It is no exaggeration to say that you lack confidence in the Department of Transportation to do an objective job on this study. Let me ask you: Do you think that the proposed Council here can deal with this problem and make a report by March 31 of 1969? The Department of Transportation indicates 2 years. We are talking about what? Nine months? Mr. BEATTIE. It would be something like 8 months. We have a great number of people in the country who are experts in the field, and the experts have a pretty good idea of what to look for, where to look, and our people are confident that they could complete such a study easily within that period of time and that we should have such a report as early as possible, March 31 of next year. Senator PEARSON. În relation to the cost, the Department estimates, as you pointed out in your statement, $2 million. Do you think we can finance this? I note the President's contingency fund gets called on for a lot of things. And then you make reference to private contributions. Perhaps studying in this particular manner would cost the same amount of money. Mr. BEATTIE. A study of this type would not cost that kind of money I am sure. It would be funded in part by the contributions of private organizations and individuals. Senator PEARSON. I note that most of your statement was in reference to the study. Do you have any recommendations as to the other provisions of S. 3861, with particular reference to the "last train” concept? Mr. BEATTIE. I certainly agree with the ICC that the last train should be preserved. We have seen in recent years many of the larger cities of this country losing its last train, and until such time as we can develop a policy, a national policy, that would be a rational policy, I think that the industry should be required to maintain the last train, and the social cost involved is something to be considered as compared with the economic costs from the industry's standpoint. Senator PEARSON. Any comments with reference to the procedural and jurisdictional changes? Mr. BEATTIE. I think that the procedural changes suggested here are badly needed. During the past several months I have maintained a check of the number of applications pending at any given time, and all you need do is take a look at the number. I think right now we have about 22 or 23 applications pending involving 50-some trains. And the ICC staff is completely overburdened endeavoring to meet its responsibilities under the law with such a large number of applications pending at any given time. It has been this way now for several months. They need more time. Senator PEARSON. We take special note of those amendments that you propose. Mr. Beattie, I don't have any further questions. Counsel, do you have any? Mr. SENDER. No questions. Senator PEARSON. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Beattie, for your contribution here today. I want to make an announcement that we will continue the hearings on this particular bill and start tomor 98-319-68- -3 row morning at 9 a.m. in room 5110. That is our normal hearing room on the fifth floor of this building. Mr. BEATTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator PEARSON. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, July 25, 1968.) STUDY OF ESSENTIAL RAILROAD PASSENGER SERVICE THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1968 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:05 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank J. Lausche (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Lausche, Moss, Pearson, and Cotton. This morning we will have a continuation of the hearing on S. 3861, the purpose, to amend section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, to authorize a study of essential railroad passenger service by the Secretary of Transportation, and for other purposes. The Commerce Committee at its July 18, 1968, executive session voted to hold these additional hearings on the June 25, 1968, ICC proposals incorporated in S. 3861, (1) proposing a special test applicable to "last trains," and (2) proposing a study of railway passenger service potential. The first witness this morning will be Hon. Lee Metcalf, U.S. Senator from Montana. STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman. Senator LAUSCHE. Yes, sir, Mr. Metcalf. Senator METCALF. I am delighted to be here before this committee, and I appreciate your courtesy in giving me time to tell you some of my views on S. 3861 which you have described as a bill, among other things, authorizing the study of essential rail passenger service. Senator Mansfield, the majority leader and my distinguished colleague, has read my remarks and asks that they also be considered his. Mr. Chairman, the importance of such a study and a halt, if only temporary, in the present trend of discontinuances cannot be exaggerated if we are to meet with equal force the velocity of the rail industry's dash toward ever-diminishing public service. I understand there was some discussion at yesterday's hearing regarding the length of the study, and whether there should be a moratorium on further discontinuances of passenger train service until the results of the study are in. I would like to point out that final action on two proposed discontinuances affecting my State-the Northern Pacific Mainstreeter case and Union Pacific service from Salt Lake City to Butte, Mont.-were postponed by the ICC this year. They will be considered again next spring. If we are going to provide for a real study of passenger service, as we should, then it is obvious that the information produced by the study should be available to the Congress, the Commission and the public when these discontinuances are again considered. It would be most inept to permit more discontinuances then come out a year later with a scholarly report filled with statistics which would have been useful in making the case for continuance. So I trust that the timetables are arranged to delay action on these proposed discontinuances until after the study is completed. Also, I have grave reservations about the proposal made yesterday to finance and produce the study by a combination of private and Government resources. We are dealing here urgently with a public policy and the study should be funded promptly by the public generally, through congressional appropriation, not by any specialinterest groups. I am a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 25, along with Senator Mansfield, and we testified last year on this bill. And from now on as I have a rather long statement, I will summarize it, if I may, and submit the statement for the record. Senator LAUSCHE. The statement will be fully printed in the record. Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about deteriorating rail passenger service for a long time. I recall that when Senator Mansfield and I spoke out against the Milwaukee discontinuance in 1963 we were joined by mayors and chamber of commerce officials and other leading citizens of town after town who told similar stories. The trains weren't on time, the food was cold, the sleeper was unhooked, the railroad did not encourage passenger service. Some prospective passengers had great difficulty getting hold of a ticket agent in order to purchase a ticket. In the Milwaukee case the railroad pointed to the availability of air transportation, at about the same time the airline was trying to reduce local service in the Northwest pointing to the availability of railroad service which the public was about to lose. Early this year, after Christmas vacation, hundreds of Montana University students were left stranded in towns in eastern Montana because the railroads simply did not put on enough cars to take care of them. Meanwhile the railroad-this is the Northern Pacific I am talking about now, a corporation with vast nonrailroad interests-was letting the phone ring unanswered in the Minneapolis depot, had unhooked the sleeper of the Mainstreeter; and within the past week, Mr. Chairman, the principal public alternative to rail passenger service, the airlines, reached their saturation point. In a story about the weekend airport stackup, the Washington Post said a reservations clerk employed by a major airline advised her customer, "I am sorry, sir, but if you really need to get to New York take the train from Washington. Our flights are running 4 hours behind schedule." The passenger followed the airline's advice. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have touched in detail in the rest of my statement on some of the reasons why there should be in this study a public interest and a public convenience and necessity test rather than the present test. In a conference in my office relative to the merger of the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern, Mr. Menk of the Northern Pacific said that there are no longer going to be railroads; they are taking the name "railroad" out of the title of the company. They are large industrial, commercial, conglomerates. The Northern Pacific with the holdings in oil in the Williston Basin, its development of pipelines and oil products, and spreading out into meatpacking and sawmill industries, is no longer a railroad. Nor is the Santa Fe. Frankly, an article in Forbes recently said that the Santa Fe was becoming one of the huge conglomerates of the country. Now millions of acres in our country at least were given to these railroads. The basis for these grants was to develop passenger and freight service in those areas. And even in those days when the Great Northern was accepting millions of square miles of Montana and North Dakota and parts of Washington and Idaho, Jim Hill said that passenger service is like teats on a male, not very attractive and not very useful. Now that was the attitude in those days, that is the attitude todaythat they would like to accept all of these benefactions, all these gifts that the country has given them, but fail to carry out the essential passenger services that are necessary. Now I voted, as many of the members of this committee and this Senate voted, for the relief of the railroads when it seemed that there was an undue burden placed upon them, and I am not sorry I voted for it. I think it was necessary. But at the same time they have a public responsibility. And so I urge this committee to go forward with the study, to find out about these extra outside activities other than passenger and freight transportation activities, to find out how they affect the whole rail operations, to find out what the total effect is, to make a determination of the public responsibility of the railroads to take care of the public through not only a fast corridor such as Senator Pell would have us work out here on the eastern seaboard, and something I certainly support, but through the isolated and sparsely populated areas such as central Montana which has lost its passenger service and hasn't any airline service and has only infrequent bus service. In fact, we have less service in central Montana as far as passengers are concerned, unless you have a car to travel interstate, than we had at the turn of the century. And so in my statement I have developed this in greater detail, but this is an area of great importance to all of the United States, to have a policy of passenger transportation. The Interstate Commerce Commission is coming around to seeing the importance of a special policy of service to the public, and the greatest service we can offer the development of our transportation in all lines, airlines, railway lines, buslines, is to go into a uniform policy, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Senator LAUSCHE. Senator, what would be your judgment in a matter where the proof shows that the proportion of passenger service in the railroad is extraordinarily large compared to the proportion of freight service and that that railroad is constantly losing money? Take the New Haven. We pumped $50 million into it, and it contends that its losses have been primarily as a consequence of hauling pas |