you want us to do it now, and you are upset because we didn't do it 6 months ago, fine. All I am telling you is there isn't going to be any ICC left, and we are not going to need a supplemental.

DURATION OF FURLOUGHS

Senator ANDREWS. If the Commission doesn't receive any supplemental funding, the furlough plan would be enacted. How many days do you now estimate that existing staff will have to be furloughed if no supplemental is forthcoming?

Mr. TAYLOR. We will have to start on April 14, and continue on through the rest of the year. We are prepared to do that. The notice has been issued.

In fact, the new notice went out the other day. Because of the great amount of attrition we have had, we have been able to stretch 2 more weeks out of it. So that instead of starting on April 1, we are now committed to starting on the pay period that begins on April 14.

Senator ANDREWS. How many days will they have to be furloughed? Mr. TAYLOR. 24 days.

COMMISSIONERS' OFFICES

Senator ANDREWS. Does the furlough affect Commissioners?

Mr. TAYLOR. A couple of Commissioners have indicated some interest in taking it voluntarily. We have been advised by Mr. Foley that legally the Commissioners can't do that.

Currently, the general counsel is reviewing the question of whether or not a Commissioner legally can voluntarily put himself on furlough. There is little or no precedent for it, but we are trying to develop an answer for that.

Senator ANDREWS. Does your furlough plan affect the individual Commissioner staffs?

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely. In fact, the House has said if any furlough is to take place, it is to begin with the Commissioners' staffs.

Senator ANDREWS. Well, 30 percent, as we understand it, of the total supplemental request is for Commissioner staffs, is that accurate? Mr. TAYLOR. 30 percent?

Senator ANDREWS. 30 percent of the total supplemental request is for Commissioners and their staffs?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is not a percentage that I have. Mr. Foley says he can respond to that.

Mr. FOLEY. I think perhaps part of that stems from

Senator ANDREWS. On your sheet, total supplemental resource request under your heading Commissioners and staff, $1,343,000. It is your sheet, Mr. Foley.

Mr. FOLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ANDREWS. That is out of the total of $4,463,000, which to me looks like about 30 percent.

Mr. FOLEY. The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is simply that the $3 million for Commissioners and their offices contained in the continuing

resolution still comes a quarter of a million dollars short of funding the salaries and personnel benefits of the Commissioners and their staffs.

In addition, there are nonpersonnel costs related to those offices, costs for transportation of things, transportation of persons, telephone expenses, office space expenses, and so forth, to the tune of $1.1 million.

Senator ANDREWS. As I recall, and I am checking so that I am accurate, in our hearing 1 year ago, Senator Chiles, we developed that Commissioners and their personal staffs of the ICC have a cost of about $541,000 per Commissioner for personal staff of the Commission. Now, on the average commission around town, that comparable cost is in the neighborhood of $100,000. We felt, you know, you were living relatively high off the hog and that is why we felt we ought to cut to the point where you are only three times the average commissioner's cost in similar commissions around this town. And we did just that.

Now we find that you are coming up with this supplemental, pleading all over the place, talking about these people that are going to have to take the RIF's, the career people and the rest. And we find that 30 percent of your request is for your personal staff.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that is an improper characterization. The $541,000 is too high. It isn't for the personal staff. Mr. Foley just pointed out that there are a lot of nonpersonnel costs.

Senator ANDREWS. Total cost per Commissioner for their personal staff was on the record 1 year ago.

Mr. TAYLOR. One of the problems with that figure is that I have some satellite offices that are attached to my office, and they are considered a part of the Commissioners' offices.

SAVINGS

Senator ANDREWS. I know, but, Mr. Chairman, part of this, for instance, the suite space per individual Commissioner is 3,275 square feet. That is two and two-thirds the size of this room for a Commissioner, and what, your five personal assistants?

So this is part of the cost that has been built up and why we thought you could absorb a 10-percent cut.

Mr. TAYLOR. We didn't ask to inhabit that building. That building was built in the 1920's and is very uneconomical as far as the space is concerned.

Senator ANDREWS. Have you turned any space back?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is why we pay as much as we do for it, $20 a square foot. I would love to be able to move out of there. It is terribly uneconomic.

Senator ANDREWS. Have you turned any space back or let other agencies――

Mr. TAYLOR. We have done a lot. Let me tell you what I have done with myself and satellites, and perhaps the other Commissioners would like to tell you what they have done.

In the Chairman's office, I am talking about my own personal office now, you cut me down to seven people. We did that. As fast as we had the word, and we were able to get down, we got down to seven people.

In the satellite offices, we have cut two people in SBAO, a person out of public affairs, cut one out of EEO, and we have cut two out of the legislation and governmental affairs office. The savings numbers on that come up to a total of $210,184. That is my office and the satellite offices.

In addition to that, we have relinquished space. In my own office, I have given up 900 square feet. In the satellite offices, we have given up in public affairs 250 square feet and in legislation and governmental affairs 760 square feet. That whole total comes to almost $34,000 of savings. All of this has been done voluntarily.

In the travel area, we have frozen travel in headquarters. One of our people from public affairs wanted to fly to Atlanta yesterday to proofread our annual report, which we submit to Congress, because that is an important report and we wanted it to be accurate. But I refused to let him go. Nobody flies, nobody goes anywhere at the present time.

And Commissioners have done that as well. I was originally allocated $20,000 for travel in the Chairman's office. We cut $16,000 of that out. The only reason that $3,800 was spent is because it was already committed before we were able to take the action.

I have even done such things as give up subscriptions. I have downgraded the copier in the office. I have had telephones removed, which saved $3,500. Mr. Foley would be glad to tell you what is going on in the other bureaus and offices, if you give him a moment. I will be glad to put that on the record.

Senator ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, all of this is very pleasant but the facts that we are given show that the Commissioners and their personal employees occupy close to 600 square feet per employee. The GSA standard for square feet per employee is 135.

I welcome the cuts and all of that, but it is not all that convincing when you look at the fact that you are occupying four times what GSA recommends, more than four times. The 1985 appropriations report provided 36 slots for Commissioners and their offices. How many staff persons does each Commissioner now have?

Mr. TAYLOR. Could we, before we do that, quickly talk about the space in the building?

Senator ANDREWS. Are our figures wrong, Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. Yes; with all due respect, I believe they are.

Senator ANDREWS. We get them from you. These are all from you. Let us put in the record the source of the figures that I was just citing which have come from the various offices and then you may for the record comment on these figures that were supplied to our staff. Mr. FOLEY. I will be glad to.

SIZE OF COMMISSIONERS' STAFFS

Senator ANDREWS. If you supplied us erroneous figures, then obviously maybe some of ours are inaccurate. But I think getting them on the record as you supplied them to us is necessary, and then we will let you comment on them, to point out where you sent up erroneous figures to us in the first place.

To get back to that question, you can answer, Mr. Foley, how many staff persons does each Commissioner now have?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I didn't bring that information this morning.

Senator ANDREWS. Are each of them down to six persons per office level?

Mr. TAYLOR. I frankly don't know the answer to that.
Senator ANDREWS. Can you provide that?

Mr. TAYLOR. They are here. They can respond.

Senator ANDREWS. The total staff employed by month?

Mr. TAYLOR. Go down the line and ask them.

Senator ANDREWS. Let's go down the line. We will start over on this side. Sir, how many personal staff members do you have?

Mr. SIMMONS. Six including myself, sir.

Mr. STERRETT. I have six. I am one over at this point.

Ms. GRADISON. I have six including myself.

Mr. ANDRE. Six including myself.

Mr. LAMBOLEY. Six including myself.

Mr. STRENIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a staff-year average where I am expecting by the close of the year my staff will be at least one staff-year below the allocated six.

Senator ANDREWS. Thank you. In the original request for Commissioner's offices, $58,541 per staff-year was budgeted. The supplemental request is for $66,815 per staff-year. This is a 14-percent increase, as we look at it. Why?

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I am not familiar with your figures. I don't know how you have interpreted them. We would like to supply that for the record, if we may.

Senator ANDREWS. We would be glad to have you supply that for the record.

COMMISSIONERS' VIEWS OF ICC

Senator ANDREWS. Commissioner Andre was recently quoted in the Washington Times, March 21, saying there are about 250 people out there in our field offices but their work is largely anachronistic. Some of them are doing little more than sending us newspaper clips.

Do other Commissioners share this sentiment?

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not.

Ms. GRADISON. I am not totally satisfied with the way our enforcement staff follow our directions. We have established an opportunity to communicate with them on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. They have gotten our message about what we would like. them to do and that they are not there to outline priorities.

And I think we need to review our field staff's role. But at this time I have to say that I disagree with Commissoner Andre.

Senator ANDREWS. Would Commissioner Andre comment on that?

Mr. ANDRE. Yes; are you referring to the reported verbiage where I said that some of their functions are anachronistic and counterproductive?

Senator ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. ANDRE. In this period of moving toward deregulation and reduction in staff and so on, we do have to seriously reassess our priorities for the enforcement division.

And just to give one case in point, I think it somewhat tells the story. We have taken a list of something like 20 enforcement functions and we have taken a fraction of those functions and put them in a higher priority category than the others.

[The information follows:]

ENFORCEMENT POLICY

Memorandum from the Commission to the Office of Compliance and Consumer Assistance-enforcement staff:

1. Enforcement guidelines and directions

The goal of the ICC enforcement program and policies should be the advancement of the National Transportation Policy for all modes of transportation. Since this policy includes a promarket mandate, enforcement activities should encourage marketplace solutions and deemphasize reliance on Federal intervention, where possible.

In order to give the staff of the Office of Compliance and Consumer Assistance [OCCA] guidance on the use of its resources for furthering the National Transportation Policy and Commission Policy, it is necessary to establish enforcement priorities. For example, several categories of violations, consisting of behavior which is condemnable wholly apart from the regulatory setting, should normally be viewed as matters for fullscale enforcement action. Those would include kickbacks, threats of force in loading and unloading, consumer fraud, and willful fraudulent misrepresentation. Matters involving restraints on competition, safety violations, or inadequate insurance coverage should also be pursued vigorously.

These violations are of the type characterized in the 1982 Senate and House Appropriations Committee reports as "more serious." For example, restraints on competition are included in the rubric "antitrust," while consumer fraud would include weight bumping, and willful fraudulent misrepresentation would include ethics violations, overcharges, duplicate payments, and misappropriation of c.o.d. funds rightfully belonging to the consignor of the freight.

Accordingly, the Commission identifies the following types of violations as those which should receive a high emphasis in the allocation of enforcement resources. All other types of violations would be identified as falling within a low-emphasis group. with the understanding that no violation of the law will be ignored, and the more flagrant and serious violations will be pursued, regardless of placement in an emphasis group.

ENFORCEMENT CATEGORIES IN HIGH EMPHASIS GROUP (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Antitrust
Ethics

Fitness/safety

Household goods

Illegal lumping

Insurance

Kickbacks