HomeMy WebLinkAbout46-Community Development
;RRY LEWIS
3D I H DISTRICT. CAUFOIIHIA
COMMlmES:
APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEES:
HUD-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
FOREIGN OPERATIONS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
(RANKING MEMBER)
CHAIRMAN.
HOUSE REPUBLICAN RESEARCH COMMITTEE
~on.llrtss of tht tinittd ~tQtts
1I\0u.&[ of Rtpu.&mtati\1[.&
filashington, Bet 20515
January 9, 1986
Miss Shauna Clark
City Clerk, City of San Bernardino
P.O. Box 1318
San Bernardino, California 92402
Dear Miss Clark:
WASHINGTON O'
ROOM 328
CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
202-225-5881
DISTRICT OFFICES:
1828 ORANGE TREE LANE
SUITE 104
REDLANOS. CA 92374-2B21
714-B82-8030
714-792-5901
BARSTOW. CA 92311
8' t-258-1523
Thank you for your recent communication on behalf of the
City of San Bernardino. I appreciate learning of Resolution No.
86-488, urging the Interstate Commerce Commission to reopen the
merger case between the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe railroads.
I share the City's concern about the decision of the
Interstate Commerce Commission to disallow the merger between
the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads. I do not believe
that this decision is in the best interest of the people of
California, the futures of the Santa Fe, or the Southern Pacific
railroads, their employees; or of the railroad industry as a
whole. And, I remain committed to the proposal as I believe
that the merger promises substantial public benefits. To that
end, I have expressed my concerns to Chairwoman Gradison and have
urged that the Commission reconsider its decision in light of
additional evidence to be presented. I have enclosed a copy of
my letter for your information. .
Thank you again for keeping me apprised of the situation at
the local level.
Sincerely,
Jerry Lewis
Member of Congress
JL:cp
enclosure
~t,
~f ::,,~~,,"'.'; t '.LIo"::'"
rl.04'"..,~ hol: w! ~ ~
,. ,. I. I
\') ., t ,"' , . '1'. t' I I
_, " I. .J l .J I. f ~ i ! L . , .. :~.l
~ H: 0 5C or lZl paS( ill ~ ~ 11.1(5
11i2shincton, i:'1Q: ~C515
l /, I ~ ' , '"
_ . I I. "',' \':
l ;'.10, .~.~ .'; i ',1-':_ ~t
I' "
:' '" ~",' I."
"1: _:.! ..~~ _l.':.c.... ".: ,...1-:..... '_ hll.A..~LE
Septerr~er 23, 1986
J
J
The nonor2ble neather Gradison
Chairwoman
Interstate Corrmerce Commission
12th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20423
Re: proposed merger between Santa Fe and Southern Pacific
Dear Chairwoman:
As a me~ber or Congress from the Southern California
region, I am writing to express my interest and concern in the
proposed merger between the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific
railroads.
It is my understanding that the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion is in the process of drafting its formal decision relative
to the proposed merger between Santa Fe and Southern Pacific
railroads. It is also my understanding that, while the Commis-
sion intends to reject the merger proposal, it may delay its
decision to allow for the admission of additional testimony
and evidence. I write to you, Madame Chairman, in support of a
delay to allow for the presentation of further evidence.
I continue, to believe that the proposed merger promises
to be in the bes~ in~erest of the people of California, the
futures c: the Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific railroads and,
in the best interest of the railroad industry as a whole. ~ne
merger of the rail units will yield considerable new benefits
including: (1) improved service reliability and grEater train
frequency, (2) more competitive transit tL~e service and improved
equipment utilization, (3) greater ratemaking flexibility arising
from anticipated merged system cost savings and, (4) greater
abilities to negotiate transportation contracts. Recognizing
that the current record has been examined and that the Commission
has no obligation to reconsider the proposal, I believe that the
Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads can provide the Corr~is-
sion with sufficient additional evidence that, in fact, warrants
full reconsideration of the merger proposal.
-'
/) r,'<
: .~, ~ :. ~ ~. -,-: :.::
~~:~~: ';;~':':'iE.':
.' .' .
. ~,:::;~~::. ~. ,
.: 3';: ~'.~':'S'~f::,"
, 1'~'~
--.. .-
-....... ,.,.,
,,'
, ,
'.
...."
l'O~= :;on.siqf:':-'at'~orL of t.'!1,.is .~.equ~s.L t..c,
balan,=ec. :'e-~e: of corrlp'~-titiorl t6 ~t.hE: ITiajor
railroads is greatly a~preciated.
res'C.c.:-e
--....c
~,l....... _.
t ' " " -
r an.SCOll t;',~rJ€:' ~:':i.;l.'
,....
... ..',
J'r..~cp
: ~' '.'
, .'
:..
. ~".,. .;,....
'.. 1;'- ,r. "':-: ,~....
r;'
".~, :~"':.~':",:~~~~" .
:"
"
,
:!"
,,: :"~-t:.
. '
'J
.~ '1,:-.: "~:-.' '5:
''::u-':T',~,::
, , . ... ...'.~. M
",,'~; ~y.
... ..
~. ",' ".
{' ,t.~:
':
:'....
~ ,,/
...~~..~~;...
" ' ,~,'L """,;"0
, J~r~'Y/,~eyds'
,Merr~et of Congress
. lo'..'
'.' ..
,.,:::.........
."., '~
....
.,:
- ~.'..
"
, ,
'. .'
.:
"
"
'.;.'
. ~.: - ':'::'-:- "
..' ~ ;
'.--,
";,',' ;"'...
~.;' '~ ~.::~~:~ .. ~.~~ ~~.
....'" "
.;.. I . '~'..
. ."k ". -, .- ~ ~'. .
'-~ :. :'-. .:~.::~. :.
: :;.:,~.~. :.~.~";.-::r...
,.=--.......
.! ,,';
._~. - .. ..
."(
.'- ~. .
;,..
"
"
,..
:,:"~' .?~; :-.
.:-
l'
..,,:'.
..,
'.;.'"J.,
:-.~<~~
r'. .-,
-:
'. ~
'~:
.' ',:',\,:
,,'\
'.\
.:' '1,
; \' '.'~
"
"',.
,~,
~:;
','
" -,'.;
. '
"
, '
"",'
.'.:.:,~~",~~::~~._..:,..:.:..: .'l~.~ , '
.:......: '/:~-;' ~ :.' ,
~.:.\ ,..
"
3Jnterstate Q!:ommerct Q!:ommiggion
lYa~bington, ~.~. 20423
OCT 0 6 1986
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE
AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
202-275-7231
Honorable Jerry Lewis
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Lewis:
Chairman Gradison appreciates your recent correspondence
concerning the vote of the Commission reached in open conference
on July 24, 1986, to deny the proposed merger of the Santa Fe and
Southern Pacific railroads (Finance Docket No. 30400). The vote
reflected the majority's conclusion that the adverse effects of
the merger could not be adequately addressed by any of the
proposed conditions.
The Commission has not issued its written report detailing
the majority's reasons for disapproving this merger. However, as
you note in your letter, the applicants in this case filed a
petition on September 2, 1986, requesting the Commission (1) to
reopen the proceeding for the consideration of new evidence and,
pending the consideration of that evidence, (2) to defer the
issuance of a written report implementing the July 24th vote.
The Commission is presently considering what action to take on
the petition to reopen.
If the Commission grants the petition, further hearing would
be necessary to develop the record on applicants' new proposed
conditions, which have not yet been disclosed. If the Commission
denies the petition, any party may seek reconsideration after the
Commission issues its written decision on the merits of the
proposed merger. In the alternative, the decision can be
appealed to the courts.
In view of your interest, I have arranged for you to receive
copies of all future Commission releases in the matter.
If I may help you in the future, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Bt::-i/:!~uLm
Associate Director of
Governmental Affairs