[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 156 (Tuesday, November 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8053-H8056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAL INTERSTATE DRIVER EQUITY ACT OF 2001
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2546) to amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit
States from requiring a license or fee on account of the fact that a
motor vehicle is providing interstate pre-arranged ground
transportation service, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2546
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Real Interstate Driver
Equity Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE PRE-ARRANGED GROUND
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.
Section 14501 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Pre-Arranged Ground Transportation.--
``(1) In general.--No State or political subdivision
thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of
2 or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule,
regulation, standard or other provision having the force and
effect of law requiring a license or fee on account of the
fact that a motor vehicle is providing pre-arranged ground
transportation service if the motor carrier providing such
service--
``(A) meets all applicable registration requirements under
chapter 139 for the interstate transportation of passengers;
``(B) meets all applicable vehicle and intrastate passenger
licensing requirements of the State or States in which the
motor carrier is domiciled or registered to do business; and
``(C) is providing such service pursuant to a contract
for--
``(i) travel from one State, including intermediate stops,
to a destination in another State; or
``(ii) travel from one State, including one or more
intermediate stops in another State, to a destination in the
original State.
``(2) Matters not covered.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed--
``(A) as subjecting taxicab service to regulation under
chapter 135 or section 31138;
``(B) as prohibiting or restricting an airport, train, or
bus terminal operator from contracting to provide
preferential access or facilities to one or more providers of
pre-arranged ground transportation service; and
``(C) as restricting the right of any State or political
subdivision of a State to require that any individual
operating a vehicle providing prearranged ground
transportation service originating in the State or political
subdivision have submitted to a criminal background
investigation of the records of the State in which the
operator is domiciled, by the motor carrier providing such
service or by the State or political subdivision by which the
operator is licensed to provide such service, as a condition
of providing such service.''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 13102 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (17), (18), (19), (20),
(21), and (22) as paragraphs (18), (19), (21), (22), (23),
and (24), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
``(17) Pre-arranged ground transportation service.--The
term `pre-arranged ground transportation service' means
transportation for a passenger (or a group of passengers)
that is arranged in advance (or is operated on a regular
route or between specified points) and is provided in a motor
vehicle with a seating capacity not exceeding 15 passengers
(including the driver).''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (19) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(20) Taxicab service.--The term `taxicab service' means
passenger transportation in a motor vehicle having a capacity
of not more than 8 passengers (including the driver), not
operated on a regular route or between specified places, and
that--
``(A) is licensed as a taxicab by a State or a local
jurisdiction; or
``(B) is offered by a person that--
``(i) provides local transportation for a fare determined
(except with respect to transportation to or from airports)
primarily on the basis of the distance traveled; and
``(ii) does not primarily provide transportation to or from
airports.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Motor carrier transportation.--Section 13506(a)(2) of
title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) a motor vehicle providing taxicab service;''.
(2) Minimum financial responsibility.--Section 31138(e)(2)
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(2) providing taxicab service (as defined in section
13102);''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001, H.R. 2546, was
introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
This legislation is needed to solve a problem that arises when a for-
hire motor carrier travels across a State line in interstate commerce.
During testimony before the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, sort of an anomaly presented itself where if someone
wanted to hire a car in Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, and take it over
to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to watch the Browns beat up on the
Pittsburgh Steelers, as we hope will happen next month, the car for-
hire could drop the person at the stadium in Pittsburgh but could not
pick them back up and bring them back to Ohio without a dual licensure.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Blunt) and his co-sponsors, I know the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), have put their finger right on
the pulse of what we need to do to solve this problem and hence have
introduced H.R. 2546.
On November 7 of this year, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure ordered by a voice vote that this bill be reported with
one amendment.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the primary author of the
legislation.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette) and the members of his committee for bringing this bill to
the floor today. Certainly, I also want to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and almost 20 others who have
joined with us as co-sponsors on this bill.
In my district in southwest Missouri, we frankly do not have lots of
limousine transportation; but we do make lots of limousines. In fact, I
think we may be the biggest manufacturer of limousines anywhere in the
country;
[[Page H8054]]
and for those men and women who work to make limousines and for those
many businesses, large and mostly small, and our friends in this
industry who provide this service at a time when we are more and more
concerned about all kinds of transportation and transportation
security, this bill really solves a transportation security problem for
many people.
It solves just simply a problem created in doing business every day
for the small businesses that provide this great service to so many
Americans, whether it is to go to that football game Mr. LaTourette
mentioned or simply to travel from Newark Airport to the City of New
York where someone can take a passenger. But as of today they could not
wait for that same passenger and take them back to the airport. That
passenger is deprived of the security of knowing that the person they
contracted with to take them somewhere can be there and be ready to
take them back or in Washington, D.C., where limousine operators have
to carry three separate license plates, one for the District of
Columbia, one for Maryland, one for Virginia, and are forced to change
those license plates whenever they cross the boundaries in order to
avoid the fines that otherwise come with the inconsistent regulation
that now dominates this particular service.
Under this bill, limousine and sedan companies will be able to travel
across State lines as long as they meet certain requirements, like
registering with the Department of Transportation as an interstate
carrier and ensuring that all their travel is prearranged.
It is also important to note that even though drivers may travel over
State boundaries, they are not allowed to pick up additional business
while they are on their trip. For example, if a limousine takes a
person from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, they can take their client back
to Los Angeles; but they cannot engage in short-term fares while
waiting for the return trip.
Some cities were concerned that they would not be able to ensure out-
of-state drivers had the proper security clearance. We added an
amendment in committee that ensures that these States and localities
will be able to require any individual operating within their
jurisdiction have the proper criminal background check.
This legislation was written in cooperation with the taxi
association, the limousine association, the para-transit authority,
various regional airports and the City of New York. I believe we have
worked on all sides to produce a compromise bill that will help small
business owners while ensuring that States and localities will be able
to protect their citizens.
Again, this has been a bipartisan effort. We are grateful to the
committee for bringing this bill to the floor and to all those
representing small business and representing the people who manufacture
limousines and sedans who have worked to make this bill possible.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 2546, as reported by the committee, makes it
unlawful for a State or political subdivision of a State, an interstate
agency or a political agency of two or more States to impose any
license or fee on account of the fact that a motor vehicle is providing
prearranged ground transportation service in interstate commerce.
I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I think they have tried in the
past, and here we have it on the floor today.
The company providing the service must be properly registered to
provide service in interstate commerce and must meet all the licensing
requirements of the State in which it is domiciled or registered to do
business.
This legislation is extremely critical, Madam Speaker, for limousine
firms in my own State of New Jersey as they attempt to keep their
businesses afloat after September 11.
The for-hire vehicle industry is made up of 18,600 companies
nationally that provide local for-hire passenger transportation
service. These services include taxicabs and black cars and airport
shuttles, executive sedans and limousines. There are approximately
254,000 vehicles that transport over 2 billion passengers in 1 year.
Massive layoffs in this predominantly small business industry are
estimated to number 80,000 out of a total of 162,000 nationally. This
is a workforce that will be cut in half, and I am hopeful that this
bill can ease the burden.
We are not just talking about owner-operators and drivers. We are
talking about coach builders, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt) spoke of, dealers, the thousands of vendors who do business with
this industry.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the bill before us addresses the
concerns expressed by airport, train and bus terminal operators, as
well as the City of New York, regarding prior drafts of the bill. The
bill does not restrict an airport, a train or a bus terminal operator
from contracting to provide preferential process or access to one or
more providers or prearranged ground transportation service, nor does
it restrict the rights of any State or political subdivision to require
that ground transportation operators submit to criminal background
checks as a condition of providing the service.
Finally, this bill reaffirms that taxicab services are exempt from
the economic and minimum liability regulations of the Federal
Government.
This is an imminently sensible compromise, Madam Speaker. This is a
piece of legislation we have supported for years. I urge my colleagues
to join us in support of the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume, and I just want to emphasize a point that our colleague and
the author of the bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), made
during his remarks, and that is, during the full committee markup of
this legislation, there was some concern expressed by principally the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the concern of some cities
that a car would come into town on a 2-day trip, perhaps, and while
waiting for their fare to take them back to Los Angeles or wherever,
they came in, would engage in transporting others to different places
within Las Vegas to the detriment of locally licensed vendors.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and his co-sponsors have very
carefully crafted the bill to ensure that that fear is not realized,
and I commend him for making that change and being sensitive to some of
the concerns raised and, as a matter of fact, the only concerns raised
in the committee about the bill; and as I say, it passed the committee
by voice vote.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and a long-time leader in this
area.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell), my friend and neighbor, for yielding the time to me;
and I am proud to rise as a co-sponsor and supporter of the
legislation.
Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt)
without whom this legislation would not have gotten on the floor; his
legislative skill and his partnership in this effort are truly
appreciated, and I thank the gentleman for his work.
I also want to extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). The
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was one of the earliest and
most significant co-sponsors of this bill, and I know that the small
business people in his district and across the country appreciate his
leadership on this.
Let me also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the majority
and minority staffs of the committee for their excellent cooperation in
bringing us to this point.
I also want to thank my friend and constituent Don Kensey, Madam
Speaker, who is with us today who first brought this to my attention
several years ago in my office in New Jersey.
This legislation is good for the traveling passenger. It is good for
the small
[[Page H8055]]
business person, and I believe it is good for highway safety. It is
good for the traveling passenger because it gives him or her more
choices as to how to get to where they want to go, and with
transportation being something in a state of confusion today or
anxiety, having one more safe and secure choice to go from south
Jersey, where I live, to New York City or to go from Los Angeles to Las
Vegas and back or from Cleveland to Pittsburgh to watch the Steelers, I
will not say defeat the Browns since the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette) still has control of the time, take on the Browns, these
are choices people ought to be able to make; and because of this
legislation, they will be able to.
Second, there are, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell)
said, thousands of small business people around this country who are
profoundly affected by this legislation. These are men and women who
are living from paycheck to paycheck, who are scraping to get their
businesses going; and by giving them the chance to compete on a fair
and level playing field, we are enhancing their ability to employ their
employees and to move their passengers and customers around the
country.
Finally, I think the legislation is very much needed for highway
safety purposes because face it, very often, these vehicles are
employed by people who are out for that great, good time in celebration
of a wedding, celebration of a graduation, a special occasion in the
family where people want to relax and enjoy themselves and should not
be behind the wheel.
{time} 1615
Madam Speaker, when they employ one of these vehicles, it permits
them to travel safely, to make the highways safer for each one of us.
Following up on something the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell) said, this industry, because of its close relationship to air
travel, is in a state of great distress. From the leadership of
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) on the Committee on Small
Business, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and others on the
majority side are trying to find ways through the Small Business
Administration and other vehicles, other agencies, to try to help this
segment of the air travel industry through a grave and difficult
crisis.
Madam Speaker, I hope that today is simply the first step in a broad
and comprehensive effort to help this integral and important part of
our air transportation system stay in business and stay intact.
Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks for the cooperation of the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). I urge my colleagues to carefully
consider the legislation, give it their affirmative vote and pass this
legislation.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I enter into the Record an exchange of letters between
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Commerce and Energy on the bill under consideration, H.R. 2546.
The letters referred to are as follows:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, November 13, 2001.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: I am writing with regard to H.R. 2546,
the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001. As you know,
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives grants
the Committee on Energy and Committee jurisdiction over
interstate commerce. H.R. 2546 deals in significant part
within such matters, and is therefore within the jurisdiction
of my Committee.
I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before
the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not
exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
2546. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask
for your commitment to support any request by the Commerce
Committee for conferees on H.R. 2546 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of the
Committee's report on H.R. 2546 and as part of the Record
during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, November 13, 2001.
Hon. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Tauzin: Thank you for your letter of November
13, 2001, regarding H.R. 2546, the ``Real Interstate Driver
Equity Act of 2001'' and for your willingness to waive
consideration of provisions in the bill that are under your
committee's jurisdiction under House Rules.
I agree that your waiving consideration of relevant
provisions of H.R. 2546 does not waive your committee's
jurisdiction over the bill. I also acknowledge your right to
seek conferees on any provisions that are within the your
committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference
on H.R. 2546 or similar legislation, and would support your
request for conferees on such provisions.
Your letter and this response will be included in the
record during floor consideration of the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Real
Interstate Driver Equity Act.
I was disappointed when I learned from ground transportation
operators in my southwestern Connecticut district that a Stamford
couple attending a play in Manhattan could hire a Connecticut car
service to bring them to the city, but the same service couldn't bring
the client back to Stamford without purchasing a costly additional
permit from New York! This is absurd.
Car services based in Connecticut that take clients to and from New
York City--duly licensed and insured under the guidelines of the
Federal Highway Administration--should not have to purchase additional
permits from a local government in order to provide round trip service.
This common sense legislation simply says that a licensed livery
company cannot be subject to additional permitting requirements to
complete a round trip into another state. The Livery Permit issued by
the Federal Highway Administration is the only permit that should be
necessary to conduct interstate commerce.
Just as I do not need to obtain separate drivers' licenses from D.C.,
Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and New York in order to drive home to
Connecticut at the end of the week, local governments should not have
the authority to hold interstate commerce hostage to discriminatory
pricing schemes.
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of
2001 (H.R. 2546) was introduced by Representative Roy Blunt of
Missouri. This legislation is needed to solve a problem that arises
when a for-hire vehicle, usually a limousine or sedan, travels across a
state line in interstate commerce.
As the law is written today, state and local jurisdictions can
require for-hire vehicles to be licensed in multiple states. In some
instances, if they do not pay for additional licenses they can only
drop their passenger in another state. They cannot make incidental
stops. They cannot return the same passenger to the state of origin.
An example that illustrates the problem with the current framework is
that of a traveler who arranges to be picked up at an airport. On the
way home to another state, they wish to stop and have dinner within the
same state in which they arrived. This seems like a reasonable
situation. What could go wrong with this arrangement? Unfortunately,
that stopover could result in the car being ticketed, towed and
impounded. The customer is stranded to look for a way to get home and
the car service is left without a car and with hundreds or even
thousands of dollars in fines and fees.
This is not a fair practice and H.R. 2546 corrects the problem. For-
hire vehicles providing prearranged ground transportation should be
able to engage in interstate commerce. This legislation would not allow
a carrier to operate in another jurisdiction with spontaneous new
clients as though they were licensed within that jurisdiction. The
legislation also protects the right of transportation terminal
operators to provide preferential access and States and political
subdivisions to require criminal background checks.
The for-hire vehicle industry utilizes nearly 250,000 vehicles to
move more than two billion passengers each year. With the economic
downturn, they are an industry that has been hard hit and have
requested financial support from the Congress.
With the current budgetary climate, I am doubtful that the Congress
will be able to provide direct fiscal relief. However, H.R. 2546
[[Page H8056]]
will reduce a burden that costs for-hire vehicle operators business and
costs consumers efficient travel and convenience. Representative
Blunt's bill is the next best thing to directing financial relief in
these trying times.
I am pleased to report that after more than two years of
consideration, this legislation has reached the House Floor. The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been working with
the sponsor and other interested parties to resolve the areas of
controversy. As amended at Committee, H.R. 2546 has addressed all of
the various concerns. I urge our colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
good piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2546, 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________