[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 72 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the issue of section 
211 of the Federal Aviation Administration Act and its effects on the 
trucking industry of our Nation. I am concerned that apparently the 
Senate is going to move forward on what appears to be a major shift in 
the way the Federal Government looks at the issue of regulation of the 
trucking industry, which has long term and far-reaching implications, 
in the guise of an amendment to a bill dealing with our Nation's 
airlines. I feel it is inappropriate for the Senate to take such a 
major step in this area without the benefit of full discussion and a 
serious examination of the ramifications of this action. I wish the 
Senate could have hearings on this matter so that the interests of all 
parties affected could be fully aired. As it stands, many individuals 
whose lives may be impacted by this legislation are not even aware of 
the details as the Senate proceeds in a unconventional manner to 
address the issue of trucking regulation.
  Several aspects of the current process disturb me. First, I question 
the forum. Is an airport improvement bill, which has been held up for 
many months in the congressional process due to many contentious 
issues, the appropriate place to deal with the Nation's trucking 
system? I know that the issue has been couched in the terms of 
adjusting the definition of ``intermodal all-cargo air carriers'' for 
the purposes of exemption from some State regulation, but the current 
language that is scheduled to come before the Senate goes well beyond 
those limits. In an attempt to satisfy interests of large trucking 
firms across the Nation, the bill has been continuously expanded. First 
the bill was to deal with Federal Express and United Parcel Service; 
then the definition broadened to include those other large trucking 
interests whose voices speak loudly in the Halls of Congress. My 
colleagues have rushed to expand the definition of air carriers to 
levels that stretch the imagination with the apparent objective of 
assuring that any major trucking firm in their State is also an air 
carrier. This is no way to address this important matter.

  I also would question the wisdom of our approach to this issue. 
Perhaps in a hearing process some of my concerns could be addressed, 
but I must say that in this context many serious questions come to 
mind. It would appear that this legislation would unduly restrict the 
legitimate and constitutional prerogative of the States to place limits 
and restrictions on intrastate movement of goods. The Constitution 
gives the Federal Government the ability to regulate only interstate 
commerce. The scope of this legislation would appear to raise serious 
concerns about the intrusive hand of big brother stepping into an arena 
that is best left to our State officials. While the issue of excessive 
Federal mandates has been rising in prominence--rightly so I might 
add--it is just as intrusive and inappropriate for the Federal 
Government to step in and tell States what they cannot do. It is 
important that we not unduly restrict the ability of the States to make 
decisions regarding the movement of goods and the regulation of 
services within their own borders when those restrictions are 
reasonable. I fear that the Senate is acting hastily and carelessly on 
this issue and I would urge that we step back from this decision and 
consider the matter with the deliberation and thoughtfulness it 
deserves.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for his 
remarks which I have been listening to with regard to the bill that is 
before us. I share some of his concerns. The bill before us is must-
pass legislation. While there may be some legitimate differences of 
opinion as to what amendments are attached thereto, this bill, because 
of its vital concern for aviation, is going to pass, should pass, and 
certainly this Senator is not going to do anything to stand in the way 
of passing that measure.
  However, I will simply say that my friend from Iowa and this Senator 
and others have discussed this from time to time. I will say, as the 
chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Commerce 
Committee, that I have offered, and offer again now if it is 
appropriate, and if there is sufficient interest, we can still hold 
some hearings on this matter in the Commerce Committee, either at the 
subcommittee or the full committee level, if there is sufficient 
interest in the body for that to happen.
  I might add a little bit more to the history of what brought us to 
this place.
  It all started some time ago by an action by a Federal court that 
basically said Federal Express, which is primarily an air freight 
carrier with local distribution, was not controlled by the existing 
statutes with regard to truck regulation because they were, 
essentially, as I understand the court's interpretation, an air 
transportation carrier and not a local carrier in the generally 
accepted context of those rules and regulations and laws.
  When that happened, of course, it allowed Federal Express as the one 
and only carrier of its type to get out from under the State 
regulations. Whether you can argue that is right or wrong, it is very 
clear it gave Federal Express an advantage that their competitors did 
not have.
  So the Congress, in its wisdom, or lack thereof, rather than enacting 
legislation that could have been enacted, in my view, to place Federal 
Express on the same playing field as all of the other carriers, the 
Congress, in its wisdom, or lack thereof, has decided to take the 
opposite route, which is to make the court mandate, the court decision, 
applicable to everyone else that is in the trucking industry, 
basically, that owns an airplane. That is a pretty broad 
interpretation, but I believe that in layman's language is what we are 
coming to.

  In essence then, I think we should understand that to a large extent 
this is a massive deregulation of many of our very large carriers that 
transport goods in one fashion or another-- basically, those that have 
parcels or packages or freight that go part way by airplane, and then 
have to be delivered by truck at the local level.
  All kinds of problems come up in this regard. I, too, have heard from 
many of my small and smaller local truckers who are very much concerned 
about this. Strangely enough, at least this Senator has not heard from 
the National Governors Association on this matter. The Senator from 
Iowa clearly indicated that there may be some concerns in this area. We 
have not heard from the individual Governors to any significant extent, 
nor have we heard from the National Governors Association. I suspect 
that we will be hearing from them as we go on. All too often the 
National Governors Association, of which I was once a member, reacts 
rather than acts, after we have taken action on legislation.
  I should also like to recognize the comments that were made a day or 
two ago by my friend and colleague from South Dakota, who I note is in 
the Chamber at this time, expressing some of the same concerns that 
have been expressed by others. I believe that given the situation we 
face, the action suggested by the Senator from South Dakota, and just a 
few moments ago by the Senator from Iowa, is very much appropriate, had 
to be said in this context and in that regard.
  I would, therefore, hope that if there once again is sufficient 
interest in this, after this measure passes, which I think it will, and 
for which I will vote in support, if there is sufficient interest by 
any and all parties, there would be nothing wrong or inappropriate for 
us to hold appropriate hearings on this matter before this measure 
eventually becomes law in some form.
  There is a dual problem here. While I have some concerns, as do my 
colleagues, about the actions that have resulted from the Federal 
Express court decision in their favor, and while it might well be we 
should have deregulation of some of these larger carriers, it has 
potentially a very dramatic and possibly significant effect on the 
interests of the States and the responsibilities that they have as 
outlined constitutionalitywise by the Senator from Iowa. Therefore, I 
believe that we are all similarly situated in this.
  Let me say that while there may be some concerns about the big 
truckers, whatever their shipping modus operandi is, there may be some 
good reasons that this further deregulation--and that is what it is 
under whatever guise--might be a step in the right direction from the 
interest of the consumers. Some of the smaller truck lines throughout 
the United States may have, as some maintain, too exclusive, too much 
protection in the interest of consumers on certain lines. So there are 
all kinds of conflicting economic situations that come into play here, 
and it might well be that at least we could ferret out some of those in 
some type of a hearing under some appropriate body of the Senate.
  With that, I thank Senator Ford and the other leaders of this measure 
for recognizing the fact that we have waited far too long and had far 
too much delay on the matter that directly affects the quality and 
costs of airplane travel in the United States, so they are moving 
basically in the right direction, while I would agree with my 
colleagues that there is some concern about the matter that has been 
appropriately raised with regard to how far we are going in 
deregulation or how far we are not going in that area.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nebraska for his 
kind words. Senator Pressler and I have worked very, very hard to put 
together a piece of legislation that would try to meet everybody's 
concerns. I do not think we are perfect, so therefore we do not have a 
perfect piece of legislation. Particularly when one would have a view 
and others have a view, you try to get a majority view.
  But I say to my friend from Iowa, I do not know anything 
unconstitutional about what we have done. That is speculation. The 
Senator's interpretation of it being unconstitutional is just as good 
as mine. I am not a lawyer, and as my father told me, a little 
knowledge of the law is dangerous, so get a good lawyer and stay with 
him or her. That is what I try to do.
  We had a court case here that hurt the people in Iowa. They have a 
major installation there. What do we do to try to eliminate the problem 
as it faces the Senator's State, my State, and other States. That was 
pretty tough. For 8 months we labored with this. We talked to the 
leaders on that side, leaders on this side. We talked to companies. We 
talked to everyone we knew of to talk to.
  The United Parcel people, under the ruling, would have to take 
packages from Iowa, cross the border into an adjacent State, take the 
packages out of that truck and put them into another one and then drive 
back in order to meet the rules which applied to them but did not apply 
to the other companies.
  That created two problems. One, it increased costs; if the consumer 
used them, it would cost more. And secondly, it would be, maybe, so 
high that it would put them out of business. So something had to be 
done in order to try to level the playing field.
  As the Senator mentioned, some carriers got an airplane and figured 
that would do. So we had to find a shakedown part where we could get a 
consensus that would be acceptable.
  Now, my friend from Nebraska, Senator Exon, and I have been friends 
for a long time and there is nothing we do but what we do not try to 
share everything. He has some concerns, as the Senator does, as I do. 
We have lowered the number of packages in the bill from 50,000 to 
15,000, which I think is about as broad a door as you can walk through 
as it relates to the problems we faced prior to this piece of 
legislation.
  We have not interfered with ICC in this legislation. I do not think 
we have interfered with any kind of safety, insurance problems, et 
cetera. There are bound to be problems that we will face. But as 
Senator Exon has said, he is willing to hold hearings. We will have a 
reform bill as it relates to FAA before the year is over. We will have 
plenty of time to get into minute detail.
  I wish to tell the Senator, when you go day and night for weeks and 
months and you try to work this thing out--now for 8 months--I think 
the package we have satisfies more people than we had when we started. 
So I am hopeful that under section 211, if we will be able to move 
forward, we have leveled the playing field and created competition 
which will be better for the consumer.
  Whatever problems the Senator may have, the Senator is not on the 
committee and the Senator said he did not know about all these other 
things, and so he is talking about what his view is there rather than 
what we have really been doing. Senator Pressler and I and our staffs 
have just labored monumentally to try to arrive at where we are today.
  I think if we were not doing this, the problems would be greater than 
they will be after the legislation is passed. And then we say to the 
Senator that we will be more than willing to get back with Senator 
Exon, if they need hearings, to work with him 110 percent. The FAA 
reform legislation, a lot of things can be included in that. So I hope 
the Senator would not make a judgment on this without looking through 
it in minute detail.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. As to the comment where the Senator said that if we 
would look at this, we would be better off if we were not doing 
anything, I do not have any disagreement as that applies to Federal 
Express or UPS. What the Senator said there is what I am asking the 
question about.
  Does the Senator extend that to reducing the packages down from 
50,000 to 15,000 to accommodate other trucking companies?
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, that is part of the effort we have made 
here, I might say, to accommodate those that have been creating 
problems for the Senator from Iowa. We have opened the wide door now as 
it relates to their ability to participate. If you are not in the 
15,000 category, my judgment is it may not be that you would be in the 
business or want that kind of business or be able to handle that kind 
of business, anyhow.
  So I think there is a level of stability and a level of 
accommodation. I am hoping that what we have done here, once it gets 
into place, and the reality of what we have done with not eliminating 
any ICC, or other approaches--as the Senator from Iowa mentioned in his 
statement earlier, we have not touched ICC. We just have new rules 
under which they operate.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator, and I thank my friend from Nebraska, 
and I look forward to working with them in any way.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for a period of 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________