Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask further that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1396, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof and that H.R. 2539 be read a third time, and the Senate then immediately vote on passage of H.R. 2539.

Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. PRESSLER. I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 1396 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. PRESSLER. Finally, Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to thank some of the staff and individuals who worked so hard to make this legislation possible. They have been working for many months and deserve our thanks. First, let me thank Chris McLean of Senator Exon's staff and Clyde Hart and Carl Bentzel of the committee's minority staff. On the committee's majority staff, I want to thank Tom Hohenthaner and Mike King for their hard work in bringing us to this point. Each of these staff members demonstrated the kind of bipartisan initiative that epitomized the process and the professionalism that made the legislation possible. Finally, I wish to give the highest praise to Ann Begeman for her diligent work on this bill. She displayed great persistence and leadership and I want to especially recognize her efforts. Let me also thank Linda Morgan, chairman of the ICC, for all her guidance and expertise. Her efforts are much appreciated. I also want to thank a staff member of the ICC, Ellen Hansen, who was generously detailed to the committee by the agency and who has worked very hard, and provided the technical expertise necessary to produce legislation that provides a reasonable and orderly transition. I very much appreciate the professional work done by all these dedicated individuals. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments, agree to the request from the House for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 1396, the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995.

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen D. Hanson, a detailee from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 1396.

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I rise to begin the full Senate's consideration of S. 1396, the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by the bill's coauthor and comanager, Senator Exon. This legislation is also cosponsored by Senator Burns, Hollings, Inouye, Hutchinson, and Kassebaum. It is a bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues' bipartisan support in its swift passage. legislative history Introduced on November 3, 1995, this legislation is in direct response to the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution which assumes the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] and the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 2002, which provides no funding for the ICC effective December 31, 1995-- Public Law 104-50. It is the product of nearly a year's worth of bipartisan study, discussion, and work. S. 1396 addresses what is fast approaching an emergency situation, the imminent, congressionally mandated shutdown of the ICC, in just over a month. However, it does so in a manner that embodies a reasonable oversight structure for our Nation's surface transportation industries. The bill would eliminate scores of unnecessary regulatory provisions in a balanced manner, yet preserve necessary core regulations and allow for continued protection of shippers and the consuming public. [[Page S 17579]] This legislation would sunset two Federal agencies, the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] and the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC]. The ICC would terminate effective January 1, 1996, and the FMC would terminate 1 year later, January 1, 1997. The bill would repeal over 70 obsolete ICC regulatory functions and transfer residual functions partly to a newly established independent Intermodal Surface Transportation Board [Board] within DOT and partly to the Secretary of Transportation. When the FMC sunsets in 1997, its remaining functions would be transferred to the new Board. S. 1396 reflects a board consensus, as demonstrated by the Commerce Committee's unanimous vote reporting it during its November 9 executive session. That consensus is likewise reflected by the overwhelming 417 to 8 vote approving a similar House bill on November 14. These votes are the expression of the underlying agreement on fundamental substance that has emerged on both sides of the Hill and both sides of the aisle during the past year. Madam President, it is imperative that this bill be approved promptly if we are to authorize an orderly ICC sunset and identify which functions should be continued and by what agency or agencies, within the constraints of the funding approved. Once authorized, the timely shutdown of our Nation's oldest regulatory agency will be ensured. It is likewise imperative that the bill's careful consensus structure not be undone by ill-considered amendments. background I do want to briefly explain some of the underlying philosophy that went into the drafting of S. 1396. Throughout the process, Senator Exon and I have worked together very closely. In fact, much of this legislation initially was written by my good friend. Over the months, much compromise and cooperation have produced what I feel is a balanced bill, addressing the immediate and compelling needs driving this legislation. Our staff members and those of other committee members have collaborated throughout the process. Many long hours have been spent in joint meetings with various interest groups and constituents who have raised concerns or urged revisions to the bill. We have worked very hard to address legitimate concerns, and have made numerous changes and revisions throughout the process in an effort to address those concerns. However, as hard as we have worked to please all parties, our policy decisions ultimately were driven by the need to produce a bill which could be passed and signed into law as soon as possible. Madam President, this is historic legislation. The ICC is our oldest independent regulatory agency. Established in 1887--108 years ago--it was originally created to protect shippers from the monopoly power of the railroad industry. Throughout subsequent years, the ICC's regulatory responsibilities were broadened and strengthened, and expanded to other modes. However, in more recent years, particularly in the 1980's, a series of regulatory reform bills significantly deregulated the surface transportation industries, reducing the ICC's authority. Even with the considerable deregulation of the surface transportation industries, the ICC continues to maintain a formidable regulatory presence. The ICC determines policy through its rulemaking and adjudicative proceedings to ensure the effective administration of the Interstate Commerce Act [ICA], related statutes, and regulations. The ICC maintains jurisdiction over the rail industry, certain pipelines, barge operators, bus lines, freight forwarders, household goods movers, and approximately 60,000 for-hire motor carriers. Yet its remaining functions can and should continue to be reduced. The same could be said about every Government agency. Less Government regulation would be better. S. 1396 moves us significantly in that direction. In my view, the positive and necessary adjudicatory role of the ICC should not simply cease to exist at the end of this year. Indeed, the ICC has performed and continues to perform important functions. For example, my home State of South Dakota would today have hundreds of miles less rail service than we presently enjoy if it were not for the abandonment public interest review authority of the ICC. Indeed, rail service to many smaller communities throughout the country might not exist without the work of the ICC. As I stated when I introduced this bill, budget constraints and appropriations legislation which terminate the agency's functions at the end of this year render moot any debate over whether or not we should keep the ICC. Given the realities of the budget situation, the issue is not whether the ICC should be terminated, but how it will be dismantled. Therefore, we are tasked with determining what ICC functions can continue to be effectively performed by a successor with a very limited budget. S. 1396 provides a reasoned approach designed to ensure continued protections against industry abuse while at the same time assure the economic efficiencies of our Nation's surface transportation system can continue. Specifically, this legislation would sunset the ICC and transfer its necessary residual functions to an independent Board within the DOT. The Board would administer the residual regulations over rail carriers and pipelines and provide limited adjudicatory oversight over the motor carrier industry. The Secretary of Transportation would inherit the residual nonadjudicatory functions governing the motor carrier industry. The overall approach taken in this legislation was to limit its scope to the most efficient and simplest sunset and transfer bill, as opposed to a wholesale rewrite of transportation policy. Numerous unnecessary functions were eliminated. In transferring the essential functions that remain, some changes to these functions also had to be made due to the budget constraints which will confront the successor agency. While some also advocated a number of changes I considered to be far more regulatory in nature than I could support, I also recognize those concerns remain. For example, I am particularly concerned about the concerns of small rail shippers and operators in light of continuing industry trends toward overwhelming industry concentration. Some have urged us to reregulate the rail industry to remedy these concerns. They argue that since the Staggers Act greatly deregulated the rail industry, shippers have been faced with difficult if not impossible relief mechanisms. They point out that the potential for shipper abuse increases with industry concentration. Their argument merit our consideration. However, I am not convinced a return to a pre-Staggers approach is the answer. Even though I voted against the Staggers Act 15 years ago, I must say it has proved to be extraordinarily successful in reviving a failing rail industry. It generally has had a positive impact on shippers and industry alike. Therefore, at this point, it would be unsound policy to attempt to reregulate, without a clearer identification of the problems and reasonable belief the proposed regulations would remedy those problems. At the same time, we have attempted to address a few very critical shipper concerns in those areas in which the ICC's current administrative procedures do not enable a shipper to even bring a legitimate grievance and receive an effective remedy. For example, S. 1396 would instruct the new Board to complete the ICC's pending noncoal rate guidelines proceeding so that smaller shippers have a practical procedure available in which to bring a rate case. Some in the rail industry say this is reregulatory. I strongly disagree. If the mechanisms available under the Interstate Commerce Act are so cumbersome and cost prohibitive that a shipper cannot afford to seek a remedy--and in fact, the ICC has recognized this for the 10 years in which it has attempted to provide an alternative procedure-- isn't it our duty to direct the new Board to ensure the ICA is administered effectively? Yes, it is. summary of legislation Let me now turn to an overview of the bill's main provisions: As a general principle, S. 1396 continues the deregulation theme of the past 15 years by providing further regulatory reductions in the surface transportation industries. Overall, the bill is [[Page S 17580]] designed to repeal unnecessary regulations and authorize the transfer of residual functions to DOT. As I previously mentioned, many broader transportation policy proposals viewed by the committee to be reregulatory were not included in this bill. The committee intentionally limited the bill to matters related to sunsetting the ICC and FMC and transferring essential functions to a successor. 1. governmental efficiency and savings In response to the increasing emphasis on intermodalism and providing seamless transportation via rail, motor, and water modes in the transportation industry, the bill proposes to house the remaining Federal Government oversight of these transportation modes within a single agency with the expertise and perspective to view the transportation industry as increasingly intermodal. Consolidating remaining ICC and FMC functions within the Board accomplishes this goal. Further, by placing the Board within DOT, the Board would be relieved of separate administrative costs currently borne by both the ICC and the FMC. 2. rail transportation Beyond weeding out outdated and unnecessary provisions, the bill generally does not attempt to substantively redesign rail regulation. Rather, it would preserve the careful balance put in place by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 and the Staggers Act of 1980 that have led to a dramatic revitalization of the rail industry while protecting significant shipper and national interests. The bill would eliminate many outdated, unnecessary, and burdensome regulatory requirements and restrictions on the rail industry. These include, for example, the elimination of all regulation of rail passenger transportation, all tariff filings, tariffs for nonagricultural commodities, special provisions favoring recyclable commodities, and restrictions against carriers transporting their own commodities. S. 1396 would retain those provisions needed to preserve an efficient national rail network comprised of numerous individual carriers. These include Federal regulatory oversight of line constructions, line abandonments, line sales, leases, and trackage rights, mergers and other consolidations--under a broad public interest standard and with ongoing regulatory oversight--car supply and interchange, antitrust immunity for certain collective activities--including pooling of equipment and services--competitive access, financial assistance, feeder line development, emergency service orders, and recordation of equipment liens. The bill would also retain provisions that are necessary to protect rail shippers. These include the common carrier obligation, regulatory oversight of the reasonableness of rail practices, maximum rate regulation for captive traffic, advance notice of rate increases, and rate tariffs for agricultural commodities and fertilizer. 3. motor carrier transportation With regard to motor carrier transportation, S. 1396 would eliminate all vestiges of restrictive entry barriers, based either on a gauging of public demand or need for the service or on protecting existing carriers in a market. However, the bill would retain needed safety oversight and insurance requirements, by converting the existing ICC licensing program into a DOT-administered registration program based solely on a carrier's fitness to operate. The bill would eliminate the regulatorily created distinction between common and contract motor carriers. Such categorizations have lost their meaning, because most carriers now operate in a dual capacity. Under the bill, all motor carriers would have a common carrier obligation, but would be free to contract for individual shipments. The bill would eliminate tariffs and rate regulation for general trucking. Such regulation, introduced in the 1930's when trucking was a new and struggling industry, has outlived all usefulness. The trucking industry today is a mature, highly competitive industry in which competition disciplines rates far better than tariff filing and regulatory intervention. Only two specialized categories of trucking operations would still require tariffs and be subject to potential rate regulation. These are residential household goods movements and certain joint motor-water shipments involving Alaska, Hawaii, or U.S. territories--where the water portion of the movement is generally not as competitive and where advance notice and certainty of rates is particularly needed. S. 1396 would retain the collective activity provisions that allow trucking companies to pool and coordinate their services. It would also retain the existing useful background commercial rules for the trucking industry, involving such matters as owner-operator leasing, lumping, and cargo liability. While the Federal Government would establish the background rules applicable to trucking operations, the ICC's traditional function of informally resolving disputes in these areas would not be continued. The bill enables aggrieved parties to take such disputes directly to the courts. 4. household goods transportation The bill would retain special regulatory provisions for residential household goods movements in view of the special consumer impacts associated with them. Because the individual householder moves infrequently, usually has little market information about such moves, and generally lacks bargaining power, the householder has little self- help ability in a transaction with a large personal impact. To prevent unfair rate advantages and abuses against this least-sophisticated class of shippers, the bill would retain tariff and rate reasonableness requirements for residential household goods moves. It would prohibit carriers from circumventing fair and uniform rates for residential moves by offering contract rates when dealing directly with the householder. The bill would retain the highly successful binding- estimate provisions applicable to household goods moves. Because the ICC's informal dispute resolution services would no longer be available, the bill would require household goods carriers to offer impartial arbitration of disputes arising out of individual residential moves. This would provide an inexpensive and effective means of dealing with the typical household goods loss or damage claim, which is often so small that any litigation requirement becomes unduly expensive and burdensome. 5. intercity bus transportation The bill would remove most remaining regulatory requirements and restrictions from the intercity bus industry. The safety-oriented carrier registration and insurance requirements would be applied to the bus industry, and certain limited restrictions against subsidized carriers competing with unsubsidized carriers would be retained. Also, the bill would retain the special public-interest merger standards and advance approval procedures for the intercity bus industry. 6. transportation intermediaries S. 1396 would continue the licensing and bond requirements for transportation brokers, which are needed to protect the public from unscrupulous brokers. The bill would also apply the same requirements to all freight forwarders. Currently freight forwarders of shipments other than household goods are not required to obtain a license from the ICC, but they are required to maintain a minimum level of cargo liability insurance. The insurance requirement has been difficult to monitor and enforce without a Federal licensing requirement. By extending the registration requirement to all freight forwarders, the bill would fill an inappropriate regulatory gap. 7. pipeline transportation The bill would retain regulation of pipeline transportation insofar as it involves commodities other than oil and gas--which are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or water--which is not now regulated. Because the pipeline industry has the same monopolistic characteristics as the rail industry, such regulatory oversight must be retained to protect against abuses. 8. domestic water carriage The bill would effectively deregulate domestic water carriage in the contiguous-States markets, where there is ample competition to render such regulation unnecessary. However, the bill would retain residual authority over such water carriage for preemptive purposes, to prevent this transportation from being subjected to regulation under other laws. [[Page S 17581]] The extent of maritime regulation that would be transferred to the Board is as yet undetermined. We plan to produce intervening legislation within the next year paring back the FMC's functions before they are transferred to the Board. In fact, the bill requires the Chairman of the new Board to meet with the Chairman of the FMC to develop a plan for the orderly transition of FMC functions to the Board. The Chairman of the Board would then submit the pan to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure not later than 6 months after enactment of this bill. We expect this plan would address any changes in FMC functions that may be legislated after enactment of this bill, the effect of this transfer on Board funding requirements, personnel matters, and other matters relevant to the transfer of remaining FMC functions on January 1, 1997. 9. tow truck operations This bill also would correct a serious problem that has been an unintended consequence of legislation last year preempting State and local motor carrier regulation. Specifically, the bill would enable State and local governments to regulate the price and related conditions of nonconsensual tows by tow truck operators, so as to preclude exorbitant prices and unreasonable conditions from being imposed on unwilling parties. 10. intermodal transportation This bill would remove all existing restrictions that specifically limit or preclude intermodal ownership and intermodal operations. Moreover, by combining the remaining functions of the existing transportation regulatory bodies, the bill should further foster intermodalism. 11. transportation of foreign carriers under nafta The bill would retain the registration and insurance requirements for foreign motor carriers operating in the United States pursuant to the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The bill would transfer the ICC's existing oversight and enforcement responsibilities in this area to DOT. Madam President, I have just given a rather lengthy overview of this very detailed legislation. Obviously, the very nature of this bill-- sunsetting an agency--requires study and review of the entire Interstate Commerce Act. We have done just that over the past year. We have worked to craft a sound legislative proposal. It may not be a perfect bill. Not all parties support every single provision. However, Senator Exon and I and others have worked and compromised to address concerns throughout this entire process. The time has come to move forward. The clock is running. This authorization legislation must be enacted if we are to ensure an orderly sunset of the ICC. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam President, I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who introduced the original legislation and has worked as part of a team in getting this worked out. I thank him very much. I will say this to the Members of the Senate who have amendments or speeches on this bill. This is a piece of legislation we must pass. We are participating in the closing of a governmental agency, the ICC, and we hear all about closing agencies, and so forth. This is actually happening. We are eliminating many of its duties and putting other functions into the Department of Transportation. Some say, well, you are just taking the functions from one place and putting them into another. But they have been streamlined, and they will have the efficiencies of scale, being in the Department of Transportation. And we have worked this out in response to the budget and appropriations legislation that has been passed zeroing out the ICC. So we must act on this piece of legislation. I should like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his remarks. And let me commend him for his outstanding leadership on this bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I have a unanimous-consent request that has been cleared on both sides. It regards the committee amendments to be considered and agreed to en bloc. I send these committee amendments, which are sponsored by myself and Senator Exon, to the desk to make minor and technical changes in the bill as reported.

Mr. PRESSLER. And considered as original text.

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, it is my strongest desire or request, if Senators have amendments, that they bring them to the floor or give us notification. I would like to make a motion, if the Senator from Nebraska agrees, that this bill pass. As far as I know, on this side of the aisle, I do not believe we have been notified of any amendments, but I am ready to go. Of course, I want to preserve the rights of all Senators. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Why do you not offer it at 5 to 5?

Mr. PRESSLER. My friends will finish their dialog probably by 5 to 5, I guess.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to the Dorgan amendment at 5:15 this evening and that the time between 5 p.m. and 5:15 be divided: 5 minutes under the control of Senator Pressler; 5 minutes under the control of Senator Exon; and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. PRESSLER. Can the Senator offer her amendment at 5 to 5? Would that be OK? I am trying to get to the first vote here. I want everybody to speak as much as they wish.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. If my friends will yield for a split moment, we are trying to get a vote ordered at 5:15, and I have to make a unanimous consent request. If I can do that, then you can go back into your mode, because they are going to hotline this.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I think we very much want to accept the amendment, and the Senator from West Virginia would like a rollcall vote on it immediately following this one. I should be clearing with my partner here. But as far as I am concerned we would be delighted to either accept it or have a rollcall vote immediately following this vote, whichever the Senator prefers.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote occur immediately after the vote on the Dorgan amendment which will occur momentarily, I understand.

Mr. PRESSLER. Just to explain, the times were reserved between 5 and 5:15. Some Senators have to go on to other schedules. We now will have two rollcall votes starting almost immediately. As far as I am concerned, I would suggest we could yield 2 minutes to the Senator. The Senators who had that time were not here. It might inconvenience other Senators is my point, but as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to 2 minutes being added on at this point.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3065

Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be added as a cosponsor to S. 1396.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge any Senators who have any final amendments to come to the floor. I understand one Senator may offer an amendment, at which time I hope we can pass this bill by unanimous consent. I think we are prepared on this side of the aisle to pass this bill. But as I understand it, Senator Ashcroft may have an amendment. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.