[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             EXTENDING STATUS QUO IN SOO LINE RAIL DISPUTE

  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 417) providing for temporary extension of 
the application of the final paragraph of section 10 of the Railway 
Labor Act with respect to the dispute between the Soo Line Railroad Co. 
and certain of its employees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 417

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROHIBITION.

       The final paragraph of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act 
     (45 U.S.C. 160) shall apply and be extended through February 
     28, 1995, with respect to the dispute referred to in 
     Executive Order No. 12925 of August 29, 1994. During this 
     extension period no change, except by agreement, shall be 
     made by the rail carrier, the Soo Line Railroad Company, or 
     by the employees of such carrier represented by the United 
     Transportation Union, in the conditions out of which the 
     dispute arose as such conditions existed before July 14, 
     1994.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Swift] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift].


                             general leave

  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the joint resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This resolution simply 
extends the cooling off period required by the Railway Labor Act for 
labor/management disputes in the railroad industry until February 28, 
1995, when the 104th Congress has been convened and organized.
  On July 14 of this year the Soo Line Railroad--the ninth largest 
railroad in the country--imposed new labor contract conditions--as is 
its right. Consequently, the United Transportation Union commenced a 
strike--as is its right. On the recommendation of the National 
Mediation Board that the dispute ``threatens substantially to interrupt 
interstate commerce to a degree that would deprive a section of the 
country of essential transportation service'', the President created 
Presidential Emergency Board 225 on August 29. By agreement of the 
parties, the Board will submit its report and recommendations on 
October 14, that is, on Friday of next week. Under the Railway Labor 
Act, a final 30-day cooling off period follows the submission of the 
Board's report, and if no agreement is reached in that time, the strike 
is likely to resume.
  It is certainly the strong desire of every Member that the parties 
reach a voluntary agreement. And this resolution encourages voluntary 
agreement by giving them sufficient additional time to consider the 
report of the Board to be released next week, and to negotiate a final 
resolution of all outstanding issues.
  Due to the potential ramifications to interstate commerce and to the 
economy as a whole that could occur if an agreement is not reached, it 
is essential that this cooling off period be extended until the 
convening of the 104th Congress. Such action is consistent with prior 
actions, as in the case of the 1988 Chicago NorthWestern strike, when 
Congress extended the cooling off period past the period of the August 
recess.
  This resolution passed on voice vote last week in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and has the bipartisan support of the leadership of 
the committee on both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 417. I want to note, 
however, that only the high economic stakes of the potential 
transportation emergency involved here that persuade me that this is 
the proper way to proceed in the present circumstances.
  Those high stakes include--if a strike spreads through secondary 
picketing across the national rail system--damage of up to $1 billion a 
day. What makes the potential risk this high is the legal ability of 
rail labor unions under current law to involve any and every rail 
carrier in a dispute between one union and one railroad.
  This anomalous situation results from congressional failure to bring 
the Railway Labor Act into harmony with all other Federal labor laws. 
They forbid secondary picketing and provide injunctive and other legal 
remedies against those who illegally use secondary picketing.
  But under the Railway Labor Act, anything goes. And that is how we 
get into situations like this one, where the strike was not even 
considered worthy of Presidential intervention until secondary 
picketing was threatened. To show you how far afield things can go, 
some Members may recall that there was even a threat at one time to 
picket Amtrak during the 1989 Eastern Air Lines strike.
  Whatever the deficiencies of the Railway Labor Act, I am particularly 
conscious of the economic stakes here, because many of my constituents 
work at a Honda manufacturing facility. Like most modern factories, it 
operates on the just-in-time system of inventory, where deliveries are 
made as needed, and the transportation system in effect is a rolling 
warehouse. We saw the vulnerability of this system during the massive 
1993 Midwest floods, which washed out many major rail lines. Only 
through almost superhuman efforts by the railroad carriers and their 
employees--particularly Southern Pacific--was our Honda plant able to 
avoid shutting down completely.
  That Honda plant is only one small part of our national industrial 
structure that depends for its very existence on timely rail 
transportation. So a national--or even a large regional--strike 
represents a national economic emergency in the making.
  We would not be facing an emergency of such dimensions except for the 
threatened use of secondary picketing in the current dispute. Since the 
Railway Labor Act allows such activity, we have to deal with the 
situation that actually confronts us, not as we would like to have it. 
Therefore, I support this resolution. I hope, however, that this is the 
last time Congress will have to intervene in a situation created solely 
by secondary picketing.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], chairman of the full committee.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to pay tribute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift]. This may be the 
last time he manages legislation on the floor of the House. He has 
served as subcommittee chairman on the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
for a number of years with great distinction and ability, has processed 
enormously difficult and complex legislation with remarkable goodwill 
and good humor, and has presented it to the House to be considered in 
an extraordinary spirit of bipartisanship. That distinguished record is 
continued today, and for that reason, we will miss the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington State to an even greater degree as he leaves 
us at the end of this term. Our remarks to him and about him are well 
done.
  We will miss him and we wish him well. His departure leaves us with a 
great sense of loss and a great difficulty in replacing the quality of 
leadership that he has given both in the House and in the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is bipartisan. It came out of the 
committee unanimously, without any objection. It does not disrupt the 
normal process specified under the Railway Labor Act in any significant 
fashion. The legislation is designed to encourage the parties to reach 
a voluntary agreement during the extended cooling-off period. The 
legislation also prevents the possibility of a national rail strike 
occurring during the time that the House and Senate are not in session, 
which could have very significant economic, social, and other 
consequences to the United States and to industries all across the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation assures that the parties will have ample 
time to review the recommendations of PEB 225. This would assist them 
in reaching a settlement. This legislation is consistent with prior 
precedent, most recently in 1988, when Congress enacted the same type 
of legislation to avoid a shutdown of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad 
during a congressional recess.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that all major railroads support 
the enactment of this legislation. Both parties, and I reiterate, both 
parties to the dispute support this action. The administration supports 
the action we are taking today. An identical resolution has been 
introduced in the other body. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Swift], chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Moorhead], the distinguished ranking minority 
member, our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Oxley], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and all the 
members of the committee and the subcommittee for bringing this 
legislation to the floor in the fashion in which we see it. I hope the 
other body will adopt this legislation promptly.
  Mr. Speaker, the Soo Line Railroad and the United Transportation 
Union have been in contract negotiations since 1988. All efforts to 
reach agreement have failed to date, including attempts to mediate the 
dispute by the National Mediation Board. In June, the NMB's proffer of 
arbitration was rejected by the parties, triggering a 30-day cooling 
off period. At the end of this period, on July 14, 1994, the parties 
engaged in so-called ``self-help''-- the railroad unilaterally imposed 
new contract terms and the union struck. This situation persisted for 
47 days, until the NMB informed the President that the dispute 
threatened ``to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree that would 
deprive a section of the country of essential transportation service.'' 
The President, by Executive Order 12925, established Presidential 
Emergency Board No. 225 on August 29, 1994.
  The Railway Labor Act requires the PEB to report to the President 
``within thirty days from the date of its creation.'' After such time, 
the law requires a final ``cooling off'' period of 30 days. Upon 
expiration of the final cooling off period, the parties again may 
resort to self-help. As in numerous other cases, PEB 225, with the 
consent of both parties, informed the President on September 21 that it 
will issue its report no later than October 14, 1994--with the 30-day 
cooling off period to follow.
  The problem is that this means that a very serious situation could 
arise during a time when Congress has adjourned. Because of the 
potential adverse ramifications of this situation, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee last week adopted a motion authorizing the 
introduction and prompt consideration of the resolution before us. This 
motion was the result of bipartisan discussions and was adopted by 
unanimous voice vote. H.J. Res. 417 is simple and straightforward--it 
merely extends the final cooling off period to February 28, 1995--after 
the 104th Congress has convened and has been organized.
  This legislation does not disrupt the normal process specified under 
the Railroad Labor Act in any significant way. The legislation is 
designed to encourage the parties to reach a voluntary agreement during 
the extended cooling off period. The legislation ensures that the 
parties will have ample time to review the recommendations of PEB 225. 
This should assist them in reaching a settlement. This legislation is 
consistent with prior precedent, most recently in 1988 when Congress 
enacted the same type of legislation to avoid a shutdown of the Chicago 
Northwestern Railroad during a congressional recess. We have been 
informed that all major railroads support enactment of the resolution. 
Both parties to the dispute support this action. The administration 
supports the action we are taking today. The same resolution has been 
introduced in the other body.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I appreciate the 
efforts of Chairman Swift, Representative Moorhead, Representative 
Oxley, and all members of our committee for bring this legislation to 
the floor. I hope the other body will adopt this legislation promptly 
and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead], ranking Republican on the full committee.
  (Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint 
Resolution 417. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I 
believe that legislation of this type is in the best interests of the 
country, of our transportation system, and of the millions of Americans 
who depend upon it. Unfortunately, this whole exercise would be 
unnecessary if Congress had addressed a key anomaly in the Railway 
Labor Act--the legal authority to picket and thus involve in a labor 
dispute companies that are in no way involved in that dispute.
  This secondary picketing weapon is one that is at odds with all of 
our other Federal labor laws. In the current dispute, the National 
Mediation Board did not even recommend any Federal intervention to 
President Clinton until the United Transportation Union threatened to 
picket other railroads. Thus we have a virtually unique situation where 
Congress has been dragged into this solely because of secondary 
picketing.
  Although Congress should have fixed this problem with the Railway 
Labor Act long ago, the fact is, it has not. We, therefore, must deal 
with the situation as we find it. On balance, I believe that the best 
interests of the country are served by extending the Railway Labor Act 
cooling-off period until Congress has returned next year.
  Under current law, the only alternative is to risk having the Soo 
dispute become a potential national strike after the next cooling-off 
period expires during the congressional recess. It is not worth the 
risk to the rest of the railroad industry and their many customers to 
allow the possibility of a national stoppage.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Al Swift, for his work on this legislation, and for his 
entire career here in the Congress, where he has done an outstanding 
job. We have enjoyed working with you, Al.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio, 
Mike Oxley, our ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, for his 
great work on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would take this opportunity to congratulate and thank 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift], the chairman of the 
subcommittee. Hopefully this will not be the last bill that he will be 
marshaling on the floor, but in case it is, I want to express to him my 
gratitude for his leadership, his friendship, and his abilities. He has 
been an outstanding legislator for this Congress, and many Congresses 
before that. We will miss his good will, his good humor, and his 
legislative ability.
  Mr. Speaker, with that praise and paean to the gentleman from 
Washington, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, with thanks for the kind remarks of all three 
gentlemen, who I hold in an enormous amount of affection, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of California). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Swift] that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, House Joint 
Resolution 417.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________