enforcement action is, of course, involved in the case of a bona fide lease. The obvious shams, however, are the subject of criminal prosecution. While there are a number of vehicle arrangements which the Commission believes to be illegal for-hire carriage by the vehicle owner, it is doubtful that a criminal conviction could be secured because of the necessity of showing knowledge and willfulness and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, in a criminal proceeding there can be no appeal from an acquittal. Such cases are now handled in the civil courts, but an injunction against such operations in the future is all that can be secured. The possibility of a civil injunction action, where there is no pecuniary penalty or criminal stigma involved, has very little effect as a deterrent to would-be violators. A civil forfeiture action, such as that proposed, carrying with it substantial monetary penalties should, on the other hand, have a strong deterrent effect against questionable leasing arrangements. Operations sometimes referred to as "buy and sell" operations are very similiar in effect. By allegedly purchasing merchandise the transporter represents the operation to be private carriage. As in the case of leasing arrangements these operations have many variations, some of which present close questions as to whether the operation constitutes for-hire carriage. Some are obviously illegal for-hire operations and are handled as criminal cases. Others, however, are not so clearly unwalful as to warrant criminal action for the reasons stated above in connection with questionable leasing arrangements, but which, in the Commission's views, are nevertheless unlawful. Such operations may be continued for substantial periods during the pendency of a civil injunction proceeding and before a cease and desist order is issued by the court. If the proposed amendment were enacted a number of these cases could be made the subject of a civil forfeiture action in which, if successful, the operator would suffer a money judgment or forfeiture. Enactment of the proposed legislation would also greatly facilitate the Commission's enforcement activities in the important area of motor carrier safety. Although a very high percentage of cases involving violations of the Commisson's safety regulations are disposed of by pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, investigations looking toward such prosecutions are nevertheless extremely time consuming because of the necessity of proving to the court every element of the alleged criminal offense. Since the quantum of proof required in a civil forfeiture proceeding is not as great as that required in a criminal action, a substantial amount of the time that must now be spent in preparing for criminal prosecutions in such cases could be devoted to handling a larger number of civil forfeiture proceedings. The Commission's efforts at more effective and expeditious enforcement would also be greatly enhanced if it were authorized to institute forfeiture proceedings directly in the courts instead of proceeding through the Department of Justice as it is now required to do. Delays would be avoided not only by eliminating the mechanics involved in taking the extra step, but also by the elimination of such delays as may be caused by the time consumed in convincing the U.S. attorney that an action should be field. These proposed amendments, coupled with a substantial increase in the amount of the forfeitures prescribed, would strengthen the Commission's hand considerably in dealing with some of the principal factors contributing to the decline of regulated common carriers. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have your letter of April 19, 1965, asking for our comments on S. 1727. S. 1727 contains (1) provisions designed to afford the Interstate Commerce Commission additional authority and power to reduce illegal carriage, and (2) provisions for the recovery of reparations from motor carriers and freight forwarders. The provisions to aid in combating illegal transportation would not, if enacted, materially affect the functions and operations of our office. Since they seem to be in the public interest, we have no objection to their receiving favorable consideration by your committee. Several of these provisions have already been proposed in substantially similar form: for example, the proposal to increase civil penalties (sec. 3 of S. 1727) was made in S. 1733, introduced on April 6, 1965. S. 1733 differs in the dollar amount of the penalties; it would increase the penalties prescribed in subsection 222(h) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 322(h), only to $200 for each offense and $100 for each additional day that the violation continued, as against $500 and $250, respectively, in the present bill. In our letter of April 19, 1965, B-120670, we reported favorably on S. 1733. The first part of section 4 of S. 1727, which would amend section 222 (b) of the act, 49 U.S.C. 322(b), relating to service of process and enforcement against motor carrier violators and persons acting in concert with them, is similar to S. 1728, as to which we said we had no objections in our letter dated April 19, 1965, B-120670. The provisions in S. 1727 concerning motor carrier and freight forwarder reparations are of particular interest to us. Since the Supreme Court in T.I.M.E. Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 469 (1959), invalidated the procedure for obtaining such reparations, upon a determination of unreasonableness by the InterState Commerce Commission in a proceeding ancillary to a court action for their recovery, we have consistently recommended amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act to give shippers the same rights against motor common carriers and freight forwarders which the act affords against rail carriers subject to part I. We note that the provisions in S. 1727 are considerably abbreviated as compared to those in S. 1732, a bill which proposes detailed and specific provisions to permit the recovery of damages for violations of parts II and IV; S. 1727 defines "reparations" and authorizes recovery of such reparations rather than "damages" for violations, as in related sections of the Interstate Commerce Act covering rail and water carriers. Our support for S. 1732 is reflected in our letter to you on April 22, 1965, B-120670. While the more detailed provisions contained in S. 1732 are like those which have been in effect for many years in the case of railroads and thus are subject to established legal principles, the method for obtaining reparations indicated in S. 1727 is not objectionable, since in effect it reinstates the practice prevailing before the above T.I.M.E. case. We suggest that the procedure to be thus afforded does not seem as economical or expeditious as that proposed in S. 1732, but if S. 1732 is not to be enacted, we feel that passage of S. 1727, insofar as the reparations provisions are concerned, would represent a significant achievement in giving shippers a basis for needed relief and in equalizing remedies against the several types of interstate carriers for the recovery of unreasonable or otherwise unlawful charges. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer to your letter dated April 19, 1965, requesting the views of the Department of State on S. 1727, a bill to provide for strengthening and improving the national transportation system, and for other purposes. The specific provisions of the bill are matters within the competence of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Department defers to its views on such provisions. The Department, however, perceives no objection to the proposed legislation from a foreign policy standpoint. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II, (For the Secretary of State). Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer to your letter of February 18, 1965, in which you request our comments on S. 1142. This bill was introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission to implement legislative recommendation No. 1 set forth in its 78th annual report, page 60. The proposal would amend sections 20a and 214 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 20a and 314, to exempt from regulation by the Commission securities issued by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, or other governmental bodies which acquire the status of carriers subject to regulation under parts I and II of the act. S. 1142 would not affect the functions and operations of the General Accounting Office, nor do we have any special knowledge of the need for this proposed legislation. If enacted, the bill would not seem to be productive of any adverse effect on the interests of the United States as a user of transportation services and we, therefore, have no objection to its favorable consideration by your committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning S. 1142, a bill to amend sections 20a and 214 of the Interstate Commerce Act. This bill would amend the Interstate Commerce Act to exempt the Federal Government and the District of Columbia government and their instrumentalities, States and their political subdivisions, and municipal corporations from ICC regulation with regard to the issuance of securities or the assumption of liabilities or obligations. Local governments and authorities have already entered the transportation field and would appear to be carriers under the provisions of the act. It does not seem necessary for the provisions of the act regulating the financing activities of carriers to be applied to governmental units issuing securities to finance their transportation activities. It would appear desirable therefore explicitly to exempt these governmental financial activities from ICC regulation. This Department supports enactment of S. 1142. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, ROBERT E. GILES. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting our comments on S. 1143, which would authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to revoke, amend, or suspend water carrier operating certificates or permits issued under part III of the Interstate Commerce Act. This bill would implement legislative recommendation No. 4, shown on page 62 of the 78th Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission submitted to the Congress on December 31, 1964. Comparable authority is provided in respect to certificates or permits granted to motor carriers and freight forwarders subject to regulation under parts II and IV, respectively, of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended. See 49 U.S.C. 312(a) and 49 U.S.C. 1010 (f). We know of no reasons why similar authority should be denied the Commission in connecction with its effective regulation of the water carriers covered by part III of the same act. The enactment of S. 1143 would not affect the functions and operations of our Office, nor would it adversely affect the interests of the United States as a user of transportation. Accordingly, we have no objection to favorable consideration of S. 1143. JOSEPH CAMPBELL, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning S. 1143, a bill to amend part III of the Interstate Commerce Act to authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to revoke, amend, or suspend water carrier certificates or permits under certain conditions. This bill would amend part III of the Interstate Commerce Act by adding authority for the Interstate Commerce Commission to amend or withdraw dormant certificates and permits for carriage by water. The process could be instituted by the holder of the operating authority, or upon complaint or by the ICC on its own initiative following reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing. The Commission can make new grants of authority in the areas covered by presently dormant water-carriage rights. However, the possibility of reviving these dormant rights at any time poses a potential economic threat to this who might otherwise initiate improved service in the areas involved. For these reasons, this Department endorses S. 1143. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, ROBERT E. GILES. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter dated February 18, 1965, you requested our comments on S. 1144. The stated purpose of this measure is to repeal the Medals of Honor Act applicable to outstanding acts of heroism involving railroads and motor carriers. We have no special information that would assist the committee in its consideration of this measure and therefore offer no comments with regard thereto. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., May 4, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Department of Commerce concerning S. 1144, a bill to repeal the Medals of Honor Act applicable to outstanding acts of heroism involving railroads and motor carriers. The repeal of the Medals of Honor Act (49 U.S.C. 120–1203) appears justified, since it no longer fills a unique need. The saving in Interstate Commerce Commission resources appears to outweigh the value of the honor bestowed. Since the bill would increase ICC efficiency without detriment to the transportation field, this Department supports the passage of S. 1144. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAN B. LEWIS (For Robert E. Giles). COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of February 18, 1965, requesting our comments on S. 1145, which would implement legislative recommendation No. 7 shown on page 64 of the 78th Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission submitted to the Congress on December 31, 1964. The enactment of S. 1145 would not affect the functions and operations of our Office, nor would it adversely affect the interests of the United States as a user of transportation. It apparently would relieve the Interstate Commerce Commission and the carriers of relatively unproductive proceedings which require the expenditure of time and funds which could be used to the better advantage of all concerned. Accordingly, we have no objection to the favorable consideration of S. 1145. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C., April 21, 1965. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning S. 1145, a bill to amend section 1(22) of the Interstate Commerce Act so as expressly to include within the exemption provided therein, the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, and joint ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, and terminals incidental thereto, and for other purposes. The subject bill would extend exemptions from Interstate Commerce Commission regulation under section 1(22) of the Interstate Commerce Act to include the acquisition, operation, abandonment, and joint ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switching or side tracks, and terminals incidental thereto, or of street, suburban or interurban electric railways, which are not operated as a part or parts of a general railroad system of transportation. Another section of the bill would amend section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the act, which authorizes the Commission to approve the acquisition by a railroad of trackage rights over or joint ownership in or joint use of railroad lines owned or operated by another railroad so as, consistent with the changes proposed in section 1(22), not to require approval for the acquisition of trackage rights over, joint ownership in, or joint use of, spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, and terminals incidental thereto, or of street, suburban, or interurban electric railways, which are not operated as a part or parts of the general railway system of transportation. It appears that the proposed bill is in the direction of less regulation with more initiative on the part of carriers to adjust their operations. The Department favors enactment of this bill. |