ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Senator HARTKE. Now to another area. In your report you indicated renewed emphasis has been placed on the maintenance and expansion of equal employment opportunities in all phases of the Commission's activities. To what degree have you made an effort to promote equalized employment among the regulated carriers? It has been reported to this committee that very few if any black motor carrier operators have been given authority to operate in their own names, that is, they operate as subcontractors under someone else's authority. It has been alleged it is difficult for the blacks to obtain their own authority. Do you have any comments on this?

Commissioner MURPHY. I will comment for myself on that and may speak for the Commission. I don't know that the law puts any requirement, and I don't think we have authority to inquire into what the nationality of an applicant is, whether he is white, red, or black. And I can truthfully say I have never made such an inquiry. We take the applications as they are filed, that is the only way we can handle the granting or denying of the certificate, as on the record, according to the law. So I say that any charge of that kind is misfounded insofar as I have any knowledge at the Commission. I have never in my life seen any question raised about who the applicant was, there is as to race, creed, or color. The only time you hear of it is when they, themselves, might come in and tell you who they are.

Senator HARTKE. Well, the application for a motor carrier authority is usually a rather prolonged operation, is it not, rather expensive? One of the requirements of such a case is that the person be financially in a position to sustain a long legal battle. Isn't that basically true?

Commissioner MURPHY. Not necessarily. It depends on the territory he is in and how many carriers are already serving in the territory and perhaps the type of service he is offering and the amount of support he gets from the shipper.

Mrs. BROWN. We have cases at the ICC that run the whole gamut from very, very small, not expensive, to very, very large, very expensive. And we have got cases all the way from-it doesn't have any scales of running so far without any and so many with it, it runs all

of the way.

Senator HARTKE. The suggestion has been made by some that a parallel ought to be drawn with what happens in regard to legal indigent cases, for example, in providing counsel in court cases. Has any thought been given or do you think any thought should be given to the question of whether such a proceeding should be extended to those people needing legal counsel in ICC cases?

Mrs. BROWN. Well, I have given attention to it. I have given attention to it this year in my chairmanship and I have asked the Vice Chairman to specifically look into this area again, above what the Commission has done now.

Senator HARTKE. Does the Vice Chairman have anything to say? Mr. STAFFORD. Yes. The fact is the questions you are asking appear to come from the letter that the Chairman gave me. It is just that near to being the kind of a letter she received, which she was concerned about. She wanted me to look into this. But in this particular case, and that is the only reason we know of it is that we have a letter com

plaining about the fact that we didn't offer free service, that the practitioners didn't have free lawyers to help this case out, the whole gamut of reasons why we should. The application, as I recall, apparently came to some 38 or 40 States which some trucklines work all their lives to get that much and he wants it for free apparently. But the Chairman was concerned, she felt that we should give every consideration to this young man.

I have checked out the regional directors, they have spent untold hours with this man trying to help him fill in his forms and all of this. Yet, of course, then we received complaints from him, from a lawyer who was not related with it originally.

Senator HARTKE. I don't know what letter you are talking about. I haven't seen that letter. I am not interested in looking at the letters. But let me move on to something else.

In part I of your report you mention factors which you consider have increased the Commission's workload. You do not mention some other factors which I will mention, which would indicate to me that the workload had been reduced. First, the ICC no longer has any safety duties, these have all been transferred to the Department of Transportation. Second, as Commissioner Tuggle indicated, the ICC has fewer railroads it regulates than ever before, because of the mergers. Third, ICC has fewer motor carriers, water carriers or forwarders than ever before because of mergers. Fourth, there is very little passenger service left under ICC regulation, because whatever passenger service is left is fast disappearing, and bus service is declining. We all know that water carrier and passenger service is virtually nonexistent.

Fifth, more and more goods are going by private carriers, which, is exempt from ICC regulation.

How much has the workload been reduced by these factors?

Mrs. BROWN. As Chairman I will respond with this: Even though you can say that the number of cases has reduced or the number of handlings of certain things has changed, as far as the actual work at ICC is concerned, the cases are more involved this sounds like just words maybe but if you live it, it is extremely true. In regard to mergers you speak of, in both the motor carrier field and the rail field, about the longest time it took to try a merger for a motor carrier was a year and a month. The longest time to try a merger in, as far as the trial part is concerned, in the rail side is like the Rock Island, 2 years and 3 months. But as far as a merger is concerned, the Rock Island merger, which is the biggest rail merger ever filed, is not anything like any other rail merger that you might place as a rail merger at ICC, because there isn't anything comparable to it.

You have four railroads, two each partners, seeking control of the Rock Island, with eight railroads asking affirmative relief and then those opposing. We don't have that in other railroad cases.

On the motor carrier side, the mergers have increased tremendously and when they increase they get more complicated, they are harder to handle. We haven't used two hearing examiners to hear a case but very rarely. We have got two hearing examiners hearing the Rock Island merger case by necessity. So the complexities of these, they are just entirely different cases than you can count as cases previously.

Senator HARTKE. Well, the removal of the safety duties should have reduced that workload.

Mrs. BROWN. The removal of these people, we lost 432 I think, about that many, people went to the Department of Transportation, but as far as safety is concerned, that safety may be over there, but the reporting back and it doesn't mean that all safety and concern for safety or its impact or consideration in any of our cases is all gone, because it isn't.

Senator HARTKE. Should we transfer more of it? I mean more of the authority, more of the responsibility? Should we take it back? Take it away from the Department of Transportation?

Mrs. BROWN. We came here and supported those 432 people leaving us in what we believed to be the best interests of transportation in this country.

Commissioner BURKE. Mr. Chairman, could I comment on that? Senator HARTKE. Yes, sir; Mr. Burke.

Commissioner BURKE. I note here from appendix A that the increase in the total revenues in 30 years has grown from something like 5 billion to 27 billion. The ton-miles have grown from 403 billion to 1,333 billion. And I think that the average employment in the Commission in that 30 years has dropped approximately 600 people. Perhaps they went to safety. But it seems to me that any industry which is increasing at the rate and growing at the rate this one is, that that would give you a tremendous amount of work to do that wouldn't be offset by the safety.

Another thing I think we overlook here, the Commission in its own regulatory procedures and its own regulatory discipline of the industry has helped to create the best distribution system in the history of the world. And that is what we have in this country. And I think it is due to the discipline and the procedures of regulation.

Senator HARTKE. Mr. Burke, would you say we have the best passenger train service in the world?

Commissioner BURKE. I thought you would ask that. I don't think we do; no.

Senator HARTKE. Do we have the best bus transportation system in the world?

Commissioner BURKE, I think we do; yes.
Senator HARTKE. You do?

Commissioner BURKE. Yes. The rail passenger service in other countries of the world wouldn't be any good either if it weren't subsidized by taxes. There isn't a private railroad company in the world I don't think except in this country. And I don't think there is a railroad in the world

Senator HARTKE. I am not trying to degrade our system. I am trying to find out where we are. I mean I think we have a great country, too. I am going to tell you one thing, as far as riding the train is concerned, I rode the Metroliner and compared it to the swing and sway of Sammy Kaye, I'd just as soon go on the one in Japan that doesn't swing or sway so much.

Commissioner BURKE. That might be too, in Japan they bombed out the railroads, they were all built new. They have all new railbeds. We have a new trolley car on an old track, which makes a difference.

If we spent billions of dollars rebuilding the roadbed and then put the Metroliner on it, you would ride better.

Senator HARTKE. Do you think we should do that?

Commissioner BURKE. If the people want it, they can do it, but it costs money.

Senator HARTKE. I understand that. I am asking do you think they should do it?

Commissioner BURKE. I don't know whether we should do it or not until we find out whether or not there is a need for it. I don't think there is a need for passenger service transcontinentally. I think there is a need for intercity passenger service, say 500 miles and in the corridors. But whether or not you need a train to go from New York to San Francisco, that carries nobody, I think that is not economical.

Senator HARTKE. How will we find out?
Commissioner BURKE. By studying it.
Senator HARTKE. Who will study it?

Commissioner BURKE. We have been and are still doing it.
Senator HARTKE. When can we expect a report?

Commissioner BURKE. You will have a report on the costs by the first of the month. I think we have asked the Congress to appropriate some money for a study, didn't we, Paul?

Commissioner TIERNEY. If I might interrupt, Senator, last year we recommended such a study be conducted by the Department, either by Congress or by the Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the Commission. The Department of Transportation has agreed to conduct that study. I think their first estimate was it would take a year or two and a cost of several million dollars. That is the thrust of our recommendation to Congress with respect to intercity passenger service, that we conduct this study and find out where we are.

In a sense, Senator, the essence of the report is our policy is one now which is no policy; it is 13A.

Senator HARTKE. I understand. But couldn't we put 10 trains on the Metroliner a day? They are all crowded.

Commissioner TIERNEY. They will eventually.

Senator HARTKE. When is eventually?

Commissioner TIERNEY. They are having a number of problems. I am not acquainted with all of them. But it is a case of money-is one thing and many technological problems apparently.

Senator HARTKE. Really that is the FRA anyway, right?

Commissioner TIERNEY. Well, I don't want to throw the blame. It is a difficult situation, Senator; it really is. I think one of the reasons is, for example, in passenger train service, there has been no promotional aspect of our policy for railroad passenger service. We have it in other areas and I think we are reaping the benefits of that now. That is a great contribution, that has been a great contribution to our problem really.

If I may come back, I would like to mention, as far as passenger service is concerned, and the fact that we have less work to do, our jurisdiction is limited to 13A, to train discontinuances, and in this area. we have had more work than we ever had in the last 2 years, because there have been more train discontinuances coming before the Commission. As far as private carriage is concerned, there has been an

increase in private carriage. But by the same token, regulated carriers have increased greatly and our responsibilities become more complex. Senator HARTKE. I think you are right. Let me come back to the organization of the Commission itself.

Would you be better off if you had a chairman, a permanent chairman from the membership, or at least one who served longer than a year? Some of you have served as Chairman. Who wants to volunteer? Commissioner TIERNEY. I will. I think we would be better off with a longer term for the Chairman, yes, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Would you think it would be better if you had an appointment, or selection, or how would you do it or just rotate it as you do now?

Commissioner TIERNEY. There are advantages, it is a complex question really and there are advantages and disadvantages. I think as I balance them out, myself, I think in the end it would be better to have an appointed Chairman.

Senator HARTKE. Any other comments? That is one comment.

Commissioner TIERNEY. I think there are some differences of opinion, Senator, and they are very good ones, because it is a difficult question really.

Commissioner WALRATH. Mr. Chairman, I will volunteer. I am one of those who agree a longer term for the Chairman would be very helpful. And I take no credit for this, but it just happened that as far back as 1960 I suggested it; some of us who had not served as Chairman, I think, wanted the prerogative of reaching that point, so we didn't do anything about it. But I do think that—and I would urge that we have a longer term, perhaps 2 years at least, with the privilege of reelection of that same person. But I would not agree that our Chairman should be appointed unless he were appointed by perhaps this Senate committee.

I hate to see us lose our direct relationship as an independent agency and arm of the Congress. And I think you lose a great deal if anyone outside makes the appointment.

I once suggested this to Senator Magnuson, that this committee do it and he said, "Don't ask us." But I would like to see the Commission itself elect a Chairman for a longer period of time.

Senator HARTKE. Elected?

Commissioner TIERNEY. Yes, within our Commission.

Senator HARTKE. You know really we have to get back to Commissioner Stafford; he is next in line and probably any decision which will be made, he would want to comment on it.

Mr. Bush?

Commissioner BUSH. The question was definitely up the year I was Chairman, because in the reorganization program which President Johnson sent or prepared first, I think there were three steps and one of them was to be the appointment of a permanent Chairman. Because it was so controversial and because they were so anxious to get the Department of Commerce transportation bill through, they dropped the reorganization point about the Chairman of the ICC. But at that time there was a great deal said about it. At that time I changed my mind, I think, not strongly, but I believe I did. I had heard up to that time more argument in favor of the great independence that the Com

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »