Mr. ROONEY. The stenographer might indicate at this point a great amount of laughter. Mr. YATES. There is no question about that, but is that not your duty under the law, to make such investigation? Mr. ADAMS. I can only speak from my record in the matter. The petitions of the carriers are a matter of public record and are in the docket at the Board, in Docket 5509. They spell out in detail the reasons that the carriers thought the investigation should be suspended, and the fact that it would be burdensome was one of the reasons. Another reason was that they did not think it was an appropriate time to reduce fares. But I will let those petitions speak for themselves. I think it is important for this committee to know that a year later, when the Board voted 3 to 2 to dismiss the fare investigation, it was the fourth fare investigation that the Board has dismissed. Mr. YATES. Does this mean the Board never has completed one? Mr. ADAMS. That is correct. Mr. YATES. In what year was that, Mr. Adams? Mr. ADAMS. The last time we dismissed one was on April 23, 1953. In the document I filed at the time, which is my dissent in Docket No. 5509, starting on page 8 of that dissent, I indicate the first investigation which was dropped, and the details, and on page 9 the second investigation which was dropped, and on page 10 the third investigation which was dropped, and then the balance of the dissent is taken up with this last one which was dropped. I think I would like to read a paragraph if I may. Mr. YATES. Very well. Mr. ADAMS (reading): In view of the fact that passenger revenues have accounted for more than 82 percent of all revenues received by our trunklines in the last 14 years, it seems incredible to me that we have not yet carried through an investigation into the principles upon which passenger rates have been sporadically raised and lowered, and principles upon which the overall passenger fare level is justified. The document goes on in some detail for many pages explaining why I feel there should be such an investigation, but at the time we granted the dollar fare increase I was the sole Board member who dissented against that. Later I was joined by Member Lee when we dissented against the dismissal of the investigation, and, of course, what was said in the dissents has been of little value because no dissent carries any weight; it is only the Board order which is the document of significance. The first reference we have seen really to this dissent has cropped up in the report of the Comptroller General which was issued yesterday. Mr. YATES. Mr. Adams, do I take from all this that your answer to the question is that you would favor a hearing by the Board on the question of establishing just and proper fares? Mr. ADAMS. Yes; and I have related these facts to indicate there has been no change in my position. I was for a fare investigation in 1952. I was for the continuation of the fare investigation in 1953 when it was dismissed, and should the question come up again I am for a fare investigation. Mr. YATES. How do the others feel? Mr. Bow. I raise a point of order. I don't think it is fair or proper for this committee, which is an appropriations committee concerned with appropriations, to ask members of a quasi-judicial board how they will vote when a matter comes before them. Mr. YATES. I asked him his opinion. Mr. Bow. I think it is improper for us to try to get these men to say that. We have been doing that all day. Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Bow has made a point of order. Mr. YATES. May I reply to it? Mr. PRESTON. I will be glad to hear you. I hope you will be brief. Mr. YATES. As I understand the purpose of this hearing is to provide funds for a regulatory agency. I believe it is proper to inquire concerning what they are doing with respect to supervising service and fixing fares of the carriers. I think that is our function. The amount of funds we should provide may well depend upon what the Board proposes to do in considering rate and service questions. It may be that if they propose a major investigation they will need more money. We should provide them with it. If they do not propose any investigations, they will need less employees and less money. Mr. ROONEY. May I be heard on the point of order? Mr. PRESTON. Yes. Mr. ROONEY. I must say that the gentleman from Ohio has a great deal of merit in his point of order. I would not insist that a member of this Board answer the question. Mr. YATES. So would I. He does not have to reply if he does not want to. Mr. ROONEY. However, I see no harm in inquiring as to whether he would volunteer an opinion. Mr. FLOOD. May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I would like to join with the gentleman from New York. I think, insofar as this committee would attempt to force an answer, I think the gentleman from Ohio is quite correct. Insofar as we merely inquire as to what they think, and since there is one Board member who has expressed an opinion, I am sure the others would be willing to express an opinion. They don't have to and we cannot make them. Mr. YATES. It is a narrow question, but I think it is quite proper to interrogate the Board concerning its past activities and what it proposes to do under this appropriation request. Mr. PRESTON. In the first place, we have gone somewhat astray today in hearing this request. I think the point of order is well taken. Under no circumstances do I think we should question the intention or thinking of a quasi-judicial body. Mr. YATES. I agree with that in principle. The fact remains that we must find out what expenditures they intend to make. Mr. PRESTON. Since everybody seems to be in agreement on it I trust we will try to avoid any questions which will attempt to elicit any answer which would in a sense reflect what may or may not be the opinion of a member of the Board on a matter which may come before it. Mr. FLOOD. Then if the member who did answer wishes to have his remarks stricken from the record with regard to the question asked by the gentleman from New York, he may be permitted that right. Mr. ADAMS. My remarks are already a matter of public record. Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Yates, you have the floor. Please try not to cover subjects which have been heretofore covered. Mr. YATES. I don't think I have done that. Mr. PRESTON. You have taken ample time, Mr. Yates. We must divide the time with the gentlemen on the left in an equitable manner and we have not done it thus far. Please bear that in mind. Mr. YATES. This is a subject that needs time. I insist I have adhered to the justifications. Mr. PRESTON. Let us be considerate of each other and try to divide the time equitably. Mr. YATES. Who represents the public interest at your hearings on rate matters? I speak now other than the Civil Aeronautics Board. Do you have representatives from municipalities, States, and National Government? Mr. RIZLEY. That is right. Mr. ROTH. We have had representatives of other Government agencies, traffic leagues, and so on. Mr. YATES. If you had a question before you of an increase in rates between the cities of Chicago and New York, would you give notice to the corporation counsels of each of those municipalities of such hearing? Mr. ROTH. They would receive notice. Mr. YATES. So they can appear and protect the public interest? Mr. ROTH. That is right. Mr. GURNEY. Our Bureau counsel would come in and represent the Bureau of Air Operations. It is his job to represent the public. He asks questions of the carriers, also. That is the Bureau's job. Mr. YATES. One question with relation to what Mr. Thomas asked about the supergrades. You stated you requested supergrades from the Civil Service Commission and had been rejected? Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. YATES. For what reason were you rejected? Mr. PRESTON. The witness answered that question fully, Mr. Yates. He said the Civil Service Commission had so much to go around and couldn't reach them. Mr. YATES. How long does the average certificate case take? Have you statistics on that? Mr. MULLIGAN. No, sir. We have no meaningful statistics on averages. There is such a great variation among the cases. Mr. YATES. Some last years? Mr. MULLIGAN. That is right. Mr. YATES. What is the shortest period? Mr. MULLIGAN. Six months, perhaps. Mr. BROWN. It can be even less than that. It depends on the complexity of the case. Some have been as short as 2 or 3 months. Mr. PRESTON. Thank you very much, gentlemen. THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1956. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES WENDELL B. BARNES, ADMINISTRATOR W. NORBERT ENGLES, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR JULES ABELS, ECONOMIC ADVISER PHILIP MCCALLUM, GENERAL COUNSEL KEITH L. HANNA, CONTROLLER PAUL S. HOWELL, CHIEF, BUDGET DIVISION Mr. PRESTON. The next item we will take up is the Small Business Administration, found on page 190 of the committee print. At the outset we will mention that we have received an amendment to the request today which we will insert in the record at this point. The amendment increases the revolving fund estimate from $30 to $50 million, and makes a reduction in the salaries and expenses item of $400,000. |