[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22296-22299]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22297]]

     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; 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

[[Page 22298]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 22299]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________