[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9124-H9127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRIVE FOR TEEN EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2327) to provide for a change in the exemption from the
child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for
minors between 16 and 18 years of age who engage in the operation of
automobiles and trucks, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2327
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Drive for Teen Employment
Act''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR MINORS TO OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES.
(a) Amendment.--Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(6) In the administration and enforcement of the child
labor provisions of this Act, employees who are under 17
years of age may not drive automobiles or trucks on public
roadways. Employees who are 17 years of age may drive
automobiles or trucks on public roadways only if--
``(A) such driving is restricted to daylight hours;
``(B) the employee holds a State license valid for the type
of driving involved in the job performed and has no records
of any moving violation at the time of hire;
``(C) the employee has successfully completed a State
approved driver education course;
[[Page H9125]]
``(D) the automobile or truck is equipped with a seat belt
for the driver and any passengers and the employee's employer
has instructed the employee that the seat belts must be used
when driving the automobile or truck;
``(E) the automobile or truck does not exceed 6,000 pounds
of gross vehicle weight;
``(F) such driving does not involve--
``(i) the towing of vehicles;
``(ii) route deliveries or route sales;
``(iii) the transportation for hire of property, goods, or
passengers;
``(iv) urgent, time-sensitive deliveries;
``(v) more than 2 trips away from the primary place of
employment in any single day for the purpose of delivering
goods of the employee's employer to a customer (other than
urgent, time-sensitive deliveries);
``(vi) more than 2 trips away from the primary place of
employment in any single day for the purpose of transporting
passengers (other than employees of the employer);
``(vii) transporting more than 3 passengers (including
employees of the employer); or
``(vii) driving beyond a 30 mile radius from the employee's
place of employment; and
``(G) such driving is only occasional and incidental to the
employee's employment.
For purposes of subparagraph (G), the term `occasional and
incidental' is no more than one-third of an employee's
worktime in any workday and no more than 20 percent of an
employee's worktime in any workweek.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
defining the term ``occasional and incidental'' shall apply
to all pending cases, actions, or citations in which a final
judgment has not been entered, except that it shall not apply
to any case, action, or citation involving property damage or
personal injury.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Fawell) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell).
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2327, the Drive for Teen
Employment Act. This is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and
my colleague on the Committee on Education and Workforce, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to modify the Department of
Labor's overly restrictive interpretation of its own regulation which
essentially prohibits 16 and 17 year old employees from driving on
public roads while they are employed. This current interpretation,
which is not required by the regulation itself, was announced in the
context of enforcement actions against certain employers who had no
advance notice of the department's narrow interpretation of the child
labor laws.
While the Department of Labor's regulations allow ``occasional and
incidental'' driving by 16 and 17 year olds, the department has in
recent years claimed that this regulation prohibits those under 18 from
any driving during employment except perhaps in ``rare and emergency''
situations.
Not only is the department's current interpretation not consistent
with the regulation itself, but it has had the effect of denying
important job opportunities for teenagers without any demonstrated
increase in safety. As a result, innocent small business owners have
been fined by the Department of Labor on the basis of an interpretation
of a regulation of which they did not even have notice.
As introduced and passed by the Committee on Education and Workforce,
H.R. 2327 put into law a new test with regard to the amount of time
that teenage employees could drive to allow them to drive up to one-
third of the workday, one-fifth of the workweek, and 50 miles from the
place of employment.
The bill also retained all of the other conditions on teenage drivers
that are part of the current regulation: The vehicle must weigh less
than 6,000 pounds, the driving is restricted to daylight hours, the
minor holds a state driver's license, the vehicle is equipped with a
seat belt or similar restraining device for the driver and for each
helper, and the employer has instructed each minor that seat belts must
be used. That the driving does not involve the towing of other vehicles
is also a requirement, and the driving must be ``occasional and
incidental'' through the minor's employment.
Subsequent to the committee's markup of the bill, the sponsors of the
bill had lengthy negotiations with the Department of Labor and other
interested members of the committee. These talks have resulted in the
development of the bipartisan substitute amendment which we are
considering today.
Under the substitute, only 17 year olds are permitted to drive during
employment. In addition, there is a limitation on the number of trips
per day that a 17 year old may drive for the purpose of delivering
packages or transporting other persons.
This substitute amendment would not decrease safety on the road or
endanger young people. It simply provides a reasonable and practical
solution to an overly restrictive and unfairly enforced interpretation
by the Department of Labor, which has denied job opportunities to young
people without increasing safety.
These new restrictions will make driving on the job by teens safer,
and employers will still have every incentive to ensure that their
teenage employees drive safely.
I would like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Combest), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez) for their persistence and hard work and a lot
of negotiating to bring this substitute amendment to the floor, and I
would urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2327, the Drive for Teen
Employment Act, as amended. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), as well as my friend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), for all of their hard work and
persistence in drafting this substitute amendment and for addressing
many of the legitimate concerns raised by the Department of Labor,
child labor advocacy groups, and many Democrats on the Committee on
Education and Workforce. Because of their efforts, we are able to have
a bipartisan bill before us today.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) so eloquently stated,
under current law teenagers age 16 and 17 are significantly restricted
in driving as part of their job responsibilities. In particular, teens
may not spend more than 20 percent of their workday driving, and may
not spend more than 5 percent of their workweek driving.
The substitute amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Fawell) is offering today would prohibit 16 year olds from driving and
would permit 17 year olds with certain existing and new restrictions to
drive as part of their job responsibilities for up to one-third of the
workday and up to one-fifth of the workweek.
In short, H.R. 2327 will allow thousands of teenagers, including
those participating in the school-to-work programs, the ability to
pursue a broader range of work opportunities, even including those
involving driving.
Although this legislation is a step forward, I and many of my
colleagues had some concerns. Specifically, a high accident rate
amongst teenagers, the fact that teens are young and inexperienced
drivers, and our responsibility to protect teenagers from the dangers
and perils in the workplace as we do other workers.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the death
rate for 16 year olds has been on an upward trend, increasing from 19
per every 100,000 deaths in 1975, to 35 per 100,000 in 1996.
Conversely, the death rate among older teens has declined slightly.
In an effort total address these real concerns, H.R. 2327 provides
greater protection than even current regulations in circumstances that
are most likely to result in injury or even death to the minor and to
others. Before a 17 year old may be employed to drive, the minor must
have a valid license, must have completed an approved driver education
course and must have a clean driving record at the time of hire.
The vehicle the minor is driving must be limited in size and must be
equipped with seat belts for all passengers. The minor must be
instructed by the employer regarding the required use of seat belts.
[[Page H9126]]
Driving is restricted to a 30 mile radius from a teenager's place of
employment. Minors are prohibited from driving that involves the towing
of vehicles, route sales or deliveries, transportation for hire of
property, goods or passengers or urgent time sensitive deliveries.
Finally, this legislation will ensure that driving only occurs
occasionally by placing a limit of two trips per day on the number of
times a minor may drive to deliver goods to a customer or transport
non-employee passengers.
The legislation would leave intact current requirements that
encourage safe driving by teens and require them to be in compliance
with all state laws governing driving. Although the intent and effect
of this legislation is to increase the time a 17 year old is allowed to
drive while working, it does so in a manner that is fully cognizant of
the health and safety risks that come with driving.
I do not wish to mislead my colleagues, however. As in any situation
where one seeks to reconcile conflicting interests, the reconciliation
will not please everyone. Some of my colleagues may continue to have
concerns about this legislation and some child labor advocacy groups
may still oppose H.R. 2327. However, like the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Fawell), I strongly believe that this legislation strikes a
sensible balance, for it allows 17 year olds the ability and
opportunity for more work opportunities and the ability to be more
efficient and productive employees. It also improves upon existing
safety and health protections for minors and the for public.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of H.R. 2327.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) of the
committee for their outstanding work, and thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), for bringing
this to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely not in favor of any watering down or
weakening of the child labor laws and protections of this country.
Decades ago people fought very hard to achieve those laws, and I do not
want to see them weakened in any way.
I believe that this is not a weakening of child labor laws, with all
due respect to those who raise objections. I think there are three
important safeguards in this bill that continue to protect child labor.
Safeguard Number 1 is the requirement that the minor who is involved
have a valid state driver's license in effect at the time he or she is
working. That is very important, because a state is not going to give a
young person a driver's license who is not worthy or permit that
driver's license to stay in effect if the driver is unsafe.
The second important check are the many limitations in this bill that
both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Fawell) describe, limitations on the number of hours the
young person may drive, limitations on the miles the young person may
drive, limitations on the weight of the vehicle, no authority for
towing another vehicle and proper instruction on proper safety uses of
the vehicle.
The final check I think is one that comes from common sense. We
certainly know that there are some reckless teenage drivers. There are
some reckless drivers of every age. I think the best check against
reckless teenage drivers are the auto dealers who are responsible for
the vehicles. The last thing in the world that a responsible auto
dealer wants to do is to have an employee of that dealership take the
vehicle out on the road and drive it recklessly, because they are
either going to be liable to the owner of the car, if it is being
repaired, or the factory, if the car has not yet been sold.
{time} 1530
Common sense tells us that the employers are not likely to entrust
the operation of these cars to highly irresponsible drivers.
Finally, let me say that I think that this is a bill that is really a
youth employment bill. There are many young people, male and female,
who have gotten their start working part-time at an auto dealership.
Frankly, if the young person is not permitted to drive on occasion, his
or her value to the auto dealer as an employer is rather diminished.
We are challenged in this country and in this Congress with coming up
with ways that private sector employers can reach out and employ young
people who are trying to help support their families or earn money for
their education. I can think of no better way than the elimination of
arbitrary and capricious rules. I believe that this legislation,
supported by both Democrats and Republicans, is an example of
legislation that removes such arbitrary and capricious rules. I am
pleased to support it. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Ford), for his leadership in this effort.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. We are
blessed to have two erudite Members on this side, Mr. Speaker; first,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and secondly, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
for the vocabulary lesson. I do not know whether to have that taken
down or not, but I am going back and check.
I have been following this legislation carefully, and I marvel at the
hard work of the committee for bringing it forward. In 1994, the
Department of Labor did, in fact, adopt a new interpretation of the
Federal Child Labor regulations that effectively eliminated occasional
and incidental driving by teenage employees of auto dealers.
In my community in the Pacific Northwest, this interpretation that
was adopted without notice or rulemaking led to the imposition of over
$200,000 in fines against more than 60 auto dealers in the Pacific
Northwest, people who in my experience are pretty straight-ahead folks,
good public citizens and easy to work with.
The process by which the new rule was adopted I think was bad; the
fines were worse. I am pleased that we are taking steps here to
eliminate the most severe consequence, which was the decision on the
part of many auto dealers to no longer hire teenagers for after-school
and summer service for porters and lot attendants. These were jobs that
gave young people the opportunity to earn money and gain career-
building experience.
I personally benefited in my formative years with employment
opportunities that were auto-related, and frankly, I do identify with
the comments of my friend from New Jersey that in fact probably these
young people were as safe and perhaps safer, because one is not going
to entrust valuable property to people one thinks are irresponsible.
Bear in mind these are some of the same young drivers that some would
have us protect, who are out driving large machines without
supervision, without the experience at times that they would have in
the employment situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are taking steps to remedy this. I
am sorry that it took so long. I do think that the job limits that have
been adopted, the protections, the restrictions, are more than
adequate. Some may argue that it goes a little further than necessary,
particularly at a time when there are some in this body who are calling
for the imposition of adult criminal sanctions against teenagers.
I think what the committee has done, coming forward to provide
employment opportunities, is sensible. It will remove the concerns that
auto dealers and many business owners have for hiring teenagers for
jobs that require limited driving, and it does give the Department of
Labor clear and fair guidelines to enforce.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that has been done.
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2327, the
Drive for Teen Employment Act. I have been working on this bill for
three years and believe we have reached the right balance between
safety and common-sense. I would like to express my appreciation to my
colleague from Texas, Mr. Combest, as well as the Democratic Members of
[[Page H9127]]
the Education and Workforce Committee, for the opportunity to address
my safety concerns. This bill will help increase employment
opportunities for 17-year-olds, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
H.R. 2327 addresses the ability of licensed 17-year-olds to drive
limited amounts on the job. Under current law, minors are permitted to
drive on the job within certain limits. However, the Department of
Labor has narrowly defined these restrictions to the point that minors
would be prohibited from driving on the job under most circumstances.
Fines have been levied against automobile dealerships and other
businesses for having teens complete such tasks as moving cars after
they are washed or returning vehicles from the gasoline station.
The Drive for Teen Employment Act merely established a clear
definition for limited driving, while maintaining injury-prevention
measures on the job. This bill will allow limited driving by a 17-year-
old in low risk and supervised settings and provides numerous
safeguards, including: work-related driving is restricted to daylight
hours; towing is prohibited; the driver must hold a state driver's
license and must have completed a state approved driver education
course; the driving is capped at 20 percent of the work week; minors
must not have any record of moving violations at the time of hire;
driving distance is limited to a 30-mile radius; route deliveries and
route sales are prohibited; and urgent, time-sensitive deliveries are
prohibited.
By establishing safety precautions and clear guidelines for
employers, we can encourage much-needed employment for teenagers, while
maintaining safety measures on the job. I encourage my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I have had a long interest in reforming
regulations that do not pass what I call ``The Stupid Test.'' I believe
the teen driver regulation is a poster child for failing ``The Stupid
Test.''
In 1993, the Department of Labor made a major regulatory change in
the working definition of what incidental and occasional meant for
licensed 16 and 17 year olds driving in the workplace. The change
limits those under age 18 from driving more than one incident a week.
The Department did this with no formal rule making and without
informing any small businesses. Businesses first learned of the change
when they received fines for non-compliance.
One such incident involved a 17 year-old student working in a high
school sponsored co-op program at a local bank in Milan, Illinois. This
young lady was in the bookkeeping department and would occasionally
make trips to a branch bank four miles away. The bank was fined $500
because of her occasional driving. Does it make any sense that these
teens can drive an unlimited amount when they are not working, but
while under supervised protection at work, they are completely
prohibited from driving?
In Washington State alone, it is estimated that this regulation
resulted in the loss of at least 1,000 job opportunities for teens. The
irony is that while the Department of Labor is spending upwards of $900
million annually on summer jobs programs, their own regulations is
restricting the hiring of teens.
My co-authoris Gene Green and Marty Martinez have helped negotiate a
good bill that, while not going as far as the bill reported out of the
House Education and Workforce Committee, it at least establishes some
reasonable definition for what driving activities 17 year olds can
perform. We reluctantly agreed to preclude 16 year olds from the bill
after opposition from the Department of Labor.
Under the bill driving is allowed as long as it does not exceed one-
third of an employee's worktime in any workday and no more than 20
percent of an employees worktime in any work week. The bill limits the
daily delivery of goods to two trips, although under the bill an
employers vehicle is not considered a good.
This legislation has been endorsed by the National Small Business
United, National Automobile Dealers Association, National Community
Pharmacists Association and the National Association of Minority
Automobile Dealers.
We simply seek to bring a clearer, more reasonable standard for
workers and business and hope you will support passage of H.R. 2327.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2327, the
Drive for Teen Employment Act.
Under current law, minors are permitted to drive on the job under
occasional and incidental circumstances, and until 1994, automobile
dealerships across the country regularly employed minors to wash and
detail cars, move cars on the lots, and occasionally drive an
automobile to a nearby lot or gas station. These jobs provided
employment for thousands of young people.
However, in 1994, the Department of Labor, without any rulemaking,
decided to define occasional and incidental so narrowly as to prohibit
minors from driving on the job under almost all circumstances. The
Department then fined 60 Seattle area auto dealers nearly $200,000 for
alleged child labor law violations and caused nearly 1,000 16 and 17
year olds to become unemployed.
To address this problem, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Combest,
introduced H.R. 2327. H.R. 2327, as passed by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, included provisions to permit 16 and 17
year olds to drive during daylight hours for no more than one-third of
the day and no more than 20 percent of the work week. It also
prohibited minors from towing or driving outside of a 50 mile radius
from the job site.
Since the bill was reported by the Committee, several of my
colleagues and I have worked with Mr. Combest to further restrict the
provisions of the bill and make it even better. The bill before you
today pertains only to 17 year olds, requires that the minor have a
clean driving record, and limits driving to a 30-mile radius.
This bill merely removes the concerns small business owners have
about hiring teenagers for jobs that require limited driving and
establishes clear guidelines to assist the Department in enforcing a
regulation under its jurisdiction.
At a time when, according to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman,
``despite the strong economy, young people living in high-poverty areas
don't have jobs,'' H.R. 2327 makes good sense.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2327, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to provide for a change
in the exemption from the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 for minors who are 17 years of age and who engage
in the operation of automobiles and trucks.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________