[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 207 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15604-H15605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS IN BIPARTISAN 
                                 MANNER

  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment to compliment our 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the legislation just 
passed which is now on its way to the White House and to a certain 
signature into law.
  Mr. Speaker, this completes a very long and very labored process of 
completing the economic deregulation of rail and of trucking 
transportation and of sunsetting the Nation's oldest regulatory body, 
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  We were able to come to this resolution today because the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure is a committee that works because 
its members work together. When we work together, we accomplish good 
things for this country and for its economy.
  Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a good note on almost which to conclude 
this part of the session. There was a time in the past when Bob Michel 
and Tip O'Neill would join in singing songs as we approach the 
Christmas season. This body is not in a mood to do that. But at least 
we can say that on the Committee on transportation and Infrastructure, 
we are singing from the same page today, and for that I compliment our 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], who is chair of the 
Subcommittee on Railroads, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, and the members 
on my side, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], on the splendid job of working 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to discuss in greater detail 
the legislation we have just passed by unanimous consent. To get to 
this point we have undertaken long and difficult negotiations, which 
finally resulted in a successful resolution of many complex and 
controversial issues. The process worked. We labored, discussed, 
negotiated, compromised, and in the end came together on a product that 
we all can support. For the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, this conference agreement is another testament to the 
fact we can do the best job for the Nation by working together on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I am particularly appreciative of the efforts of Chairman Shuster. He 
spent many hours dealing with the complex and technical issues involved 
in this legislation. He listened with an open mind to all parties, and 
showed his dedication to the overall public interest by developing a 
creative compromise which protected the basic interests of all parties, 
but did not give any party all that it wanted.
  Special recognition also goes to our Rail and Surface Subcommittees, 
including Rail Subcommittee Chairwoman Molinari and ranking Democratic 
member, Bob Wise; former ranking Democratic member, Bill Lipinski; 
Surface Subcommittee Chairman Tom Petri; and ranking Democratic member, 
Nick Rahall.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the compromise we have reached, rail 
labor, rail management, shippers, motor and water carriers, and ICC 
reformers all support the conference report. In addition, with the 
compromise on rail labor protection, I expect that the President will 
sign the bill.
  This conference agreement includes many important provisions ensuring 
continuation of critical safety and economic regulation of motor 
carriers and railroads, and, as a result of the concurrent resolution 
we just passed, the conference report will treat railroad employees 
fairly. As amended by the resolution, the conference agreement will 
reflect the House provisions which were a fair compromise between the 
competing needs of management and labor.

  However, I wish to make it clear that I could not have supported the 
conference report without the amendment made by the concurrent 
resolution. The original conference agreement was highly unfair to rail 
employees.
  The original conference agreement represented a picking and choosing 
of provisions from the House-passed bill. There was a serious imbalance 
between the provisions selected and those that were dropped. The 
original conference agreement kept all the concessions labor made in 
the bill, but dropped the one benefit labor received in return; 
protection of collective bargaining agreements.
  Specifically in the House-passed bill, labor gave up a wide range of 
labor protection involving severance pay for employees who lose their 
jobs in mergers. The House bill reduced or eliminated severance pay in 
transactions involving line sales to noncarriers, line sales to class 
III carriers, line sales to class II carriers, mergers between class 
III carriers, and mergers between class II and class III mergers. The 
original conference agreement accepted these reductions in employee 
protection.
  Let me provide a few examples:
  Under current law if the Maryland Midland Railway Co.--a class III 
carrier, merges with Shenandoah Valley Railroad which is also a class 
III carrier, the railroad employees would receive 6 years of labor 
protection. Under the original conference agreement the employees would 
get no labor protection at all. That's a big concession on the part of 
labor, and one they agreed to only in return for protection of 
collective bargaining agreements.
  Another example, under current law if the Wisconsin Central 
Railroad--a class II carrier, acquired a line from the Dakota, 
Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad, with 50 employees working on that line, 
those 50 displaced employees would receive 6 years of labor protection. 
Under the original conference agreement they would receive only 1 year 
of labor protection. Again, a significant concession on the part of 
labor.
  A final example, under current law if RailTex, a holding company of 
class III railroads, sets up a new noncarrier subsidiary and acquires a 
branch line from Conrail, it could be required to pay up to 6 years of 
labor protection to any displaced employees. Under the original 
conference agreement, those same employees would get no labor 
protection. I reiterate--no labor protection at all. Labor agreed to 
this and much more.
  In return, for these concessions what did railroad employees ask for 
and receive in the House bill? They received a right that every other 
American worker has--to bargain collectively with their employers and 
have those collective bargaining contracts upheld in court.
  But the original conference agreement didn't give them these rights. 
Instead, it gave the carrier applying for the merger the choice of 
whether to accept rights of employees under collective bargaining 
agreements or ask ICC to throw the agreements out. That was 
unacceptable.
  I simply could not support a bill which in essence took away the 
basic rights of employees to bargain collectively simply in an effort 

[[Page H15605]]
to make a merger move ahead a little faster or be a little more 
profitable at the expense of the employees.
  Overriding freely negotiated collective bargaining agreements has 
been a practice the ICC has used many times in order to effectuate a 
merger. The result of those actions has been detrimental to rail 
employees.
  For example:
  Employees of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad have negotiated a 
collective bargaining agreement which gives them priority to keep the 
jobs they now hold. To gain these job rights, the employees made 
substantial concessions to the company in other provisions of the 
agreement. Now following a merger between C&N and the Union Pacific, 
the ICC has been asked to set aside the collective bargaining agreement 
to enable UP to ignore the employees' collective bargaining rights and 
furlough 1,000 C&N employees or to move them to new lower paying jobs 
in other cities. Why should a Government agency be able to set aside 
job protection rights which were freely negotiated between management 
and labor?
  Another example--in the mid-1980's, Springfield Terminal Co., A class 
III railroad, took over two class II railroads, the Maine Central and 
the Boston & Maine Railroad.
  Both the Maine Central and the Boston & Maine Railroad employees were 
covered by national collective bargaining agreements which provided, in 
part, for seniority and safety training standards. Springfield 
Terminal's collective bargaining agreement had substandard seniority 
and no safety training standards.
  When the ICC approved the transaction, it replaced the national 
collective bargaining agreements, at management's request, with the 
substandard Springfield Terminal agreement. As a result, the seniority 
system was turned upside down and junior employees became senior 
employees.
  In addition, safety standards were compromised even to the point that 
a janitor became an untrained locomotive engineer. Some of the safety 
compromises even resulted in injuries and death.
  Had the original conference report been adopted without change these 
abuses would have proliferated. Under the original conference 
agreement, ICC would have continued to hold broad authority to override 
collective bargaining agreements.
  After the original conference agreement was filed we held extensive 
discussions with our Republican colleagues on the labor provisions. 
Yesterday we agreed to a modification of the conference agreement, 
which restored the entire House-passed provisions--both the concessions 
labor made and the benefits it received.
  The revised conference agreement has now been passed by both bodies.
  Under the revised conference agreement, railroad employees will 
receive the right that every other American worker has--to bargain 
collectively with their employers and have their collective bargaining 
contracts upheld in court. I am pleased that the revised conference 
agreement upholds fundamental rights of employees to bargain 
collectively. The revised conference agreement is fair to rail 
employees and I support it.
  Mr. Speaker, apart from labor issues, I am supportive of the 
conference report because it strikes a good balance between continued 
deregulation of the rail and motor industries, and the preservation of 
the safety and economic regulatory powers needed to protect shippers 
against abuses which will not be remedied by competition.
  The provisions in the conference report dealing with railroads, 
eliminate and modify many current railroad economic regulatory 
requirements. All remaining ICC rail oversight responsibilities are 
transferred to a new Surface Transportation Board at the Department of 
Transportation. The conference agreement repeals requirements that 
freight rail carriers file their rates with the Federal Government, 
repeals prohibitions against a rail carrier transporting commodities 
which it produces or owns, and repeals requirements that railroads 
obtain Federal regulatory approval to issue securities, or to assume 
certain financial liabilities with respect to other securities.
  At the same time, the conference report maintains some critical 
regulatory authority that both the rail industry and shippers agree is 
necessary. These include maximum rate standards which protect captive 
shippers from unreasonably high rates; requirements that a rail carrier 
provide transportation upon reasonable request--better known as the 
common carrier obligation; and requirements that rail carriers 
maintain, and make available to shippers, schedules of their rates, 
with the Federal Government retaining authority to review and order 
changes in these schedules to protect captive shippers.
  Additionally, to permit further deregulation in appropriate cases, 
the Board will have authority to exempt railroads or rail services from 
regulatory requirements.
  With regard to motor carriers, the conference report continues the 
deregulation that has progressed over the last 15 years by eliminating 
virtually all remaining tariff filings, deregulating significant 
portions of the household goods traffic, eliminating the possibility of 
future undercharge claims, and eliminating the Federal role in 
resolving routine commercial disputes.
  The bill retains key provisions of current law which establish 
uniform commercial rules such as billing practices and credit rules. 
The bill also enables small regional carriers to compete with national 
carriers by providing for limited grants of antitrust immunity for 
carriers who pool their traffic and develop standardized guides.
  In addition, the bill provides household-goods shippers with access 
to arbitration for disputed claims. This option will encourage 
equitable resolution of damage claims, eliminate Federal Government 
involvement in individual disputes, and minimize reliance on the 
courts.
  The bill also clarifies that carriers may limit their liability, 
provided that they give all terms and conditions to the shippers on 
request, and that carrier organizations may not discuss liability 
limits. I know that many shippers have serious concerns about this 
provision. That's why the conference report includes a 12-month study 
of loss and damage liability. We will monitor the effects and determine 
whether adjustments are necessary.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the revised conference agreement is a 
balanced bill and a fair compromise. I urge the President to sign it 
promptly, sot that there will be no lapse in implementation of 
responsibilities now entrusted to the ICC.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly noteworthy at a 
time when passions have tended to run particularly high on other issues 
before this Congress, that members of the Subcommittee on Surface 
Transportation on both sides of the aisle have been able to work 
together repeatedly on major issues involving significant policy 
changes. They could have been overwhelmed by this acrimony, but we have 
resisted that.
  Mr. Speaker, it is due in no small part to the leadership of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and to that of the other 
ranking members on the subcommittees of the conference. I would like to 
wish the gentleman the best for the season.

                          ____________________