[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11859-S11860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FEDERAL EXPRESS ANTILABOR RIDER TO FAA REAUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I am entitled to 5 minutes. I 
yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, earlier in the discussion of the FAA and the special 
interest provisions that were included in the conference, I want to 
just point out there are some who have suggested this was really 
technical and it was not really a big deal. I hope our Members will 
review the House debate on it. The House of Representatives voted for 
final FAA reauthorization 219 to 198; 30 Republicans voted no.
  It is useful for Members to have some opportunity to review that 
debate. Here Mr. Lipinski points out, in fact, talking about the 
conference, ``In fact, there were no discussions between the conferees 
in regard to this particular provision until the absolute end of the 
conference when everything else was decided. A Senator brought forth a 
provision that prevailed.'' I understand that. But just because it 
prevailed in conference among 10 members, it should not mean that this 
House has to accept it.
  Mr. President, earlier in the debate, Mr. Oberstar pointed out,

       I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Let me just get 
     the record straight on this express issue. The reason for 
     ending the ICC investigation and oversight of express 
     carriers was the concept of express carriers had become 
     obsolete. The ICC staff itself recommended the elimination of 
     express carrier status. It was not an oversight, it was not 
     something someone neglected to do, something that was not 
     negotiated in drafting, it was not a drafting error. It was 
     done for good reason. The last express carrier went out of 
     business in the mid-1970's.

  So, since it was obsolete, there were no hearings. If you are going 
to expand the definition of ``express carrier'' to include Federal 
Express, and amend effectively the National Labor Relations Act and the 
Railroad Act, you ought to have some kind of hearings to find out what 
the impact is going to be. That is basically what we are talking about 
here, is changing and expanding.

  That is the same conclusion that these Members had, with what the CRS 
had. The ICC staff recommended it. Now we are being asked to put in 
these special kinds of provisions.
  The House of Representatives, in a very close vote, for some of the 
reasons I have mentioned here--I will have more of a chance to bring in 
some of the excellent comments. We do not have the time this afternoon, 
but I understand we will have some time later on, to be able to get 
into this in greater detail. We will see why this is special 
legislation. It is special legislation for a special company. Let us 
make no mistake about it.
  Federal Express wants to have a requirement that every truck driver 
in this country has to be a part of a national group in order to be 
able to be considered whether they can bargain with the company. A 
truck driver is a truck driver. The UPS has recognized the truck 
drivers for UPS are under the National Labor Relations Board. Why we 
ought to write special legislation in the last hour on the FAA 
conference report, that has so many important matters, including 
aviation safety, and that ought to be held hostage for a special 
provision for a special company is, I think, untenable.
  But if that is the way it has to be, that is the way it has to be.
  Mr. President, I understand there has to be additional debate on the 
underlying matter of the continuing resolution, so we will wait our 
time, and I yield what time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes, just like 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, ``On balance,'' I am reading:

       . . . the amendment would appear to confuse rather than 
     clarify the question of Railway Labor Act coverage. On the 
     one hand, it could be argued that the amendment would have no 
     effect. Since neither Federal Express nor any other employer 
     was certified as an express company, subject to title 49, on 
     December 31, 1995, it would follow that no employer could 
     come under the coverage of the proposed amendment.

  That is an argument, if I were the lawyer for Federal Express, I 
would be delighted to make. But it shows you how totally confused, not 
the decision language makes it, but how confused this silly lawyer is 
over there. Because the ICC does not give an air carrier 
certification--period. They never gave one to Federal Express. He does 
not seem to understand that.
  However, let us go to the basic law.
  I read:


[[Page S11860]]


       The Railway Labor Act was adopted in 1926 to provide for 
     speedy administrative resolution of labor-management 
     disputes. Section 1 of the RLA describes employers who are 
     subject to the act's regulations: The term ``carrier'' 
     includes any express company, sleeping car company, carrier 
     by railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act.

  So, they found, then, that it was an express carrier, and then in 
1936, I am reading also from the finding:

       The RLA was amended to include air carriers within its 
     regulatory ambit.

  That is exactly what was reaffirmed here in 1993:

       Federal Express Corporation has been found to be a common 
     carrier as defined under 45 U.S.C. 151, 1st, and section 
     1(e)(1) of the Act.

  Now they have been found both ways. We are not trying to start 
anything new.
  For 25, 30 years now this thing has been governing all the cases, 
bringing it right up to date with respect to that Philadelphia case. 
There is no question that the National Mediation Board ruled, they 
ruled with respect to the Railway Labor Act. No reference was relayed 
on with respect to express language.
  On November 22--and, procedurally, the NLRB is now making a final 
ruling there. So this is not any last-minute thing by Mr. Lipinski, 
saying it was brought up at the last minute. He was prepared. He said, 
``This will kill the bill. We will filibuster it,'' and everything 
else. They have political clout. But I think truth ought to have some 
political clout.
  When an honest mistake is made, when no Senator and no Congressman 
ever even suggested it, now, in the aura of dignity, they say, 
``Hearings, hearings, where are the hearings?'' Well, where in the 
world were the hearings that brought about this deletion that we are 
trying to correct? That is exactly the point. They did not have 
hearings. No one understood it. No one proposed it. They made an honest 
mistake.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________