Suspend the proposed rate pending ICC DECISION AND ORDER AFTER HEARING MAX Find the proposed rate is (a) lawful for the future and allow it to become effective Find the proposed rate will be unlaw (b) ful for the future in which case the Find the proposed rate will be (c)- unlawful for the future and Fix a maximum reasonable (a) rate to be observed for the Fix a minimum reasonable -(b) rate to be observed for the Relate the rate to be observed (e) for the future to other rates by a fixed differential (d)- Fix a precise rate for the future ICC'S POWER TO SUSPEND PROPOSED RATE CONTINUED. SUSPENSION PERIOD REDUCED FROM 7 TO 3 MONTHS. PROTESTANTS REQUIRED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY SHOWING NO CHANGE, EXCEPT THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO PROTESTANT WHEN NO CHANGE NO CHANGE IN THE ICC'S AUTHORITY TO FIND A PROPOSED RATE IS UNLAWFUL. THE ICC MAY NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE AUTHORITY DELETED ICC WOULD RETAIN ITS PRESENT POWER TO FIX A MINI- ICC may on its own motion and without answer or other formal pleading enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of a proposed rate and pending such hearing and decision suspend the operation of the rate. The Advisory Commission proposes no change in this power. Committee References to memorandums Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. 78456 056-nt 1(Face n 531 No 1 RATE-MAKING PROCEDURE WHEN COMPLAINT IS FILED AGAINST EXISTING RATE CARRIERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH RATES, FARES, AND CLASSIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN CHARGES NOT LESS THAN JUST AND REASONABLE MINIMUM CHARGES NOR MORE THAN JUST AND REASONABLE MAXIMUM CHARGES NO CHANGE NO CHANGE SECTION 4 WOULD CONTINUE AS A CAUSE OF ACTION. THE PROHIBITION NO CHANGE (Burden of proof would remain, as now, with the complainant) THE ICC'S JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ASSAILED NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE THE ICC WOULD RETAIN ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY The ICC may enter upon an investigation on its own initiative. Reference to memorandum: Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. 78456 O-56-pt. 1 (Face p. 53) No. 2 Suspend the proposed rate pending ICC DECISION AND ORDER AFTER HEARING MAY Find the proposed rate is (a) lawful for the future and allow it to become effective Find the proposed rate will be unlaw (b) ful for the future in which case the Find the proposed rate will be (c)- unlawful for the future and (), (b), (c), or (d) Fix a maximum reasonable (a) rate to be observed for the Fix a minimum reasonable (b) rate to be observed for the Relate the rate to be observed (a) for the future to other rates by a fixed differential (d)- Fix a precise rate for the future ICC'S POWER TO SUSPEND PROPOSED RATE CONTINUED. SUSPENSION PERIOD REDUCED FROM 7 TO 3 MONTHS. PROTESTANTS REQUIRED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY SHOWING NO CHANGE, EXCEPT THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO PROTESTANT WHEN NO CHANGE NO CHANGE IN THE ICC'S AUTHORITY TO FIND A PROPOSED RATE IS UNLAWFUL. THE ICC MAY NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE AUTHORITY DELETED ICC WOULD RETAIN ITS PRESENT POWER TO FIX A MINI- ICC way on its own motion and without answer or other formal pleading enter upon a hearing concerning the lawfulness of a proposed rate and pending such hearing and decision suspend the operation of the rats. The Advisory Commission proposes no change in this power. References to memorandums Pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. Committee. 78456 - 56 - nt 1 (Face n 53 No 1 1 Under the committee proposals, carriers would be required, as now, to establish just and reasonable rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations applicable thereto. All rates in the first instance are initiated by the carriers and the vast majority become applicable without protest or suspension and investigation. As now, carriers could not charge any rate other than the applicable tariff rate shown for the particular traffic. This rate will always be published and its exact amount shown. 2 Section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act requires that rail and water common carriers shall obtain prior approval of the ICC before initiating a charge which is less for a longer than for a shorter distance or a charge which is greater as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates. The advisory committee proposal continues the statutory prohibiion against charging less for the longer than the shorter distance, but would authorize carriers to initiate such rates provided the charge is necessary to meet actual competition and does not result in less than a just and reasonable charge. Such rates would be subject to complaint and suspension and could be attacked as being discriminatory under section 3 and section 4 of the act. The aggregate of intermediates clause would be deleted. My question, Mr. Secretary: How would the legislation you sent up assure us that those men who are now operating in the contract and private field would be given certification by the ICC? Secretary WEEKS. Well, the implementing legislation, if it does not require such action, should. Our intention has been that it should require the ICC to certify these as appropriate. Mr. STULTS. So your answer is that the legislation introduced in the last session of the Senate and the House would make a change in the certification power of the ICC? Secretary WEEKS. That is my interpretation of it. It would make it mandatory for them to take such action. Mr. STULTS. The President's Committee would thereby try to preserve equity by forcing the ICC to allow these men who are now in business to remain in business in some way. Secretary WEEKS. That is correct. May I refer to the proposed statute, H. R. 6141, section 24 (a)? "Any person holding a valid permit to operate as a contract carrier by motor vehicle as defined by former section 203 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, when this section takes effect shall elect to operate hereafter (1) as a contract carrier by motor vehicle on the one hand or as a common carrier on the other hand, and shall advise the ICC in writing under such regulations as the Commission may prescribe of its election within 180 days after the effective date." In other words, as I see it-I would like my counsel to correct me he lays out the specifications under which he would operate and the Commission has to certify him. Mr. STULTS. This would be a new form, parallel to the grandfather rights in the act of 1935. Is that same provision contained in S. 1920? Secretary WEEKS. It is identical. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you would agree that as a general rule, speaking of the economy as a whole, competition ought to be permitted to do as much of the world's work as it is possibly capable of doing? Secretary WEEKS. I certainly believe that in every phase of our economy. Mr. ADAMS. Would you say again that it is generally true that perhaps the public interest is better protected by more competition rather than by more regulation? Secretary WEEKS. The more competition you have in life, the better off you That is my belief. are. Mr. ADAMS. Is that the reason why the Cabinet Committee recommended substantial deregulation of the railroads-that is, limiting ICC power over rail rates, and so on-to enable railroads to compete more effectively? Secretary WEEKS. I don't understand that we specified railroads or any other specific type of transportation. All we say in effect is that within the limits of minimum and maximum rate regulation, subject to the rates being compensatory and nondiscriminatory-that within those broad limits there shall be an area where competition shall be effective for the benefit of the shipper. I don't care if it is a barge or a truck or a railroad. If I am a shipper, I think I ought to be able to buy my transportation at a competitive rate, within those limits the best rate, the rate that suits me best, service considered. Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you would say it is true that, under your proposals, railroads would be allowed to compete more effectively in the interests of shippers. Would that be a fair statement? Secretary WEEKS. All of the common carrier elements would compete more effectively, I think. This thing does not apply more to railroads than it does to the trucking business. The common-carrier truck is just as much interested in our recommendations, in my judgment-and I think I can bring evidence to bear that they are-as any other common-carrier element of the overall transportation system. Mr. ADAMS. The hope was for more competition, then? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Secretary, did you in that report discuss the Reed-Bulwinkle Act at all? Secretary WEEKS. I wouldn't think that came into our discussion at all. Mr. RAY. The general subject naturally was considered in context with the recommendations of the committee but the committee made no recommendation as to changing or repeal of the Reed-Bulwinkle Act. Mr. ADAMS. Is it fair to say that if you want more competition, you do not proceed to that objective by exempting carriers from the requirement of competition; is that correct? Secretary WEEKS. I would like to have you repeat that question. I am not quite sure I get it. Mr. ADAMS. If the objective is more competition, then you would not exempt carriers from their obligation to compete; would you? Secretary WEEKS. Certainly not |