Opinion ID: 403665
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Redrafting of Section 203

Text: 25 As further support for their respective interpretations of section 203, the parties turn to the history of its revision in committee. The original version of S. 1946, the bill that became the Staggers Act, described the inflationary cost index as an Index of Railroad Material Prices and Wages. See S. 1946, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. § 103 (1980). This description clearly pointed towards an input index, if not the AAR index itself. 19 Following hearings on S. 1946, during which shippers advocated adoption of an output index, the bill was redrafted to refer to the inflationary cost index as an Index of Railroad Costs (with) appropriate adjustments to reflect the quality and mix of material and labor. 20 In arguments paralleling their analysis of the plain meaning of section 203, petitioners, the Commission, and the railroads, seek to draw from this redrafting of section 203 (section 103 of S. 1946) unequivocal support for their conceptions of the proper index. Petitioners argue that the committee redrafted section 203 in response to the concerns of shippers, and therefore intended to reject input indices. The Commission and the railroads argue that the committee redrafted section 203 only to provide a more general description of an input index; they reason that since the committee failed to draft in any specifically output-related concepts, its actions should be read as a rejection of output indices. Frankly, we find it difficult to agree with either of these rigid theories of what the Senate Committee revisions meant. What little can be discerned from the redrafting of section 203 indicates to us only that the committee sought to replace specific language pointing towards an input index with a more general mandate to the Commission to select an index with appropriate adjustments. Whether adjustments serving to convert an input index into an output index are authorized or required must therefore depend largely on whether they serve the underlying purposes of the statutorily mandated index. 26 Section 203 attracted considerable attention during hearings on S. 1946. Numerous witnesses appearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation argued that language describing an input index was inappropriate if the purpose of indexing base rates was simply to neutralize the effect of cost increases on railroad profits. These witnesses explained that the bill's formula was not flexible enough to recognize that certain carriers may come up with innovation, that change in volume, that change in traffic mix should be considered in the automatic adjustment. See 1 Railroad Transportation Policy Act of 1979: Hearings on S. 1946 Before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the United States Senate, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 395 (Senate Hearings) (statement of Edwin Wheeler). 27 These criticisms were repeated throughout the Senate hearings, 21 with one witness proposing that section 203 be redrafted to specifically require that (the) rail cost adjustment factor ... be adjusted to reflect changes in the productivity of labor, and changes in the volume and mix of traffic. See id. at 399 (statement of Edwin Wheeler). Finally, on the last day of the hearings, Senator Cannon discussed changes in the language of section 203 with Edmund B. Frost, vice-president and general counsel of CMA: 28 Senator Cannon: With regard to section (203), you note that the formula set forth in S.1946 doesn't specifically require consideration of such factors as changes in traffic volume and labor productivity, although it does call for commission compilation or verification of any index. 29 Several witnesses have suggested that in compiling the index, specific consideration be given to changes in volume, productivity, and traffic mix. 30 I assume language along those lines, if adopted, would satisfy your concerns on that point. 31 Mr. Frost. I think it might very well satisfy my concerns. 32 As redrafted by the committee, however, section 203 did not specifically require consideration of such factors as changes in traffic volume and labor productivity. Instead, it provided the Commission with a general mandate to make appropriate adjustments to reflect the quality and mix of material and labor. This language was modified once more in conference to require appropriate adjustments to reflect the composition of costs, including the quality and mix of material and labor. 22 Neither change in the language of section 203 was explained in the accompanying committee reports. 23 33 Courts must exercise caution before drawing inferences regarding legislative intent from changes made in committee without explanation. See Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 331 U.S. 40, 61, 67 S.Ct. 982, 992, 91 L.Ed. 1328 (1947). Although a succession of draft bills may point toward a clear legislative purpose, see J. Hurst, Dealing With Statutes 42-43 (1982), amendments to a bill's language are frequently latent with ambiguity: they may either evidence a substantive change in legislative design or simply a better means for expressing a provision in the original bill. See C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 48.18 (1973). 34 In this case, the legislative record supports an inference that the committee redrafted section 203 in response to the shippers' testimony, but it collapses as a foundation for understanding how the committee chose to resolve the conceptual and methodological problems of cost indexing. It is possible that the committee sought to accommodate the shippers' concerns, viewing language on the quality and mix of labor and materials as a general formulation of the kind of adjustments needed to make an input index accurately reflect costs per unit of output. Alternatively, the committee may have sought to reaffirm the approach of the original bill, requiring only those refining adjustments that fit easily within an input methodology. Neither the committee's rejection of the bill's original language, nor its rejection of the shippers' proposed amendment provides a reliable basis for choosing between these two readings. We must therefore search for such guidance in an examination of the purposes and placement of section 203 in the overall statutory scheme. 35