as this is an abject abdication of its responsibility in the regulation of the interstate commerce of this country. The Commission, we respectfully submit, has given no justification, and indeed we believe it could give none, for this removal of the Federal Government from this area of interstate commerce.

In addition, the enactment of this bill would deprive thousands of railroad employees of the protection afforded by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission certainly has given no reason in justification of that deprivation. S. 1148

S. 1148 would amend section 17(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act to authorize the Commission to delegate to qualified individual employees, including transportation economists and specialists, those matters which have not involved the taking of testimony at a public hearing or the submission of evidence by opposing parties in the form of affidavits. In other words, this bill would

give to a "qualified" employee the decisionmaking authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission subject only to a review of that authority if someone objected to the decision made by the employee. If no one objected the employee's decision would become the rule of the Commission without actually having been passed upon in any significant detail by the Commission.

In 1961 the Congress gave to the Commission authority to delegate to employee boards made up of three employees of the Commission authority to pass upon particular types of cases. At the present time certain of these employee boards review the findings of hearing examiners which are based upon evidence taken at public hearings at which adversary parties appeared. Other employee boards, as aresult of the Congress 1961 legislation, presently perform the duties which the Commission would now have a single employee perform. While these employee boards theoretically consist of three employees, decisions rendered by them can and often are the work of but two of the three board members. The Commission would now have this decision process become the work of one employee. It is respectfully submitted that the Commission has shown no need to cut this important responsibility from two employees to one employee. Nor has it demonstrated the inability of the three- or two-man boards to handle the workload effectively.

We have been informed that the Commission, through its proposed amendment of section 17 (2), does not wish to give to "qualified" employees any decisionmaking authority under the Interstate Commerce Act. It is our understanding that the Commission has clearly so stated in a statement filed with this committee in explanation of its proposed bill. The Railway Labor Executives' Association has no objection to delegations of authority to employees of the Commission to pass upon such matters as whether applications are filed in accordance with Commission rules and so forth. It objects only to delegation of decisionmaking authority to such employees. Consequently, if the proposed bill is modified by amendment so as to exclude from the authority granted, any authority to render decisions on the merits of cases, the association would have no objection. However, as presently drawn the bill is much broader than its stated purpose, and as worded, the association must strenuously object to its enactment.

S. 1149

This bill would amend section 19 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate the requirement that the Commission determine the present value of the land and property held by carriers for purposes other than for use in common carrier service. The bill would also eliminate the requirement that the Commission ascertain and report the amount, value, and disposition of aids, gifts, grants, and donations and the amount and value of concessions and allowances made by carriers in consideration thereof; and make optional the requirement that the Commission keep itself informed of changes in the quantity of the property of carriers, following the completion of the original valuation of such property.

The passage of this bill would render the Interstate Commerce Commission ignorant of the real value of the property of the railroads with whom they must deal and whose operations they must regulate. If this bill had been presented in 1900 when railroads were railroads and had few large noncarrier interests, its enactment might have been rationalized. But today when the railroads are becoming land, oil, lumber, etc. giants, the introduction of such a bill is truly incredible. It is the common carrier income and common carrier governmental grants which have placed the railroads in a position to diversify their investments. Rail common carriage is vital to this country and if the day comes when

49-278-65-16

the common carriage operation is in financial jeopardy, its child-the oil, lumber, etc., wealth-should be required to see it through. Certainly the Commission should not be willing to strip itself of official knowledge of the existence of this vast wealth. To do so would be to voluntarily wish to deal with the railroad industry on a completely unreal basis.

S. 1152

S. 1152 would restrict factual testimony by ICC investigators to cases where factual evidence is not reasonably available from other sources and would prohibit the use in a damage suit of reports submitted by carriers under the Locomotive Inspection Act; ICC accident investigators' reports; and the expert opinion and testimony of investigators.

This bill, if it became law, would deprive a plaintiff of relevant, material evidence perhaps the only evidence available-which would enable him to prove a valid claim which he may have. We can see no difference between the effect of this bill and a law which would prohibit a police officer from testifying in regard to his investigation of an accident. This proposal is highly unfair to the public and to the employees of the railroads by prohibiting the use of the only evidence which may be available to them to prove their claims. S. 1153

The Railway Labor Executives' Association is opposed to the enactment of this bill, and a statement in opposition to its enactment will be submitted by Mr. Michael Fox, vice chairman of our association and president of the Railway Employees' Department, AFL-CIO.

The foregoing comments are in no sense an indication that we view these bills as unimportant. On the contrary, it is our considered view that the passage of these bills would be most harmful to the public interest. We respectfully urge against their enactment.

STATEMENT OF CARROLL P. BURKS, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

My name is Carroll P. Burks. I am president of the American Short Line Railroad Association with offices at 2000 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C., and have served in that capacity since November 1, 1964. Prior to this time, I served in various operating, supervisory, and management capacities for a number of years, and have a total experience of 35 years in the railroad operating field.

On behalf of our member lines, I appreciate the opportunity of filing this statement with the committee. It expresses our views on the 16 bills being considered, and since those views are parallel to those of the Association of American Railroads, whose representative will testify before the committee, I shall be brief.

S. 1142, S. 1243, S. 1144

This association takes no position concerning these bills.

S.1145

We agree with the Commission that application for approval of acquisition and operation of the type of trackage covered by this bill unnecessarily adds to the workload of both the Commission and the carriers. We support the enactment of S. 1145.

S. 1146, S. 1147, S. 1148

This association takes no position concerning these bills. S. 1149

We agree with the Commission that it is not in the public interest to spend large sums of money to develop information concerning valuation of property and keep such valuations reasonably current as is contemplated by present statutory requirement. We also agree that such valuation requirements are unnecessary. Since the enactment of this bill would reduce paperwork and expense for both the Commission and the railroads without depriving the Commission of essential information, we support S. 1149.

S. 1150

We favor and support that portion of S. 1150 that would render it unnecessary to obtain prior approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission for a person to hold the position of officer or director of more than one railroad when such railroads are lawfully operated under common control or management. We agree with the Interstate Commerce Commission point of view that requirement of application and process in such situations casts an unnecessary burden upon both the Commission and the carriers.

That portion of S. 1150 that would change the law so as to require prior approval of the Commission for a director, officer, or partner of any firm to hold the position of officer or director of any railroad, when any other director, officer, or partner of that firm holds such a position with another railroad not under common control or management, is not favored by this association.

We doubt that this proposed change is directed to any substantial problems, and were it adopted, extra routine and additional administrative proceedings would result. This is not shown to be for the protection of any interest, public or private. We also feel this provision would hinder our efforts to obtain the services of high-caliber personnel as officers and directors of the industry. We oppose this particular feature of S. 1150.

S. 1152

We support S. 1152 relating to the use of Interstate Commerce Commission records and testimony of Commission personnel in regard to accidents involving railroads and motor carriers. The bill is designed to provide a solution for the problem faced by the Commission in connection with litigants endeavoring to compel Commission employees who have investigated accidents to testify in damage suits, and to compel production of reports submitted by both Commission investigators and the carriers themselves. We favor enactment of S. 1152.

S. 1153

We agree with the Commission's statement that mandatory oath requirements are "* * * both burdensome and unnecessary." Ample protection against abuses is afforded by provisions of the Federal Criminal Code and various sections of the Interstate Commerce Act. Under this bill, the ICC would retain discretionary authority to require oath if need should arise. We support bill S. 1153. S. 1727

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of S. 1727 would authorize cooperative agreements between the Interstate Commerce Commission and the States for the enforcement of economic and safety laws concerning highway transportation; would encourage requirement of State registration of motor carrier ICC certificates and permits for those operating in interstate commerce; would extend civil forfeiture provisions of section 222 (h) Interstate Commerce Act to unlawful motor carrier operations; would enable the Interstate Commerce Commission to obtain service of process upon motor carriers and permit joinder of any other person participating therewith through amendment of section 222(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act; and would provide for suit in Federal courts for injunctive relief against violators of ICC requirements with regard to motor carrier operating authority.

We believe these first four sections of S. 1727 would effectively further efforts to restrain unlawful highway operations and would strengthen effective enforcement of Interstate Commerce Act motor carrier provisions. We support and favor their enactment.

While we support sections 5 and 6 of S. 1727, we do not feel they provide full equality with the railroads for shippers seeking reparation from motor carriers and freight forwarders. We have long been advocates of fair and impartial regulation applicable to all modes of transportation and believe that provisions of S. 1732, another of the bills being reviewed, would provide uniformity as to recovery of reparations for all forms of surface transportation.

S. 1728

The provisions of this bill are identical with those of section 4 of S. 1727, and we support it.

S. 1731

This association takes no position concerning this bill.

S. 1732

Inasmuch as this bill would provide uniformity of reparations regulation for all forms of surface transportation, in that it provides for such reparation proceedings to be initiated by way of complaint filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission or in the courts, we support enactment of S. 1732.

S. 1733

The Commission has stated (78th annual report, page 76), that the amendments prescribed by this bill, coupled with a substantial increase in the amount of the forfeitures prescribed, would strengthen the Commission's hand considerably in combating the spread of illegal and so-called gray area operations in obtaining compliance with their safety regulations. The railroads' interest in legislation that will bear upon unlawful motor carrier practices and operations is a paramount interest. Unlawful highway transportation is recognized as a grave threat to the preservation of a sound common carrier system. We support S. 1733.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL Fox, VICE CHAIRMAN OF RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION AND PRESIDENT OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

My name is Michael Fox. I am president of the Railway Employees' Department, AFL-CIO, and vice chairman of Railway Labor Executives' Association. I respectfully submit the following statement on behalf of both of these organizations, which combined, speak on this legislation for virtually all of railroad labor. My statement is in opposition to the enactment of S. 1153 submitted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and more particularly in opposition to section 10 thereof.

The latter section, as I understand it, would eliminate the present statutory requirement that certain reports, made by employees of carriers charged with the responsibility of inspecting locomotives, be made under oath. These reports are those relating to defects in equipment and appurtenances, which, if not detected and repaired, would endanger the lives of railroad employees and the traveling public. This bill, if enacted into law, would vest in the Interstate Commerce Commission the power and authority to determine whether such reports shall be made under oath, thus removing the present statutory mandate that such reports be so made.

As far as I have been able to determine, it is the position of the Commission that the present practice is cumbersome and unnecessary. It thus appears that, while the Commission desires to reserve to itself the power of decision, it is, for all practical purposes, committed to the abandonment of the present practice.

As I have pointed out above, the reports with which section 10 of the bill deals are those, the accuracy and integrity of which are most vital to the safety of railroad operations, not only in the prevention of injuries and loss of life among railroad employees but to the traveling public and in many instances the general public.

Several of the organizations affiliated with the Railway Employees' Department are the collective bargaining representatives of the employees who are charged with the responsibility of making the reports with which we are here concerned. We, in the department, are fully aware of the dangers inherent in the proposed legislation as are representatives of many organizations who are affiliated with the Railway Labor Executives' Association, the safety of whose members is involved.

Basically, of course, the question is whether more careful inspection and more accurate reports will result if the reports are required to be made under oath. To us the answer seems so obvious that we are unable to understand the reasoning of the Commission. If we understand its position correctly, it seems to be that the only purpose of the sworn statement is to place the inspector in fear of some penalty, and since there are other statutes under which penalties can be imposed for the filing of false reports the oath is not necessary in this case.

But we are dealing here not only with the possibility of false reports carefully made. These we would assume to be less a possibility than careless errors both in inspection and reports (unqualified employees making both inspections and reports), incomplete reports and the fixing of responsibility for any of these commissions or omissions.

It is reasonable to assume that it is only human that the reports with which we are here concerned will be more accurate if made under oath, but perhaps of

greater importance is the fact that such a procedure has and will result in more careful and thorough inspections. This is true whether that result flows from conscience or fear of penalty. This committee needs no recitation from me as to the many statutory requirements, both State or Federal, for the verification of documents under oath or the reasons for such requirements. It will suffice to say that many of the same reasons are applicable here.

In addition, there is the very important matter of fixing the responsibility for accidents resulting from improper inspection and reporting. It is one thing for an employee to sign his name to an inaccurate, incomplete, or even false report on the direction or order of his supervisor and quite another for him to do it under oath.

In section 38 of the Safety Appliance Act (49 U.S.C., sec. 38) the officers of the carriers are required to make monthly reports of accidents which result in death or injury to persons or equipment, which reports are required to be made under oath, yet it is now proposed that the reports of the defects in equipment which may have caused such accidents and might have prevented them shall be under oath only in the discretion of the Commission. Prior to 1960, while section 38 reports were also to be made under oath they were to be made under such rules and regulations as the Commission might prescribe. Significantly, this authority was withdrawn from the Commission by amendment in 1960. S. 1153 seeks to reverse that process.

It is our view that the present statutory requirements with respect to the inspection of locomotives and the reports that are filed in connection therewith already grant too much latitude to the carriers and the rules of the Commission have done nothing to close the loopholes in the present law. No qualifications for inspectors are prescribed either in the law or in the Commission's rules and the carriers are permitted to assign anyone to inspect locomotives regardless of their knowledge of the Commission's rules for testing and inspection of locomotives. Section 10 would give the carriers further leeway in their control of such inspections in a manner which, in our considered opinion, is not in the public interest or in the interest of safety.

When the undefined and unexplained burden of requiring these reports to be under oath is compared with the safety factor involved we submit that concern for safety should prevail. At its best, railroading is a hazardous business and in the absence of a clear and convincing showing that the elimination of an existing procedure, designed to promote safety, is no longer necessary, such procedure should be retained. We submit that no such showing has been made in support of the bill. On the contrary, from our knowledge of the personnel involved and the present practices on the railroads with regard to the inspection and reporting of defects on locomotives, we consider it to be absolutely essential that the law continue to require such reports to be made under oath.

On behalf of the organizations for whom I speak I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to have our views in opposition to S. 1153 included in the record.

STATEMENT OF GERALD E. FRANZEN, OF THE CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

My name is Gerald E. Franzen, 166 North Malden Avenue, La Grange, Ill. I am director of the Transportation Division of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred to as the association), 30 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Ill., 60603. Prior to my affiliation with the association in 1950, I was employed by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Minnesota and engaged in the regulatory activities affecting transportation agencies.

The Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry is an organization of individuals, firms, and corporations organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois with the object of protecting and promoting industry, trade, and the public good. As such the association represents 5,684 members, including manufacturers, distributors, shippers and receivers of freight, and carriers engaged in all modes of transportation. One of the primary objectives of the association is to foster and promote adequate, efficient, and economical transportation services by air, highway, rail, and water. The association has been active in transportation matters for many years and has followed closely the changes which have taken place in the Interstate Commerce Act since its enactment. More recently the association has participated in and