(The information referred to follows:) Mr. ELTON LAYTON, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Clerk, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. LAYTON: At the hearing on H. R. 3203 the question was asked whether the trip-leasing issue had been considered by the responsible policymaking officials of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I answered the question to the effect that the matter had been considered on several occasions by the board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation and had been brought to the attention of the resolutions committee at our annual meeting and they had endorsed the policy that we are presenting on H. R. 3203. At this point Mr. Wolverton suggested that we submit the official policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation for the record. Pursuant to Mr. Wolverton's suggestion, the 1953 policy of the American Farm Bureau Federation as approved by the official voting delegates of the respective State Farm Bureaus is as follows: "We are opposed to weakening the agricultural exemption provisions of the Motor Carrier Act. These provisions permit flexibility of movement and rates for agricultural commodities which are beneficial both to farmers and the consuming public. Common carriers cannot provide a comparable service in many circumstances. "We will oppose efforts to eliminate 'trip leasing' of exempt trucks by regulated carriers. The effect of such elimination would be substantially to increase rates for hauling farm products, to put out of business many truckers who provide an economic and essential service, and thus to increase distribution costs." Very sincerely, MATT TRIGGS, Assistant Legislative Director. Mr. O'HARA. Now, in taking that position, the Farm Bureau Federation has taken into consideration the fact that that situation confronts the farmers in moving all types of farm products, not just vegetables, but corn, wheat, and various things which go to make up the production of the farms. Is that not true? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. O'HARA. Livestock as well? Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. Mr. O'HARA. And is it not true, Mr. Triggs, as a matter of practical knowledge of anybody who knows the operation of farms, that they are confronted with moving seasonal crops by reason of the shortage of boxcar facilities, at times, and the shortage of regulated trucks at times, and that the great grain, corn, and other crops have to be moved to prevent spoilage. Is that not true? Mr. TRIGGS. That is true. It is the seasonal movement of agricultural commodities more than any other factor that necessitates this transportation pool that is automatically provided by the existence of these exempt haulers. Mr. O'HARA. That has grown up in the last 25 or 30 years? Mr. TRIGGS. With the development of the truck industry, and it has had a tremendous influence upon the character of agriculture itself. There is no question that, if the agricultural truck hauler had not existed, many areas which now produce certain agricultural commodities just simply could not produce them. Mr. O'HARA. It has facilitated transportation and movement to market? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. O'HARA. Is that correct? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, they would have had some facilities, but they would not have had a type of sufficiently flexible to move in all directions. Mr. O'HARA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harris. Mr. HARRIS. Let me see, Mr. Triggs, if I understand you correctly. You say that the only objection you have in connection with this matter is the proposal to place in effect the 30-day lease provision? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Maybe I ought to expand that just a little bit. This bill H. R. 3203 also provides that the Commission shall not regulate the number of dollars that is paid by the lessør. Mr. HARRIS. That is what I wanted to bring out. Mr. TRIGGS. For equipment which it leases, and this provision we think is necessary to prevent the Commission from accomplishing its objective of terminating the practice of trip leasing by regulating compensation. Furthermore, we submit that it just is not any very appropriate part of the function of the Commission to regulate or to determine the price that certain carriers pay for their equipment irrespective of whether they are paying for leased equipment or for purchased equipment; but this point that I make here is not involved in Mc-43. Mr. HARRIS. You mean the regulation of the number of dollars paid? Mr. TRIGGS. That is right. MC-43 does not regulate the number of dollars that is paid by the lessor to the lessee. Mr. HARRIS. Well, I was under the impression that it did. Mr. TRIGGS. No; it only regulates the manner of the division. It says it shall not be on a percentage basis. Mr. HARRIS. Well, I was under the impression that it did: that the proposed rule specified in the lease the compensation to be paid for the lessee's equipment. Mr. TRIGGS. Well, that means, sir, that the Commission is saying that when a truck is leased the parties must agree on the amount of compensation. It must be a definite, fixed, sum, but they are not then fixing the amount of compensation. Mr. HARRIS. You know whether or not the Commission proposes to regulate the number of dollars of compensation? Mr. TRIGGS. I have no idea that they would speak to or have any such contemplation in mind. We would want to be sure that they could not. Mr. HARRIS. Then, in addition to the 30-day leasing provision, the Farm Bureau is highly favorable to the provision that would prevent the Commission from regulating the compensation paid? Mr. TRIGGS. That is right. Now, the previous question I was asked related only to our disagreement with the MC-43. Mr. HARRIS. I see. And this matter of dollars of compensation is not covered by MC-43. Mr. TRIGGS. No, sir. So, both answers are correct. Mr. HARRIS. You think this is necessary, because the Commission may use this as a basis to effectuate their proposal for a certain number of days, that is, on the length of time of the lease? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; by regulating the amount of compensation and regulating the rates and fixing them impracticably high or impracticably low. Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARRIS. Yes; I will yield. Mr. SPRINGER. For a question. Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to read from section 207.4 (5) of the ICC rule and I think this is the section that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Harris) is referring to. Mr. HARRIS. I would like to have you read it. Mr. SPRINGER. This is section 207.4 (5) of the order MC-43. Shall specify the compensation to be paid by the lessee for the rental of the leased equipment; provided however, that such compensation shall not be computed on the basis of any division or percentage of any applicable rate or rates on any commodity or commodities transported in said vehicle or on a division or percentage of any revenue earned, by said vehicle during the period for which the lease is effective. Now, that is the section, is it not, which sets out how it shall be done? You say that that does not regulate it? Mr. TRIGGS. That does not regulate the number of dollars. It only regulates the manner of dividing the revenue. It says you shall not divide 50-50, and we are not objecting to that, sir, as long as the Commission does not get to the point of saying the rate for this trip shall be "$242." Mr. SPRINGER. Then, the contract must specify the amount to be paid only and actually the Commission does not say what shall be specified in the contract. Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. Mr. SPRINGER. I think that answers the question of the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. Yes. As I understand the proposed rule issued by the Commission it has as its objective, the 5 or 6 points. Is that not right? Mr. TRIGGS. That is right. Mr. HARRIS. And you are proposing here to prevent the Commission from putting into effect only two of the various items? Mr. TRIGGS. Only 1; the 30-day rule, because MC-43 does not regulate the number of dollars paid by the lessee to the lessor. Mr. HARRIS. And insofar as all of the other matters are concerned in the proposed rule, they would not be affected by this proposed legislation; is that true? Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct; that is right. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, very much. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Priest. Mr. PRIEST. Just one question. I am considerably interested in this question of the operational safety and I notice from your statement that you made reference to the fact that an empty truck is the most dangerous vehicle on the highway and, of course, if this order should be put into effect, it would require more trucks on the highway. That is in substance what you said! Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. has Mr. PRIEST. And, I wonder if the Safety Bureau or any agency had any real figures developed or if there is any evidence to support that statement about an empty truck being the most dangerous vehicle on the highway. I am inclined to agree with you from my own experience in driving on the highways, but my own experience does not amount to a whole lot. Is there available a report on this subject? Mr. TRIGGS. I do not believe there is, sir. We looked for such data and have not been able to find it. My statement is not supported by any statistical information in that connection, but as you say, only by common observation as a driver myself. Mr. PRIEST. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Triggs, I want to ask you, What would be the effect of entering into a 30-day lease to prevent a truck, a hauler of farm commodities, from entering into a 30-day lease and continuing to make trips to these various points? In other words, suppose that truck hauler of farm commodities, we will say, went to Cleveland, as discussed by Congressman King; suppose that he hauls a load of farm commodities. If this order would go into effect and he entered into a lease for 30 days, that would not prevent him from continuing to haul farm commodities, would it; at the same time have the facilities of these trucks at the disposal of this lessee for a period of 30 days? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, I think it would, sir, because if you read MC-43, you will note one of the provisions of the proposed regulation is that when you lease a truck, that the man who leases it has to assume full operating responsibility, full control, direct its movements, and shall be responsible for it. In other words, you are suggesting that the 30-day lease may be just an availability lease. I do not think that that would be permitted under MC-43 regulation. Mr. ROGERS. You think that under MC-43 that if you leased this truck for 30 days, he could not continue in the hauling of farm commodities? Mr. TRIGGS. No, sir, because he would be under the control and have to do the work of the common carrier, the common carrier to whom he leased the truck. Now, the common carrier might do some agricultural business; yes; but otherwise, no. Mr. ROGERS. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? If not, we are very appreciative, Mr. Triggs, of your appearance here today and the information you have given us. Mr. TRIGGS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. (The following additional information was received from Mr. Triggs :) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Congressman CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOLVERTON: This letter is in response to your invitation at the close of the April 30 hearing on trip leasing for the submission of sugges tions by any party relative to any compromise between the interests of agriculture and the need to avoid the most undesirable aspects of "gypsy" operation. In this connection may I respectfully point out that the provisions of MC-43, other than the 30-day-lease provision, in themselves represent a compromise, and that the effectuation of these provisions will go a long way toward regularization and stabilization of the leasing practice. You are, of course, familiar with these provisions. It seems to me that the testimony before the committee may not have appropriately emphasized the fact that the MC-43 regulations, other than the 30-day limitation on leases, will alleviate many of the conditions complained of by some of the witnesses. You will recall that these regulations require the lease to be in writing; for a specific period; for a specific compensation; that receipts shall be exchanged with respect to the delivery and return of equipment; that leased trucks must be inspected; that an inspection report shall be prepared and filed; that the equipment must be appropriately identified as the equipment of the lessee while it is under his control; that the driver must furnish a certificate of physical examination showing that he meets certain standards; that the lessee must determine that the driver is familiar with certain ICC regulations; that manifests, bills of lading, an dother documents must accompany the vehicle at all times; and, finally, that the authorized carrier must assume complete control of and responsibility for the leased equipment. As compared with previous practice, this is a relatively high degree of regulation of the leasing arrangement, which we believe in large measure will eliminate some of the problems complained of to the committee by witnesses opposing H. R. 3203. It is in fact a compromise between the practice of the past and the practice of the future. We are not opposing these regulations. May I respectfully make one other comment. I am perplexed with respect to the failure of the Interstate Commerce Commission to appear at the hearing. They have had this issue under consideration for many years. They have been aware the committee was considering the matter. They had representatives in attendance at all committee sessions. Under these circumstances, it is unbelievable they should be unprepared to testify at the committee's pleasure. I can hardly believe this represents a delaying tactic by the Commission, and hope that arrangements for their testimony may be completed at an early date so that the action of the committee may not be unduly delayed. I have been impressed by the searching questioning of the members of the committee. It is clear they have a broad understanding of the issues involved. This is most encouraging in view of the importance of the issue to efficient marketing of farm commodities. I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter to other members of the committee. With kindest regards, I remain, Very sincerely, MATT TRIGGS, Assistant Legislative Director. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Lloyd C. Halverson of the National Grange. STATEMENT OF LLOYD C. HALVORSON, ECONOMIST, THE NATIONAL GRANGE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. HALVORSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will try to summarize my statement so as to save time. The Grange members across the country The CHAIRMAN. Do not summarize it to the detriment of a full statement of your position. Mr. HALVORSON. Well, I think that the other members who will appear will cover most of the points adequately and I think I can summarize my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. HALVORSON. The Grange members across the country are very grateful to you for taking up H. R. 3203 singularly at this time. I do |