GENERAL50043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 24, 1987 • • THB CASE FOR SUPPORTING TH8 "CLAYTON ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1987" H.R.941 and S.443 This legislation -- designed to give captive rail shippers a better opportunity of dealing with monopoly railroads -- is the 100th Congress' version of last year's "Seiberling Bill" in the House, H.R.1140, and the DeConcini-Simpson Bill in the Senate, 5.447. Senators Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming again are the Senate sponsors. Representatives Mike Synar of Oklahoma, Dan Glickman of Kansas, and Henk Brown of Colorado, appeared with Senator DeConcini when the bi-partisan effort was announced in February. At the moment, there ere 25 House sponsors. H.R.941 and 5.443 are identical bills limited to making two changes in antitrust law needed because railroads are unfairly exempt from such laws against anticompetitive actions that other industries must observe. By giving private parties (shippers) the right to sue railroads under the antitrust laws, to get injunctive relief and, if the shipper successfully proves his case, to recover damages, this legislation will make it possible for captive users of railroad freight services to negotiate equitable rates. Before passage of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, railroads were pervasively regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and on this basis, Congress and the Courts provided them with exemptions from antitrust laws that apply to most other industries. They are not fully exempt; on behalf of the federal government the Department of Justice can sue for anticompetitive behavior. However, private parties (shippers and consignees) could not and cannot. The bills, if they become law, will not amend in any way the Staggers Act. If a shipper wants to challenge the reasonableness of a freight rate, the Interstate Commerce Commission (if it still exists with the Administration trying to eliminate it at the end of the current fiscal year) would still have jurisdiction. But, if a shipper or receiver (consignee), suffering economic hardship because of what is perceived to be violation of antitrust laws, the injured party can get an injunction and can be awarded damages if the case can be made. If the railroad can be convincing in court that it has not involved itself in anticompetitive practices, no damages will be awarded. Attached fact sheets provide additional information on complaints against railroads for exacting excessive freight charges and the adverse effects on coal exports, coal development in specific areas, and on consumers who have to pay excessive rates for products depending directly or indirectly on rail transportation costs. For additional information, call John Holler in Congressman Synar's office (225-2601); Tara McMahon in Senator DeConcini's office (224-8178); or Orren Beaty at Western Fuels Association (463-6580).