[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 207 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15600-H15604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2539, ICC TERMINATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up and 
adopt a 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, and that Senate 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'' shall be deemed 
to have been adopted upon adoption of such conference report.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
December 18 (legislative day of December 15), 1995, at page H14993.)
  The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 is 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) 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'' shall make the following corrections:
       (1) 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''.
       (2) 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''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2539, the ICC Termination Act of 1995.
  This is a very important piece of legislation that will eliminate the 
oldest regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  This conference report represents a delicate balancing of the 
interests of shippers and carriers and a reasonable compromise between 
the House and Senate versions. The House bill passed with strong 
bipartisan support by a vote of 417 to 8 and the conference report 
retains all the key provisions of the House-passed bill.
  The conference report represents the final chapter in the long 
history behind the termination of the ICC. The ICC has been downsizing 
for the past 15 years. In the 1970's the ICC had 11 commissioners and 
2,000 employees and oversaw pervasive regulation of the transportation 
industry. The Staggers Act of 1980 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 
began the substantial deregulation of the rail and motor carrier 
industries. The ICC now has 5 commissioners and fewer than 400 
employees.
  The conference report eliminates many of the remaining regulations 
and continues the downsizing of government. The bill preserves a core 
of functions that are retained only where necessary to preserve 
competition and ensure the smooth functioning of the $320 billion 
surface transportation industry. Any remaining functions are 
transferred to the Department of Transportation--avoiding overhead that 
having a separate agency requires.
  The bill will produce personnel savings of over 200 employees at an 
annual budgetary savings of $21 million.
  It is essential that this bill move quickly considering that the ICC 
will run out of appropriated funds at the end of this month.
  The DOT appropriations bill funds the ICC only through December 31 of 
this year. The purpose of H.R. 2539 is to provide for the orderly 
shutdown of the ICC.
  Without legislation to eliminate or transfer current ICC regulatory 
functions the transportation industry will be hurled into chaos.
  For example, if the ICC is shut down without authorizing legislation 
to transfer remaining functions, it will be impossible for railroads to 
record liens on purchases of new rolling stock. This is like telling a 
car dealer that he can sell new cars, but there is nowhere to go to 
transfer the title to the car.

                          Summary of the Bill


                                  rail

  The conference report repeals and reduces numerous regulatory 
requirements of law, including a variety of obsolete or unnecessary 
provisions. These include:
  Replacement of tariff filing with a requirement that railroads notify 
shippers of changes of rates
  Repeal of the separate rate regime for recyclable commodities.
  These are in keeping with our goal to streamline Government and make 
any truly necessary regulation as efficient and cost-effective as 
possible.
  The bill focuses remaining regulation of rail transportation on the 
minimum necessary backstop of agency remedies to address problems 
involving rates, access to facilities, and the restructuring of the 
industry.
  The bill also includes provisions to facilitate the transfer of lines 
that would otherwise be abandoned so that another carrier can keep them 
in service.
  In order to ensure fairness, any proceeding that has begun before the 
bill is enacted would be continued under the law in effect before 
enactment.
  The bill recognizes the unique nature of the railroad industry and 
draws a balance among the interested parties: carriers, shippers, and 
the public.
  The bill continues the basic structure of the Staggers Act, under 
which the railroad industry has seen a remarkable recovery primarily 
due to the benefits of deregulation.
  The most controversial issue in the conference report has been labor 
reforms on small railroad transactions. The Senate has passed a 
concurrent resolution that we will bring forward to restore all of the 
language from the Whitfield amendment that was in the House bill. This 
bill passed with 417 votes on the House floor.
  I also want to note one item that is discussed in the conference 
report at page 180. The new procedures for line purchases by class II 
and class III railroads in section 10902 do not remove the existing 
option of carriers of any size to seek approval of non-merger 
transactions under section 11323, which carries with it the existing 
labor protection requirements. Such transactions include trackage 
rights agreements under section 11323(a)(6), as well as purchases, 
leases and operating contracts under section 11323(A)(2).
  Finally, I want to clarify changes that are made in the conference 
report regarding access to terminal facilities and switch connections 
and tracks. Some people are claiming that the conference report vastly 
expands the capability of freight railroads to obtain access to other 
railroads' facilities. This is incorrect. The statement of managers is 
intended to provide clarification specifically for certain railroads 
owned or operated by public authorities. The report clarifies that such 
railroads, for example those in the New York Metropolitan Region, owned 
and operated for the public interest, may invoke the remedies under 
sections 11102 and 11103.

[[Page H15601]]



                             MOTOR CARRIER

  The conference report eliminates or streamlines numerous unnecessary 
motor carrier functions currently performed by the ICC. These include 
eliminating nearly all remaining tariff filings, significantly 
broadening exemption authority to permit administrative deregulation, 
easing the burdensome financial reporting requirement, deregulation of 
Federal and State price regulation of office and exhibit moves, 
elimination of ICC resolution of routine commercial disputes, and 
streamlining of regulation of chemical pipelines, among many others.
  A core of motor carrier functions will be transferred to the 
Department of Transportation and carried out with no increase in 
personnel slots and with no increase in funding. The primary Department 
responsibility will be the registration of motor carriers and the 
establishment and enforcement of minimum financial responsibility 
requirements. The other function transferred is maintenance of 
background industry commercial rules (such as cargo loss and damage 
rules, leasing rules) which should not require any significant 
personnel or resources.
  A limited number of functions will be carried out by the Board, 
including the final resolution of undercharge claims, oversight of the 
remaining limited rate reasonableness requirements, and approval and 
oversight of agreements for antitrust immunity under reformed 
procedures and oversight over noncontiguous domestic trade.
  The conference report contains a compromise provision to correct an 
inadvertent change in 1994 to common carriers' ability to establish 
released rates for shipments. This change would permit carriers to 
limit liability in a schedule of rates kept on file at the carriers' 
place of business, which is made available to shippers upon request. I 
want to be clear that this change represents a compromise from the 
house-passed provision, and in no way affects the underlying Carmack 
amendment.


                               conclusion

  I urge all my colleagues and particularly the 417 Members who 
supported this legislation on the House floor to vote for the 
conference report with the assurance that it contains all the major 
provisions of the House-passed bill.
  I rise in strong support of the concurrent resolution. This 
resolution conforms the conference version of the I.C.C. Termination 
Act exactly to the House-passed bill on the subject of labor 
protection. That bill, which included the Whitfield amendment, was 
approved by the House on a rollcall vote of 417 to 8. It also makes one 
other technical change to correct the accidental omission of a phrase 
in one of the conference provisions.
  The changes contained in this concurrent resolution remove the 
principal feature of the conference report which the administration 
found objectionable. It is our good fortune that the Senate has agreed 
to recede to the House on this point, in order to remove the 
administration's ground for objection, and has already approved the 
same resolution we are now considering. I therefore urge approval of 
this resolution on the same bipartisan basis that Members exhibited 
when they overwhelmingly approved the House-passed bill with the same 
labor protection provisions.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report, as amended by Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 37, follows the House bill by including a very 
important labor protection provision, known as the Whitfield amendment, 
which was adopted by the Members of this House by a 241-184 vote. That 
amendment provides some measure of protection to railway workers. 
Without it, the impact on those working Americans would be simply 
unconscionable. I am pleased to note that it is part of the bill going 
to the President.
  I am also gratified that two provisions I proposed, and got included 
in the House version of this bill, have been retained in this 
conference agreement. These two sections will help to protect the 
rights of small businesses, consumers, and working people following the 
elimination of the ICC. These two amendments were included in the 
chairman's en-bloc amendment in the House.
  I am pleased that the existing section 10707, the Feeder Line 
Development Program, is included in this bill. Under this provision, 
any rail carrier which owns a rail line but does not serve that line 
can be compelled to sell that unserved line to a carrier willing to 
provide service. This is vitally important to ensure that businesses, 
communities, and consumers are not needlessly isolated from the 
Nation's commerce by the stranglehold of a particular carrier over a 
particular service area. This will ensure that commerce will continue 
to move over rail rights of way and it will continue a very important 
power currently held by the ICC.
  Second, my language ensuring the continued existence of common 
carriage has been retained in the conference report. This language 
seeks to protect shippers and the general public from monopolies and to 
enable commerce to flow freely. This provision accomplishes that 
important goal by mandating that a carrier provide service to a shipper 
that makes a reasonable request for service on a nondiscriminatory 
basis.
  Under an earlier draft of this legislation, carriers would have been 
permitted to utilize all of their available capacity to contract 
carriage, leaving no remaining capacity available for small shippers 
willing and able to ship goods via common carriage. This iron-clad 
preference for contract carriage, to the exclusion of common carriage, 
would have sounded a death knell for common carriage and the small 
businesses and shippers dependent on the openness and fairness of the 
common carrier requirements. My amendment essentially prevents this 
dangerous exclusive preference for contract carriage and protects the 
integrity of our rail transportation system.
  Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I am pleased that some of my concerns 
with the future of rail service have been addressed. I thank Chairman 
Shuster and ranking member Oberstar of the Transportation Committee for 
their cooperation on these concerns.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on House Report 2539, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission Termination Act of 1995.
  This legislation is flawed because it contains provisions that are 
harmful to consumers in the offshore domestic areas such as Guam. Under 
this act, carriers that engage in the domestic offshore trade are 
authorized to raise rates up to 7.5 percent a year. These increases are 
deemed by the legislation as a zone of reasonableness. I do not know in 
what planet a 7.5 percent rate increase per year is reasonable, but on 
Guam, this qualifies as a zone of greed.
  The intent of the ICC Termination Act is to deregulate the motor 
carrier and rail industries. Residual regulatory authority for the 
water carriers will be transferred to the Department of Transportation. 
Congress has chosen not to deregulate the shipping industry. Guam would 
welcome such deregulation, because Guam has found over the years that 
being a captive market for the water carriers would without any 
stringent regulatory oversight is an open invitation to gouge the 
consumers on Guam with shipping rates that are four times higher than 
rates to Japan.
  Unlike the domestic trucking and rail industries, there is virtually 
no competition in the domestic offshore trade. Guam is served by two 
carriers, and Guam has no choice but to use these services because of a 
variety of shipping laws regulating the trade between Guam and other 
U.S. ports.
  I welcome the bill language that calls for a study of the effects of 
this regulated industry, and I would request that the Secretary of 
Transportation take special note of the effects on consumers in captive 
markets such as Guam. This study specifically calls upon the Secretary 
of Transportation to analyze ``the problems of parallel pricing and its 
impact on competition in the domestic trades''; ``whether additional 
protections are needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market 
power''; and the extent of ``carrier competition''. I am confident that 
the results of this study will conclusively demonstrate what those of 
us from Guam have required one of two things: First, effective 
regulation; or second, greater competition. This bill provides neither.
  In making the case against the zone of reasonableness, the Governor 
of Guam, the Hon. Carl Gutierrez, and I have attempted to explain how 
this provision will harm our residents. We received a copy of a letter 
from the Department of the Navy to the conference committee noting the 
Navy's objections to this blank check for rate increases that the 
American taxpayer will have to pay when military goods are shipped to 
Guam. The Navy also stated that the high shipping rates may force them 
to ship military goods to Japan instead of Guam, putting American 
workers on Guam out of work. Meantime, the shipping companies continue 
to roll in the profits.
  I call attention to an important element of the legislative history 
of this provision that offers some hope to Guam. In the conference 
report on House Report 2539, the Senate receded to the House language 
of section 13701 of chapter 137. The House language was accepted by the 
conferees and the House legislative history is therefore controlling, 
although the conferees agreed to the rate of 7.5 percent instead of 
10.0 percent. The legislative history of this provision in the House 
Report 104-311 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
reflects the legislative intent of the House and includes report 
language that explains that ``this zone of reasonableness for rate 
increases does not mean that the base rate cannot be challenged as 
unreasonable.'' I expect the Department of Transportation to take note 
of this legislative intent should Guam decide to challenge the 
unreasonableness of base shipping rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the President vetoes this bill for the 
reasons I have stated to protect the consumers in the offshore domestic 
areas.

[[Page H15602]]

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, 
as amended by the concurrent resolution.
  This legislation provides for the orderly transfer of those essential 
authorities currently vested with the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
the Department of Transportation, and a new Surface Transportation 
Board.
  The bottom line is that if this legislation is not adopted, come 
January 1, there will be chaos in the railroad and motor carrier 
industries.
  There would be in place a body of law governing their daily 
operations, with nobody in place to administer or enforce that law 
since funding for the ICC expires on December 31.
  I would submit that situation would harm not only the railroads and 
the trucking companies, but every American consumer and transportation 
labor as well.
  In my capacity as the ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee 
on Surface Transportation, there were several issues I championed 
during deliberations on this legislation.
  Among them are maintaining antitrust immunity for classifications, 
mileage guides, the establishment of through routes and joint rates.
  Under this legislation, antitrust immunity for these activities would 
continue subject to agreements approved by the new Surface 
Transportation Board.
  In my view, the grant of antitrust immunity for these motor carrier 
activities has well served both the industry and the general public and 
this legislation's treatment of this matter is prudent and wise.
  This legislation also makes a number of other appropriate changes to 
that body of federal law governing motor carriers, building upon the 
amendments made last Congress in the Trucking Industry Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1994.
  Reflecting the new world order in motor carrier regulation, this bill 
would streamline registration requirements and eliminate duplication.
  Ultimately, all of the various registration systems will be 
consolidated into one, unified system, administered by the Secretary of 
Transportation.
  I am also pleased to note that a compromise was reached on the issue 
of financial reporting which, while preserving this most important 
function for gauging safety fitness, will protect confidential business 
information, trade secrets, and other privileged information.
  From the perspective of the consumer, the motor carrier and railroad 
industries, and those who they employ, this legislation establishes a 
prudent and wise regulatory framework for the post-ICC era. I commend 
it to the House.
  With respect to other matters in this bill, I would be remiss if I 
did not make note of the tow truck provision contained in this 
conference agreement.
  As I have noted in the past, last year Congress inadvertently 
preempted the ability of local governments to regulate the tow truck 
industry as part of section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration 
Authorization Act of 1994.
  The Congress did not intend to do this, and in fact, has no business 
intruding in this intrastate and local matter. In fact, during the 
waning hours of the last Congress I managed to gain House passage of 
remedial legislation. However, it has taken us until this point to 
finally resolve this issue.
  The pending legislation would restore the local authority to engage 
in regulating the prices charged by tow trucks in nonconsensual towing 
situations. Regulation of routes and services, as well as regulation of 
consensual towing, would still be preempted.
  Nonconsensual towing situations are those where the owner of the 
vehicle is unable to consent to it being towed, such as in cases of a 
severe accident, where the vehicle is towed from a commercial 
establishment for being illegally parked, or towed from city streets as 
a result of police order.
  I would note that with the restoration of the authority of local 
units of government to regulate prices charged for nonconsensual 
towing, the Congress fully expects that any rates so established be 
compensatory and reasonable.
  Another matter in this conference agreement of great interest to this 
gentleman from West Virginia relates to the issue of fiber drums. While 
not directly related to the termination of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, this issue was raised by the Senate version of the bill and 
ultimately addressed by the conference committee.
  Section 105(d)(2) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act gives 
the Secretary of Transportation discretionary authority to issue 
standards applicable to the domestic transportation of hazardous 
materials consistent with standards adopted by an international body. I 
would stress that this authority was discretionary, with the adoption 
of any international-based standards for the purposes of domestic 
commerce not required by law.
  Subsequently, the Secretary promulgated regulations applicable to the 
domestic transportation of hazardous materials in a proceeding known as 
HM-181 based on the recommendations of a committee of the United 
Nations formed to develop requirements applicable to international 
commerce. These regulations have an effective date of October 1, 1996.
  The problem is that pursuant to the HM-181 regulations, certain types 
of packaging, including open-headed fiber drum packaging used for 
liquid hazardous materials, will no longer be acceptable for domestic 
commerce in the United States. Incredible as it may seem, this is the 
result of the rulemaking despite the demonstrated almost 100 percent 
safety record of fiber drum packaging technology.
  In light of the fact that fiber drum packaging for liquid hazardous 
materials is an exclusive American technology, and due to the lack of 
experience with it among the international community, it may not have 
been duly considered in the formulation of the HM-181 standards. 
Further, several nations other than the United States continue to 
provide for the regulation of hazardous materials transportation within 
their borders utilizing standards not based on the recommendations of 
the U.N. committee.
  Yet, as it stands, if Congress does not seek to remedy this 
situation, as of October 1, 1996, fiber drum packaging, the economies 
and employment it offers, will be no longer.
  I am further troubled by the manner by which this issue has been 
handled by the Department of Transportation's Research and Special 
Programs Administration. An appeal to HM-181 by the fiber drum industry 
was referred to the Federal employee who was the principal author of 
the regulation. The appeal was not considered by some type of impartial 
body, or by an adjudicatory panel. Rather, again, it was referred to a 
single Federal employee who, surprise, surprise, sustained his original 
position. In recognition that the fiber drum industry was being treated 
unfairly, last year the Congress by statute ordered the Transportation 
Department to revisit the issue and undertake a new rulemaking. Guess 
who was put in charge of this new rulemaking? The very same Federal 
employee who was the principal author of HM-181 and who ruled against 
the appeal. Once again, the treatment by HM-181 of fiber drum, 
packaging was sustained.
  As part of its version of this legislation, the Senate included a 
provision that would have simply authorized the continued use of fiber 
drum packaging so long as that packaging is in compliance with pre-HM-
181 regulations. The House had no similar provision. In conference, in 
an effort to reconcile the concerns advanced by the steel and plastic 
drum manufacturers, a compromise was devised that basically provides 
for a 1-year extension of the HM-181 deadline as it applies to fiber 
drum packaging while the National Academy of Sciences conducts a study 
on the issue. Since the Research and Special Programs Administration 
has been unable to consider this matter in an objective manner, the 
conferees unanimously agreed that the National Academy of Sciences was 
the most appropriate entity to conduct the study.
  For its part, the Academy is to complete the study by March 1, 1997, 
with the Secretary directed to conduct yet another rulemaking giving 
full and substantial consideration to the results of the study. I would 
stress the use of the words `full and substantial consideration.' This 
term does not mean that the Research and Special Programs 
Administration is to give lip service to the results of the Academy 
study. They do not mean that the Research and Special Programs 
Administration simply consider the results of the Academy study. This 
is not to be business as usual at the agency as it relates to fiber 
drum packaging. Rather, the phrase `full and substantial consideration' 
was carefully selected by the conferees to reflect our concern that the 
results of a study on fiber drum packaging conducted by an impartial 
entity be the guiding force in the new rulemaking.
  In the event the Research and Special Programs Administration does 
not comply with the letter and intent of this provision of the 
conference agreement, I pretty much can guarantee it that the Congress 
will revisit this issue once again.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement to accompany H.R. 2539.
  I note that the conference agreement contains an amendment to the 
Noise Control Act of 1972. This amendment was not contained in either 
of the bills sent to conference. It is my understanding that this 
amendment is a technical and conforming amendment that updates a 
definitional reference to title 49 of the United States Code in the 
Noise Control Act for the term ``motor carrier.'' As I understand it, 
this change has no substantive effect on the operation of the Noise 
Control Act.
  I bring this to the attention of my colleagues because the Commerce 
Committee has had a longstanding interest in the Noise Control Act. 

[[Page H15603]]
The committee reported the original version of the act in 1972 and has 
been responsible for overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of 
the act.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the conference 
agreement to H.R. 2539.
  I am pleased that the conferees had the good judgment not to exclude 
the Whitfield amendment from this conference agreement, in which the 
majority of the Members of this body strongly supported. I support the 
Whitfield amendment, without which any transaction involving class II 
and class III railroads, including all railroads with up to $250 
million of annual revenue, could disregard important employee rights. 
Without Whitfield, the successor to the ICC would be allowed to 
abrogate, through merger, longstanding employee protections which were 
collectively bargained.
  Mergers and acquisitions should not use the workers as the grease for 
the gears of such combinations. Such business transactions should 
preserve the sanctity of labor contracts and stand on their business 
merit, not destroy railroad labor employee protections. I applaud the 
Whitfield language in this agreement.
  However, I've serious concerns with this legislation arising from the 
publicity of the Republican majority in this Congress. For the past 12 
months my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have purported to 
be State's rights advocates. Yet here we are with a bill before us that 
preempts States' authority to regulate routes, rates, services in the 
transportation of household goods within their own borders. It appears 
that the Republican authors of this bill have disregarded the rights of 
States in regard to the impact on their ability to regulate household 
goods. Whatever happened to returning power and policy discretion to 
States? Apparently, it was not convenient in this case and the effect 
is to further undermine the franchise, the expertise, and the safety 
that has been implemented by the States.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement 
on H.R. 2539, ICC Termination Act of 1995. It has been a long journey 
but finally all of the important issues involving the economic 
regulation of the railroad industry have been resolved on a bipartisan 
basis to everyone's satisfaction.
  I commend Chairman Shuster, Chairwoman Molinari, and ranking 
Democratic member Jim Oberstar, and thank them and our former ranking 
Democratic member on the Subcommittee on Railroads, Bill Lipinski, for 
their leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 2539 provides for the 
elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It also eliminates 
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and transfers the remaining 
functions to an independent board at the Department of Transportation. 
Additionally, as has been stated, it provides railroad workers with the 
fair labor protection voted for in the House-passed bill by a large 
margin.
  Mr. Speaker, it would have been unfair to workers to continue the 
ICC's authority to set aside collective-bargaining agreements, 
particularly in the area of mergers between class II and class III rail 
carriers. The Government does not have this power in any other 
industry. Collective-bargaining agreements are freely negotiated 
between management and labor and should be respected.
  The conference agreement eliminates or reduces employee rights to 
severance pay. But it did it in a balanced manner, as the House bill 
did, by giving labor a guarantee of collective bargaining rights, as an 
offset for the elimination or reduction of severance pay.
  In crafting the conference agreement, we also continue the 
deregulation of the Nation's transportation industry that started with 
the successful Staggers Rail Act of 1980. However, it is also evident 
in the conference agreement that the public interest is best served 
when the needs of the shippers and communities for reasonably priced 
railroad services are balanced against the needs of railroads for 
adequate revenue.
  Although this approach has been a success, we still continue some 
regulation, because the railroad industry continues to consolidate, and 
the needs of employees and shippers must continue to be taken into 
consideration.
  This piece of legislation is a step toward continuing the 
streamlining of regulation while balancing the needs of shippers, the 
public's interest in safe, efficient, low-cost transportation, and the 
industry's need for adequate predictable revenue and low regulatory 
compliance cost.
  Additionally, I am pleased to see that some of the issues of great 
importance to me have been addressed in the bill and in the managers 
amendment. As in current law, the ICC successor may continue to deny or 
approve abandonments and discontinuances of railroad services, and 
labor protection requirements now applicable to abandonments are 
retained also. In my home State of West Virginia and in many other 
rural areas, abandonments can drastically affect the financial 
development of a community.
  Moreover, we have made progress in the area of continuing to protect 
captive shippers from possible market abuse and in restoring the Long-
Cannon criteria which the ICC uses to determine the current coal rate 
guidelines--the basis for determining maximum coal rates.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, I support the 
conference agreement on H.R. 2539 as it provides a fair and balanced 
approach to reforming the ICC.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on this important legislation. The ICC Termination Act eliminates many 
unnecessary and obsolete forms of regulation, as well as the oldest 
Federal regulatory agency itself. This legislation is a broad-based, 
bipartisan effort to modernize and streamline transportation 
regulation.
  With respect to railroads, the bill retains all the key features of 
the House-passed legislation. And that legislation was passed by the 
House with overwhelming bipartisan support--417 to 8. The conference 
version of this bill keeps all of the key features of the successful 
deregulation begun with the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Rate standards, 
the broad power to reduce regulation by administrative action, and the 
safety net of remedies for shippers are kept.
  I especially want to commend our chairman, Mr. Shuster, our Surface 
Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Petri, and our Surface Subcommittee ranking 
member, Mr. Rahall, for their bipartisan efforts on this highly complex 
legislation. Let me also quickly express my thanks to the committee 
staff, particularly Jack Schenendorf, Bob Bergaman, Glenn Scammel, 
Alice Davis, and Jennifer Southwick for their long hours of hard work 
on this bill.
  Under this legislation, we eliminate many cumbersome and unnecessary 
requirements that only resulted in extra regulatory burdens and paper-
pushing.
  At the same time, this legislation gives the retained 
responsibilities to a greatly reduced administrative board within the 
Department of Transportation. All of the bureaucratic overhead of the 
old independent ICC is eliminated by making the new board 
administratively part of DOT. This means that the almost 400-person ICC 
will be replaced by a Board served by only 120 people. It also means 
lowering the annual price tag from nearly $30 million to under $12 
million.
  Regarding the labor issue, some Members may have heard of the 
controversy surrounding this issue. On Wednesday, we received 
notification from the administration that the President would veto the 
conference report based primarily on the labor protection provisions. 
Last night, the Senate passed a concurrent resolution that restores all 
the language from the Whitfield amendment that was in the House bill, 
which passed with 417 votes.
  As I said before, restoration of this language sets a dangerous 
precedent, which I have fought vigorously to avoid. A policy which 
enables organized labor to have the ability to stand in the way of a 
Government-approved merger is ludicrous. I might add that rail labor's 
position on this issue is somewhat ironic, since the effect of the 
concurrent resolution is to remove the option of 6 years of labor 
protection and to ensure that affected employees will receive only 1 
year instead.
  Nevertheless, I ask my colleagues to support the conference report 
only because it is imperative that authorizing legislation is passed 
before the ICC runs out of funding on December 31. Consider the 
consequences if a bill is not passed before the end of the month. 
Businesses in your districts who ship by motor or rail will have 
nowhere to go to seek relief under Interstate Commerce Act remedies. 
For companies who build rail cars, locomotives, and components--and 
their workers--sales to the railroad industry will be halted because 
the only means by which liens and other commercial transactions can be 
legally recorded will have been defunded.
  In others words, a ``no'' vote on the conference report has 
significant real world implications and I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2539, the ICC Termination Act of 
1995. Approval of the conference report will allow the Interstate 
Commerce Commission to close its doors within the next several days in 
an orderly fashion.
  The conference report provides for the transfer of certain ICC 
functions to the Department of Transportation and to a new Surface 
Transportation Board to be established within DOT. All other remaining 
ICC functions will be eliminated.
  I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of all the 
conferees, led on the House side by Chairman Shuster and on the Senate 
side by Chairman Pressler.
  The conferees have worked diligently over the past several weeks to 
ensure that the Congress considers this important matter in a timely 
fashion.
  Since the ICC is funded only through the end of this year, it is 
essential that we approve this legislation now and that it is signed 
into law by the President, 

[[Page H15604]]

  In order to avoid the chaos and uncertainty that would envelop the 
transportation industry if the ICC were to close on January first 
without having in place a process for the transfer of functions.
  The motor carrier provisions in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 
continue the economic deregulation of this industry which began in 
1980, and was followed by various other deregulation initiatives, 
including three major bills just last Congress. H.R. 2539 will abolish 
the ICC and eliminate many of the Commission's remaining motor carrier 
functions that are no longer appropriate in today's current competitive 
motor carrier industry.
  Functions and responsibilities which do remain are transferred to 
either the Department of Transportation--which primarily will oversee 
registration and licensing--or to the Surface Transportation Board--
which will be responsible primarily for the limited remaining rate 
regulation and tariff filings, final resolution of undercharge claims, 
and approval and oversight of agreements for antitrust immunity. Much 
of the regulation that remains has been streamlined and reformed.
  While we have provided for continued deregulation in this bill, many 
of us had hoped to have gone further. However, this legislation does 
contain many compromises, as is usually necessary to move forward such 
a complicated measure. Continued oversight of remaining motor carrier 
regulation is still required, and the Surface Transportation 
Subcommittee will closely monitor the industry and the need to retain 
these remaining regulatory requirements in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to provide for an orderly 
shut-down of the Interstate Commerce Commission by approving this 
conference report today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The conference report on H.R. 2539 and 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 are adopted.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________