trucks cut into the regulated carriers business that they should be regulated also and for the sake of uniformity and long-standing experience, should be under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that they should be."

Mr. John A. Cegla, manager of the Windsor Farmers Cooperative Elevator Association, makes this statement:

"I feel that the farmer owner should have freedom to move his produce as he sees fit, but he should not be free to compete at will with the regulated carrier under the subterfuge of a trip lease and under an agreement for compensation not open to scrutiny by the Commission. It would seem to me that outside of the so-called exempt agricultural carrier, for the sake of uniformity of rates and safety regulations, all transport should be under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as was originally intended by the act." L. J. O'Day, of the O'Day Equipment Co., of Fargo, N. Dak., states: "As businessmen we prefer our transportation costs to be on an equal basis with that of our competitors and this means that one body such as the Interstate Commerce Commission should have supervision or regulatory power over all forms of regulated transportation. The proposed amendment to the Interstate Commerce Commission Act would leave the itinerant trucker outside of ICC rules. It would permit the trucker, as now, to haul loads nearly anywhere and compete with the regulated carrier on nonregulated basis. Safety rules, hours of service, the matter of trip leasing, would go on as now without control. We prefer to have the Interstate Commerce Commission make the rules and therefore are opposed to the proposed amendment."

Mr. B. L. Bertel, of the Union Storage & Transfer Co. at Fargo, who operates truck units overland for Allied Van Lines, outlines the following reasons:

"There is a movement afoot to divest the ICC of control of leasing of motortruck equipment. The very dangerous portion of this would be on leases of short duration, first one and then another. We believe you can readily see that if this were permitted without control chaos would be the result. You can see that markets, such as Chicago and dozens of other places in the United States, could be upset by these quickie, uncontrolled tramp haulers running to and fro, and literally being without supervision or control.

C. H. Conaway, executive secretary, Farmers Grain Dealers Association of North Dakota, comments as follows:

"Our own State of North Dakota has taken note of the fact that unfair and detrimental practices of itinerant truckers were injurious to the welfare of ordinary business in the State and a few years ago enacted, through its legislature, an itinerant trucker's law which requires all of them to be under bond, to pay cash for what they purchase, and to have their own scale ticket, etc. This law meets a local need and is, in addition, placing the trucker in a position where he comes under the regulation of the ICC where Interstate Commerce is concerned. "We do not believe that trucks are the last work in transportation in America; that the best interest of the Nation can be served by itinerant trucking interests free of control and operating under their own rules and regulations, as well as rates, and that the purpose of the amendments (S. 925 and H. R. 3203) is to circumvent and avoid all restriction and to engage in unfair competition to the detriment of the public."

L. E. Tibert, a farmer in Voss, N. Dak., comments:

"Being a farmer I am interested in obtaining service through the sound regulated carrier, which I will receive under the present proposed Commission rules and still will have the right to haul my own produce as an exempt carrier." C. A. Wardner, a farmer of Grand Forks, N. Dak., indicates his thinking as follows:

"As a farmer I am opposed to this bill and feel that if these itinerant trucks are not regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission, we will find a situation which is unfair and unjust. A condition would exist where we would have promiscuous, unregulated hauling all over the country and in our case in the Red River Valley it would encourage the movement of low grade potatoes, a commodity which we are trying to keep at home so that our reputation for marketing only quality potatoes will continue to grow.

"Regulated trucks invariably haul quality graded and inspected potatoes which already have been purchased by party at destination.

"I am presenting these views as a potato grower in the Red River Valley and feel that they are very important as one method to improve and preserve the future of our potato industry."

Fred Detloff, manager of the Farmers Union Grain Association at Mandan, N. Dak., presents the following viewpoint:

"I feel that the farmer-owner should have freedom to move his products as he sees fit, but I am opposed to the proposed amendment which would take from the Interstate Commerce Commission authority to regulate truck "trip leasing" and thereby losing the regulation over common carriers which will certainly disrupt matters."

May I stress the necessity for your careful consideration of this measure in view of the arguments which have been presented in opposition to the passage of such legislation.

Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BY J. T. CORBETT, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS; J. A. MCBRIDE, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN; W. D. JOHNSON, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS; HARRY SEE, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, IN OPPOSITION TO H. R. 3203

We are opposed to the enactment of H. R. 3203, a bill which would deprive the Interstate Commerce Commission of its authority to regulate the duration of, and the compensation to be paid under, any lease, contract or other arrangement for the use of any motor vehicle by a motor carrier.

We are against this bill because it would take away from railroad employees work to which they are entitled. It would permit itinerant, and in many respects, irresponsible truckers to engage in common carriage without having obtained any authority to do so from the Interstate Commerce Commission, by employing the subterfuge of leasing their trucks and services to authorized carriers for single trips. The result would be that much traffic which should move by legitimate common carriers, the railroads and the authorized trucks, would move by trucks holding no certificates to engage in common carriage. This would destroy in large measure the system of regulation of common carriage by motor vehicle which Congress set up as a result of long study and extended hearings, more than 15 years ago.

The bill, if enacted, would repudiate out-of-hand the considered judgment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in a matter clearly within the province of its expert knowledge, exercised in a manner which the Supreme Court has upheld as in all respects appropriate and lawful.

In January 1948, the Interstate Commerce Commission began an investigation into the lawfulness of certain practices of motor carriers subject to the Interstate Commerce Act with respect to the leasing and interchange of motorvehicle equipment,. The American Trucking Associations, Inc., various of its constituent conferences, the regulatory bodies of some 10 States, numerous associations of motor carriers, the railroads, numerous individual carriers and shippers, owners and operators of motor vehicles under lease to carriers, the teamsters union, the Bureau of Motor Carriers, and others, availed themselves of the opportunity to appear and make their views known. After extensive hearings and lengthy proceedings, and the compilation of a voluminous record, the full Commission, on May 8, 1951, prescribed rules governing the lease and interchange of vehicles by motor carrier.

The validity of the Commission's rules was attacked in the Federal courts in a number of actions brought for that purpose. These suits culminated in the decision of the Supreme Court on January 12, 1953, in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States (73 S. Ct. 307), where the authority of the Commission to prescribe the rules was sustained and the rules themselves were found to be not otherwise unlawful.

During its hearings on H. R. 3203, the committee is certain to be confronted with a wide contrariety of opinion as to what effect the rules will have on motor transportation and especially on the transportation by motor vehicle of exempt agricultural commodities. The rules have not yet gone into effect, and as a result, have not yet had a trial in practice. Should H. R. 3203 be enacted they will not have a trial, for the bill would, in effect, nullify them. It seems self-evident that enactment of the measure, before there has been a period of experience under the rules, would be precipitate and premature.

It is asserted by some that the impact of the Commission's rules on the exempt haulage of agricultural commodities would be disastrous and that the agricultural exemption would to all intents and purposes be destroyed by application

of the rules. This simply is not so. The moderate requirements of the rules as to 30 days' duration of leases and the like, while adequate, perhaps, to correct certain of the abuses found by the Commission to exist in motor transport, nevertheless leave sufficient latitude and flexibility in leasing practices to assure an adequate supply of transportation.

It is manifestly unfair to responsible certificated motor carriers, owning and operating their own equipment, and to the railroads, which also own and operate their own equipment under strict regulation, that they be subjected to the unbridled and destructive competition of a great mass of unregulated itinerant "gypsy" truckers. In the absence of rules such as the Commission has promulgated, itinerants are permitted to masquerade as authorized carriers under the fiction of leasing to certificated carriers. Without the rules in question such leases are of no required duration, and in the main pertain to a single trip. The resulting abuses are dealt with at length in the Commission's report (Lease and Interchange of Vehicles by Motor Carriers, 52 M. C. C. 675) and in the Supreme Court's decision above mentioned. Passage of the bill would so emasculate the authority of the Commission as to render virtually ineffective any attempt on its part to deal with those abuses.

The same considerations that impelled Congress to enact the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, and thus bring motor transportation under regulation, should now induce the Congress to reject H. R. 3203. If it is not rejected, the aims and objects of regulation of motor carriers under the Motor Carrier Act will be defeated.

Mr. WHEELER. That concludes this testimony of the union.

I might say that we put on, I think, about 12 witnesses who testified to the conditions with reference to the gypsies and gypsies themselves, and we could call, if the committee had the time, 100 more that would substantiate the testimony of these witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt that that is true. This situation that has been revealed to us with respect to gypsies is something that certainly requires some careful consideration in my opinion. I was not aware that such a situation existed as has been revealed here this morning as to this particular type of transportation.

Mr. HENDRA. Could I say one thing more, please? If any of you gentlemen are ever traveling up and down the highway, stop in a truck stop sometime and go in there, and when a bunch of drivers are sitting around, look the men over and you yourselves can pick out the men that are working for companies and the men that are gypsying right today. You do not have to be told; you can tell. At least the man working for a company today has a regular salary in his pocket and he usually has a sandwich in front of him with a cup of coffee, and the gypsy probably has got the cup of coffee. The other fellow has got a shave and the gypsy has not. That is the difference. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

We will adjourn until 2: 15, at which time we are to hear the representatives of the railroads, and I hope nothing will interfere to prevent us from doing that.

(Whereupon, at 1:25 p. m. the committee recessed until 2:15 of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

I have been rather anticipating that the bell would call us back to the House any minute. It has not arrived yet, so I am sorry we did not get started sooner.

I have been trying to work out a program here that would give proper recognition to opponents as well as the proponents by calling

on organizations and their representatives so that they speak for more than just themselves.

Are there any organizations here other than rail organizations that have not been heard?

STATEMENT OF P. M. GREENBERG, CHAIRMAN, LEGAL COMMITTEE, ILLINOIS-MINNESOTA MOTOR CARRIERS CONFERENCE, CHICAGO,

ILL.

Mr. GREENBERG. I represent the Illinois-Minnesota Motor Carriers Conference.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Mr. GREENBERG. That is a group of motor carriers operating in the Middle West territory.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are in it?

Mr. GREENBERG. There are 24. I am also representing here for Mr. Girard the Chicago Suburban Motor Carriers and the ChicagoMilwaukee Motor Carier Conference, which numbers 85 carriers. The CHAIRMAN. Are you for or against the bill?

Mr. GREENBERG. We are against the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you make application to be heard?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes. I am all set here.

The CHAIRMAN. I had not heard of your application before.

Mr. GREENBERG. The clerk knows it. I had Congressman Yates contact him a week or 10 days ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Who?

Mr. GREENBERG. Congressman Yates, of Illinois. I also wrote in my letter and put in my proper forms.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you let me see it?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time do you think you will need? Mr. GREENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to read from my prepared statement because of the fact that some of it is repetitious. I am going to try to confine myself to items which have not been brought up here, and also to answering some of the questions that have been asked by the committee, and that have remained unanswered. I think I have the capacity and the knowledge of the entire matter to make up such an answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that you could present an argument that has not been pesented aleady?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. How long will it take you to do that?

Mr. GREENBERG. I imagine about 20 minutes or so.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you asking 20 minutes in the hope that you

get 10?

will

Mr. GREENBERG. No. In 10 minutes I would not be able to do anything.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you 10 to start with and see how you make out on the things we have not heard.

Mr. GREENBERG. I will not get very far, but I will try it. If you want to get all the answers to those questions, I am prepared to give them.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a prepared statement here that will take probably an hour and a half to two hours to read.

Mr. GREENBERG. My prepared statement I could read off in about 20 minutes. I am only going to touch on a portion of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Sometimes I have had the experience that those who think they can do something in a limited time, I find after once getting started, it takes longer than they had anticipated. Time is pressing on us very hard. I dislike very much to do what I am doing in pressing individuals to conserve the time, but it is an absolute necessity. We have other things to do besides this bill.

Mr. GREENBERG. I am sure you would want to get all the facts and I am here to give you the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. The issues are pretty well defined in my opinion by this bill. That is why I am interested in giving you an opportunity for 10 minutes to tell us some things that we have not heard yet, and are different from what we have heard. You try for 10 minutes to see how you are making out with the new information.

Mr. GREENBERG. Before I start, as I said before, I am going to skip around and not read directly from my prepared statement. I will refer to some notes that I have made. I will, however, read the introductory portion of it.

My name is P. M. Greenberg. My address is 1500 West 33d Street, Chicago 8, Ill. I have been vice president of Werner Transportation Co. since its inception in 1931. I am also treasurer and chairman of the legal committee of the Illinois-Minnesota Motor Carriers Conference.

I am a practical truck operator. I have driven the first truck my company put in service. I therefore speak from experience, and with any contact with the motor-carrier industry, that is connecting lines and competing carriers.

Since 1932 I have been a member of the board of directors of the Central Motor Freight Association, one of the recognized Illinois truck associations. I attend many meetings of all departments of the industry from the management to claims operations and safety. I believe and feel that I know much about the practices and practical trucking operations and also about the marketing of exempt commodities.

I was in the poultry, egg, and butter business until 1940 in connection with our own company, and as such I have a lot of marketing experience. I am not going to tell about the size of our company except that it is a medium-sized company.

The Illinois-Minnesota Motor Carriers Conference is an association of 20 common carriers, all of whom operate within the same areas as our company does. There are some that operate beyond. For instance, Keeshin Motor Express operates between Minneapolis and the eastern seaboard; Consolidated Freightways operates between Chicago and the entire west coast.

In this connection I want to advise the committee that three of our members are in favor of this bill. Motor Cargo of Akron, Muller Transportation Co., and United Shipping Co., both of Minneapolis. All of the other 20 are opposed to the bill.

I started in the trucking business in 1931 through experimentation in the handling of our own produce, such as butter, eggs, and poultry