let me just say this is being painted as a union vote, and it seems incredible to me that it could be cast in those terms. It is simply correcting a technical error that was made when the ICC Regulation Termination Act was passed. Someone having firsthand knowledge of this, actually having facts in this case, will understand that while Federal Express was under the Railway Labor Act, that in fact its pilots did unionize. So I am not sure I understand the facts that this is an antiunion vote. I might also cite the national statistics on this, that folks under the National Labor Relations Act in the private sector are unionized about 11 percent, whereas under the Railway Labor Act they are unionized 65 to 70 percent. So, again, I fail to see how this could possibly be, under any circumstances, an antiunion or a union vote. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing to correct this mistake and give the relief sought.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing misconceptions about a vote related to the ICC Regulation Termination Act.
Share
More from Ed Bryant
Of course, there has been a number of prosecutors, people involved in the legal system, but I would suspect both Jack and Linda have seen demands from their constituents, as I did, that we ought to make some changes here in our judicial…
Mr. Chairman, I might also say for noncapital cases, for people who are appointed in Federal court to represent people who go to jail for life sentences, it might not be capital cases, but who go to jail for 20 or 30 years of their life…
In this body we are talking about following what the courts are already beginning to do as the pendulum swings back toward a fair balance in protecting not only, again, not only the criminals' rights, but the victims' rights.
Generally under the law that we passed today, if it is a State appeal, a State conviction they are appealing from, they have 1 year in which to file their habeas corpus petition. If it is a Federal appeal in which they are applying for…





