bypassed, but should have an opportunity to hold hearings and reach a decision. 2. The trip-lease bill is wholly unrelated to the time-lag bill. 3. There is no great urgency for the immediate consideration of the trip-lease bill since the ICC regulations which H. R. 3203 proposes to set aside, will not become effective until March of 1955. 4. The ICC's regulations which were most objectionable to the proponents of the trip-lease bill have already been eliminated. It is my understanding that most of the important agricultural organizations do not desire to tie these two bills together, but are willing to have each considered on its own merits. I would again like to respectfully urge you to support the substitute for S. 1461, filed by Senators Bricker, Johnson, and Capehart on March 10, 1954, and to oppose any amendment which would incorporate the trip-lease bill into S. 1461. With kindest personal regards to you and your staff. Sincerely yours, OLIVER THOMAS, Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER TALLAHASSEE, FLA., May 10, 1954. Chairman, United States Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign As commissioner of agriculture of Florida I wish to ask for the passage of H. R. 3203 relating to the trip-lease bill. As a matter of economy and advantage to the farmers of Florida who are heavy patrons of truck transportation I sincerely hope you will not handicap these shipments by the most favorable arrange ments in marketing our corps. Certificated common carrierse now purchase millions of dollars of such transportation annually at materially less than if the farmers had to use their own equipment. Any interference with trip leasing is a tax on the producer and consumer. NATHAN MAYO, Commissioner of Agriculture. Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, UNITED STATES SENATE, May 13, 1954. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing a self-explanatory telegram I have received from Mr. Dave L. Pearce, commissioner of agriculture and immigration for the State of Louisiana, relative to H. R. 3203, the so-called trip leasing bill which is now before your committee. You will note, Mr. Pearce suggests that a statement made by J. Roy Jones, chairman of the transportation committee of the National Commissioners Association, be made a part of the record of the hearings. I should also appreciate your having Mr. Pearce's communication inserted into the record of the hearings. Thanking you for your attention, I am Sincerely yours, Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, ALLEN J. ELLENDER, BATON ROUGE, LA., May 11, 1954. United States Senator, Senate Office Building: Louisiana farmers annually move in excess of 13,000 carloads of farm produce to market by truck. Any change in trip-lease arrangements presently in effect would seriously affect these products as well as the consumers. We strongly support the statement by J. Roy Jones, chairman, transportation committee of National Commissioners Association, and urge that it be made part of the proceedings of the committee considering H. R. 3203. DAVE L. PEARCE, Commissioner, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Immigration. VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.; A. LEE TOWSON, JR., PRESIDENT, ELMER, N. J. This statement concerns H. R. 3203, better known as the agriculturally exempt motor truck trip leasing bill. Thics is the statement of the Vegetable Growers Association of America to the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce-Senator John W. Bricker, Ohio, Chairman, Washington, D. C.: I am Ridgely Todd, a director of the Vegetable Growers Association of America, and a working vegetable grower. I am also chairman of the association's legislative committee. Our national Vegetable Growers Association welcomes the opportunity to present these views concerning H. R. 3203 relating to the movement of fresh vegetables by motor truck. So far as we know vegetable growers across the Nation, without exception are opposed to the burdensome principle involved in MC-43 motor truck leasing order issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Consumers are opposed to increased food costs. We are asking that H. R. 3203 be voted out of this committee and sent to the Senate floor without further delay. It is our opinion that the Motor Carrier Act should be changed to conform with H. R. 3203 permanently protecting return load leasing of agriculturally exempt trucks. It is believed that the intention of the original congressional act was not to give the Interstate Commerce Commission control over the duration of return trip leasing of agricultural trucks. This appears to be independent agency assumption over legislative prerogatives. The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 included the exemption clause which took into consideration the best interests of producers, proving that farm commodities would not be subject to the orders, rules, and regulations of the ICC. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to insert into the record an editorial on trip leasing, from the leading publication of the vegetable producing industry, the Vegetable Growers Messenger, page 10 in the March 1954 issue. [Editorial from Vegetable Growers Messenger, March 1954] TRIP LEASING Confusion resulting from continuous changes in orders issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, reflecting the attitude of that august body, concerning the movement of fresh produce by exempt motor truck has brought increased pressure on farm organizations to urge the passage of Senate bill 3203, which now seems to be bogged down in the Senate Foreign and Interstate Commerce Committee. In protecting the growers, the consumer is automatically protected against the constantly threatened increase in the spread between what the farmer gets and the consumer pays. VGAA led the original Harwood case opposition, of which trip leasing is only an extension, and has exhibited leadership in many other grower activities. It will continue its leadership as directed by growers. About the first of February there appeared to be much support for a negotiated arrangement between growers and the Congress and the ICC, but more recently statements in the public print, emanating from ICC, would indicate that the ICC might be more interested in following the old railroad pattern than the public sentiment pattern. One important agricultural leader pointed out that agriculture would, no doubt, be much better off with a separate commission which could be established to supervise the movement of all motor truck activities and take it completely out of the ICC. In any event the confusion and uncertainty is too much for growers to swallow. They are requesting that the bill guaranteeing the freedom of movement of agriculturally exempt trucks be promptly brought out of the Senate committee and passed. Over a period of years the present return trip leasing arrangement has been entirely satisfactory to growers and consumers. If the proposed ICC 30-day leasing order supersedes the present very satisfactory trip-leasing arrangement it is believed that the exemption part of the Motor Carrier Act be practically worthless. We believe in fair play and we feel that any increase in the cost of transporting vegetables, due to absence of return loads, will fall upon farmers and consumers, most of the increased cost on the farmer. The farmers have long known that the spread between what they get and what the consumer pays is too great. Exempt truckers are apparently satisfied with the present rates they get for hauling vegetables-exempt cargo one way, and, when available, manufactured products on the return trip. These truckers are a vital part of our economy, and while they have no widespread organization they do have a very sizable investment in equipment. They are the little-business men who move the Nation's food from field to market. They're entitled to the right to work. It is not believed that the dollar interests of the common carrieres should supersede the dollar interests of growers. It is our observation that very few of the common carriers are prepared to move fresh produce direct from the field by long haul to metropolitan markets, or that they want this business. It is reported that many common carriers depend upon the leasing of exempt trucks to balance out their operation, especially on seasonal cargo. The continuation of the present trip-leasing plan will not affect the present tonnage hauled by common carriers, but it would continue to preserve for the vegetable grower the cheapest and most flexible method of transporting farm products. Much of the national vegetable production is far removed from highways traversed by regular scheduled common carriers. Present exempt trucks, when necessary, go directly into the field to load, and after icing the vegetables go all the way to destination without any change of tractor or trailer, thereby saving labor and other costs, but, more important, they deliver vegetables to the market in the freshest possible condition. To our way of thinking, the Interstate Commerce Commission seems to be seeking standardization of truck operation in order that its reports may become an accomplished fact with the least amount of effort. The Commission's control over private operation may be attractive to them, but unattractive to the farmer and many distributors, because of the assessment of higher freight charges and delays in handling. Vegetables must be handled fast and with good equipment. The present system is entirely satisfactory. Our association believes most other farm organizations would appreciate it if the Congress would keep the Interstate Commerce Commission out of our agricultural business. We are opposed to a complete regimentation system that allows an agency to invoke a mandate, or issue an order at will, which will result in taking more dollars away from the farmer and the consumer and increase transportation costs. We feel that exempt for-hire trucks should not be regulated off the highways by an agency order. We also feel that the Interstate Commerce Commission could be consistent in the orders it issues. If the ICC is willing to make trip leasing for 30 days legal, why is a trip for just a few days illegal? We would appreciate knowing who the Interstate Commerce Commission expects will profit from this order. We believe the real issues before this committee are whether or not the committee wishes to (1) increase the farmer's distribution costs, (2) saddle growers and food distributors with additional unnecessary regulations, (3) destroy the exempt truckers who constitute a large segment of what is generally termed as little business, (4) increase cost of food to consumers. It is the sincere request of our vegetable growers that H. R. 3203 be promptly enacted into law. Your cooperation in this direction is needed and will be appreciated. TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY ALTERMAN, EX PARTE MC-43, BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION I am Sidney Alterman, president of Alterman Transport Lines. This company is a common carrier by motor vehicle with headquarters in Miami, Fla., and operates pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission several years ago. We specialize in transporting perishable commodities, including meat, fruits and vegetables, frozen citrus products, frozen foods, dairy products and related articles. The company operates approximately 75 mechanically refrigerated tractor-trailer units, having 6 inches of insulation, capable of maintaining any desired temperature, as low as zero degrees. The trailers cost approximately $12,000 apiece, and the tractors about $10,000. The company has almost a million dollars invested in the equipment, and serves 29 States to and from Florida. The testimony which I would like to offer in this proceeding is based upon 19 years' experience in the motor-carrier industry. I have operated under several different classifications, having started out as a driver of my own truck, transporting so-called exempt commodities from Florida to various points in the United States. At that time I drove the truck myself, made all arrangements to obtain the traffic, computed the rate out of my head and took care of the business the best way that I could. After several years of operation, I built up a fleet of exempt commodity trucks, and then applied for and obtained authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission to transport certificated commodities to and from points in Florida, and was issued certificate No. MC-107107 on February 11, 1948. Thereafter, I operated as a carrier in my own name. Recently the business was incorporated and I am now president of the corporation. Our company is, perhaps, one of the few in the country that is certificated to transport fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as nonexempt commodities. We handle considerable amounts of this traffic out of the State of Florida, particularly in connection with the so-called certificated commodities, such as various frozen citrus products. Our company is leasing motor vehicles with drivers both on long term leases and also on the so-called trip leases. Having several terminals within the State of Florida, I am completely familiar with the various types of operations, including the exempt carriers, private carriers, etc., and respectfully request permission to give the Commission the benefit of this past experience, and a proposal or suggestion as to some regulations which might be suitable in connection with this question of leasing equipment. I'll direct my comments particularly to the so-called trip leasing or 30-day rule. I'll limit my remarks particularly to the above subjects in view of the fact that it is difficult for me to see now any other basis, other than the so-called percentage basis, would work under situations where companies like mine lease tractors of various individuals on a long-term basis, to transport the trailers which we own and operate. We have found that on the long hauls exceeding a thousand miles, in which we primarily engage, the long term leasing of tractors results in the most efficient type of operation. These owner-operators are interested in their equipment and take good care of our trailers. They desire some incentive to operate and believe that the better job they do the more money they should get, and appreciate receiving a percentage of the revenue of the equipment which they drive. There has been some suggestion that all leases should be based on a mileage basis, but we do not see where that would be any better or cure any of the evils. It has been claimed that the percentage basis results in driving long hours in violation of the hours-of-service rule, in an effort to make more money, but it is difficult to understand why the incentive to drive more miles would not be just as great as making more trips. We feel that since our owner-operators have expressed themselves as being in favor of the percentage arrangements, we think that we can obtain a better service from them under such a system. This system has grown up in the industry. We have been paying our owner-operators on this basis for approximately 5 years and there is very little that we can see that can be done to change the arrangement at this time, without a serious adjustment in our complete methods of operation. The States all have their weight laws, the Interstate Commerce Commission has its hours-of-service regulations, and it is inconceivable to us that the method of payment can have any effect on the operation of the company, provided the officers and supervisory personnel make it a point to see that the drivers obey the weight laws, and also the hours-of-service regulations, and other safety regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. We would like to call the Commission's attention to our particular record in this respect, to show that although we operate over very long distance, having, we believe, one of the longest refrigerated meat hauls in the country, from Austin, Minn., to Miami, Fla., a distance of approximately 1,800 miles, that our methods of operation based on a percentage system of payment to operators, including owner-operators of tractors only, has been very successful insofar as this particular element of the leasing regulations is concerned. In view of the fact that we transport mostly perishable commodities, it is very important that our trailers be of a certain type and specially constructed. It is necessary for us to do this insulation work and to install the meat rails in our body shop in Miami, Fla. Most owner-operators do not have the money to purchase these expensive trailers so we have found that it is better to provide the trailer and lease the tractors. We also, of course, operate complete units of our own where the company owns both the tractor and the trailer, and employ the drivers on a weekly basis. All of our equipment, both leased and owned, are operated by two men with a sleeper cab in view of the necessity of maintaining prompt schedules for the delivery of perishable products including meat, frozen foods, etc. In connection with the question of the type of lease that should be required, we would like to give the Commission some of the facts with which we are familiar and would like to advise that most of our troubles have resulted from trip-leased equipment. Consequently we are just as interested as the Commission is in providing some kind of control over such operations to insure full protection to the shipping public, and also the carriers and the general public who are operating over the roads where these trip-leased trucks travel. We would like to present to the Commission a workable plan for modification of the tripleasing regulations and believe that if the Commission would permit trip leasing under certain restricted and regulated circumstances that it could provide benefits to everyone concerned. We agree with the Commission that except under the situations that we will describe below, trip leasing should not be permitted and that motor carriers should be required to lease a truck for not less than 30 days. The exceptions that we have in mind apply to what we will describe for lack of a better name as "exempt common carriers" who are those engaged in the transportation of commodities in interstate commerce by motor carrier which are exempt under section 203 "B" 8 of the Interstate Commerce Act, and have been found so by the decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. As our operations are practically confined to traffic moving to and from the State of Florida, we are more experienced with the so-called exempt operators than any other group. One of these unfortunate incidents occurred this year when we had an example to indicate that something should be done about the situation. In March of this year we had an example of this-one of many similar. A truck and trailer was operating for us on trip-lease basis, both north- and south-bound, and we had been loading the same truck since January of this year. The driver held himself out to be the owner and proved to be a very good operator. The truck and trailer bore Alabama license tags and Alabama registration in his name. I talked with him about a long-term lease, but he always edged away. His I received a long-distance telephone call from his brother in Georgia. brother said he finally had found this truck that his brother was driving, and wanted me to know that he had the truck now and the truck was rightfully his. It was loaded southbound, as I knew it to be, with a load for us, and he said he would bring the truck on in; that he had to get the sheriff in order to secure the truck, and that he had been looking for the truck for some months. When the truck finally arrived in Miami the next day, he showed me papers indicating that the truck originally was titled by him in Tennessee, and other finance papers which proved his ownership. Have I left myself liable by paying the wrong owner for the operation of this truck? There is another condition existing in connection with the transportation of the so-called exempt commodities from our State which, for the lack of a better term, we will define as the "double or nothing" operation. This is exemplified and occurs quite often not by any certain exempt operator, but it is a common practice and occurs at one of the large vegetable markets in the country, at Pompano, Fla. It's a State-owned platform where some farmers bring their vegetables to be sold or handled, where the country's buyers, commission merchants and brokers make their inspection and purchases. There the labeling and grading is done, and the commodities are soon ready for some means of transportation. The farmer has picked and packed it in the morning and early afternoon. Midafternoon to early evening it can be seen stacked, ready for sale and shipping to a northern city by rail or truck. Hundreds of rail cars and trucks await for their loading and movement to commence. The purchaser, commission man or broker now directs where and what's to be done with the commodities. For years there has been no market Friday and Saturady night in some of our large cities, such as New York City and Chicago, Ill. By "no market" I mean the wholesale produce markets, where produce is resold, wholesale to retail outlets, chain stores, hotels and restaurants. We will assume a truck is loaded in Pompano, Fla. on Monday night, usually from 6 P. M. to midnight, the time the majority are loaded. The driver leaves, for say, New York City, a distance of 1,333 miles, and arrives Wednesday night 36105-54-pt. 2- -8 |