ustxtxb_obs_1986_03_07_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

almost like the tobacco program, where you inherit your permit to raise a certain amount of tobacco, and if somebody else wants to raise tobacco, they’ve got to go out and buy or lease somebody’s permit. It just makes no sense where, in trucking, the public is paying for the highway, the consumer is paying the price of the freight, that there should be a scheme devised that prohibits me and you and Joe Tijerina from going into the trucking business. And essentially that’s what we’ve got now. It’s a system that discriminates against new entrants. It regulates who gets into the industry, on the one hand, and it doesn’t regulate what they’re carrying and the safety that is necessary for the transportation of dangerous or toxic chemicals. Then, as a good example of where we’re backwards on our regulatory thinking, we have gas pipelines that are not made common carriers. They can take from whom they please. Yet they are a monopoly. Trucks are not a natural monopoly. The highways are open to the public. And if safety requirements are met and enforced aggressively, there should not be a practice which prohibits free enterprise and prohibits entrepreneurship. That’s exactly what we’ve got now. The railroads got into this situation. They had such a rigid and inflexible rate system that, when trucking developed and competed against them, it was more efficient. And air transportation is more efficient. For the railroads to be more competitive, they needed more flexibility in the rate-making. And I think the same is true of trucking. They’re going to lose that competitive edge if they don’t have some incentive to be more efficient and to do what their users want. So I disagree with those who say that it is bad for jobs. I think it’s good for jobs. Some people have told one you’re running for this office to create some kind of vanguard for the Gary Hart Presidential campaign in ’88. I’ve heard that a number of times. Sharp and others have said they think I’m just running to front for Gary Hart in ’88. Probably for the first time in ‘my life I’ve come to a point where I have ambitions or aspirations that don’t coincide. They conflict. And that’s the irony of that statement. I am very interested in the Presidential race in ’88. I am very interested in Presidential politics. But as Railroad Commissioner, obviously I’ll have my own job to do and my own fish to fry, and I would not be able to go at it full time like I’ve enjoyed doing in the past. I enjoyed working in ’76 and ’84 in the Presidential race. I think it’s important or I wouldn’t have done it. But I can’t do both. There’s talk among certain people that I’m not running for the Railroad Commission. That I’m running for Gary Hart. I don’t know if the story is that I’m running to win and then help Hart or if I’m running just to run and build up an organization to help Hart. That second scenario strikes me as pretty ludicrous. If I wanted to submit myselt to that type of abuse, I’d play contact football without pads or something. I can’t see the logic behind that. Obviously, in winning I’d be in a better position to help Hart or any other candidate. And I would make no bones about it’. I would do so. I would relish the opportunity in 1990 to assist a Democrat in a race against Phil Gramm. I couldn’t think of anything better to do. It should be a great opportunity. I despise Phil Gramm his hypocrisy and his ignorance. It’s brilliant in some ways, but the hypocrisy I just can’t take. I would look forward to the opportunity in 1990 to work against him for Jim Hightower or John Bryant or whomever. I really look forward to beating him. I find it a little ironic because John Sharp, for instance, had no intention of running for the Railroad Commission. He wanted to run for comptroller. There’s not too many offices statewide for a non-lawyer, or at least there’s that perception. And he always wanted to be comptroller and was planning on running for comptroller. And then Bob Bullock decides not to run for governor, so Sharp looks around, and this is the only race he’s got. So, in terms of being opportunistic, I find that to be considerably more opportunistic than what they say my position on this is. I don’t have anything against Sharp personally. He’s a nice person a good ol’ boy. But our political backgrounds are such that, when I made up the list of people that I would like to see run for this office or when I look at the list of people I want to see succeed Bob Bullock, he’s just not on it. Who are some of those people? People like John Bryant, Ron Coleman, Clint Hackney, Chet Edwards, Hector Uribe, Al Luna, a lot of my friends around the state that I agree with politically. And the list could go on. But John Sharp wasn’t on the list. And it’s because ever since I’ve known John, from the ’70s, we’ve been on opposite sides. Not that he’s ever been a mean or vicious or bad adversary, but I came to the Senate with Ron Clower, a reformer and just a hell of. a good senator. And Sharp was there with Bill Moore, who probably did more to thwart progress in the reform session than any other individual. I go to work in ’76 for Carter, and he works for Phil Gramm. He did vvork for Gramm? Oh yes, he was on his campaign and actually on the FEC report. In 1978, I was working for Bob Krueger, and Sharp was running for the legislature as a Billy Clayton, ultra-conservative Democrat. He votes to gut consumer protection. He votes to gut the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He votes what I consider anti-progress and anti-people in his term in the House. He runs for the Senate and he backs Bill Moore against Kent Caperton. He was for Kent Hance in ’84. It’s not that he’s ever switched parties, but he has a history and a track record of supporting people that I just don’t support. Again, I like Kent Hance personally. He’s a nice, likeable guy. But his politics I disagree with. I disagree with the politics of Bill Moore and Billy Clayton and Phil Gramm. I think you’ve got to look at somebody’s background. If we were going way back into the politics of the ’60s and the ’70s and it was evident in his background but there was some recent history to demonstrate he’s changed or is a different type of person, I wouldn’t feel this way. But Kent Hance was his most recent election. And I bet the guy hasn’t voted for Democratic candidates for President and the U.S. Senate. Although he professes to be a Democrat he talks like a Democrat now and talks about what an environmentalist he is and what an advocate of consumer interests he is and how moderate he is, how labor’s backing him and so forth and so on yet he votes like his mentors the Bill Moores and the Phil Gramms. That is not the kind of person that I want to see going to statewide office and have to contend with in the future. I don’t want in 1990, if there’s a race for governor, for Jim Hightower or Ann Life Insurance and Annuities Martin Elfant, CLU 4223 Richmond, Suite 213, Houston, TX 77027 o Stdrife 16 MARCH 7, 1986