itality and competitiveness in surface transportation which has een applauded by most parties. While not all parties benefit in the short run from the transition from a protective regulatory regime to a more flexible deregulated regime, the overall competitiveness and responsiveness of the industry has improved. Similarly, while not all parties may benefit initially from deregulation, in time the benefit of market versus regulatory solutions should be available to all shippers and receivers, in all parts of the country. COMMISSIONER STERRETT: The Motor Carrier Act of 1980, the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, and the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 contain provisions for substantial deregulation of the motor, rail, and bus industries. The Commission has conscientiously tried to implement these statutes in accord with congressional intent, and the courts have largely blessed the Commission's efforts. More importantly, the transportation public is generally pleased with the results of transportation deregulation. By almost all reports, service today is better and less costly than it was before deregulation. COMMISSIONER ANDRE: The Staggers Act of 1980, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 effected broad changes in the National Transportation Policy and the Interstate Commerce Act. The opposition to these changes has been diminishing over the past several years, largely because experience with deregulation has had such a favorable impact on prices and service. There are, however, pockets of dissatisfaction with the way the market is working. Not everyone was an immediate beneficiary, and fear about the future in an unregulated environment has added to the criticism of regulatory change. What is important to note about the actions taken by the Commission is that (1) they were implicit in the new framework established by the 1980 laws; (2) they have most frequently been unanimously supported by the Commission; and (3) they have nearly all been upheld in the courts. A great deal of notoriety has attached to a few situations where unanimity was lacking or court reversal ensued. The most well-known of these alleged "excesses of deregulation" are the exemptions proposed for box car traffic and export coal. Whatever one thinks of the merits of these decisions, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Department of Justice, has joined the Commission's petitions to the Supreme Court. Thus, it is fair to conclude that the actions of the Commission were well grounded in the provisions of the new law. While some of the affected parties have dramatized many of the Commission's actions almost beyond recognition, the fact is that the Commission has endeavored to make its policy decisions rationally and lawfully under the pro-competitive mandate set by the 1980 laws. I would add that I think the support for deregulation will continue to spread as time passes. Many of the inefficiencies and cross-subsidies that were characteristic of the regulated transportation system have been eliminated in the first few years of marketplace freedom. The emphasis has already switched from the culling process to the search for new opportunities. COMMISSIONER SIMMONS: In my two terms at the Commission, I ave attempted to implement the Staggers Act, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and other recent reform legislation with due regari for the underlying congressional intent. This often involves striking a difficult balance between eliminating unnecessary regulation and retaining appropriate protections where continued regulation is in the public interest. I have not always agreed with all my colleagues on where this balance should be struck, but I intend to continue exercising my responsibilities in an independent and objective fashion. I believe there is really hope for all public servants engaged in promoting the continued vitality of our nation's surface transportation system. COMMISSIONER LAMBOLEY: In participating in Commission decisions, I strive to fairly evaluate and balance the many facets of transportation and public interest issues, based on the factual record and consistent with the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended. In instances in which I did not share my colleagues' views of the record or positions on policy questions, I have written appropriate comment or dissent. An occasionally inadequate record or competing public policies make difficult the task of harmonizing the various components necessary to achieve a sound National Transportation Policy. COMMISSIONER STRENIO: First of all, I would like to thank Senator Pressler for his support of the supplemental request. A supplemental is vital if the Agency is to efficiently and effectively carry out its congressional mandate during the remainder of fiscal year 1985 and beyond. In implementing recent legislative changes, I believe that the Commission has made every effort to follow both explicit congressional statutory directives and to exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the underlying spirit and purpose of these enactments. In addition, it is essential that the Commission always remain sensitive to congressional concerns and show full regard for congressional intent in formulating agency policy. Moreover, although the Commission has received a generally deregulatory mandate from Congress, in all cases the agency must still strive for a proper balance by carefully considering the views of all parties before making its public interest determination. In voting on matters pending before the Commission, I have considered all arguments and evidence submitted by the parties and have tried to reach decisions that are based on the record and are in keeping with the agency's statutory mandate and congressional intent. I will continue to give due consideration to the concerns of Congress and of all participants in Commission proceedings. My votes on any given matter have depended and will continue to depend upon the law and the facts before me. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator CHILES. The subcommittee will now stand in recess. The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, April 3 on the Federal Aviation Administration. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator. [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Thursday, March 28, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 3.] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1985 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Andrews (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Andrews, Kasten, Chiles, Byrd, and Lautenberg. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT OF DONALD D. ENGEN, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ACCOMPANIED BY: RICHARD H. JONES, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR A.P. ALBRECHT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS WALTER S. LUFFSEY, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR TRAFFIC ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION STANDARDS FRANK L. FRISBIE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AND LOGISTICS DONALD R. SEGNER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AVIATION CHARLES E. WEITHONER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BROOKS C. GOLDMAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINIS- WILLIAM F. SHEA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS OPENING REMARKS Senator ANDREWS. The meeting will come to order. Today we are privileged to hear from the FAA and the Administrator, Don Engen. Mr. Engen, it is always good to have you here and to understand the great work that you are doing out there. (179) |