WASHINGTON -- A strong bi-partisan vote in the House yesterday evening would assure fair treatment for transportation workers, a healthy economic outlook for freight railroads, and smaller Federal bureaucracy, according to Rep. James L. Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The key vote occurred in an amendment to the Interstate Commerce Commission Elimination Act of 1995 (H.R. 2539). The amendment, which passed with the support of all but 2 House Democrats and with the support of more than 50 Republicans, corrected a serious flaw in the legislation that would have otherwise penalized those who work for short-line railroads. The vote on the amendment was 241 to 184.

The legislation as a whole would close the Interstate Commerce Commission, which has regulated transportation systems and services for more than 100 years. Under the legislation, some of the ICC's important dispute-resolution services would be moved to an independent panel within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Before the vote on the amendment, Oberstar said to his House colleagues, "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."

"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.
PAGE H12253
Mr. Chairman,
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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
PAGE H12259
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. H 12260
PAGE H12259
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.
PAGE H12260
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. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
PAGE H12297
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Members of the committee for the hard work that they did on this very complicated piece of legislation. I think that all of us agree that the ICC has outlived its usefulness and that the transportation industry will be much better with the sunsetting of the ICC and the acquisition of the authority to regulate the remaining portions of regulation over at the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues may know, there are three classes of railroads in the United States today. Class 1 carriers have operating revenues in excess of $250 million. Class 2 carriers have operating revenues between $20 million and $250 million, and class 3 carriers have operating revenues of less than $20 million a year.
PAGE H12297
The amendment that I am offering provides certainty regarding labor protection associated with the sale or merger of short-line railroads. It will benefit railway labor and short-line operators.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment does not in any way affect labor protection in class 1 railroads. I would also like to point out that it is not our intention, and we made this very clear with legislative counsel, that we would exempt all railway labor protection in class 3 carriers. However, we do keep labor protection and we specify specifically what it should be for class 2 carriers.
In addition to that, if a railway carrier would like to establish a nonrailway subsidiary and acquire a short-line railroad, they are exempt from this bill and they go to the ICC for imposition of labor protection, as is the existing law. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the ICC has the authority today on short-line acquisitions and mergers to impose up to 6 years labor protection.
PAGE H12297
So my amendment is a very simple amendment that provides certainty. For example, if a class 3 railway acquires a line from any carrier or merges with another class 3 carrier, there is no labor protection. That is the same as is in the Chairman's bill. H 12298
If a class 2 railway acquires a line from a class 1 or another class 2, labor protection will be limited to 1 year severance pay. Under existing law, the ICC has the authority to require 6 years protection. If a class 2 railway merges with a class 3 railway, labor protection will be limited to 1 year severance.
Finally, in my amendment, a class 2 railroad and only a class 2 railroad would be prohibited from using a merger between a union and a nonunion railroad to avoid a collective bargaining agreement.
PAGE H12297
Mr. Chairman, I think that labor has come very far in supporting this amendment, because under existing law, they have the opportunity to get 6 years protection. In many instances today, and in the last few years, as we have had a lot of acquisitions of short lines, railway labor has received zero benefit.
At the same time, many class 2 carriers, and I know the association of class 2 carriers, are opposed to this amendment, but many class 2 carriers like the certainty of 1-year severance that is clear to them without any doubt.
As as I stated, this amendment removes uncertainty regarding labor protection in the case of railway acquisitions and mergers. It is a fair and equitable solution for short-line operations and railroad employees, and I would like to stress once more, it does not affect labor protection for class 1 railroads and it exempts, it is our intent to exempt, labor protection for class 3 railways
PAGE H12297
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

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.
TIME: 1800
PAGE H12305
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.
PAGE H12305
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.
PAGE H12305
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has expired.
PAGE H12305
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.
PAGE H12305
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.
PAGE H12305
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - ayes 241, noes 184, not voting 7, as follows:
(ROLL NO. 792)
AYES - 241
Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews
Baesler Baldacci Barcia
Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson
Bentsen Berman Bevill
Bilirakis Bishop Blute
Bonior Borski Boucher
Brewster Browder Brown (CA)
Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brownback
Bryant (TX) Bunn Burr
Cardin Chapman Clay
Clayton Clement Clyburn
Coleman Collins (IL) Collins (MI)
Condit Conyers Costello
Coyne Cramer Cremeans
Danner de la Garza DeFazio
DeLauro Dellums Deutsch
Diaz-Balart Dicks Dingell
Dixon Doggett Dooley
Doyle Duncan Durbin
Edwards Engel English
Eshoo Evans Everett
Farr Fattah Fazio
Fields (TX) Filner Flanagan
Foglietta Forbes Ford
Frank (MA) Franks (NJ) Frisa
Frost Furse Gejdenson
Gephardt Geren Gibbons
Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez
Gordon Green Gutierrez
Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton
Harman Hastings (FL) Hayes
Hefner Hilliard Hinchey
Hoke Holden Horn
Houghton Hoyer Jackson-Lee
Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston
Kanjorski Kaptur Kelly
Kennedy (MA) Kennedy (RI) Kennelly
Kildee King Kleczka
Klink LaFalce Lantos
LaTourette Lazio Leach
Levin Lewis (GA) Lincoln
Lipinski Lofgren Lowey
Luther Maloney Manton
Markey Martinez Martini
Mascara Matsui McCarthy
McDade McDermott McHale
McHugh McKinney McNulty
Meehan Meek Menendez
Metcalf Mfume Miller (CA)
Minge Moakley Mollohan
Moran Murtha Nadler
Neal Neumann Ney
Oberstar Obey Olver
Ortiz Orton Owens
Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN) Pickett Pomeroy
Poshard Quillen Quinn
Rahall Rangel Reed
Regula Richardson Rivers
Roemer Rogers Ros-Lehtinen
Rose Roybal-Allard Rush
Sabo Sanders Sawyer
Schiff Schroeder Schumer
Scott Serrano Sisisky
Skaggs Skelton Slaughter
Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Solomon
Spratt Stark Stenholm
Stockman Stokes Studds
Stupak Tanner Taylor (NC)
Tejeda Thompson Thornton
Thurman Torkildsen Torres
Torricelli Towns Traficant
Velazquez Vento Visclosky
Walsh Wamp Ward
Waters Watt (NC) Waxman
Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield
Williams Wilson Wise
Woolsey Wyden Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES - 184

 Allard Archer Armey
Bachus Baker (CA) Baker (LA)
Ballenger Barr Barrett (NE)
Bartlett Barton Bass
Bateman Bereuter Bilbray
Bliley Boehlert Boehner
Bonilla Bono Bryant (TN)
Bunning Burton Buyer
Calvert Camp Canady
Castle Chabot Chambliss
Chenoweth Christensen Chrysler
Clinger Coble Coburn
Collins (GA) Combest Cooley
Cox Crane Crapo
Cubin Cunningham Davis
Deal DeLay Dickey
Doolittle Dornan Dreier
Dunn Ehlers Ehrlich
Emerson Ensign Ewing
Fawell Foley Fowler
Fox Franks (CT) Frelinghuysen
Funderburk Gallegly Ganske
Gekas Gilchrest Goodlatte
Goodling Goss Graham
Greenwood Gunderson Gutknecht
Hancock Hansen Hastert
Hastings (WA) Hayworth Hefley
Heineman Herger Hilleary
Hobson Hoekstra Hostettler
Hunter Hutchinson Hyde
Inglis Istook Johnson, Sam
Jones Kasich Kim
Kingston Klug Knollenberg
Kolbe LaHood Largent
Latham Laughlin Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY) Lightfoot Linder
Livingston LoBiondo Longley
Lucas Manzullo McCollum
McCrery McInnis McIntosh
McKeon Meyers Mica
Miller (FL) Molinari Montgomery
Moorhead Morella Myers
Myrick Nethercutt Norwood
Nussle Oxley Packard
Parker Paxon Petri
Pombo Porter Portman
Pryce Radanovich Ramstad
Riggs Roberts Rohrabacher
Roth Roukema Royce
Salmon Sanford Saxton
Scarborough Schaefer Seastrand
Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw
Shays Shuster Skeen
Smith (MI) Smith (TX) Souder
Spence Stearns Stump
Talent Tate Tauzin
Taylor (MS) Thomas Thornberry
Tiahrt Upton Vucanovich
Waldholtz Walker Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL) White Wicker
Wolf Young (FL) Zeliff
Zimmer
PAGE H12306

NOT VOTING - 7

Callahan Fields (LA) Flake
Mink Tucker Volkmer
Yates

Messrs. HAYES, WAMP, CONYERS, and STENHOLM changed their vote from 'no' to 'aye.'
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. H 12312
PAGE H12311
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - ayes 417, noes 8, not voting 7, as follows: