[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11871-S11872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I stand here this afternoon in the waning 
hours of this Congress urging our colleagues to support not only the 
FAA reform authorization bill but to urge with all my heart this body 
to include the language adopted by the conference offered by Senator 
Hollings of South Carolina, the so-called Hollings amendment. I think 
that we should approach this rationally. I think that we should 
approach this matter with understanding and certainly with truth, a 
calm atmosphere. I know it has gotten remarkably emotional in the last 
several hours.
  First, I hope our colleagues will know that this is not some 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina to make it 
difficult for unions to organize. It is not a union-bashing amendment. 
It is nothing of the sort.
  Furthermore, in my humble opinion, this was a mistake. It was a 
mistake when we phased out the Interstate Commerce Commission and moved 
those areas of concern and jurisdiction to other parts of our 
Government. Clearly, there was a disclaimer by the Congress and it said 
in section 10501 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination 
Act--it has been cited in the Chamber by the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina. Once again I will cite that language:
       The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall 
     neither expand nor contract coverage of the employees and 
     employers by the Railway Labor Act.

  That is precisely what I think this debate is all about. Why the so-
called express carrier language was omitted in 1995, I, frankly, do not 
know. I think it was an error. I think it was a drafting error.
  If that be the case, then I think it is incumbent upon this body to 
cure that error and to set the record straight. I do not believe that 
one person can be produced who can come and testify before this body, 
or tell this Senator, or perhaps any other Member of this body, that 
this was not an error. I do not know who that person is.
  That is notwithstanding a report that is being cited freely on the 
floor of the Senate this afternoon by the American Law Division of the 
CRS, the Library of Congress.
  In all due respect to whomever authored this particular rendition of 
what they felt the law was, I think that this is, perhaps, one of the 
most confusing, ambiguous memoranda that I have read from this 
erstwhile very, very reputable division of the Library of Congress.
  This flies also in the face of the staff of the Senate Commerce 
Committee and also of the staff of the House of Representatives 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent their rendition of what 
actually happened in this area be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 28, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: I understand that some questions have been raised 
     recently concerning the effect of the recently enacted ICC 
     Termination Act on the Railway Labor Act. The new statute 
     replaces the ICC with a Surface Transportation Board at the 
     Department of Transportation. It also explicitly states in 49 
     U.S.C. 10501(c)(3)(B) the intention of the Congress that the 
     ICC Termination Act is not to change the coverage of any 
     employer or employee under the Railway Labor Act. This was 
     the clear understanding of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, and 
     the members of the conference committee. If there are any 
     ambiguities in the new law concerning its effect on the 
     Railway Labor Act, they were created unintentionally. Any 
     such ambiguities should not be allowed to negate the clear 
     intent stated in Section 10501(c)(3)(B).
       I hope you find this information useful. If I can be of any 
     further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Susan Molinari,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Railroads.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Speaker: We are writing to 
     you to set out the facts regarding a technical error in the 
     ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88. The mistake 
     concerns the context in which the ICC Termination Act 
     addressed the relationship between the economic regulation of 
     transportation under Subtitle IV of Title 49, United States 
     Code, and the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
       The ICC Termination Act abolished the former Interstate 
     Commerce Commission, reduced economic regulation 
     substantially in both rail and motor carrier transportation, 
     and transferred the reduced but retained regulatory functions 
     to a new Surface Transportation Board, part of the Department 
     of Transportation.
       One form of ICC regulatory jurisdiction under the former 
     Interstate Commerce Act was exercised over ``express 
     carriers''--as defined in former 49 U.S.C. 10102, a person 
     ``providing express transportation for compensation.'' This 
     was part of the ICC's jurisdiction, since express service 
     originated as an ancillary service connecting with rail 
     freight service.
       The Railway Labor Act included in Part I coverage of ``any 
     express company . . . subject to the Interstate Commerce 
     Act.'' [45 U.S.C. 15]
       In the ICC Termination Act, economic regulation of express 
     carriers was eliminated from the statutes to be administered 
     by the new Surface Transportation Board, on the ground that 
     this form of regulation was obsolete. (Another category of 
     ICC and Railway Labor Act ``carrier''--the sleeping-car 
     company--was similarly eliminated from STB jurisdiction.)
       In light of the abolition of economic regulation, the ICC 
     Termination Act contained a conforming amendment (Section 
     322, 109 Stat. 950) which also struck the term ``express 
     company'' from the Railway Labor Act definition of a 
     ``carrier.'' Although unaware of any possible effects of this 
     conforming change on the standards applied under the Railway 
     Labor Act, Congress plainly delineated its intent in new 
     Section 10501(c)(3)(B) of Title 49, U.S. Code [109 Stat. 
     808]: ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 
     shall neither expand nor contract coverage

[[Page S11872]]

     of employers and employees by the Railway Labor Act.''
       The apparent contradiction between the legislative intent 
     stated in Section 10501(c)(3)(B) and the conforming Railway 
     Labor Act in Section 322 could be interpreted to alter the 
     legal standards by which companies are determined to be 
     governed, or not governed, by the Railway Labor Act. 
     Therefore, a technical correction is necessary to restore the 
     former Railway Labor Act terminology and thus avoid any 
     inference that is at odds with the clearly stated legislative 
     intent not to alter coverage of companies or their employees 
     under the Railway Labor Act.
       We hope that this brief summary of the facts will provide 
     you with information useful in your future deliberations.
           Respectfully,
     Bud Shuster,
       Chairman.
     Susan Molinari,
       Railroad Subcommittee Chairwoman.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, it is very clear to me that there is, in 
fact, confusion. But the quickest and best way to eliminate that 
confusion is to simply support the Hollings amendment, return us to 
1995, December, under that particular Act which for 62 years guided and 
had jurisdiction over ``express carriers.''
  We could go into a long legal argument, and I am sure that legal 
arguments will be made on the floor of this body as to who is right and 
who is wrong. The substance of this issue must and should be debated. 
But now is the time, we think, that we should correct the issue, that 
we should go back to where we were, that we should once again set the 
record straight and start from there.
  If hearings are needed next year, that is fine. But we should in this 
legislation support the Hollings amendment to the FAA Authorization and 
Reform Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe under the previous unanimous 
consent agreement I had 10 minutes, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Then I seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his support of the 
Hollings amendment. I pray, because of the importance of this 
legislation, that we get an agreement and get moving on this. I again 
thank the Senator from Arkansas for his continued support and his 
statement in support of very important legislation. I hope, following 
the vote on the CR, we will take that bill up and get it resolved 
tonight. I hope.

                          ____________________