The figures at the right of the table clearly show the heavy reliance on intercity buses by the lower income groups, with 55 percent of the total trips by bus being taken by persons that are members of families with incomes of less than $5,000 a year. The figures in the middle column show the direct relationship between automobile ownership and family income and illustrate why low-cost public passenger transportation is so important to a large share of the general public. Since, on an over-all basis, 24 percent of the nation's total Spending Units (see definition in footnote of table) do not own an automobile for one reason or another, they must rely on one form of public transportation or another. Since each Spending Unit represents approximately 3 persons, this means that over 45 million people do not have access to an automobile for travel purposes. The above relationships are particularly significant to the relatively shorthaul intercity bus industry because it is the one faced with the sharpest competitive impact of the private automobile. Census of Transport figures show that the auto accounts for 90 percent of all trips up to 200 miles, but then drops off sharply to 72 percent for trips 200 to 499 miles and only 47 percent for trips over 500 miles. In other words, for short trips the intercity bus is rapidly becoming, with some exceptions, the only means of public passenger transportation for the person who doesn't have access to a car. CONCLUSION In summary, we believe passage of S. 2893 is definitely in the public interest. It will close a loophole in present law that threatens to drain essential revenues from charter operations needed to help maintain scheduled intercity bus service to the maximum number of points throughout the country. It will not affect the rights of any existing bus lines, including those now providing charter services. It will permit parties seeking bus charter rights to obtain'them through purchase of existing certificates or by application to the ICC. It will help assure low-cost intercity public passenger service to millions of people who must continue to rely on it because of their income status or because they do not own a private automobile. Over-all, it should help to assure better and more stable intercity bus transportation service for the general public. For these reasons we urge favorable consideration of S. 2893 by your Subcommittee. Senator LAUSCHE. I have no questions. Thanks very much for your testimony, Mr. Hammond. I want to repeat the statement I made earlier this morning. The record will be kept open for 7 days to afford an opportunity to anyone else wishing to submit a statement on S. 2893 for the record. With that, the meeting will be adjourned. (Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.) (The following statements and letters were received by the committee for inclusion in the record:) ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, LAW DEPARTMENT, Hon. FRANK J. LAUSCHE, DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: We are advised that the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce is considering S. 2893 (89th Congress), a bill introduced by Senator Magnuson (by request) on February 8, 1966, to amend section 208 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act to provide that certificates issued in the future to motor common carriers of passengers shall not confer, as an incident to the grant of regular route authority, the right to engage in special or charter operations". This bill reflects a legislative recommendation made by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Its recommendation and statement of justification were published in the Congressional Record of February 8, 1966 (pp. 2411-12), following Senator Magnuson's remarks upon introduction of the measure. While S. 2893 is not itself of substantial importance to the railroad industry, the principle involved appears to be sound; and, on the basis of the Commission's explanation, the Association of American Railroads supports the bill as one consistent with a sound national transportation policy. It is requested that this letter be incorporated in the record of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee's hearings on S. 2893. Respectfully yours, GREGORY S. PRINCE, Executive Vice President and General Counsel. STATEMENT on S. 2893 as PREPARED BY GEORGE H. SEAL ON Behalf of tHE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES In the interest of consistency in the federal regulatory process and a sound national transportation system, it is essential that S. 2893, now pending before the Congress, be promptly enacted. S. 2893 would amend Section 208(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act to eliminate the automatic acquisition of nationwide charter bus operating rights concurrent with the receipt from the Interstate Commerce Commission of certificates of public convenience and necessity for regular route bus operations. This legislation is needed to correct an inequitable and confusing situation in which motor bus operators apply for insignificant regular route authority solely to obtain so-called "incidental" charter rights. The present wording of Section 208 of the Interstate Commerce Act permits holders of regular route authority to perform charter service to any point in the continental United States regardless of the scope of that authority. S. 2893 would bring order and consistency to the granting of motor bus operating rights by making future applicants show that public convenience and necessity require the granting of charter rights, and that existing charter service is not adequate to serve the public need. This is the time-proven test applied to the granting of all other motor carrier operating authority under the Interstate Commerce Act. This important amendment to Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act has been one of the legislative recommendations of the Commission for several years. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States urges favorable action on S. 2893 as necessary and desirable in the public interest. Hon. FRANK LAUSCHE, HAMILTON MOTOR COACHES, Chairman of Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: I would like to take this opportunity to voice my objection to S. 2893, which would amend Section 208C of the Interstate Commerce Act. It seems to me, to pass this piece of legislation would eliminate forever the opportunity for any small bus company to come into existence where regular route service might be needed. As you know, the population of our country is expanding in leaps and bounds, and along with this there is no doubt that there will be need for additional regular route bus service. As has been stated by some of the larger bus companies, charter service is one of the things needed to help support regular route service. Again let me say that I feel it would be unwise at this time to pass S. 2893. Very truly yours, W. PRESLEY HAMILTON, President. PENN VALLEY TRANSIT, Hon. FRANK LAUSCHE, Pennington, New Jersey, July 1, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: This company would like to protest the proposed legislation concerning the elimination of incidental charter rights to regular route bus lines. 1 George H. Seal is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of C. H. Sprague & Son Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Seal also is Chairman of the Transportation and Communication Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and a member of the National Chamber's Board of Directors. Charter service is to a bus line what advertising is to a newspaper. No one could possibly afford to print a newspaper on subscriptions alone—the advertising is what keeps the business alive. Many bus lines go into business as regular route carriers and use their buses on charters on days or at times they are not needed for the regular route. To eliminate charter service from being an incidental advantage of a regular route would certainly BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The Public presently enjoys many bus services because the carrier makes a little extra money doing charter work. No one would possibly think of starting a new bus line knowing that he couldn't use the bus for anything else. This would deprive many future regular-route riders from a much needed service. Furthermore, there are a number of types of charters that the BIG carriers can't handle and the little bus operator provides this service. Big carriers don't want charters on busy holiday weekends, nor do they want charters of a short nature that would tie up expensive equipment for little rate. Small carriers fill in this way. Many small carriers are also located in towns miles and miles rom equipment points of the large carriers. It is imperative that incidental charter rights remain an incentive to those carriers wishing to apply for regular route service. Sincerely, JOHN P. HOSCHEK, Jr., Manager. TRAVEL TOURS, INC., Trenton, N.J., July 7, 1966. Hon. FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Chairman, Surface Transportation Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR LAUSCHE: The bill known as S. 2893, dealing with transportation, creates the possibility of a monopoly in favor of The Trailways and The Greyhound Bus Companies. The U.S. Government frowns on monopolies or the concentration of business power, because of the possibility of the extermination of us small business people. They (Greyhound and Trailways) could never under any circumstances supply the personal service and convenience we little people supply. It would be virtually impossible for these two big companies to place garages and adequate equipment to perform the same services that we, the small operators, now provide throughout the United States. When we apply for a much needed franchise right, our only hope for financial survival is the charter business we hope to get from these rights, to supplement the loss that ninety per cent of franchise lines is characteristic of inflicting. The public is in dire need of franchise operation, but to have this, we the small business people, must have this added income and the protection of the existing bill known as 208-C. The bill S. 2893 breaks down the free enterprise and the fields of competition that are much needed for the public interest. The objection that we are voicing stems from direct, personal experience, viz.: At one time, I applied to the Federal Government, through Representative Thompson, for aid because of a disaster. At the time I held five different kinds of Local and U.S. Government contracts. But I was turned down. I was told that we met all the qualifications for the loan, but that the Government did not have the money under the Small Business Administrations Fund. At the time the U.S. Government was paying all kinds of subsidies to transportation in general. So, you can see how much chance we, as small business operators, would have between big business and the U.S. Government for aid to supplement any franchise operation because of inadequate financial support. This is an added thought. If the power were vested only in these large companies, and in the event of a strike, the transportation problem could be enormous if there are not little companies to take care of the charter business. The comments and opinions set forth in this letter are not only mine but it is a general opinions amongst all of us small charter bus business operators. Other operators of small businesses may give different opinions, but it all amounts to the conclusion of eventually closing out all of us small operators. Very truly yours, GEORGE E. TILTON, Sr., President. AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE TRANSPORTATION THURSDAY JULY 14, 1966 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m. in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank J. Lausche (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Senator LAUSCHE. The meeting will come to order. The hearing this morning is on S. 1729, a proposed amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission. S. 1729 proposes to amend two sections of the Interstate Commerce Act. First, this bill proposes to amend section 203(b)(5) to provide that agriculture cooperatives shall be entitled to exempt status thereunder only upon application and proof of eligibility. Second, this bill proposes to amend section 220 to permit the Interstate Commerce Commission or its duly authorized agents to inspect the books, records, and other documents kept or maintained by such cooperatives. Hearings today and tomorrow are reserved to permit the Interstate Commerce Commission and other proponents of this proposed legislation to testify. Further hearings have been scheduled for July 25 and 26 to permit opponents to testify. There will be incorporated in the record following this statement a copy of the proposed legislation and the Interstate Commerce Commission's statement of justification for its enactment. There will also be incorporated in the record a copy of the comments of the Department of Agriculture dated July 8, 1966, a copy of the comments of the Comptroller General dated April 19, 1965, and a copy of the comments of the Department of Justice dated July 11, 1966. (The documents follow:) [S. 1729, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend section 203(b)(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act to provide for the issuance of certificates of exemption upon application and proof of eligibility, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 203(b) (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act is amended by changing the semicolon to a colon and by adding immediately before "or" at the end thereof the following: "Provided, That, except as otherwise provided in section 204(a)(4b) of this part, such cooperative association or federation has obtained and holds a certificate of exemption issued by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of that section.". SEC. 2. Section 204 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act is amended by inserting after subparagraph (4a) thereof the following new subparagraph: NOTE.-Staff counsel assigned to this hearing: Stanton P. Sender. 21 177 |