« PreviousContinue »
There is a bill in the Judiciary Subcommittee at the present time. This would embody the principles and objectives that the late Mr. Kefauver fought for which I think were substantial and equitable. How long it would take to get this project underway, I do not think anyone could tell you that.
Industry has already suggested certain names as directors of the corporation, in both the financial and industrial areas. They have no connection with the SST right now. People like Mr. Donald Douglas, Sr., chairman of the Douglas Aircraft Co., his name has been suggested; also Bill Littlewood, former vice president of American Airlines, and in our estimation the finest engineer in the country, aviation engineer; and Mr. James Mitchell, who is a vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank.
Probably those three men, if they could be importuned to take on this task, could get this coi-poration on the road within 6 months. I say certainly it would be a shorter period of time than the 18 months now contemplated.
We are not mad at anyone. Our staff paper says we are trying to lie helpful to the Congress find the President, and that is what we mean.
What I can envisage here as an equitable situation would be for the Congress to cut the $140 million down for the next 4 or 5 or 6 months and in the interim conduct a study and get this thing on the road in another committee, so that in time they could join forces. I would say to you that in 6 months this could be accomplished.
Mr. Shipley. I disagree with you. It would take a session of Congress to have the legislative committee have hearings on this and get legislation enacted.
Mr. Jon As. Off the record.
(Off the record.)
Mr. Evins. The committee appreciates Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Cole presenting these facts. They will be given every consideration.
Mr. Cole. I would like to make one point that I do not think has I>een given much consideration:
This plan, while it may involve some slight delay, avoids the necessity of using public funds, and that to me should be a very, very persuasive factor for consideration.
If the plan does not sell the SST, and at the same time (he SST can be accomplished without, using public funds, it seems that direction would indicate that should be followed.
Mr. Giaimo. We may agree with you.
Mr. Evixs. The matter of the long-range financing is not a closed proposition. We will give further consideration to the matter. We thank you gentlemen for coining in. Mr. Whitehead. Thank you very much.
Tuesday, September 7, 1965.
JOHN W. BUSH, ACTING CHAIRMAN
JOHN A NOLIN, CHIEF, SECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Stenographic Reporting Services
Mr. Evins. The committee will come to order. Next is a supplemental estimate in House Document No. 278 for stenographic reporting services for the Interstate Commerce Commission. Mr. John W. Bush is the Acting Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we shall place in the record your justification statement.
(The statement referred to follows:)
Justification Of The Need Foe Supplemental Appropriation Foe The Fiscal
The purpose of this supplemental appropriation is to provide funds to finance a stenographic reporting services contract for fiscal year 1966, at a cost of $185,000.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REPORTING SERVICES CONTRACT
Under a stenographic reporting services contract which is awarded annually by the Commission, the contractor is required to make a record of all appearance* and a verbatim official record of the proceedings in all hearings before the Commissioners or persons designated by the Commission to take testimony, at Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the 48 contiguous States. The original and one copy of the transcript of record in each hearing is furnished to the Commission, and copies are available for sale to parties in the proceedings and to others.
During the past 6 years, the Commission has experienced serious difficulty obtaining responsive bids for its rei>orting services contract. Only one responsive bid was received each year during the period, fiscal year 1960 to 1064. For fiscal year 1965, the Commission received no bids responsive to Commission requirements. A thorough survey of available reiiorting services was made on a nationwide basis and all alternative courses of action were carefully considered without success in securing even one responsive bid. Since it was essential that a contract be in effect by July 1, 1964, negotiations were held with the only competent firm indicating a willingness to enter into such negotiations. These negotiations resulted in a contract which provided free copies to the Commission. However, because of the relatively high price i>er page of transcript to others there have been numerous complaints registered from State governmental and other parties to the proceedings, and from public sources interested in obtaining transcripts of hearings.
From 1956 to 1965, the Commission has been receiving its copies of the official transcript free of charge. The contractor has received his compensation by sales of the official transcript to others. These latter sales have been steadily decreasing in volume due to the increasing availability of new types of inexpensive copying machines. Many purchasers have reduced their purchases to one copy, and have made additional copies on these machines, thus resulting in fewer sales by the contractor. The Commission has taken a number of steps to discourage this practice. On June 11. 1964, the Commission issued a statement of policy which declared such practice in violation of the Commission policy. In addition, a statement is required to be made by all hearing examiners at the start and conclusion of hearings to the effect that it is the policy of the Commission to discourage copying of transcripts and that copies must be purchased only from the official reporter. A similar statement is included by the official reiwrter on the order form used by participants in ordering copies of transcript.
This i>olicy seems to have arrested the downward trend of sales, but there is no indication that any increases in sales will result therefrom.
The invitation for bids for the fiscal year 1966 contract for reporting services was issued on February 1. 1965. In recognition of the failure to obtain responsive bids in fiscal year 1965, and the opinion of the National Reporting Council and interested bidders that the existing level of sales is not high enough to make it profitable for a contractor to bid without the Commission imying for its transcript, this invitation contained a provision for the bidding of a price per page to the Commission. There was also a provision permitting a different bid rate per page for the hearings conducted in Washington and the hearings conducted in the field. The successful company was also to be given addressed postage and fees paid envelopes and labels for mailing of official transcripts, exhibits, etc., to the Commission.
Bids were opened on March 8, 1965. The low bidder was the CSA Reporting Corp. of Washington, D.C., the Commission's current contractor. Its hid provides a price to the Commission of 50 cents per page of transcript for the field hearings and no charge for those held in Washington, D.C. The following table shows for the fiscal years 196* and 1964 the number of field hearings and corresponding number of pages of transcript and those estimated for fiscal years Itttio and 1S)66:
On January 1. 1965, the Commission changed its hearings procedure in order to reduce the number of oral hearings required. The effect of this action is shown by the reduction in the number of hearings in fiscal year 1964 and 1965. However, the average number of pages of transcript per hearing has steadily increased. This is shown in column (3) of the table above. The full effect of the procedural change was realized in the first half of fiscal year 1965. From that point on the number of hearings have again increased due to the upward trend in the number of cases being filed with the Commission.
Fiscal year 1966 estimated level of transcript pages for field hearings will result in an outlay of $185,000. at the bid price of 50 cents per page.
These amounts were computed as follows:
An estimate was made of the total number of pages of transcript for fiscal year 1966 by applying three factors to the fiscal year 1964 actual figures. These were (1) the decrease in hearings due to the procedural change, (2) the increase in the average number of pages of transcript per hearing, and (3) the increase in caseload. These factors, when applied to the fiscal year 1964 actual, resulted in an estimate for fiscal year 1966 of 370,000 pages of transcript for hearings conducted outside of Washington, D.C. The CSA Reporting Service bid of 50 cents was applied to the estimate. This results In an estimate of $185,000 for fiscal year 1966 for the transcript itself.
Mr. Evixs. We note you want $185,000 because you say with all the money we gave you, you are running out of funds. Mr. Bush. That is substantially it. Mr. Evixs. AVe will be glad to hear you.
Mr. Bush. The statement pretty generally covers the basis of our problem, Mr. Chairman.
As we said in it, for the 4 years from 1960 to 1964, we were only able to obtain one bid on the reporting contract and then in 1964 we obtained none, and had to negotiate with the only available bidder there.
In 1965 we were informed ahead of time that there would be nobody interested in bidding unless they could charge something for the copies we have been getting free. I think we have been pretty fortunate over the years to have been getting this free. A good many of the Government units and agencies did not.
Mr. Evixs. Do you mean there is less interest in the work and the hearings and the decisions of the ICC? They are not selling enough copies to justify them giving you a free copy?