[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19076-S19077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES IN 
                        ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 2539

  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution. 37, submitted earlier 
today by Senator Exon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will state the concurrent resolution by title.
  The bill clerk read a follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) directing the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
     changes in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled 
     ``An Act 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the concurrent resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been involved in intense 
negotiations over the course of the last few days to try to resolve a 
major problem with the conference report on HR 2539, the Interstate 
Commerce Termination Act of 1995. We have now resolved that problem, 
through an agreement to make a key change in the conference report 
which is designed to protect the collective bargaining agreements of 
railroad employees. With that change, I have agreed to allow the 
conference report to go through without extended debate that could slow 
it down and put at risk its final enactment. Since we are in the final 
days of this session, and I know it is urgent that ICC legislation be 
enacted to ensure continued consumer protections for all Americans, I 
am delighted that this change has now been agreed to, and I am grateful 
for the help and support of Senators Exon, Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, 
Simon and others in this effort.
  The change will be made through adoption of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 37, submitted earlier today by Senator Exon and myself, 
which is to be taken up and agreed to concurrently with the conference 
report by unanimous consent. I am hopeful that both will also be taken 
up and agreed to by the House later tonight or tomorrow. I understand 
there are preliminary indications from the House Republican leadership, 
after fierce and sustained resistance that has lasted for months, that 
they are finally willing to make this change in order to help avoid a 
Presidential veto.
  The concurrent resolution would restore labor protections provided 
for in the Senate bill that were dropped in the House-Senate 
conference. Without this change, the conference report would be 
strongly opposed by representatives of railroad employees nationwide 
because it would significantly reduce existing rights of workers 
employed by small- and medium-sized railroads. In fact, that is also 
one key reason why the administration has indicated its intent to veto 
this measure. I hope that if this change is made by the House, the 
administration would take another look at this legislation, and its 
decision to veto the bill announced yesterday.
  Let me briefly describe how we came to this point. At various points 
in this legislative process, employees were forced to give up labor 
protections on line sales to noncarriers, give up mandatory labor 
protections on line sales to class III carriers, agree to reduced labor 
protections on line sales to class II carriers, give up mandatory labor 
protections on mergers between class III carriers, and agree to reduced 
labor protections on mergers between class II and class III carriers.
  All these concessions were made by employees in return for the right 
that every other American worker has--to bargain collectively with 
their employers and have those collectively bargained agreements 
enforced in court. Employees asked for just one exception to the 
current ``cram-down'' practice of the ICC, which allows abrogation of 
collective bargaining agreements under certain circumstances.
  This may seem somewhat technical, but it is profoundly important to 
the lives and livelihoods of thousands of rail workers in my State and 
throughout the Nation. For mergers between class II and class III 
railroads, likely to become increasingly common over the next decade, 
railroad employees requested a provision contained in the so-called 
``Whitfield Amendment'' adopted on the House floor by a vote of 241-
184, to require that a merger could not be used to avoid a collective 
bargaining agreement, or to shift work from a union to a nonunion 
carrier.
  But unlike the House and Senate-passed bills, the conference 
agreement does not provide such protection. Instead, it gives the 
carrier applying for the merger a choice of whether to preserve 
collective bargaining agreements or to abrogate them unilaterally 
through the successor to the ICC. The concurrent resolution will fix 
this problem by effectively restoring the language of the Whitfield 
Amendment, which prohibits abrogation of such agreements. I am pleased 
we reached agreement on this key change.
  At the same time, I understand why the administration has 
reservations about the conference report. Although I support much of 
it, which streamlines the Federal Government while maintaining a fair 
and responsible Federal regulatory structure, this final version is not 
perfect, and there are parts which I oppose. For example, I am 
concerned about a provision that changes the regulation of household 
goods shipping. I supported the Senate version which would have ensured 
no Federal preemption of State laws relating to the shipment of 
household goods. Unfortunately, conferees chose to include the House 
language that would allow Federal preemption of State laws relating to 
shipping these goods.
  I am concerned about this Federal preemption of State laws, because 
consumers deserve continued State protections when shipping their 
belongings to a new home. I intend to monitor the implementation of 
this provision carefully, and if it poses serious problems, as I expect 
it will, to try again to address these problems next year.

[[Page S19077]]

  But my overriding concern has been the fate of thousands of railroad 
employees across the Nation who could have been harmed under its 
provisions, and that is why we wanted to try to address this problem 
before it passed the Senate. I am delighted that this has now been 
done, and I am hopeful that the House will act on it immediately to 
ensure abroad, comprehensive labor protections for railroad workers. I 
want to go again thank Senator Exon for his help with this problem.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be 
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any 
statements relating to the conference report or the concurrent 
resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) was agreed to, as 
follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
     in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) to amend subtitle 
     IV of title 49, United States Code, to reform economic 
     regulation of transportation, and for other purposes, shall 
     make the following corrections:
       In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted in title 49, 
     United States Code, by section 102, strike ``unless the 
     applicant elects to provide the alternative arrangement 
     specified in this subsection. Such alternative'' and insert 
     ``except that such'';
       In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be inserted in title 49, 
     United States Code, by section 103, strike ``Any'' and insert 
     ``Subject to section 14501(a), any''.

                          ____________________