[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT

                                 ______


                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 12, 1994

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, last month Congress passed H.R. 2739, the 
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, which 
included a provision in section 601 to preempt State economic 
regulation of intrastate trucking. Today, I am introducing a technical 
corrections bill to address two items which I do not believe Congress 
intended to be within the scope of section 601.
  The primary thrust of section 601 is to address issues relating to 
the transportation by motor carrier of general freight and express 
small packages. The act clearly provides for continued State regulation 
of safety requirements and the transportation of household goods.
  During consideration of this legislation, the question was raised as 
to how it could affect garbage and refuse collectors. In the conference 
committee report, it was clearly stated that the motor carrier 
preemption provision does not preempt State regulation of these 
entities as garbage and refuse and not considered property. Subsequent 
to congressional action on H.R. 2739, however, it has been brought to 
our attention that if the garbage or refuse consists of recyclable 
materials, the transportation of these recyclable materials would be 
affected by section 601 as they are considered property having value.
  The technical corrections bill I am introducing today would allow 
economic regulation to continue, where it exists, of the intrastate 
transportation by motor carrier of recyclable materials in those 
instances where the transportation is undertaken under the auspices of 
a unit of local government. In this regard, I would like to commend our 
colleagues, Maria Cantwell who is joining me in introducing this 
legislation, and Peter DeFazio, for their diligence in seeking this 
correction to section 601. They have brought to my attention that many 
municipalities have franchised residential solid waste haulers and that 
under section 601, while a city's ability to franchise and regulate 
solid waste haulers as it relates to garbage or refuse without value 
would be maintained, they would have no authority to encourage and 
regulate residential curbside recycling efforts. I share their view 
that this inconsistency is not particularly in the public interest.
  Another unintended consequence of section 601 involves the question 
of whether it affects tow truck and wrecker operations.
  According to the Interstate Commerce Commission, under this 
legislation a State may argue that it has the jurisdiction to continue 
to regulate tow truck operations. Since the bill clearly preserves 
State authority over safety, a state could maintain that it needs to 
control tow truck operators as a matter of public safety. 
Alternatively, a State might assert a Constitutional argument that tow 
truck operators may be subjected to regulation under the police power.
  However, in order to clearly settle this question, I am including in 
this technical corrections bill a provision to provide for continued 
State economic regulation of intrastate tow and wrecker services where 
such regulation exists. Again, in my view, the intent of section 601 
was to address issues relating to the transportation by motor carrier 
of general freight and express small packages. I do not believe there 
was any intent to affect motor carriers, such as tow truck operations.
  Moreover, the public interest would certainly be preserved by the 
continued economic regulation of tow and wrecker services where States 
choose to engage in such regulation. In the same fashion as section 601 
provided for continued State economic regulation of the transportation 
of household goods on the basis that these operations often deal 
directly with the general public for their services, rather than with 
businesses, so too do tow and wrecker services.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this legislation should pose any 
controversy. Again, it simply clarifies the intent of Congress in 
enacting section 601 of H.R. 2739.

                          ____________________