James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have looked at this issue, and although it has come up very suddenly, it is an issue of longstanding; it has long been a problem of grain shippers to get hopper cars and locomotives to serve their [[Page H 12297]] area. We have seen that for many years, and there is provision in the existing ICC law that gives the Commission authority to order a carrier to provide rates and services, ``substantially similar to the contract at issue with such differentials in terms and conditions as are justified by the evidence.'' Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of the gentleman, the gentleman really wants to keep that language in place?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we certainly support that objective, and we have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, chairman of our committee, in urging all Members on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a very controlled workplace: Railroads. Rail labor. They give up the freedom that others have in order that an agency of the Federal Government mediate between their employer and themselves. Mr. Chairman, I grew up believing that a union contract was a bond with your employer. That is what I learned from my father. That is what I learned at our dinner table at home in Chisholm, MN, in the heart of the iron ore mining country. Railroading is different. It is a whole different set of public policy interests that come before a labor and management contract; that come before the interests of the railroad company. In deregulation, we have passed away a lot of those protections. One small modicum of protection ought to remain. If in the next round of mergers and acquisitions and downsizing of this industry workers lose their jobs in those smaller railroads, they ought to have the decency of protection, having given their lifetime of work, that they are treated fairly and decently with labor protective provisions. Mr. Chairman, that is what this amendment will do. If we cannot do that, then we ought not to pass this bill. We ought not to hang labor on this cross.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the debate has been a constructive one; a positive one. There are some sort of misunderstandings, misstatements, perhaps. There was an allusion some time ago, and I do not recall who it was that said that, that there had been 10,000 new jobs created over the last 10 years in the short lines, but that statement conveniently left out the reality that 265,000 jobs have been terminated since the Staggers Act, and most of them did not get labor protection. We are just talking about a matter of fairness and decency as we move this last step in the economic deregulation of the rail industry. The Whitfield amendment before us today is a compromise. It is not the compromise I would have liked. It is not the protection for labor that I would have liked, but I am willing to accept it. It is a modicum, the very basic and the least we could do, of fair treatment of employees with legitimate concerns of their own against the legitimate financial concerns of the medium- and smaller-sized carriers. Mr. Chairman, rail labor has given up a great deal in this legislative package that we have. If we are to stay with current law, there is labor protection for all railroad mergers, for all line sales to carriers. The Whitfield amendment continues labor protection only for the largest-sized railroads, class 1 railroads, that have annual revenues of $250 million and more. For all the others, the amendment we are considering now would eliminate or would significantly modify labor protection. Under this amendment, no labor protection would be provided for the smallest or the class 3 railroads. The Whitfield amendment affects the medium-sized railroads, those with revenues up to $250 million a year--and some of those are very big carriers, as my colleague the gentleman from Illinois has rightly pointed out. One of them has a stock value of over $800 million. That is not small. That is no small potatoes where I come from. It is only fair to employees in that class that they should have at least a year. They give up 5 years of potential labor protection to get a maximum of 1 year. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues that this is not a gift. They do not get a full year's pay and sit on their can and do nothing. If they take another job, they get the wages from that job deducted from their pay from the railroad. They are on call. They can be called back to work at any time. This is not a big deal, giveaway, labor protective provision. The bill would allow the ICC successor agency to abrogate labor protection in collective bargaining agreements. No other agency of Government has that power. None other. Mr. Chairman, to those who object to any kind of labor protective provisions for the railroad workers, I say fine. Then let us throw the whole thing out and treat rail labor as we do industrial unions, as we do the industrial workplace. Let them collectively bargain. Let them strike. Let them shut down the rails of this country if they want to, if they have to, if they are pushed to the wall and they have to. But because the railroads have been so vital to America's economy, they have been treated differently than the building trades, than the industrial unions who represent workers in the industrial marketplace of this country--the International Association of Machinists, the UAW, the rubber- workers, and the steelworkers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that this will conclude debate, certainly for our side, and I understand in consultation with the chairman it will conclude the other side as well.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I heard the discussion. If I understood it, the chairman intends to work with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] to further refine his language and address his concerns?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the committee has correctly described the amendment as a bipartisan amendment, one on which we have worked together and have come to an agreement to improve the bill, and he has described quite well broad provisions in this manager's amendment. It does include the Long-Cannon criteria which are very important to our colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. It includes a provision that requires summaries of agricultural contracts to be filed with the panel. It includes a requirement that contract carriers remain subject to the common carrier obligation. It requires a feeder line development provision that would allow the panel to order the sale of a railroad line from a railroad that was not providing satisfactory service to another railroad in order to provide better service. Both of these are items that our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] is interested in. It includes provisions to prohibit contract commitments that prevent a carrier from responding to reasonable requests for service, reasonable and hence vital to the common carrier obligation. I think that issue is reasonably resolved. Mr. Chairman, there are several other amendments, particularly concerning abandonment, that I think are very important to this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and I were fully agreed that we ought to insist on allowing abandonments to be reconfigured to make them more viable as stand-alone short lines and reduce the review period for abandonment from 6 months to 4 months. All in all, Mr. Chairman, this is a very inclusive and carefully crafted piece of legislation that improves the overall status of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, let me just use my 30 seconds to say when we are talking about these small railroads, let us just remember that the small railroads, the class 2, include Wisconsin Central, which Business Week magazine earlier this year estimated was one of the 1,000 most valuable corporations in the United States with a stock market value of $800 million. That is not small where I come from.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the labor issue aside, the bill that we are considering does strike a good balance between continuing deregulation of the rail and motor carrier industries while at the same time preserving very important safety and economic regulatory powers needed to protect shippers against abuses that will not be remedied by competition. In the rail arena the legislation eliminates many and modifies other railroad economic regulatory requirements and transfers remaining ICC rail oversight responsibilities to a newly created transportation adjudicatory panel housed within the Department of Transportation. The bill repeals requirements that freight rail carriers file rates with the Federal Government. It repeals prohibitions against transporting commodities produced by the carrier itself or which the carrier owns. It repeals requirements that railroads get Federal rail regulatory approval to issue securities or to assume financial liabilities with respect to other securities. It does, however, maintain, this legislation does, some critical functions that both the rail industry and the shippers agree are necessary: maximum rate standards to protect captive shippers from unreasonably high rates. The common carrier obligation is restated here, the legal duty of a rail carrier to provide transportation on reasonable request, a longstanding provision of American law. It protects requirements or preserves requirements that rail carriers establish rates, classifications, rules, and practices governing rail transportation, and it preserves the authority of the Federal Government to review and to order changes in those items. All of these are necessary to maintain the balance in a rail transportation field that I feel, and many are fearful, would not be maintained simply by competition alone. This panel that we create, this arbitration or adjudicatory panel rather, will have authority to exempt railroads and rail services from regulatory requirements through administrative action rather than going through the laborious process of lawsuits and through the Justice Department's antitrust suit authority. We did make progress in the area protecting captive shippers from possible market abuse. That is a longstanding problem in this rail arena, one that goes back into the 19th century and the early part of this century. Captive shippers are particularly a concern in the coal sector where powerplants are so dependent upon coal and upon the one means of bringing coal to their plant. We have got protections in here that are in the interests of all who use electricity produced by coal. Soon our chairman will offer a bill manager's amendment which will further clarify the roles of the Secretary and the Transportation Adjudication Panel. On the trucking side, the motor carrier side, the bill eliminates virtually all remaining tariff filings. It deregulates significant portions of the household goods market. It eliminates the possibility of future undercharge claims, an issue that we have had to deal with so intensively last year and again this year. It eliminates the Federal role in routine commercial disputes. It retains a limited number of key provisions--uniform commercial rules, and, for small regional carriers that compete with national carriers, provisions of current law that protect those small carriers and provisions of law that protect shippers in the household goods marketplace. [[Page H 12260]] But I do want to come back to the point that disturbs me so greatly, and that is the failure to preserve the safety net that railworkers now have when they lose their jobs due to mergers or line sales. We had labor protective provisions in airline deregulation, and my colleagues know that in the first 5 years after airline deregulation, 1978 to 1983, there were 22 new entrants into the airline business. But within 8 years those 22 new entrants were swallowed up; there are only 5 left, and there is only 1 left today. But not once were the labor protective provisions for airline workers imposed, not once. Just last night, as I was on my way back to Washington, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, I was stopped by a Northwest Airline employee, a baggage handler. He had been an Eastern Airlines employee, and there was anger in his voice, anger in his eyes, over the deregulation, and he talked about this bill that we are taking up today, and he said, ``Don't let happen to rail workers what happened to us. We never got any protection. We lost our jobs.'' This merger swept people away and made huge profits for the big corporate owners, and the little guy got crushed, and that voice still rings in my mind today, my heart today, and I do not want to see that happen, and I urge my colleagues' support for the Whitfield amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], who has played a very important role in the shaping of this legislation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], a gentleman who has been an indefatigable advocate for working men and women, especially the organized labor movement.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, who has contributed so much to the shaping of the legislation that we bring to the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman on the time that he has spent and the effort he has made and the original ideas contributed to the splendid piece of legislation before us.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former chairman for yielding me time. It is good to see the gentleman back here. I am so happy to see the gentleman looking so well and so fit back in this Chamber, where we need you. I take this time simply to say that I appreciate the Committee on Rules granting an open rule as we requested, so that we can have full and open debate, 1 hour of general debate and then open debate on any amendments that may be offered. There will be relatively few amendments. One will be of very great significance, and we will dispose of that issue at the time that it is offered. I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic side that I would hope the rule will pass without a recorded vote, and that we can get quickly to the business at hand under the ICC legislation. So I urge voice vote support of this very fair and appropriate open rule.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment on this side, too.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. [[Page H 12254]] I want to compliment our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the Chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], Chair of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, and, on our side, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], who spent so much of his time as previous ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads helping to shape this legislation. This is an item long in the coming, an issue whose incubation period has been years, not days or weeks; but the actual shape of the bill itself has come very recently, after very long negotiations and discussions. Mr. Chairman, it is important legislation that will ensure continuation of very important, one could even say critical, safety and economic regulation of trucks and rails when the ICC, by action of the Committee on Appropriations, closes its doors in December. Like the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], I support this bill, mostly. I want to say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, we have worked very close, very hard. We spent a lot of time in frank, free, and open discussions trying to come to a resolution. We have reached agreement on most issues, but there is one of overriding significance, for me and I think for many on our side, that keeps us from coming to closure on the bill as a whole. Apart from the question of labor protective provisions, this has been a bipartisan bill; and I really appreciate the cooperation we have had on the Republican side, working with our Democratic minority Members to craft a bill that responds to important policy considerations. The bill, unfortunately, does take away severance pay benefits, which the law now provides for workers when they lose their job because of rail mergers or sale of rail lines. It also gives the ICC's successor the power to terminate severance pay and other job protections in collective bargaining agreements which employees and rail companies have freely negotiated. Mr. Chairman, my father was a founder of the steelworkers union in the iron ore mining country in northern Minnesota. He taught me from my very youth that an individual needed to respect family, faith, and the union contract. Ten years ago, when he died, he was buried with his steelworkers' contract in his hand. No legislative body should ever take that way from anybody, and I will not support any legislation that operates to that objective, ever. Now, there is a lot in this bill that we can and do support, and there will be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] which I urge all Members on our side to support, and I hope a good number of free-thinking, open-minded, thinking Members on the Republican side will support as well. If that happens and that amendment passes, then this is a bill we can support on our side and will support. But if it fails, should the Whitfield amendment not pass, Mr. Chairman, then it is a bill that we cannot support and must oppose. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of Representatives considered a number of bills under suspension of the rules, and I missed two recorded votes. During the consideration of legislation in the House, I was in California to attend the formal introduction of the International Institute for Surface Transportation Studies, an initiative that was created by Congress as part of the Intermodel Surface Transportation Infrastructure Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240). Had I had been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Archer motion to postpone the vote to override the President's veto on the debt limit legislation, rollcall vote No. 788, and I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 657, legislation to extend the Federal Power Act deadline for construction of three hydroelectric projects in Arkansas, rollcall vote No. 789.