112th Congress (S. 49 and S. 158).
In the wake of renewed congressional interest, the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board), successor agency of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), is reviewing its policies with respect to railroad access and competition issues. It announced a hearing on “bottleneck rates” and “competitive access” matters. Changes in these policies might benefit some shippers of bulk products, such as coal and grain, but could be disadvantageous to shippers of other products, such as maritime containers and domestic truck trailers, that want railroads to maintain high levels of investment in order to provide fast, reliable service for high-value shipments.
The captive shipper issue has wider economic implications than just the division of revenue between railroads and their customers. Higher fuel prices, congestion on certain segments of the interstate highway system, and rising domestic and international trade volumes are driving shippers to demand more rail capacity. Freight revenues are a significant means of financing rail capacity because the railroads receive negligible public financing. If it acts in this area, Congress would face consideration of how a legislated or regulatory solution to the “captive shipper” problem would affect the development of a more robust and efficient railroad system.
Date of Report: April 4, 2011
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL34117
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD): FY2011 Appropriations
David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy
Maggie McCarty
Specialist in Housing Policy
President Obama requested a total of $123.7 billion for FY2011 for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the related agencies that are funded through the annual Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations (THUD) act. This request represented an increase of approximately $1.6 billion (1.3%) over the $122.1 billion provided in the FY2010 THUD appropriations act.
During the second session of the 111th Congress, the House passed an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5850) that would have provided $126.4 billion (3.5% over the FY2010 enacted level). The Senate did not pass an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill; the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (S. 3644) that recommended $122.8 billion (less than 1% over FY2010). In the absence of passage of a THUD appropriations act for FY2011, Congress has provided funding for the THUD agencies (and other government agencies) through a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). The 111th Congress provided funding through March 4, 2011 (P.L. 111-322), at roughly FY2010 funding levels.
The 112th Congress resumed the FY2011 appropriations process, with the House under new leadership and expressing an intent to reduce non-security-related federal discretionary spending. With only a little over half of FY2011 left when the March 4 CR expired, and the budget request for FY2012 already submitted, debate over FY2011 appropriations shifted to the question of how much would be cut from the current total discretionary funding level. On February 18, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, which would have cut discretionary funding not only below the FY2011 requested level but also below the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $108.0 billion in total budgetary resources for THUD, 11% below the FY2010 enacted level. On March 9, 2011, the Senate considered, but failed to pass, both H.R. 1 and a Senate amendment to H.R. 1 (S.Amdt. 149) that would have cut total discretionary funding below the FY2011 request but left it above the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $118.3 billion for THUD, 3% less than the FY2010 enacted level. For the Department of Transportation (DOT), the President’s FY2011 budget requested a total of $77.7 billion. That was $2.0 billion (2.6%) above the $75.7 billion provided for FY2010. The House-passed H.R. 5850 (111th Congress) would have provided $79.4 billion ($3.7 billion over FY2010); the 111th Congress’s Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $75.8 billion ($0.1 billion over FY2010). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $68.3 billion ($7.4 billion below FY2010); S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $73.7 billion ($2.0 billion below FY2010).
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the President’s FY2011 budget requested about $45.6 billion in net new budget authority, a decrease of about 1% from the FY2010 enacted level. However, the requested decrease in net new budget authority actually represented a 3% increase in new funding for HUD programs, as the overall increase in appropriations would have been more than offset by a substantial increase in offsetting collections and receipts, which were expected to come from proposed changes to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs. Both the FY2011 House and Senate bills in the 111th Congress would have provided a 5% increase over FY2010 in appropriations for HUD programs in aggregate. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $38.6 billion (about $7 billion below FY2010). S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $44.9 billion (over $1 billion below FY2010).
Date of Report: April 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41492
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Analyst in Transportation Policy
Maggie McCarty
Specialist in Housing Policy
President Obama requested a total of $123.7 billion for FY2011 for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the related agencies that are funded through the annual Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations (THUD) act. This request represented an increase of approximately $1.6 billion (1.3%) over the $122.1 billion provided in the FY2010 THUD appropriations act.
During the second session of the 111th Congress, the House passed an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (H.R. 5850) that would have provided $126.4 billion (3.5% over the FY2010 enacted level). The Senate did not pass an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill; the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out an FY2011 THUD appropriations bill (S. 3644) that recommended $122.8 billion (less than 1% over FY2010). In the absence of passage of a THUD appropriations act for FY2011, Congress has provided funding for the THUD agencies (and other government agencies) through a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). The 111th Congress provided funding through March 4, 2011 (P.L. 111-322), at roughly FY2010 funding levels.
The 112th Congress resumed the FY2011 appropriations process, with the House under new leadership and expressing an intent to reduce non-security-related federal discretionary spending. With only a little over half of FY2011 left when the March 4 CR expired, and the budget request for FY2012 already submitted, debate over FY2011 appropriations shifted to the question of how much would be cut from the current total discretionary funding level. On February 18, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, a bill to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, which would have cut discretionary funding not only below the FY2011 requested level but also below the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $108.0 billion in total budgetary resources for THUD, 11% below the FY2010 enacted level. On March 9, 2011, the Senate considered, but failed to pass, both H.R. 1 and a Senate amendment to H.R. 1 (S.Amdt. 149) that would have cut total discretionary funding below the FY2011 request but left it above the FY2010 enacted level. It would have provided $118.3 billion for THUD, 3% less than the FY2010 enacted level. For the Department of Transportation (DOT), the President’s FY2011 budget requested a total of $77.7 billion. That was $2.0 billion (2.6%) above the $75.7 billion provided for FY2010. The House-passed H.R. 5850 (111th Congress) would have provided $79.4 billion ($3.7 billion over FY2010); the 111th Congress’s Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $75.8 billion ($0.1 billion over FY2010). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $68.3 billion ($7.4 billion below FY2010); S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $73.7 billion ($2.0 billion below FY2010).
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the President’s FY2011 budget requested about $45.6 billion in net new budget authority, a decrease of about 1% from the FY2010 enacted level. However, the requested decrease in net new budget authority actually represented a 3% increase in new funding for HUD programs, as the overall increase in appropriations would have been more than offset by a substantial increase in offsetting collections and receipts, which were expected to come from proposed changes to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs. Both the FY2011 House and Senate bills in the 111th Congress would have provided a 5% increase over FY2010 in appropriations for HUD programs in aggregate. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 would have provided $38.6 billion (about $7 billion below FY2010). S.Amdt. 149 would have provided $44.9 billion (over $1 billion below FY2010).
Date of Report: April 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 34
Order Number: R41492
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
