CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS TRANSMITTING TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE TIVE TO OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION LEGIS- Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce UNITED STATES WASHINGTON 1940 COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE CLARENCE F. LEA, California, Chairman ROBERTOSSER, Ohio ALFRI VIRGIL WILLIA EDWARD CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, New Jersey BULWINKLE, North Carolina JAMES WOLFENDEN, Pennsylvania APMAN, Kentucky COLE, JR., Maryland HERRON PEARSON, Tennessee LYLE H. BOREN, Oklahoma MARTIN J. KENNEDY, New York JAMES P. MCGRANERY, Pennsylvania PEHR G. HOLMES, Massachusetts OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION JANUARY 29, 1940. Hon. BURTON K. WHEELER, Chairman, Committee on Interstate Commerce, Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, United States Senate. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. GENTLEMEN: The legislative committee of the Commission has endeavored to study as thoroughly and carefully as possible the provisions of S. 2009, in the two forms in which it was enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and which are now before the conference committee for consideration. As a preliminary to this study, we had the two bills examined with similar care by each bureau of the Commission, so that we might have the benefit of their comments and criticisms on the matters with which each is particularly concerned. The result is a report which I am authorized to submit to you on behalf of the legislative committee. Sufficient copies of this report and also of this letter are being furnished, so that each member of the conference committee may be supplied, and additional copies are available if you should desire them. In this report, each section of the Senate bill is discussed seriatim, together with comments on the corresponding provisions of the House bill, and for the most part specific amendments are proposed which are classified as "Important," "Desirable," or "Debatable." Following the discussion of the Senate bill, the House bill is taken up section by section, giving in each instance references to the discussion under the Senate bill or, where there is no corresponding provision in the latter, including a separate discussion. Many of the changes which we suggest are of minor consequence, but those which we have marked "Important" we hope may receive most careful consideration, and there are many others which are of much more than minor consequence. We direct your attention especially to the discussion of the amendments with respect to— (1) Casual or occasional transportation by motor vehicle, at pages 7-8. ぎ (2) Exemption of motor-carrier operations within a single State, at pages 12-13. (3) Organization and procedure of the Commission, at pages 39-43. (4) Elimination of prohibition against short-hauling in establishment of through routes, at page 47. (5) Burden of proof with respect to suspended rates, at page 49. (6) Provision governing rate reductions. at pages 50-52. (7) Hous of service of motor-carrier employees, at pages 53-54. 1 (8) Provisions with respect to certificates and permits of motor carriers, at pages 56-58 and 58–59. (9) Protection of employees in connection with unifications, at page 67. (10) Provisions of present "fourth section," at pages 70–71. The question which the conference committee will have to determine at the outset is, of course, whether the final legislation should take the form of the Senate bill or of the House bill. Our study of these bills has inclined us to the view that probably a "codification" of the Interstate Commerce Act, such as is proposed in the Senate bill, should ultimately be enacted. It has, however, impressed us with the great difficulties of the task, if the final product is to be the best possible. We have found, as we believe, a need for many changes in the Senate bill, but we venture the guess that others who have studied this measure with a similar endeavor to be thorough have proposed various other changes which they believe to be desirable and that they are right with respect to some at least of these. The Senate bill, from the standpoint of a codification, was produced under great difficulties. It was necessarily, to a considerable extent, a forced and hurried job. Considering the circumstances, it was an excellent piece of work. Nevertheless, if sufficient time and attention can be given to the preparation of a codification, we believe that a still better product is possible. It is work which should be done with great deliberation. A preliminary report should be issued setting forth a tentative draft and the reasons for all the changes that are proposed. All concerned should then have an opportunity to submit briefs on this tentative draft, after which a final report should be issued for the consideration of the Congress. Under present conditions and for present purposes, therefore, we believe it to be better to adopt the form of the House bill, confining it to matters of principal importance. Provision can, at the same time, be made, if Congress sees fit, for the preparation of a codification, with adequate time for a thorough and deliberate job. It would be better, indeed, that such a codification should not be finally considered, until there has been an opportunity for experience in the new work of regulating water carriers. In the case of any such new legislation, experience almost always shows the need for changes, because of developments which were not, and probably could not be, foreseen in advance. If sufficient time is allowed, such changes could be included in a codification, which would be much to be preferred to amending the codified act within a short time after its adoption. In the report herewith submitted, the amendments which we recommend or suggest are, for the most part, specifically stated, but in some instances we have not put them in specific form but have stated that we are prepared to do this, if the committee so desires. We are, of course, at your command with respect to all such matters, and shall gladly furnish any aid within our power that may be wanted. We should add, further, that quite a number of the amendments which we have suggested would incorporate provisions which are not now in either bill. Whether or not the conference committee can consider such new provisions we do not know. We have included them in the event that the committee has such authority, and also as an indication of the matters which should receive consideration, if a complete codification and revision of the Interstate Commerce Act is undertaken. There are, no doubt, other such new provisions to which thought might well be given in that connection. As indicated at the beginning of this letter, the preparation of the report herewith submitted was preceded by a thorough examination of the two bills by each Bureau of the Commission. The report itself was initially drafted by the chairman of the legislative committee after a careful analysis of the memorandums from the Bureau. Changes suggested by the other members of the committee have since been made. However, the other members have not given the same intensive consideration to the amendments, and especially to the exact phraseology, as the chairman. All members of the committee have little doubt that improvements are possible. Respectfully submitted. JOSEPH B. EASTMAN, Chairman Legislative Committee. S. 2009 (In this discussion references to Senate bill are to print (dated May 29) of S. 2009 as passed by the Senate; references to the House bill are to print (dated July 26) showing Senate text in linetype and House text in italic) In this report we shall use the Senate bill as the basis, since it is more comprehensive, but shall also discuss corresponding provisions of the House bill and call attention to provisions in the Senate bill which should, in our opinion, be included in the House bill, if the final legislation is built around that. The amendments which we suggest will be designated, to indicate their relative importance, by the words "Important" or "Desirable" or "Debatable." Some of those designated as "Debatable" are of considerable importance, but we know them to be controversial and they ought not to be adopted unless all concerned have had an opportunity to be heard. The extent to which such an opportunity has been afforded, at public or executive committee sessions, you will know better than we. SECTION 1 Important. The last clause in this declaration of "national transportation policy" is: all to the end of insuring the development and preservation of a national transportation system adequate at all times to meet most economically and efficiently the full needs of the commerce of the United States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense. [Italics supplied.] This is, we think, too strong a statement, so far as the carriers with which this bill deals are concerned. In the event of war, they could hardly be expected to meet the "full needs" of the "national defense" for transportation, and many of these needs would be supplied by the military forces with their own facilities. We suggest that the words "properly adapted to the" be substituted for "adequate at all times to meet most economically and efficiently the full". This is the present wording of section 202 (a) of part II. Desirable.-(a) In line 3, page 2, the word "safe" appears. The bill, however, gives the Commission jurisdiction over matters affecting safety with respect to only the railroads (in part) and the motorcarriers. It would be better, therefore, to omit the word "safe". |