Our objections to these restrictions are as follows:

1. They would prevent a carrier serving our industry from leasing its equipment to regulated carriers during off-season periods or when fish is not available for movement. This exempt carrier could not consistently lease its equipment for a 30-day period and continue to make his equipment available to the fisheries industry for the unforeseeable movement of a catch of fish. Exempt carriers must be permitted to supplement their earnings on fish traffic with earnings from leasing their equipment if they are to continue performing the special services now being performed. It is not enough that the 30-day restriction was removed on return movements. The 30-day restriction must be removed in toto.

2. The regulations would prohibit exempt carriers from leasing their vehicles for a series of movements to an area requiring exempt vehicles if that vehicle's last exempt movement did not originate in that area. For instance, at the end of the Long Island oyster-producing season an exempt carrier hauling Long Island oysters to Chicago may be needed in the gulf area for movement of shrimp, or in the Pacific Northwest for movement of tuna or halibut. If the vehicle could only be leased to Kansas City, for instance, the remainder of the distance to the Northwest would have to be traveled empty and thus may discourage the move to the area where the vehicle is needed by the industry.

The ultimate result of these restrictions will be to force exempt carriers serving the fisheries industry either to increase rates on our exempt commodities or to discontinue their specialized services which are vital to the industry's continued growth.

Our interest in this matter is similar to that of shippers and receivers of agricultural commodities, and in order to avoid repetitious testimony, I wish to state that we are in accord with the views of the various agricultural groups testifying in support of this bill.

It is respectfully requested, on behalf of the members of our institute and associate trade organizations and in the interest of the millions of consumers of fishery products, that your committee favorably report H. R. 3203.

STATEMENT OF O. KEITH OWEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GREEN HOUSE VEGETABLE GROWERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is O. Keith Owen. I am a resident of Terre Haute, Ind., and am president of the National Association of Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. The greenhouse vegetable growers of this country are vitally interested that the authority to trip-lease motor vehicles exempt under the agricultural exemption of section 203 (b) (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act, be maintained. The Interstate Commerce Commission's regulation prohibiting trip-leasing, if put into effect, would work a severe hardship on our industry, an unwarranted hardship in our opinion. It is for this reason that we support H. R. 3203.

Our industry must have motor transportation at reasonable cost to transport its products to market. Tomatoes, cucumbers, and lettuce, for example, are three of the principle products of the greenhouse vegetable industry. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, in 1950 60 percent of the tomatoes, and an even larger percentage of the cucumbers, produced in this country were transported to their principal markets by truck, and 41 percent of the lettuce produced domestically was transported to its principal markets by truck. Thus it can be seen that motor transportation has become an integral part of the operation of the greenhouse vegetable industry.

As is well known to this committee, motor vehicles which transport agricultural commodities are by statute exempt from Interstate Commerce Commission regulation except as to certain safety requirements. Exempt carriers transport our products to market. They lease their trucks to certificated carriers for the 36105-54-pt. 2-14

return trip. It is our considered judgment that, if this practice of trip-leasing is abolished, the cost to us of having our products transported to market might be so high as to be almost prohibitive. This is because it is simply uneconomic for a motor vehicle to transport a load of vegetables to market and then have to return empty to its home base, perhaps a thousand or more miles away. It would be impractical for these carriers of agricultural products to lease their equipment for a minimum of thirty days, as would be required by the Interstate Commerce Commission's regulation.

Flexibility is the essence of successful truck transportation in the fruit and vegetable industry. A prohibition against trip-leasing would probably result in the loss to us of many of our markets, since it would be impossible to find transportation to a given point when and as needed.

We believe further that a prohibition against trip-leasing would have the effect of putting many of the independent haulers of agricultural commodities, upon whom we now rely, out of business. If this happens we do not believe that for some time to come the certificated motor carriers and the rail carriers could meet our needs. They might never be able to meet them as satisfactorily as they are being met under the present system, particularly with respect to schedules.

For the reasons stated above, among others, we express ourselves as being in support of H. R. 3203.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to present to you our views on this important subject.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington 25, D. C., May 6, 1954.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: We have been informed that your committee is to hold further hearings in connection with H. R. 3203, a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act in order to prohibit the Interstate Commerce Commission from regulating the duration of certain leases for the use of equipment by motor carriers, and the amount of compensation paid for such use.

The record of past hearings will indicate that a representative of this Department presented testimony before the House committee and before your subcommittee in support of this legislation. Since those hearings, the Interstate Commerce Commission has issued several amendments and modifications to its orders in Ex Parte MC-43, Lease and Interchange of Vehicles by Motor Carriers. These orders of the Commission have, to some extent, alleviated the restrictions against short-term leasing in connection with vehicles engaged primarily in the transportation of exempt agricultural commodities. We believe, however, that the Commission's amended order does not restore the flexibility which Congress intended should accompany the exemptions set forth in section 203 (b) (4a) (5) and (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We wish, therefore, to express our continuing interest in, and support of, the legislation proposed by H. R. 3203.

The flexible, efficient, and economic movement of exempt and processed agricultural commodities may not be adequately accomplished under the rules presently prescribed by the Commission. In instances where vehicles are engaged in the transportation of exempt commodities, at the close of the harvesting season, it is necessary to the agricultural need that they be permitted a freedom to lease, for less than 30 days, for movement in any direction where a new peak harvesting season is beginning. Under the proposed rules of the Commission, exempt carriers' leasing practices are severely restricted, except on return to the origin of exempt transportation. In order to best serve its purpose as an agricultural marketing facility, the exempt vehicle must enjoy such freedom of migration as the harvest season shall require.

A vehicle moving an exempt commodity from Florida to New York City may not always be able to obtain a lease for return from New York City to Florida. Under the leasing rules, as presently prescribed by the Commission, such a vehicle being stranded in New York City could not return empty to Philadelphia, Pa., and enter a single trip lease from that point to its Florida origin. It could lease from New York City to Albany, N. Y., or Boston, Mass., but at either of those points it would not be permitted to enter any lease for less than 30 days. In addition to partially exempt transportation, it is highly desirable that private transportation of processed agricultural commodities also be permitted

the flexibility and economic advantages derived from a freedom to lease for single return trips. This they may not do under the present status of the Commission's proposed rules. This freedom for private transportation would permit continuance of very desirable economies to the advantage of the agricultural producer and the consumer of processed agricultural commodities.

Many food processors, such as meatpackers and canners of agricultural products, transport these processed commodities in their privately owned vehicles. Economies in this transportation are extremely important because it is but another link in the marketing chain between producer and consumer. Our concern for and recommendation relating to private transportation stems from continuing interest in lowering marketing costs of which transportation charges constitute an important part. We believe the greater flexibility and economy of movement of commodities handled by private transportation will contribute to this objective.

A great deal of confusion over a long period of time has resulted in growing uncertainties and conflicting opinions with respect to the matter of trip leasing. In order that all parties may be properly guided by the intent of Congress, it is our hope that H. R. 3203 will be enacted into law, thus removing the multiple uncertainties concerning the activities of vehicles embraced within the provisions of section 203 (b) (4a) (5) and (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

If it should be the desire of the committee, a representative of this Department will appear to answer any questions which may arise with respect to our continued strong support of H. R. 3203.

Sincerely yours,

E. BENSON, Secretary.

STATEMENT BY A. LEE TOWSON, JR., PRESIDENT, VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

This statement concerns H. R. 3203, better known as the agricultural exempt motortruck trip-leasing bill.

This 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 motortruck.

So far as we know vegetable growers across the Nation, without exception, are opposed to the burdensome principle involved in MC-43 motortruck 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 returntrip leasing of agricultural trucks. This appears to be independent agency assumption over legislative perogatives.

The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 included the exemption clause which took into consideration the best interests of producers, providing 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.

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 would be practically worthless.

We believe in fair play and we feel that any increase in th 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 carriers 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 operations 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 disributors, 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 on 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.

[From Vee-Gee Messenger, March 1954]
GREENHOUSE NOTES

(By O. Keithe Owen, President, National Association of Hot House Vegetable Growers, Terre Haute, Ind.)

A splendid program of greenhouse subjects was given by the Ohio Greenhouse Association in Toledo on February 1 and 2. Meetings were excellently attended by growers from several States. The subjects covered were cultural methods, disease control, and an excellent forum on marketing.

The annual meeting of the national association was held at 3 p. m., February 2.

The following directors and officers were elected: O. Keith Owen, 3 year term; C. T. Seitz, 3 year term; E. B. Wright, Jr., 3 year term; N. K. DeHaan, 2 year term; Ellis D Hoag, 2 year term; Paul Ruetenik, 2 year term; Carl Brehob, 1 year term; I. J. Kusse, 1 year term; W. Weinschenk, 1 year term.

The officers elected were as follows: O. Keith Owen, president; Ellis D. Doag, vice president; Mildred K. Lake, secretary-treasurer.

Our association was represented at the second annual workshop in Washington by Ellis D. Hoag, vice president; Paul Ruetenik, director; and O. Keith Owen, vice president of Vegetable Growers Association of America.

The workshop had a comprehensive and interesting program lasting through February 11 and 12.

Messrs. Hoag, Ruetenik, and Owen called on our former counsel, Mr. Hester, in Washington, and Mr. Hester very kindly arranged for us to have luncheon at the White House as guests of Mr. Homer Grunther, one of President Eisenhower's top assistants.

We also had the pleasure of listening to President Eisenhower's press conference with 350 members of the press from all over the world.

January and February 1954, certainly have been two of the finest winter growing months greenhouse operators have enjoyed for many years.

Reports from Texas and Florida show tomatoes in excellent condition in Texas, and good average condition in Florida.

The House and Senate have passed bills to extend the Reciprocal Trade Act 1 year. These provisions call for the appointment of a bipartisan commission to study international trade. The general concensus around Washington is that the Republican majority in both the House and Senate is on thin ice. The Republicans have a majority of one in the Senate and five in the House. This is an election year. Little, if any, of the farm program will be passed. There are reports coming out of Washington that Clarence Randall, Inland Steel man, working on trade policies for President Eisenhower, recommended tariff reductions, called for more international trade, perhaps with Soviet dominated countries.

[Editorial] 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 motortruck 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 1st of February there appeared to be much support for a negotiated arrangement between growers and the Congress and the I. C. C., but more recently statements in the public print, emanating from I. C. C., would indicate that the I. C. C. 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 motortruck activities and take it completely out of the I. C. C.

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.

Senator DUFF. How long will it take you to finish your statement, Mr. Wheeler?

The rule is to adjourn as soon as the Senate convenes, and they have convened more than 15 minutes ago. Do you have more than 10 minutes of testimony left?