Some of the regulations were intended primarily for making it possible for the Commission to know whether the transportation performed by a truckowner who was employed only for a single trip, the Commission was satisfied from the evidence that there was no way in which there could be assurance that such transportation was under the control of the authorized carrier. It was also satisfied that as to such transportation, the regulations of the Commission were usually not observed by the truckowner and there was no way in which the authorized carrier could enforce either our regulations or its own rules as to such truckowner. Therefore, the Commission included in the rules a prohibition against the carrier permitting transportation of freight on his billing by a truckowner for a single trip.

As it is difficult to establish the duration of a single trip, the rule as adopted prohibited a carrier from using a truck with driver for less than 30 days.

There is no magic to the number 30. As indicated earlier, a lesser period might have been sufficient to meet the purpose, which was to prohibit the evils of the so-called trip lease.

If the bill now before you should be enacted, all authorized carriers would have a statutory right to have their freight transported in trucks owned by drivers not subject to regulation. Under such circumstances we know of no way to prohibit the many abuses which have been found by and described to the Commission. Truckowners could continue to solicit business from shippers and make payment to authorized carriers who will permit the truckowner to use its billing. Truckowners having no authority from the Commission can continue to operate all over the country using the billing of authorized carriers and rebating to the shipper whatever amount they desire out of their share of the transportation charge. There would be no way for the Commission to prove that such rebates had been given. This practice, which already exists, will undoubtedly increase greatly if there should be a falling off in business.

The national transportation policy directs the Commission to promote safe, adequate, economical and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation among the several carriers, and to encourage the establishment and maintenance of reasonable charges for transportation services without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices.

The greatest threat to the carrying out of these directives is the existence of several hundred thousand individually owned trucks which are engaged in the business of transporting on the billing of a carrier authorized to perform the transportation, without the ability or desire on the part of the authorized carrier to supervise and control the one-trip operator as to the number of hours driven, the adherence to routes fixed in its operating authority, other factors contributing to safety of operation and stability of motor-carrier regulation.

As noted previously, our enforcement staff cannot possibly rigidly enforce the numerous violations which arise solely from abuses occasioned by the one-trip lease. If authorized carriers are permitted to continue such business without being subject to conditions which will establish the observance of the statute and regulations, that is, if owner-operators are permitted to transport for carriers on single-trip

arrangements, it will be impossible for the Commission to carry out the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act.

We believe the fewer restrictions written into the act the more adequately and satisfactorily will the Commission be able to achieve the goals expressed of preserving the national transportation system by water, highway, and rail.

We have modified our regulations to permit such trip leasing of trucks for the return trip after transporting exempt agricultural commodities because we are satisfied that such trucks are not among the major factors in the evils we are trying to present.

We believe that any weakening of the statute of the control over highway transportation would have a substantially adverse effect upon the economy of our country and upon shippers and consumers who have need for long-distance transportation and reasonable charges without unjust discrimination, undue preferences or unfair and destructive competitive practices.

We recommend that the Commission should not be handicapped in performing the duties which the Congress has placed upon it, such as is proposed in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions, Senator Payne?
Senator PAYNE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hunt.

Senator HUNT. Mr. Cross, do you consider the trip to and return from market one trip or do you just consider the return of the truck one trip?

In other words, do you consider the trip-leasing bill to control both to and from the market or back to the point of origin?

Commissioner CROSS. Well, it all depends. Are you speaking about an agricultural movement?

Senator HUNT. Agricultural; yes.

Commissioner CROSS. The trip lease, so far as it generally affects agriculture, has been a movement of an agricultural commodity from the producing area to some marketing area. There that trucker, after delivering his produce, would otherwise have to go back empty. Our rules now provide that he can enter into a one-trip lease with any authorized carrier, and he can make that a lease in one direction, and any direction on one movement. That is, a trucker who started a movement from Florida and took it to New York could enter into a trip lease which would take him to Boston, hauling a commodity which was not exempt for an authorized carrier. At Boston he could then take a movement or a series of movements which would take him back to the origin of his movement or to his home base.

Those were the regulations which were worked out with the Department of Agriculture and which the Department of Agriculture assured us would take care of the movement of agricultural commodities. Senator HUNT. Those trucks are generally not owned by the producer of the agricultural products; is that right?

Commissioner CROSS. That is right.

Senator HUNT. This bill presents

Commissioner CROSS. We are not concerned about that, and our rules do not affect the farmer himself, who is moving his own commodities.

Senator HUNT. That is the only part of this bill that I have any interest in, in that my ranches take their products—primarily wool

and livestock-to Denver, and they like very much to bring back to the point of origin cement, lumber, whatever they may be needing in their operations.

I assume this is not your problem.

Commissioner CROSS. No.

Senator HUNT. That is not your worry.

Commissioner CROSS. That is not our problem.

Senator HUNT. Thank you very kindly.

The CHAIRMAN. And that would be permitted under your regulations?

Commissioner CROSS. I would say yes. That is an operation of private hauling on a return movement that is not subject to any regulation or not subject to the act.

Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman, might I ask the witness-———— The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute.

Were you through, Senator?

Senator HUNT. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. May I ask why or under what circumstances the Commission refused to permit this until the bill had passed the House and an amendment was made to put an amendment on the foreign-aid bill?

I had the unhappy pleasure of talking to the Chairman of the Commission at various times in behalf of the farmers over a period of several months, and the principal reason, I gathered, from those conversations, was that they were trying to prevent the very thing which the witness now tells us has been changed in this bill.

Commissioner CROSS. I think I can say that was not the objective of the Commission.

Let me go back a little on this.

When the Commission, after the war, started these hearings which led to the first proposed trip-leasing regulations, those hearings, I believe, were conducted during the years 1948 and 1949. They were extensive hearings. The issue mainly developed there had to do with trucking interests. The Department of Agriculture had not then taken any decisive step or at least the issues as they would affect the farmer in the movement of agricultural commodities were not definitely spelled out in that proceeding.

Those proposed rules went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court sustained the rules. Unfortunately, when they came back, they were substantially adopted as they were after the hearing, but whether it was the fault of the Interstate Commerce Commission or whether it was the fault of the Department of Agriculture, there was never any attempt made on either side to reconcile our views. I think the first real effort was made last fall.

Now, it is true that was after the House had acted upon this bill, but it was also after some new members had come on the Commission and we thought that the whole thing should be studied in the light of the realities, and we attempted to do that at that time, very sincerely, and I think we did meet all of the objections of the Department of Agriculture as to the need of exempting the movement of agricultural commodities from the farm to the markets.

Senator MONRONEY. And the return load of other merchandise?
Commissioner CROSS. And the return load was also an issue.

So that was written into it, spelled out very definitely, and that was the first rule which we adopted, so that there could be no future misunderstanding that the farmer, the agricultural co-ops, or the truckerunregulated tractor-who was hauling for the farmer, would be free and that the movement of agricultural commodities would not be handicapped and that it would also give freedom of movement to those people who haul agricultural commodities to move from one marketing region to another as the different types of crops matured. Senator MONRONEY. As I understand the basic act, you could not have passed any regulation, no matter what, governing the transportation of agricultural commodities to the market.

Commissioner CROSS. That is right.
Senator MONRONEY. Isn't that true?
Commissioner CROSS. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. I mean your basic law prevented that.
Commissioner CROSS. It was basically exempted in the act.

Senator MONRONEY. But the big problem is what happens on the return because, obviously, if the truck comes back empty, then the farmer will have to pay freight equal and equivalent to the truck trip there and back.

Commissioner CROSS. Well, of course, that is the theory of the thing. It is pretty difficult to see how that is going to work out, but we feel the whole problem has been adequately met now, and the Commission is fully committed now and in the future toward this exemption of the hauler of farm commodities.

Senator MONRONEY. But now, if he goes to New York, we will say, from Florida, he could return via Philadelphia or Pittsburgh with nonagricultural commodities, take on another load at Pittsburgh, and return to the point of origin?

Commissioner CROSS. That is right or take on a series of movements. Senator MONRONEY. That is right.

Commissioner CROSS. Without returning to the point of origin. Senator MONRONEY. But he must do that under a contract with an authorized truck-line operator, as I read your statement here.

Commissioner CROSS. Well, if he is hauling in commerce; yes. Now, there are different types of hauling that farmers engage in. Senator Hunt referred to one, where a farmer might go to market with a load of cattle and might want to bring back a load of shingles, or something like that, for use on the farm.

Senator MONRONEY. Yes.

Commissioner CROSS. That is not part of our troubles and regulation. Senator MONRONEY. That is providing for the individual farmer, but suppose Joe Blow, who owns an implement company in the town where the agricultural commodity originates and it is moving to Chicago, says to this trucker who is bringing the agricultural commodity up there, "Pick me up a load of implements and bring them back on this trip."

Now, as I read your statement, then he would have to make a deal with an authorized freight carrier in order to bring that back to the businessman in the hometown where the agricultural shipment originated; he would have to make that arrangement with an authorized carrier in order to carry that load back.

Is that true?

Commissioner CROSS. Technically, that is right, I believe.

Is that right?

Mr. BLANNING. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. But under a farmer's operation it could have been a personally worked-out deal.

Commissioner CROSS. Of course, in that market there are probably other carriers that could serve the merchant.

Senator MONRONEY. Or perhaps by several interchanges it could reach that point.

Commissioner CROSS. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. But sometimes that will delay it about a month and then the stuff has to be loaded and reloaded, and all that sort of thing.

Commissioner CROSS. They get around it in a way, and it is a pretty hard method to define, that is, where the violation occurs. That is, a trucker might go and buy a carload of shingles, pay for them and take them back. That might be a technical violation, but it is pretty hard to enforce regulations down to the nth degree.

Senator MONRONEY. But under the present system this trip-lease agricultural hauler is not required to deal with an authorized freight operator; is that true?

In other words, even though the Commission now says that it exempts the agricultural hauling, this new regulation would still require him to make a deal with Allied or some big freight company, give him a portion of the haul, in order to haul back for someone in his local community, or even the farmer himself?

Commissioner CROSS. I don't think this statute would change that. It is presently prohibited by statute and this bill wouldn't change that.

Senator MONRONEY. But the Commission has not tried to enforce that private hauling, have they, on a return trip in agricultural trucks? Commissioner CROSS. We would have to have an army of people policing the highways, and that, of course, Congress never intended and we don't ever want to get to that point.

Senator MONRONEY. Most of the reason given in your statement is on the basis of safety. Does not this present bill before us also provide that the regulations can be made by the Interstate Commerce Commission to insure safety?

Commissioner CROSS. We only can enforce safety through our rules as applied to authorized carriers.

Where a person isn't authorized and he is an itinerant trucker, we have no control over him. He is not subject to our regulation.

The only thing you could say is-well, you would have to enforce the safety some other way. We would have no power over that. The CHAIRMAN. Your only authority comes in revoking a certificate? Commissioner CROSS. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. But you now say in your statement that these deals are made with authorized carriers for this trip leasing. The only difference in what your order will do will be make it on a basis of not less than 30 days instead of an individual trip, but the same holder of the freight certificate will be the same line contracting with the same trucker.

Commissioner CROSS. Well, that is right.

36105-54-pt. 2-3