[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16671-S16672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself and Mr. Exon):
  S. 1396. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for 
the regulation of surface transportation; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


         THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SUNSET ACT OF 1995

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Interstate 
Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. I am very pleased to be joined 
in this effort by Senator Exon. It is a bipartisan bill and I urge my 
colleagues' bipartisan support as we work toward what must be very 
swift passage. Let me also make it clear at the outset that this bill 
is a work in progress. I introduce it today as the next step in a 
process of discussions and revisions that have been ongoing for months. 
This process will continue.
  I would like to begin by outlining some of the underlying philosophy 
that went into its drafting. In addition, I will address the procedural 
posture in which we find ourselves in relation to this bill.
  In preparation of the legislation we are introducing today, Senator 
Exon and I have worked together very closely. In fact, much of this 
legislation initially was written by my good friend and distinguished 
coauthor. Compromise and cooperation have produced what I feel is a 
balanced bill, addressing the immediate and compelling needs driving 
this legislation.
  Our staff members and those of other committee members have 
collaborated throughout this process. They have spent many long hours 
in joint meetings with various interest groups and constituents who 
have raised concerns or urged additions. We have worked very hard to 
address legitimate concerns, and have made numerous changes to the 
previously circulated staff draft in an effort to address those 
concerns. However, as hard as we have worked to please all parties, our 
policy decisions ultimately were driver, in part, by the need to 
produce a bill which could be passed and signed into law this year. In 
short, the clock is running.
  For reasons I shall address in a moment, however, we have made a 
conscious effort to avoid addressing broader transportation policy 
issues than those directly related to sunsetting the ICC and 
transferring its essential functions to its successor. To that extent, 
the Senate bill is more limited in scope than its House counterpart. 
Indeed, it remains largely unchanged from the staff draft which was 
circulated some time ago.
  Mr. President, I introduce this legislation with mixed feelings. On 
the one hand, I am a firm believer in a less-is-better approach when it 
comes to government. Too often in Congress, we gage accomplishment by 
quantity rather than quality. We need to reduce Federal Government. In 
that sense, this is historic legislation. The ICC is our oldest 
independent agency, yet its functions can and should be reduced. 
Indeed, this could be said about every agency, every executive 
department, and both Houses of Congress. Less would be better. Our bill 
moves us in that direction.
  However, the positive and necessary adjudicatory role of the ICC 
should not come to a screeching halt. Indeed, the ICC has performed and 
continues to perform important functions. For example, without its 
abandonment public interest review authority, my home State of South 
Dakota would today have hundreds of miles less rail service than we 
presently enjoy.

  Quite honestly, budget constraints and appropriations legislation 
which terminate the agency's functions at the end of this year renders 
moot any debate over whether or not we should keep the ICC. Given the 
realities of the budget situation, the issue is not whether the ICC 
should be terminated, but how it will be dismantled.
  Therefore, we must determine what ICC functions can continue to be 
effectively performed by a successor with a greatly reduced budget. 
Which functions can be subsumed into the Department of Transportation? 
Is there an ongoing need for a review process independent of political 
pressures? These are questions this legislation is designed to address.
  This bill provides a reasoned approach designated to ensure continued 
protections against industry abuse while at the same time assure the 
economic efficiencies of our Nation's surface transportation system can 
continue. We propose to sunset the ICC and transfer its necessary 
residual functions to an independent Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Board within the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Board would 
administer the residual regulations over rail carriers and pipelines 
and provide limited adjudicatory oversight over the motor carrier 
industry. The Secretary of Transportation would inherit the residual 
nonadjudicatory functions governing the motor carrier industry.
  Fundamentally, the approach taken in this legislation was to limit 
its 

[[Page S 16672]]
scope to the most efficient and simplest sunset and transfer bill, as 
opposed to a wholesale rewrite of transportation policy. But the very 
nature of the task--which is to close down an entire Federal agency--
there is of necessity a need to sunset certain of its functions, 
however, some changes to these functions also had to be made in light 
of the budget realities which will confront the remaining agency.
  None of this is to say concerns raised during the process through 
which this legislation was developed are not legitimate. Indeed, I 
believe they are. I am particularly concerned about the concerns of 
small rail shippers and operators in light of recent and continuing 
industry trends toward overwhelming industry concentration. More and 
more of this Nation's rail infrastructure is owned by fewer and fewer 
railroads.
  Competitive concerns continue to increase, and the leverage of the 
smaller shippers and small feeder railroads relative to the class I 
railroads decreases. I recall chairing a hearing in 1985 which 
addressed some of those concerns. Since that time, my concern has only 
heightened.
  Some have urged us to re-regulate the rail industry in this 
legislation. They argue that since the Staggers Act greatly deregulated 
the rail industry, shippers have been faced with difficult if not 
impossible relief mechanisms. They point out that the potential for 
shipper abuse increases with industry concentration. Their arguments 
are not entirely unpersuasive. However, a return to a pre-Staggers 
approach is not the answer at this time.

  The shipper complaint procedure at the current ICC is hopelessly 
complicated to the point where shippers with a legitimate grievance 
generally do not have an effective remedy available. The real question 
in my mind is the extent to which legitimate grievances can be 
identified, aired, and resolved. Most of the suggestions raised 
involved some form of re-regulation.
  Even though I voted against the Staggers Act over a decade ago, I 
must say it has proved to be extraordinarily successful in reviving a 
failing industry and on balance has been positive for shippers and 
industry alike. Therefore, at this juncture, it is premature to attempt 
to re-regulate, without a clearer identification and articulation of 
the problem, and an established record which provides some reasonably 
compelling evidence that the solution proposed actually fixes the 
problem.
  On both counts, it seems more effort could be made by all parties to 
attempt to develop industry solutions before seeking Government 
solutions. The fundamental problem I see developing in the industry 
today is that the shippers and others are, as I said, increasingly 
losing leverage in their relations with the class I railroads. In many 
ways, shippers and small railroads are in the same boat.
  Due to these concerns, I am proposing to establish a rail-shipper 
transportation advisory council in an attempt to give them a stronger 
voice, and a mechanism to resolve many of the concerns within the 
industry, rather than having the Government address them. It is clearly 
and intentionally weighted in favor of small shippers and small 
railroads in an effort to address the many issues in which they have 
mutual and legitimate public interest concerns. After a reasonable 
opportunity has been made available to review the varied issues 
confronting small shippers and railroads, I would anticipate a series 
of oversight hearings to review the advisory council's findings or 
recommendations, and, if necessary, appropriate legislative action will 
be taken.
  Whether the council is an effective tool or not will depend largely 
on the reasonableness of the small shippers and railroads position. It 
would be as much of a mistake for them to overplay their hand as it 
would for the large railroads not to treat their concerns seriously. If 
the smaller railroads and shippers overplay their hand by making 
unreasonable demands, the council will quickly lose credibility, both 
within the industry and with policy makers. At the same time, if class 
I's are indifferent or unresponsive to legitimate concerns raised, 
legislative solutions far more expansive than any proposed to date will 
be seriously considered. Re-regulation, antitrust protection, and 
everything else will be on the table.
  Mr. President, let me say it again. This chairman knows the concerns 
of the shippers and small railroads are very real. They need to be 
addressed. The message to both the rail industry and to shippers is 
simple. Be reasonable. Define and solve your problems to the best of 
your ability. Excessive Government involvement is a last resort. It 
will not happen without compelling need and a demonstration of good 
faith effort by those seeking Government intervention, that all 
reasonable avenues to develop a reasonable industry compromise have 
been blocked by relative unreasonableness.
  With respect to labor, there have been attempts to reach a negotiated 
solution to that issue as well. We have included language which is far 
less satisfactory in my view than the House bill, but I agree to it 
with the expectation that the parties can agree to compromise on this 
issue. It remains an issue that is unresolved, but which shall--as with 
other provisions of the bill--be addressed further.

                          ____________________