Nation, as a matter of national defense, be called upon to make use of its transportation systems for military means.

I am certain that this overriding consideration was the main purpose of the U.S. Congress when it enacted the national transportation policy. Indeed, that policy clearly and unambiguously states that it shall be the policy of this Nation

(1) To provide fair and impartial regulations of all modes of transportation;

(2) To recognize and preserve the inherent advantage of each mode of transportation;

(3) To foster sound economic conditions in transportation as a whole and among the several carriers;

(4) To encourage the establishment of reasonable charges for transportation services, without unjust discrimination, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices;

(5) To cooperate with the several States; and

(6) To encourage fair wages and equitable working conditions.

It was only through the accomplishment of these goals that Congress felt that the national transportation system could be preserved in an adequate manner to meet the needs of the commerce of the United States, of the postal service, and of the national defense.

It is to be noted that among these goals, to be achieved as a part of the national policy, Congress recognized that the charges for service in the various modes of transportation not only had to be reasonable in and of themselves, but also should not result in discrimination, undue preference or, particularly, unfair or destructive competitive practices.

Like so many other human endeavors, however, the statement of the goals for national policy does not always result in their ascertainment. Indeed, the events of the past 3 years tend to indicate, in my mind, that the goals of our national transportation policy, particularly in the fields of unjust discrimination and unfair or destructive competition, have been neglected, not applied, and, at times abrogated.

Apparently, I am not the only person who feels an imperative concern about this matter. In August of 1960 another subcommittee of this Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce reported on the decline of the coastwise and intercoastal shipping industry. In its conclusion, the majority members of that subcommittee had this to say:

"The constant question before your subcommittee during the course of the hearings was: How well has the Commission performed its dual role? Particularly emphasized was the ICC's adjustment to the now 20-year-old function of coordinator of different modes of transportation-regulation by planning. The results speak for themselves. They suggest that the public does not now enjoy a balanced and healthy transportation system by rail, highway, and water. However, it further appears to your subcommittee that the Commission's methods, procedures, and, in some cases, its judgment, were not reasonably designed to achieve the objectives envisioned by the framers of the national transportation policy" (p. 49 of the "Report of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. Senate," 86th Cong., 2d sess.).

This subcommittee report, in my opinion, is an enlightening document and can be read with profit by anyone seeking an insight to the problem as it exists today. Of course, that subcommittee was not holding hearings on specific legislation, and it made no recommendations for specific legislation. It did make various recommendations concerning the procedure, data needs, and other matters which can be cured by Commission action itself. However, the subcommittee did acknowledge that one of the problems as it exists was the failure of the Interstate Commerce Commission to give full effect to the national transportation policy. Some suggestion was made that the 1958 amendment to seetion 15A (3), title 49, the United States Code was the reason for this disregard. As you know, that amendment incorporated the provisions of the national transportation policy and enjoined the Interstate Commerce Commission to give due consideration to the objectives stated in that policy. However, the evidence presented to that subcommittee indicated that the Commission was not taking the objectives of that policy into consideration in rate reduction cases. Instead it was, for the most part, relying primarily upon the return to the carrier. particularly railway carriers, of their net cost in establishing rates. Indeed,

Total

(The information requested follows:)

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Supplementary report to study made on compensatory fees for months of July 1959 to December 1959 and July 1960 to December 1960 including January and February 1960 and January and February 1961.

Below is the comparison of 11 car carriers for the above-mentioned months.

Senator MCGEE. If you do, submit the rest for the record, so the record may be complete on that subject. This is illustrative and this is the point I think you are trying to make.

Mr. FLEISCHLI. I am sure that you are interested in this. We are tax collectors. Sometimes we say we are filling station people, but when we get into the truck business we are tax collectors for the State of Wyoming and for the Federal Government. Now, we make a profit, too, I don't mean that, but we do collect a great deal of money

for the State.

Senator MCGEE. Well, other tax collectors have been known to make profits, too.

We of Husky Terminal, located west of Cheyenne on Highway 30, would like to submit comparative figures on gas and diesel fuel purchases from our company by Commercial Carriers, Inc., Detroit, Mich. for the months of January and February 1960 and 1961.

1960

January purchases

February purchases

We have used Commercial Carriers as an example. All auto haulers fueling here have had their account drop off in like manner.