It is suggested that H. R. 525 could be improved by adding the positive injunction that full commercial rates shall be paid to common carriers by the United States, as was done in repealing land-grant provisions (R. 599–600). INTERCOASTAL STEAMSHIP FREIGHT ASSOCIATION (Harry S. Brown) There are no logical reasons for a different ratemaking standard on Government shipments than on commercial shipments. The provisions of H. R. 6141 fall short of eliminating the abuses of section 22 rates. Instead, the enactment of H. R. 525, which would place the Government on a par with other shippers, is favored. If H. R. 525 cannot pass as it now reads, it is suggested that there be added to it a provision reading substantially as follows (R. 1050): Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce is hereby further amended by adding the following proviso at the end of said section: "In time of national emergency the President of the United States is hereby authorized to issue to the Interstate Commerce Commission a directive, stating that such an emergency exists, and directing the Commission to issue an order waiving as to United States Government property or personnel, or such limited descriptions thereof as the President may specify, such provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act as the President may specify, and for such period of time as the President may specify. Upon receipt of such a directive, the Commission shall issue an order forthwith executing the President's directive." INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (Anthony F. Arpaia) In recent years there has been much justified dissatisfaction with the exemptions accorded to Government shipments by section 22, and that section should be amended. However, any special rates for the gov ernments should be limited to apply only during time of war, or threatened war, or other national emergency, and such rates should be negotiated on a firm and unassailable basis. A study of this matter is warranted. It is recommended that any change should appear in section 22 or 6 of the act, and for clarity the following wording is suggested in lieu of that proposed (R. 270–271) : The establishment, maintenance, publication, and application of rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations of special application for transportation service to the United States, State, and municipal governments by carriers subject to this Act is hereby authorized. Such rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations may be made retroactive where the circumstances so warrant, and shall not be subject to suspension or to the provisions of section 4, but shall be subject to all other applicable provisions of the Act: Provided, however, That the provisions of the Act with respect to filing, publication, and posting of tariff schedules and contracts may be waived where the security of the United States so requires upon the filing of an appropriate statement in writing with the Commission by the head of the Government agency concerned. Transportation services rendered by common carriers subject to the Act for such governments other than under rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations of special application shall be subject to all the provision of the Act. H. R. 525 to amend section 22 would in effect eliminate the granting of reduced rates for transportation of Government property or personnel, except in certain minor respects. Section 22 has remained substantially the same since 1887. With the repeal of the land-grant statute in 1945, section 22 became the main vehicle through which special rates are obtained by the Government. At the present time, section 22 quotations are filed with the Defense Department. Procurement officers examine bids for even the most inconsequential movements. The Government should pay the full tariff rates on property transported by it, the same as any other shipper. It is not believed, however, that complete elimination of the section 22 privilege would be equitable, or in the interest of national defense. Section 22 contracts should be binding on both parties, in the absence of fraud or clear error. Such amendments would to a great extent remove the cause of much of the present criticism of practices under this section. Three members of the Commission favor the enactment of H. R. 525. The majority, however, does not recommend its enactment at this time (R. 284-286). INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (E. R. Jelsma) The 1 percent waybill statistics furnished by the Commission and upon which Mr. Smith of the Department of Commerce based his statement that Government rates paid under negotiation were 14 percent higher than the commodity basis of rates, are misleading. The fact that the section 22 level was somewhat higher than average comparable commodity rates is not unexpected in view of the different types of traffic involved. A substantial portion of the section. 22 reductions apply where there is infrequent movement or movements in the opposite direction of established volume traffic. An exhibit (R. 303-306) based on a 30-percent representative sample of all bills of lading covering military carload traffic, June 1, 1951, through May 31, 1952, between points in transcontinental territory for which there was a movement of 1 million pounds or over of a particular commodity, shows 75 instances in which the section 22 rate was considerably lower than the otherwise applicable class rates (R. 301-302). MOVERS CONFERENCE OF AMERICA (James F. Rowan) Although the proposed section 9 would eliminate the provision for free or reduced rates on Government traffic, section 8 would modify section 15 (a) of the present act, by adding provisions which would (1) permit special tariffs applicable only to Government traffic and distinct from published general tariffs; (2) permit retroactive or short-notice publication of the special tariffs; and (3) deny the Commission the power to suspend and investigate such tariffs. Thus the Government procurement officers would be given a vested right to special concessions to the Government on all movements of Government traffic, whereas, under the present section 22 provision, the privilege of extending rate concessions to the Government rests technically with the carrier. There would be no relief from the unfavorable conditions which presently exist in connection with this problem (R. 901-902). The Mover's Conference is for the total elimination of the special free or reduced rates privilege extended to Government traffic under It is suggested that H. R. 525 could be improved by adding the positive injunction that full commercial rates shall be paid to common carriers by the United States, as was done in repealing land-grant provisions (R. 599–600). INTERCOASTAL STEAMSHIP FREIGHT ASSOCIATION (Harry S. Brown) There are no logical reasons for a different ratemaking standard on Government shipments than on commercial shipments. The provisions of H. R. 6141 fall short of eliminating the abuses of section 22 rates. Instead, the enactment of H. R. 525, which would place the Government on a par with other shippers, is favored. If H. R. 525 cannot pass as it now reads, it is suggested that there be added to it a provision reading substantially as follows (R. 1050): Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce is hereby further amended by adding the following proviso at the end of said section: "In time of national emergency the President of the United States is hereby authorized to issue to the Interstate Commerce Commission a directive, stating that such an emergency exists, and directing the Commission to issue an order waiving as to United States Government property or personnel, or such limited descriptions thereof as the President may specify, such provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act as the President may specify, and for such period of time as the President may specify. Upon receipt of such a directive, the Commission shall issue an order forthwith executing the President's directive." INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (Anthony F. Arpaia) In recent years there has been much justified dissatisfaction with the exemptions accorded to Government shipments by section 22, and that section should be amended. However, any special rates for the gov ernments should be limited to apply only during time of war, or threatened war, or other national emergency, and such rates should be negotiated on a firm and unassailable basis. A study of this matter is warranted. It is recommended that any change should appear in section 22 or 6 of the act, and for clarity the following wording is suggested in lieu of that proposed (R. 270-271): The establishment, maintenance, publication, and application of rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations of special application for transportation service to the United States, State, and municipal governments by carriers subject to this Act is hereby authorized. Such rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations may be made retroactive where the circumstances so warrant, and shall not be subject to suspension or to the provisions of section 4, but shall be subject to all other applicable provisions of the Act: Provided, however, That the provisions of the Act with respect to filing, publication, and posting of tariff schedules and contracts may be waived where the security of the United States so requires upon the filing of an appropriate statement in writing with the Commission by the head of the Government agency concerned. Transportation services rendered by common carriers subject to the Act for such governments other than under rates, fares, charges, and rules and regulations of special application shall be subject to all the provision of the Act. H. R. 525 to amend section 22 would in effect eliminate the granting of reduced rates for transportation of Government property or personnel, except in certain minor respects. Section 22 has remained substantially the same since 1887. With the repeal of the land-grant statute in 1945, section 22 became the main vehicle through which special rates are obtained by the Government. At the present time, section 22 quotations are filed with the Defense Department. Procurement officers examine bids for even the most inconsequential movements. The Government should pay the full tariff rates on property transported by it, the same as any other shipper. It is not believed, however, that complete elimination of the section 22 privilege would be equitable, or in the interest of national defense. Section 22 contracts should be binding on both parties, in the absence of fraud or clear error. Such amendments would to a great extent remove the cause of much of the present criticism of practices under this section. Three members of the Commission favor the enactment of H. R. 525. The majority, however, does not recommend its enactment at this time (R. 284-286). INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (E. R. Jelsma) The 1 percent waybill statistics furnished by the Commission and upon which Mr. Smith of the Department of Commerce based his statement that Government rates paid under negotiation were 14 percent higher than the commodity basis of rates, are misleading. The fact that the section 22 level was somewhat higher than average comparable commodity rates is not unexpected in view of the different types of traffic involved. A substantial portion of the section 22 reductions apply where there is infrequent movement or movements in the opposite direction of established volume traffic. An exhibit (R. 303–306) based on a 30-percent representative sample of all bills of lading covering military carload traffic, June 1, 1951, through May 31, 1952, between points in transcontinental territory for which there was a movement of 1 million pounds or over of a particular commodity, shows 75 instances in which the section 22 rate was considerably lower than the otherwise applicable class rates (R. 301-302). MOVERS CONFERENCE OF AMERICA (James F. Rowan) Although the proposed section 9 would eliminate the provision for free or reduced rates on Government traffic, section 8 would modify section 15 (a) of the present act, by adding provisions which would (1) permit special tariffs applicable only to Government traffic and distinct from published general tariffs; (2) permit retroactive or short-notice publication of the special tariffs; and (3) deny the Commission the power to suspend and investigate such tariffs. Thus the Government procurement oflicers would be given a vested right to special concessions to the Government on all movements of Government traffic, whereas, under the present section 22 provision, the privilege of extending rate concessions to the Government rests technically with the carrier. There would be no relief from the unfavorable conditions which presently exist in connection with this problem (R. 901-902). The Mover's Conference is for the total elimination of the special free or reduced rates privilege extended to Government traffic under section 22 of the present act in view of its deleterious effects on the moving industry. The witness reviewed the conclusions arrived at by other congressional committees in connection with previous bills proposed to remedy the situation, and quoted the Chairman of the Commission, who stated that, because of the competitive conditions. resulting from extreme rate reductions in the household-goods industry, all of the Commissioners favor abolition of the section 22 reduced-rates provision for Government traffic to protect the average inexperienced shipper of household goods (R. 902-905). An analysis of the evidence submitted by members of the conference indicates that more than 3 out of 5 military installations move all of their household-goods shipments, and 4 out of 5 move 80 percent or more of their household-goods shipments, at section 22 reduced rates. Some evidence indicates that it cost movers more to handle Government shipments due to greatly increased paperwork and other administrative detail, money being tied up for long periods in waiting for payment, and the filing of additional claims. There is also evidence that full tariff rates are employed in some instances and under limited circumstances, such as in the case of small installations having a limited number of movements, or of undesirable shipments, or where circumstances require the safe handling of shipments for high-ranking officers (R. 906–909). There were noted examples of pressure for lower than reasonable rates exerted upon movers by transportation officers and other Government officials, and the consequences of their procurement policies jeopardize the economic position of the authorized household-goods carriers. The Government's position as to the problem of using unauthorized carriers was expressed in an opinion of the Comptroller General, who stated that the question of carriers' charges, limitation of liability, or violations of Interstate Commerce Commission regulations, are of no interest to the Government, since the sole obligation of the Government is to pay the contractor the price set forth in its bid (R. 909-911). About one-sixth of the business handled by conference members is Government business, of which 90 percent is transported at reduced rates. However, more and more State public utilities commissions are enjoining carriers from giving special or reduced rates to Government agencies in cases involving intrastate transportation of household goods (R. 914-916). An estimated 3,300 interstate movers who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission employ the rate levels contained in two tariffs, No. 47-A and No. 10. Government traffic transported at reduced rates, however, is moving on rates contained in tariff No. 7, or some reduction therefrom. Tariff No. 7 is actually an obsolete tariff, since there have been three general rate increases since it was published, and Government traffic moving qu rates in this tariff, take rates from 14 to 16 percent below those in tariff No. 10, and from 19.8 to 21.2 percent below those in tariff No. 47-A. Since military shipments constitute an estimated one-sixth or more of the moving industry's total volume of interstate business. the reduced rates seriously affect the service available, and have adverse and detrimental consequences for the entire moving industry (R. 918-920). |
