Opinion ID: 406749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Senate Legislative History on Final Passage

Text: 45 Further significant legislative history indicative of the congressional intent of the bill in its final form occurred on final passage in the Senate where the Act originated. Much of this appears as a colloquy between Senator Cannon, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that handled the bill and Senator Packwood, the ranking minority member of that committee. This colloquy, and the earlier Senate Report, indicate that the two houses were in substantial agreement on all the material provisions that are relevant to this case and that the intent of both bodies coincided in recognizing the liberalized entry policy for new motor carriers over that employed in the earlier years of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. Referring to the new entry policy, Senator Packwood explained: 46 The House Report says that shipper support would still be effective evidence, but that there should be no restriction on how carriers should prove their cases. I would agree. 47 126 Cong.Rec. S. 7685 (daily ed. June 20, 1980). Senator Cannon indicated agreement: 48 MR. CANNON. Indeed, that is right. In the legislation we admonish the ICC to follow the direction of the new law faithfully-and we mean it.... (T)he Senate Commerce Committee will carefully monitor the Commission to be sure that our new liberalized entry policy is implemented promptly and effectively. We expect the end of long delays, the end of narrowly granted authority, the end of expensive litigation, the end of virtually all oral hearings, the end of frivolous protests, and the beginning of a new era in which those who feel that they have a service to offer to the public have an opportunity to do so. The fact that another carrier is performing the service is no longer an obstacle to acquiring new authority. 49 Id. 50 Senator Packwood recited the factors in the House Report, above referred to, which would support a conclusion that the applicant serve a useful public purpose: 51 These factors, include the following: A need or demand for new services, innovative quality or price options, increased competition, greater fuel efficiency, improved service for small communities, improved opportunities for minorities, and any other benefits that would serve a useful public purpose. 52 Any one or more of these factors will be sufficient to create a presumption that an application should be approved. 53 Id. (emphasis added). That is strong language-any one ... of (the stated) factors would suffice. Senator Cannon continued: 54 In addition, I would think the Commission should read the new entry standards in conjunction with the restriction removal section. In other words, the grants of authority under the new law should not continue to be the extremely narrow geographic and commodity grants that are noted throughout the hearing record. Under the restriction removal section, existing carriers have the opportunity to rationalize their operating authority and be able to serve wider areas and carry more commodities. Certainly we would expect no less for new applicants. 55 Mr. PACKWOOD. I would certainly agree with that. I would be terribly disappointed to see a continuation of the restrictive type of certificates that so many carriers have now.... 56 Id. 57