PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 15, 2000.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 25, 2000
Makes it unlawful for a State, State political subdivision or agency, interstate agency, or political agency of two or more States to restrict interstate commerce by enforcing any regulation or law that restricts the operation of a motor vehicle providing pre-arranged ground transportation service (limousine service) if the motor carrier providing such service: (1) is registered under specified Federal law for the interstate transportation of passengers; (2) meets all applicable requirements of the State or States in which the motor carrier is domiciled or registered to do business; and (3) was hired pursuant to a contract for travel from one State (including intermediate stops) to a destination in another State, or travel from one State (including one or more intermediate stops in another State) to a destination in the original State.Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed as subjecting taxicab service to Federal regulation pursuant to the Secretary of Transportation's authority over interstate commerce.
People & committees
Rep. Andrews, Robert E. [D-NJ-1] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 15, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 7, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Dec. 5, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 14, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 4, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 3, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 2, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Nov. 1, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 31, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 30, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 29, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 28, 2000.
House Committee on Transportation Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Oct. 27, 2000.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for a period ending not later than Oct. 26, 2000 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(q), rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 106-1003, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 106-1003, Part I.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.