The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD SHOULD NOT ACT ON AGREEMENTS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1919 on Oct. 6, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD SHOULD NOT ACT ON AGREEMENTS
______
HON. NICK J. RAHALL II
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 6, 1998
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the Surface Transportation Board was established within the Department of Transportation as a result of Congressional action to terminate the Interstate Commerce Commission. The STB is an adjudicatory body with jurisdiction over certain surface transportation economic regulatory matters which were formally under ICC jurisdiction. The Board consists of three members and herein lies the crux of the problem. Today it consists of two members. By the end of the year, it will consist of only one member.
This is not a situation the Congress envisioned when establishing the STB and enacting provisions such as those found under section 13703 of Title 49 of the United States Code. And I state this as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation which had a major role in drafting the ICC Termination Act of 1995.
The provisions of section 13703 relate to the grant of antitrust immunity for certain collective activities pertaining to the motor carrier industry. In enacting the 1995 Act, and specifically section 13703 of Title 49, Congress retained immunity for classification making, the collective establishment of through routes and joint rates, rates for the transportation of household goods, general rate adjustments, rules and divisions. These activities have historically had antitrust immunity as being in the public interest and Congress had the good sense not to change that arrangement.
However, the 1995 Act contained a caveat. While immunity would be retained for an initial three year-period, which expires December 1998, the Act requires that the Board continue the immunity beyond the three-
year period unless it finds that renewal is not in the public interest. In other words, unless the Board affirmatively determines that there is some public interest basis for not continuing the immunity which Congress provided for in the statute, the immunity is to be renewed beyond the initial three year period.
It is now being left up to a single Board member to make these determinations. In this regard, there is some question as to whether or not the board, when comprised of a single member, even has the authority to make any determinations of this nature. Apparently, the matter is not well settled. But in any event, any action taken by a STB comprised of a single member will be the subject of controversy if not litigation.
As such, I would advise the STB not to take any actions on matters which fall within the purview of section 13703(c) of Title 49 while it lacks a quorum of its statutorily designated membership. Indeed, the clear intent of Congress in enacting the 1995 Act was for the grants of antitrust immunity to continue.
We knew then, as we know now, that the efficient operation of the motor carrier industry, and its ability to serve both shippers and consumers alike, depends on the continuation of commodity classifications. Clearly, motor carriers could not, and would not, meet collectively without immunity and it is a fact that no system other than the National Classification Committee Agreement provides for the grouping of products with comparable characteristics, or the separation of products that are dissimilar, for transportation purposes.
And we knew then, as we know now, that the motor carrier industry remains extremely competitive using the collective ratemaking process authorized by the immunity to provide procompetitive services to shippers. These principally regional motor carriers, by benefit of the immunity, have been able to establish together rates and routes for essentially multi-regional services, and these services compete with the single line services of the large carriers. In this way, these carriers, who compete with each other for regional and inter-regional freight, effectively join together to offer shippers competitive, and often times more cost effective, services. That these carriers are continuing to provide shippers with these services in a market of extreme competition is testimony to the positive competitive effect of the immunity.
I would note that the household goods industry as we know it also depends on the antitrust immunity provided by law.
For these reasons, I believe the public interest is best served by the continuation of the agreements in existence today, and that the public would be ill-served by an STB, comprised of a single member, taking any actions which would jeopardize the efficiencies embodied by the status quo.
____________________
