instances of what you would call cases, investigations of a general nature, and litigation or adjudication before the agency.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought in any decisional matters where there was a decision to be reached and an opinion issued, it always stated who dissented and who was absent.

Mr. LAYNE. No, sir; that is not true in every case, because where they issue an order, for example, denying a petition for reconsideration and it is just an order without an attached report or opinion, they do not record who was present and who voted for or against.

I am going beyond that. There are a number of other instances in which the Commission takes action in which I am interested in which the vote of the Commission has been available to me by calling the secretary's office and asking the minute clerk what the vote was.

The CHAIRMAN. I can think of a good many instances when I would like to conduct the rollcall over there myself.

Mr. LAYNE. All I suggest to you is call up the secretary and ask for the minute clerk. They have been telling me. They would probably tell you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question at that point? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. You touched on a very vital point which I think this committee brought out last year in all of the investigations and that was this: In the role of all of these agencies the people, as you say, that they have contact with, at least business and perhaps to a large extent socially, necessarily are people who are in the industry. I mean industry has them for a convention and entertains them, you might say. Maybe the entertainment only goes to this point with some, maybe to something else with someone else, and that is one of the points that we are very interested in; how far should the members of these commissions go in the contacts with other people who possibly might influence them or do influence them.

I think that if all these agencies had was adjudicatory or judicial duty, we could lay down some rules just like the Supreme Court does or any State court, like the State of Illinois does, with reference to what a member of the bar can do in contacting the judge. But the trouble comes-and I am stating this sort of as information, first of all, to you-in the matters which are not adjudicatory, but which are all the remainder, which may be ex parte, or rulemaking, or whatever else they may be.

It is in those areas that we seem to have a great deal of trouble in legislating, and we certainly haven't gotten any concrete suggestions from any of these Commissions thus far as to what we could do to be helpful in that particular field.

That largely arises from two things:

First, the point that you mentioned, that you are thrown in with the people, and the second thing, which keeps repeating, is the necessity of contact of them with the people who are in the industry on the various things that come up which they have to have information about. So that we can't make them into courts of law which could be governed by rules of the bar association as laid down by the local circuit or Federal judge, but it is in this gray area where it is necessary for the Commission apparently, from what they tell us, to be in con

tact with representatives of the industry or industry itself because of the constantly changing character of the problems with which they are presented.

I am giving you a broad picture of what I think we have been faced with as we have listened to this testimony. I think this first category of adjudicatory we can handle, but the problem that disturbs me the more I listen is, and I see the problems of the Commission, as to how you are going to set up rules of conduct for them in things which are not adjudicatory where the commissions say they must be in contact with the industry in order to work their problems out. Otherwise, they are slowed down and the whole thing will stop. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. LAYNE. Yes, sir; I do. I have this comment on it:

I would like to be able to give you some specific and concrete recommendations.

For example, it would be perhaps easy for me to say that no Commissioner of the Interstate Commerce Commission should ever talk to anyone that has had anything to do with the transportation industry; he should confine his contacts to somewhere else.

That would be in my judgment an improper suggestion to you. I have the same difficulty I fear that you have already indicated your other witnesses have. How you define a code of conduct of integrity is a very difficult problem, it seems to me. The best recom

mendation I can make to you is that you require, if you can, the publication of virtually every contact that is made in any form related to a proceeding and that you then back that up with a very severe criminal statute based on intent, and I regret that you will have to base it on intent, but there are other crimes based on intent and I think in this area you will have to do the same.

Let me also say, sir, that I disagree a little bit with you. I have followed the hearings of this committee, as most of the people in the country have, very carefully, or have tried to. I have not read all your hearings, but I would suggest to you that I think you will find that the greatest area of difficulty, so far as these contacts are concerned, is not so much the ex parte cases, which mean to me in the Interstate Commerce Commission practice safety regulations involving the motor carrier industry generally.

I don't think there is so much difficulty there and I don't think there is so much of a problem there. Where I think you have difficulty is where an agency is giving away or has the power to grant a license which may be worth from the very moment the ink is dry on it maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars.

Under those circumstances, the temptation to the people outside is probably very great, which is the area where I think the problem might come. That is why I think that it probably is in at least what I call adjudication, licensing, that you do have a great deal of your problem. It seems so to me. Maybe that is not true.

The CHAIRMAN. I note the very fine compliment you paid to the Commission, and, as I said this morning, they are due it, but on that question of voting, my attention has just been called to a provision of the act which Congress passed that:

Every vote and official act of the Commission, or any division, individual Commissioner, or board, shall be entered of record, and such record shall be made public upon the request of any party interested.

Mr. LAYNE. I think that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we better have that for all of the commissions.

Mr. LAYNE. It would be a good idea.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not heard from Mr. Locke, who is general counsel for Oil Pipelines.

Mr. Locke.

Mr. LOCKE. Mr. Chairman, because of what I am going to say a little later, I would like to also make the statement that my regard for the Interstate Commerce Commission is of the very highest, but, nevertheless, I think that is not very material to the things that we have to talk about today.

When it comes to a matter of legislation or administrative pressures to correct practices having to do with undue influence. I don't think that whether we think a particular commission is good or bad is very relevant, and for that reason I will take issue with a good many of the other people on the panel as to what they said this morning as to the application of any legislation applying to the regulatory bodies.

I firmly believe that any law which is best should be applicable to all six alike. My reason for that is this: I think it would be very unfortunate to try to set up different rules for different commissions.

In other words, about the only way you could do that would be to make it stricter for one because of proven or alleged culpability and make it a little easier for one that has a very high standing, and I for that reason think it would be a mistake from the public standpoint, and certainly from the standpoint of the Interstate Commerce Commission, if they were given a different set of rules.

I just don't think it would work for them or for anybody else. Therefore, I would like to go on record very strongly in saying, whatever legislation is enacted or whatever measures are taken, that all the regulatory bodies should be put on an equal basis, and if one is better than the other, basically and historically, it can't be hurt. All it can do is continue to be good, and it might bring about some good to some of the other agencies. And I think that would be highly desirable. I just have two more points that I would like to bring out. One is that I agree with Mr. Ginnane from the basic standpoint, if possible, that this type of law should apply to basically cases which are adversary in nature. That has been spoken by other members of the panel and I think it is very wholesome and if it can be done it would be very desirable.

Finally, I would like to make this statement:

Considerable mention has been made as to whether Members of Congress should appear before the Commission or call them on certain matters having to do with the public interest in their particular districts.

I think it would be highly unfortunate if anybody would advocate the fact that Congressmen cannot actively take part in matters before these regulatory bodies on things which are definitely of public interest in their particular State or territory. I think it would be a mistake for the Congressmen to insulate themselves from the public inter

est that they have to represent, and if they can't represent it in the bodies that are arms, as they say, of Congress, I think it would be a great loss to the public.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I think, gentlemen, unless someone has a pertinent comment on topic No. I, we better pass on the next topic, and at this time we are going to take topic IV out of order because Commissioner Arpaia has another schedule and he is to give the statement on it.

So, Commissioner, you may proceed.

Mr. ARPAIA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Anthony Arpaia. I have served as a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission since July 1952. Previously, I had 6 years' practical experience with transportation in private industry. As a Commissioner, I have served on each of the four divisions of the Commission at least 1 full year and have served as chairman of some of the divisions. I have also had a full term as Chairman of the Commission.

I might say that I think, not because this subject has been assigned to me, but because the question presented to this panel under item IV cuts across the board, and poses probably the most practicable method of trying to reach some of the problems that have been discussed here today under other subjects of hearings.

Seven years ago this week, I appeared before the Senate committee for confirmation on my appointment as an Interstate Commerce Commissioner, and a good deal of the time was taken up in that hearing with the subject of delays and the long procedures before the Commission.

Since that time I have attended every hearing at which prospective Commissioners have come up for confirmation and the subject matter was dealt with at great length in the same fashion.

Before I came to this Commission, that was one of the great evils that was charged to the Commission, delay. I don't believe in sweeping things under the rug and I admit that the Commission has been guilty of delay in processing matters.

I do say that there is inefficiency in this respect and I do say that as a result of the great volume of matters which comes before it, there is a certain amount of inconsistency.

After that hearing, and I am sure it has been true of all of the other Commissioners, we leave there as knights in shining armor determined to tackle this problem of delay. We have tried and tried, and it isn't for lack of trying that we have failed to lick this problem. We have not fully succeeded. We have tried internal procedural improvements, reorganization, and everything else. The root of all the troubles that we have, I think, is due to the fact that the volume is almost unmanageable, and each succeeding Congress since I have been down here has added to the volume of work which we have to handle.

Obviously, if all the things that we did were vitally important from the public point of view, then the only way to approach it would be to increase the staff.

From my observation, after my experience with this subject, I think that the Commission has too much to do and a great deal of its work

is of little or no importance from a public point of view and could be eliminated.

I have tried to approach the subject in that spirit. I may not follow my written statement exactly, but I hope it will be introduced in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record, so we will have the benefit of it.

Mr. ARPAIA. At the outset, I wish to make clear that the views which I willl express here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Commissioners. Any suggestions I will offer concerning cutting down the enormous workload of the ICC are based on an evaluation of the scope of present regulation under current conditions and not those of a few decades, or more, ago.

I might add that my philosophy with respect to the extent of governmental regulation of transportation, as in any other field of private enterprise, is that it should be designed to embrace no more than is necessary. It should be limited to matters which are of continuing and fundamental importance and concern to the national and public welfare.

A large part of the time and attention of the Commission is now occupied with matters which do not affect the general public welfare. I think the Commission should be permitted to spend less of its time in adjudicating minor and numerous contests between carriers which are of very little or no importance to the public, and thereby enable it to give more attention to matters of real and major public concern. Unless the flood of matters coming before the Commission is checked, there is no hope that the perennial complaint of delay or other justifiable dissatisfaction with the Commission's performance will cease.

As you know, a considerable body of regulatory law and interpretation has evolved over the past 70 years. It would be an easy matter to take the position that it is dangerous to invite change. However, it is easier to be negative than to be positive.

Those who feel that it is dangerous to make any change rationalize that we have adequate transportation in this country, and ascribe this result to regulation. Since an ever-increasing amount of this Nation's transportation requirements is being filled by unregulated carriage, and regulated carriers are periodically in trouble, something must be wrong. Some of the trouble may be due to too much regulation.

On the other hand, a good deal of the trouble is due to lack of carrier initiative and action in producing low-cost, efficient transportation. Regulation sometimes serves as an excuse for this lack of initiative and action.

Carriers naturally put the emphasis on what they cannot do under regulation rather than what they are free to do despite regulation. At any rate, in my judgment, the area of activity which the Commission is required to cover under the law is too broad, and I will suggest some areas where it can be reduced.

I might say at the outset that any substantive changes which I will submit will not be directed to any part of those sections of the act which are designed for the protection of shippers, such as those which require the carriers to maintain just and reasonable rates, to observe published tariff rates, to avoid discriminations and preference and