cases to Commissioners who participated in the evolutionary development of those files rather than to someone who has only just come to the Commission?

Mr. BROOKE. It is my observation-possibly I did not make that observation clear a few minutes ago-that from the point of convenience in writing an opinion, it is more convenient to let someone who has an experienced knowledge of the background

Senator BAKER. Is it also correct, as I seem to recall, that Commission orders would include orders setting down cases for oral arguments?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Or referring cases to hearing examiners?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Do they also include which technical staff to make field examinations and evaluations or orders for rehearing or final orders? Is it correct that they would not all be judgments on the merits but rather the great preponderant majority of the orders issued by the Commission would be fairly routine procedural matters?

Mr. BROOKE. But yet these procedural matters have to have an imprint of Commission approval.

Senator BAKER. In many of these orders you do not have the Commission order but the single Commissioner?

Mr. BROOKE. Or authority delegated to the secretary.

Senator BAKER. Or executive secretary of the Commission?

Mr. BROOKE. The secretary as distinguished from the executive secretary.

Senator MAGNUSON. There are about 2,500 cases a year that go through the Commission, some perfunctory, but they have to go formally through the Commission, the secretary or

Senator BAKER. Acted on by a Commissioner or the secretary. I am not trying to gloss over the allegations made. I am just trying to put it in perspective as I seem to recall my own experience before the Commission.

Mr. BROOKE. The Senator is correct.

Senator BAKER. May I say this, not directly related to the matter before this committee at this time. I would very much hope that if you are confirmed and as you move forward in your further career, that something could be done to expedite those proceedings, because I also recall that once again in natural gas cases there would be two or three or even four tariff changes all pending at the same time before even the first one had been disposed of.

Mr. BROOKE. This is one of the great binds that the Commission found itself in approximately 10 years ago.

Senator BAKER. Is it substantially improved?

Mr. BROOKE. I think it is substantially improved.

Senator MAGNUSON. I think you may check back on the record. It may not be any worse but I do not think it has been improved. Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir; I will.

Senator BAKER. In summary, I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. I understand, you came to the Commission by the appointment of President Johnson in September of 1968?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. And then with approximately a month's illness in May-June of 1969?

Mr. BROOKE. Preceding my nomination, yes.
Senator BAKER. No. I am talking about 1969.

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir. I tried to point out it is still not-well the doctor says flatly, "I do not know what it was or what the effect was but we have the signal for go and that was it."

Senator BAKER. And in the final analysis, do you feel in your best judgment and based on that of your physician and based on your own attitudes and aspirations and ambition to serve, that you can and that you would fulfill fully your responsibilities with the Federal Power Commission if you are confirmed by the Senate?

Mr. BROOKE. The answer is an unqualified "Yes."

Senator BAKER. I would ask one more. There was a reference made by Senator Cotton, I believe, to a portion of the article which refers to the fact the alleged fact and I suppose it is true that Senator Thruston Morton is now a member of the board of directors of Texas Gas Transmission Co. Do you have any connection with that company?

Mr. BROOKE. No, sir. If I might explain

Senator BAKER. Would the coincidental fact that you once worked for Senator Morton and that Senator Morton now is on the board of directors of that company have any effect at all on your judgment of any cases by that company before the Commission?

Mr. BROOKE. This is the implication that gives me great concern, Senator. By implication here that there is a conflict of interest. While I

Senator BAKER. Would you just tell me if it would have any effect? Mr. BROOKE. Certainly not. It has not and it will not. Last December before Senator Morton left the Senate, he indicated rather clearly that he wanted to become involved with endeavors related to the development of Kentucky's economic resources and one, of course, is river transportation. He asked me at the time, saying, in effect, "I have been invited to become a member of the Board of Directors of the Texas Gas Transmission Co. Would it give you any problems?” And I said, "Absolutely none, Senator, except what some people might try to read into it."

Senator BAKER. Thank you very much. That is all.

Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Brooke, I think we might as well get down to the basic question, something that has been asked in different ways. It is obvious to you, is it not-and I think this is being fair to you-that because of the month you were out and the trouble you had just before last fall, that you have not been able to do as much as you would like to do as a Commissioner; isn't that correct? Mr. BROOKE. I think that is substantially correct.

Senator MAGNUSON. Of course, it is obvious

Mr. BROOKE. I do not think there are enough hours in any given day for us to do everything that we would like to do.

Senator MAGNUSON. I mean, obviously you have not participated as much and been as active as the other Commissioners.

Mr. BROOKE. That is correct.

Senator MAGNUSON. That is a fair statement?

Mr. BROOKE. That is correct, during that space of 4 weeks.

Senator MAGNUSON. I do not know all the details and I am not going into them, but I think the question here is do you think now, the way you feel now, that you could become an active Commissioner?

Mr. BROOKE. Prior to May 23

Senator MAGNUSON. I use the word "active" a little bit broader than it should be used, but participate more than you have, let's be honest about this.

Mr. BROOKE. I think that my participation in Commission activities up until May 23 was-well, I will say 99.99 percent.

up.

Senator MAGNUSON. Anything like that is bound to slow a person

Mr. BROOKE. Slow up?

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes.

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir. I think that it would, with the natural requirement in there that you do slow up. But as I say, my answer as to future service on a health basis is an unqualified yes. I felt that I had been participating fully in the Commission's processes.

As a matter of fact, during the 4 weeks I was absent, I kept advised of certain cases which had been before the Commission for some time. I will not cite them since the opinions have not been issued. There were two cases, in particular, in which I might have had to declare a third vote. So I got those cases sent to me at home and I spent considerable time reading them. Had it been a 2-to-2 vote I would have been in a position to cast the deciding vote.

Senator MAGNUSON. I think you will agree with me that being a Commissioner on the Federal Power Commission just cannot be a part-time job.

Mr. BROOKE. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Senator MAGNUSON. Any further questions, Senator Griffin?

Senator GRIFFIN. Despite the risk that would be involved in my failure to participate, there is a colleague out in the audience who has been waiting patiently to nominate the nominee for the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Senator MAGNUSON. I noticed him. He has been in and out.

Senator COTTON. You have been exposed inadvertently to further charges by whoever wrote this article since in your biographical sketch you note your interest in sports. You state that you are an avid spectator of baseball and football. Have you been out in the stadium since you have been working?

Mr. BROOKE. Senator, living in Baltimore, my fidelity is to the Colts and to the Orioles and I am afraid it would be embarrassing to make any comments in regard to the Senators and the Redskins. But I was a little bit-well, I might add this one thing. When I went to the University of Kentucky, I was too small for football or basketball

Senator MAGNUSON. You were too small?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes, sir.

Senator COTTON. You have not been going out to the stadium when you should be working?

Mr. BROOKE. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator MAGNUSON. All right. If there are no further questions, we thank you.

I would like those questions I asked you in the record answered and we are going to have the record open here for a few days so that you can do so.

(The information requested follows:)

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., August 5, 1969.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON
Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The attached exhibits, prepared by the Office of the Secretary, Federal Power Commission, and my explanatory comments are submitted pursuant to the requests expressed during my appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee on August 1.

With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: Exhibits

This exhibit identifies those cases to which a Commissioner had been assigned to supervise the writing of a Commission opinion as of October 15, 1968, and subsequent assignments to July 10, 1969.

"Since Oct. 16, the commission has ruled on 16 major cases. Mr. Brooke voted on four. The other commissioners participated in all 16."

FPC records show that between October 29, 1968, and July 29, 1969, it issued 16 opinions consecutively numbered from No. 548 through No. 563. The records further show that I attended all meetings at which a Commission decision was reached and the word "Present" indicates I voted with the majority on six occasions.

It is impossible to ascertain whether the 16 formal opinions listed by the Secretary coincide with the 16 identified by the newspaper article.

The article further states:

"Those 16 were the handful of key cases out of about 2,400 a year that go through a formal hearing before the commission because of their importance and challenge by the parties involved."

The Secretary's office reports that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, approximately 85 cases or separate dockets went to "formal hearing," using the reporter's terminology, not 2,400.

"Of five oral arguments before the Commission since Oct. 16, Mr. Brooke has attended four. During 14 hours of testimony in those four, covering 540 pages of transcript, Mr. Brooke asked one question."

As the following exhibit shows, there were six oral arguments during the time frame in question, with absences recorded on two occasions. The references to hours and pages of transcript are approximately correct.

"On June 23, 1969, the day he was renominated, Mr. Brooke had missed 10 consecutive commission meetings. During that period only one other commissioner missed a single meeting."

Further, it stated:

"The commission issued 122 orders in June. Mr. Brooke was listed as participating in 13. Mr. O'Connor participated in 120 orders and Mr. Bagge in 121. Mr. White and Mr. Carter participated in all 122."

In order to accurately reflect my participation during the time parameters of absence, I think a more fair method of tabulating decision participation lies in the dates decisions and opinions were actually approved and not in the actual issuance date, which often lags Commission approval.

This exhibit shows that I was absent from 10 consecutive meetings between May 23 and June 20. The exhibit indicates that six orders were approved at three special meetings of the unscheduled (circulation) variety (US), two letters were approved at another US session, and two special scheduled meetings (SS) resulted in one action not reflecting an order. The four regular meetings missed saw approval of a total of 109 orders. On June 26, our last regular meeting date in June, I took part in approving 31 orders.