One way or the other, Mr. Yeldell, I think this bill just comes out with a backwards effect. If there is a problem about D.Č. trucks being allowed to dump in Maryland, maybe the answer is to find some dumping sites in the District. I don't think it would make any sense to take away a fee that Maryland truckers now have to pay. Mr. YELDELL. Mr. Congressman, I would like to respond. As I said. I am not at all clear really as to the intent of this bill. I am clear to what my purposes are, that I have attempted prior to returning to the Council to get the same thing that I am talking about handled within the District government and with conversations between the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles here and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in Maryland. It has been my understanding that what you have described is not the case, that in fact they do have to have Maryland registration in order to travel over Maryland roads, and that in fact if they attempt to do it without that, then they are fined at very heavy rates. This is something that was brought to me by the minority truckers who asked me to try to stay with this for them, to try to help them get what they think is equitable treatment. Mr. MIKVA. I would only say in conclusion that I would agree with our Chairman, that if that is the case, if some of the facts that we have gotten here are slightly confused and it is in fact a benefit to the minority truckers to have a similar bill passed, it seems to me the first step would be for the District to work out some agreement with Maryland dependent on such legislation. At such time as the District came in with such an agreement and said they wanted this proposal, I think we would be very sympathetic. Obviously the District government has a substantial interest in seeing minority truckers get this business, too. It isn't a case of their trying to squeeze the last pound of flesh out of the D. C. truckers. Mr. YELDELL. It's my understanding that that which you have just described was going on. Therefore the reason for my sudden appearance and my real confusion as to this. As far as I was concerned. those letters had been initiated and that discussion was going on between Maryland and the District of Columbia. Mr. MIKVA. I want to assure you that our state of confusion is sufficiently large for you to join in. Mr. ABERNETHY. One point. This bill doesn't direct anybody to do anything. This bill, as I understand it, is simply authorizing. It empowers the District government to carry on these negotiations if it sees fit to do so. That is all it does. Is that the way you understood it. It empowers them to do it. It doesn't direct them to do this. It empowers them and then they do it if they so agree. It only empowers them. Mr. YELDELL. Sir, it's my understanding that talks to proceed in agreement were under way. I assume that the only reason for the bill was that the talks had reached a point where it was necessary to seek legislation to effect the desired objective. I had no idea that the District was opposed to this because of the communication that had taken place between myself and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles along the same lines. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like in questioning Mr. Yeldell to suggest that there are two points, two truths about the City that I think any legislation ought to address. The first truth is that we are in fiscal trouble. The fact is that should this bill become law and a reciprocal agreement be effected, the City would lose $243 thousand from Maryland. I would suspect that the Maryland government would be here to support this. That is fact number one. Fact number two is, of course, that minority contractors are having a problem. But it does not stem directly from the fact that two licenses if in fact they are paid-are extracted from them. Because obviously the Maryland truckers are making it with a profit so much so that they can employ on a sub-contracting basis other truckers from Washington. I would think-and I would certainly want to talk with the truckers that they would do better to support Councilman Jerry Moore's move in the WMATA to see to it that they are given assistance in associating with one another in such a fashion that they can become prime contractors and can compensate for the slimmer margin on which they have to operate in the situation with which they are now confronted. May I ask a question off the record? Mr. ABERNETHY. Surely. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. YELDELL. Mr. Fauntroy, I would like to respond in this way: As I say, I only heard from the Deputy Mayor just before noon today that there was in fact Mr. FAUNTROY. I only heard about the hearing Friday. Mr. YELDELL. I understand. But just of the fact that there was a loss of revenue situation associated herein. Obviously I didn't know what to do at that point because, first of all, I don't want to take the position to ever cause the District to lose money. Secondly, I really don't like to be in opposition to a Government of which I am a part. I want to stress the fact that this is something that I was working on prior to my reappointment to the Council. I have worked with Councilman Moore on this particular issue of the Metro and I will be working with him continuously on it. I am sure you know from your role, as Chairman and mine following you as chairman, that this is a continuing problem we both have had. I agree the larger approach must be taken. I saw this only as an opportunity to make a part of that whole. It's that concern I speak to, and that concern only. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Smith? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I intend to agree with you, that this is strictly a permissive bill. It doesn't require anybody to do anything. It merely grants the power to enter into a reciprocal arrangement, if that should at some future time appear to be for the benefit of I would hope the District of Columbia, if the District Commissioner was going to make such an agreement. Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you, Mr. Yeldell. Mr. YELDELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABERNETHY. Are there any others in the committee room who would like to testify? If not, we will have an executive session now. Thank you. (Whereupon at 3:40 p.m. the subcommittee went into executive session.) TRUCKING FEES WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in Room 1310, Longworth Building, at 3:30 p.m., Hon. Thomas G. Abernethy, presiding. Present: Representatives Abernethy (Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee), McMillan (Chairman of the Full Committee), Link and Broyhill. Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Patrick Kelly, Assistant Counsel, and Leonard O. Hilder, Legislative Assistant. Mr. ABERNETHY. The subcommittee will come to order. The purpose of the meeting this afternoon is to take further testimony on H. R. 9580. The first witness is Mr. Richard Gamble. Is he in the room? Mr. BAKER. Is it in order to change the order? STATEMENT OF JACK BAKER, EXCAVATORS AND EQUIPMENT CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Mr. BAKER. I have some papers here that I would like to distribute to the committee. My name is Jack Baker. I am with Hutchinson Brothers Excavating Company representing the Excavators Association. I would like to start off stating why we think there should be reciprocity between the District of Columbia and Maryland. There are many particular and peculiar problems inherent to the trucking operation in the Metropolitan D.C. area. Some of these are as follows: 1. In addition to the financial burden imposed by the lack of reciprocity with Maryland we have to be registered to do business in all three jurisdictions, therefore imposing additional financial burdens on the truckers. 2. The truckers are forced to operate in all three jurisdictions, namely D.C., Maryland and Virginia in order to operate competitively in the Metropolitan area. By the nature of a truckers operation it is virtually impossible to operate in only one jurisdiction. One must follow the work as it occurs and be ready to operate when and where the work occurs. 3. The vast majority of trucks that are housed in the District of Columbia are registered in Maryland due to the dump areas being located in Maryland and the amount of the fines levied in Maryland. By dump areas we mean the spoil areas where we have to take the dirt from subways, excavations and so forth. 4. The relatively small area of the District of Columbia and the growth that has transpired in the District of Columbia over the last twenty years will preclude any dumping or fill operations within the confines of the District in about six months duration. 5. Due to this fact, and the fact that the subway excavation and the other private work, government and so forth will have to be hauled to Maryland after this time, this necessitates truckers under present rules and regulations have dual registration. That is they would have to be registered and have permits and so forth in the District and Maryland. 6. The dual registration would impose a tremendous and inequitable financial burden on all truckers in this area inasmuch as they will be forced to operate in this manner. In conclusion, I would like to offer these suggestions. 1. D.C. and Virginia have had a reciprocal agreement since September 1947. 2. The negotiation of a reciprocal agreement between the District and Maryland would update a situation that has been unfair and inequitable for many, many years. 3. If this reciprocal arrangement were in force it would mean additional revenues to the District of Columbia as most truckers working in the Metropolitan area would buy D.C. tags with weight permits at a total cost, if you are registering a new truck based on a $30,000 cost of the truck, of $2,149.50 per truck. D.C. would receive this revenue due to the fact that only D.C. would have the reciprocal agreements giving truckers the authority to operate in the District, Maryland and Virginia. 4. If a reciprocal agreement is not negotiated between the District and Maryland, it will impose undue and unfair financial impact on all truckers and particularly the minority contractors of this area. 5. The cost of all D.C., subway, private work, et cetera, would increase tremendously if we were forced to operate in our present manner and be registered in all jurisdictions. The additional cost would have to be reflected in our future bids and passed on to the public. 6. If a reciprocal agreement were not reached it would force all to move to Maryland, resulting in more loss to the District of Columbia. I request that the following documents be revised. (The documents referred to follow :) List of jurisdictions in which we are required to be registered in order to operate in the Metropolitan D. C. area: 1. Virginia State Registration License. 3. Alexandria Truck License 4. Arlington County License 6. D. C. License 7. Prince Georges County License 8. Montgomery County License 9. Maryland State Registration 10. Virginia Fuel Mileage Reports 12. D. C. Personal Property Tax Returns 13. Maryland Personal Property Tax Returns |