[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15243-H15244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2539, THE ICC 
                        TERMINATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 312 and ask for the immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 312

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2539) to abolish the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission, to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States 
     Code, to reform economic regulation of transportation, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 allows for the consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2539, the Interstate, Commerce 
Commission Termination Act of 1995. Under the rule, all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration are waived, 
and the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, although I do not generally favor granting blanket 
waivers, the Rules Committee was provided with a list of specific 
waivers required for consideration of this bill, and this rule was 
adopted by voice vote in the Rules Committee.
  Also, there was discussion yesterday that the Senate might consider a 
concurrent resolution which would effectively amend this conference 
report to include the Whitfield amendment as passed by the House. I 
supported the Whitfield amendment when it was adopted by the House 
because it provided important protections for small and medium size 
railroad employees who lose their jobs because of a merger or 
acquisition. I think this language should have been retained without 
change in this conference report.

[[Page H15244]]

  Unfortunately, the language of this concurrent resolution was 
unavailable to the Rules Committee, and the committee was unable to 
accommodate consideration of the concurrent resolution in this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, funding for the ICC expires at the beginning of next 
year, and if we do not pass this conference report, the important 
functions of this agency that are being transferred to the Department 
of Transportation will fall by the wayside. This bill provides for an 
orderly termination and transfer of the vital functions of the ICC.
  This is an important part of our efforts to downsize the Federal 
Government, and I urge adoption of the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding me the customary 
half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, although this is a standard conference report rule, I am 
very much opposed to this bill.
  Despite promises to the contrary, despite the House-passed compromise 
on November 14--this bill contains some serious antiworker provisions.
  This bill takes away class 2 and class 3 railroad workers' right to 
collective bargaining. It will hurt thousands of hard working Americans 
and it is unfair.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly every other American worker has the right to 
collective bargaining, including class 1 railroad workers, class 2 and 
class 3 railroad workers should have the same worker protection as 
everyone else.
  But, Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are choosing 
employers over employees.
  They are saying that hard-working railroad workers do not deserve the 
most basic worker protections. They are saying that rail carrier 
mergers are more important than people.
  Thankfully, President Clinton has said he will veto this bill, and I 
think he should. My colleagues should have kept their word and rail 
workers should be able to keep their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. American 
workers deserve every protection we can give them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met last night and our side 
testified at the meeting of the Committee on Rules, we asked for very 
few things. We asked that if points of order are going to be waived in 
this rule, that they be specified, that there be a specific reference 
to which points of order are to be waived in the interests of fairness 
and openness, and we asked that issues such as scope, germaneness, 
Budget Act problems, 3-day layover of conference reports issue be 
specified if there are going to be waivers of points of order.
  The rule comes out with no specificity whatever. It just waives all 
points of order.
  We also made a very modest request that if the Senate acted on a 
Senate concurrent resolution to restore the Whitfield amendment as a 
substitute for the language in the conference report dealing with labor 
protective provisions, that it be made in order for us to take up that 
Senate concurrent resolution. The Senate has not yet acted. It may not 
act on that concurrent resolution. But there is no provision in this 
rule as we requested. It was a modest request. I thought it was 
favorably received by the chairman of the Committee on Rules. But it is 
not included here as a mere courtesy to the Democrats.
  This conference report is not a simple matter. This is 164 pages of 
very technical language dealing with a complex subject in the 
sunsetting of the oldest regulatory body in the Federal Government 
structure dealing with a mode of transportation that, in the 19th 
century, was the life line of America and all the way up through until 
the end of World War II was the cornerstone of our national economy, 
the railroad industry.
  We are going to wipe it away. We have a bill with 164 pages of 
technical language. Points of order are simply waived. They do not say 
which ones. They do not give us the opportunity to bring up, should it 
be enacted, should it be passed by the Senate, the Senate concurrent 
resolution.
  I find this very, very curious. I find it unpalatable. I find it 
inappropriate.
  Nonetheless, I recognize that the other side has the votes. We will 
save our fight for the conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the conference report 
when it is brought before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________