GENERAL50043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S 1614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE By Mr. DsCONCINI (for himself me and Mr. Slaarsoa ): free S. X13. A biLL to amend the Clayton and Act regarding damage liability and the coverage: to the Committee on the Ju- esce dtciary. but ' CUYTOa aCI ,W61[D1reZa7 Mr. DsCONCINI. Mr. President, Today I am Introducln6 a bill titled the Clayton Act Amendments of 1967. In principle, it Ss very similar to the Rai]- road Antimonopoly Act that I spon- sored In the last Congress. This bill Is short, simple, and direct. It consists of only two sentences. The ~ilrst sentence Dermlts private damage suits against railroads under section 1 of the Clayton Act. This part of the ` bill repeals the Keogh doctrine, which for many years has Drohihited such suits. The second sentence amends sec- tion 18 of the Clayton Act to permit private suits for InJunctive relief against railroads. I want do make clear at the outset that this bill Is not designed to punish railroads, or to single [hem out for special treatment. Its sole purpose Is to make sure that the same rules which apply to other Industries apply to railroads as well. By putting rail- roads on the same footing as other in- dustries, this legislation will ensure that freight rates are set through (air competition, and not Dy unilateral de- mands. Right now, the railroad Industry en)o>•s a unique position. As a result of the Staggers Rail Act of 1960, the per- vasive regulation that marked the de- velopment of rail transportation in this country Is no longer present. Yet the railroads still benefit from the spe- cial antitrust exemptions that mere part and parcel of the old regulatory framework. This situation has resulted to abu- sive and monopolistic practices on the part o[ the railroads that were well documented during the extensive hearings we held in the lazt Congress. Shippers who are largely dependent on a single rail carrier are at the February 3, 1987 rcy of that carrier. Railroads are to demand unreasonable rates, to threaten LO cut oft service to se shippers who refuse to acqui- . Captlv'e shippers have no choice to accede to the railroad's de- mands or face financial ruin. Many shippers, particularly where perish- able commodities are Involved, can 111 afford to have their roll service cut oft for even s single daY- This state of affairs must not be al- loa-ed to continue. In a largely deregu- lated setting. there are no fair argu- ments against reQUirine adherence to the antitrust lams. But after years of operating under tight regulation, rail- roads and shippers do not know the ground rules for operating !n a deregu- lated environment. The time has wme to make cleaz that the railroads are aubJect to the antitrust laws, and will be made to answer for any unlawful abuses of their market power. When similar versions of this bill were Introduced In the past, the rail- roads claimed that we were trying to reregulate them. Undoubtedly. we mill hear these charges again, but in reali- ty, this legislation does no such thing. What this bill x-111 do Is permit captive shippers to eo to court and hold the railroads accountable to the same standards as other Industries. The broad support that this legisla- tion Is receiving Indicates the magni- tude of the problem that tt addresses. The coal and forestry Industries. public utlllties, agricultural interests, and consumer groups are al] feeling the effects of the railroad's abusive practices. They are entitled to the same protection that the antitrust laws accord to other sectors of the economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text o/ the bill be printed In the RscottD. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed In the Rscoaa, as follows: S. 197 Be tt tnocled by the Srnatr and Nowe of Repnaenfatina of the United States of America in Canpnsa aaaemb[r4 That this Act may be cited as the °Clayton Ac[ Amendments o[ 1987". Sec. 2-tai Section 9o[the Clayton Act f15 U.S.C. 15) V amended by adding at the end thereof the (olloa~ine new subsection: "ldl A common carrier by roll shall not be unmans from damage under this section:'. tb) The proelso of section le of Lhe Clay- ton Act US U&.C.. IW D amended Dy Dlsert~ Ing "l other than a common carrier by ra!11" after "common carrier".