Now, if that be true, the only thing that you're asking now is to permanently take out the authority of the Commission over return loads, or trip leasing of any kind of carrier; isn't that true? Mr. McDONALD. Only insofar as duration is concerned, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Well, duration or the trip, wherever they want to go. Mr. McDONALD. I want them to have all the authority, and would give them more if it would be helpful, except to give-I would take away from them the right to abolish trip leasing. To abolish something, to say you can't do it. I am not a lawyer, but it occurs to me this is an infringement on the right of freemen to contract for their services. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, all regulations are an infringement upon that right, because it is handled with the public interest, and the arguments of free enterprise doesn't enter into this case at all legiti mately, because the trucking industry is charged with the public interest, and is subject to regulation. That has been so long the case there isn't any question about it. Mr. McDONALD. Well, it is a matter of degree, of course, as to where you leave off. Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman, when the Congress passed the Trucking Act, it specifically said you can't legislate agricultural movements. That is one of the conditions in which these men have these licenses which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The CHAIRMAN. It's exempted, and it's still exempted, either under the rules of the Commission, or the laws of the Congress. There is no attempt here to put it under regulation. Senator MONRONEY. But the Commission stretched their authority in the original order, which went through the Supreme Court. It showed that they wanted to restrict all haulings and said you can't haul a return load. You have to come back empty unless you're full of wheat. The CHAIRMAN. The order Senator MONRONEY. You can pull a load of oranges from California to New York, but than you would have to take some of the products of New York, if it happened to be grown in New York, and take it back to California. Under the original order that is the case, and the Commission thought enough of their position to appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The CHAIRMAN. Where it was sustained. Senator MONRONEY. Where it was sustained, and that is where Congress began to act. They said this is not right. We are going to abolish this agricultural exemption, by interpretation of law, unless Congress acts and that is why this bill is here. The CHAIRMAN. The original order of the Commission, Senator Monroney, had nothing to do with the hauling of agricultural products. It was the hauling of nonagricultural products under a return trip. Senator MONRONEY. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Under lease. Senator MONRONEY. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. The agricultural exemption would not have been affected in any way, shape, or form in that if the original order of the Commission had stood. Senator MONRONEY. Which would have made them come back empty. The CHAIRMAN. Which could have affected the prices, maybe, and that's all. Senator MONRONEY. They would have had to come back empty unless they picked up in New York City or The CHAIRMAN. On the farm. Senator MONRONEY. Well, they are moving from farms to industrial, and populated areas. Now, those population areas do not normally ship out agricultural products back to the agricultural area. Therefore, if it is to have meaning as the Congress intended it to have in the original trucking act, these men must find a way of returning with some kind of a payload, or the price will double to the farmer in moving his produce to the market. The CHAIRMAN. Not the meaning Senator MONRONEY. I think it's as simple as that. The CHAIRMAN. But to have the effect that has been given through practice in the intervening years, and of course the Supreme Court has done a lot to confuse the thing in the Dunn case, and several other cases. Any further questions? If not, you are excused. Mr. McDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McDonald, for coming over. We will close the record of the hearings at this time. If there are any statements to be produced by any of the Government or any of the other witnesses who have not been here this morning, we will hold the record open for 3 days to permit that. Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to put into the record some information in contradiction of the claim that the railroads did not enjoy the very exemption from these tripleasing provisions in their general truck operation; that they are seeking to prevent the agricultural people from having on the trip leasing. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be made a part of the record, with the understanding if there is any answer to this they might be permitted within a day or two to make such an answer. That will conclude the hearing. (Whereupon, at 12:06 p. m., the hearing was closed.) Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR CHAIRMAN BRICKER: During the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee hearings June 7 and 8, 1954, in connection with H. R. 3203, there was considerable discussion by the committee members and witnesses as to the application of the attached order of the Commission dated November 30, 1953, in Ex Parte No. MC-43, "Lease and Interchange of Vehicles by Motor Carriers." The order permits an authorized motor carrier to lease for less than 30 days a vehicle with driver which has just completed a movement in which it transported agricultural commodities, etc., and was thus exempt from regulation by the Commission except as to safety of operation, hours of service of employees, and standards of equipment. It appeared that committee members and witnesses were of the opinion that the above-amended portion of the leasing rules did not afford agricultural vehicles any substantial relief from the provisions which require that leases be for periods of not less than 30 days. It was stated that such vehicles could be trip-leased back to the origin of the exempt commodities only from the point where the load of exempt commodities was delivered or by a series of consecutive loaded movements from such point to the area where the exempt load originated or where the vehicle was based. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding as to the application of section 207.4 (3) (i) of the leasing rules, you are advised that under such exemption agricultural vehicles may be leased by authorized carriers for any period after completion of a movement in which such equipment is exempt from regulation by the Commission except as to safety of operation, hours of service of employees, and standards of equipment under the following conditions: 1. The vehicle may be trip-leased by an authorized carrier from the point where the exempt commodity was delivered or from any other point in a single loaded movement or a series of loaded movements which need not be consecutive, over reasonably direct routes in the direction of the general area in which the exempt commodity originated or the area in which the equipment is based. 2. The vehicle may be trip-leased by an authorized carrier from the point where the exempt commodity was delivered in a loaded movement in any direction; that is, to any point, and then from such point it may be trip-leased in a loaded movement or a series of loaded movements over a reasonably direct route in the direction of the general area in which the exempt commodity originated or the area in which the equipment is based. 3. The term "over reasonably direct routes" as used in the leasing regulations allows the authorized carrier considerable latitude as to the route of movement of the leased vehicle on the return movement to its origin or home base. The extent to which a circuitous route may be used in returning the vehicle to its home base cannot be stated in terms of miles, but so long as the route is not clearly unreasonably circuitous, it would be permitted by the order. From the foregoing, it should be clear that the leasing regulations as amended allow authorized carriers to trip-lease agricultural vehicles in the performance of transportation which such carriers are authorized to perform, under all conditions which have any possible relation to the hauling of exempt commodities. Sincerely yours, HUGH W. CROSS, STATEMENT OF R. H. RoWE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES WHOLESALE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. (Filed with Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in connection with hearing on H. R. 3203) My name is R. H. Rowe. I am vice president and secretary of the United States Wholesale Grocers' Association, Inc., a national trade association of independent wholesale food distributors. The members of our association are for the most part owners and operators of their own motortrucks. They use such trucks to deliver merchandise from their warehouses to their retail customers and also at times for bringing merchandise to their warehouses from their manufacturer suppliers. It would promote economy in truck transportation if as the occasion arises they should be allowed to lease their trucks to other carriers or to lease trucks from other owners and operators. They believe that such trip-leasing should be free of all regulations except those specified in subsection (e) (1) and (2) of H. R. 3203, and that the Interstate Commerce Commission should have no authority to regulate the duration or the amount of compensation for truck trip-leasing-a provision also contained in H. R. 3203. Hence, the members of our association at their annual convention at St. Louis, Mo., on May 19, 1954, passed the following resolution under the heading, "Truck trip-leasing": "We favor legislation that will remove from the Interstate Commerce Commission authority to regulate the duration of truck trip-leasing contracts." We would therefore earnestly request the Senate Commerce Committee to report out H. R. 3203. STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, MEMBER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR I am George D. Riley, member, national legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor, appearing in opposition to H. R. 3203 which, in my opinion, would open wide access to the highways of this Nation which already are overcrowded for uncertificated drivers and equipment for so-called trip-leasing operations or, as we know it better, gypsy operations. The American Federation of Labor is vitally concerned, as we believe almost every other national organization is, in safety on the highways. The number of deaths and injuries, year by year, never seem to show any reduction, despite all of the sporadic attempts to lessen the mortality and casualty rates. Nor is this any less true on the new superhighways with great speed limits or no limits at all. When our teamsters union sought to eliminate trip leasing and gypsies from the highways, it did so for the stated purpose of decreasing the highway death and accident rate among its employees. We agreed with their purpose at that time and we agree with it at this time. We think the Interstate Commerce Commission having heard testimony for months on end and having heard the testimony of the self-interested truckowners, farmers, and owner-operators should not be overruled. Congress entrusted the administration of the Motor Carrier Act to the Commission. It cannot expect efficient or even reasonable administration if every decision of the Commission can be quickly appealed to Congress by each unsuccessful party after he has tried his case before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts. The Commission's decision which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States should not be overturned by Congress at the request of truckowners or farmers who exhaustively presented their cases to the Commission and the courts. You are asked to pass this legislation because some farmers think they will be afforded cheaper transportation. We do not believe that adequate regulation of trucks and the prevention of accidents should be sacrificed on the altar of profit or added convenience. The A. F. of L. does not believe that safety should be ignored even if by so doing some special groups will be afforded cheaper transportation which we do not think will be the case. We believe the majority report of the House committee on H. R. 3203 stressed the monetary and convenience aspects of the question disproportionately. Anyone who is familiar at all with the underlying facts knows that the dilapidated condition of trip-leased vehicles and the long grinding hours put in by their drivers are the major reasons for the high accident and death rate on our highways. You and every constituent of yours who drives on the highway is placed in daily peril by reason of the operations which the Interstate Commerce Commission has sought to stop. We strongly urge you not to overrule this effort by the Commission to achieve adequate regulation of the motor carrier industry and to decrease the street and highway accident rate. WERNER TRANSPORTATION Co., Re H. R. 3203. Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, Chairman, Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: The writer testified before your committee on Friday, June 25, 1954. While there, I heard the testimony of Lloyd C. Halvorson, economist for the National Grange. He made one statement that is so untrue and impractical that I must correct the impression which he attempted to make upon your committee. He stated that trucks come direct to the farms (even at 3 a. m.) and provide the farmers with on-the-farm pickups of agricultural products. I want to point out that 99.9 percent of the trip-lease trucks are large semitrailer units, carrying 20 to 30 tons of freight and that these trucks cannot operate, in most States, over secondary roads. That the only farmers or producers that can be served direct by these trucks are those located on main paved highways. That very few of the many farmers or producers are located on such highways. That, in my experience in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, I know of no farmer or producer who ever has had the need to use such a truck except for livestock and some movements of corn and peas and these move to primary markets, either to a livestock market or to a nearby canning factory. Furthermore, it is a known fact, that the farmer brings his livestock to the nearest main road or village where the large semitrailer is loaded. Vegetables, fruits, etc., are usually brought to market or canning factory in small trailers, which either the producer owns or is supplied by someone in the neighborhood. Even in Florida, the only producer who can make use of such large trailers are those who are located on paved highways and those are generally large growers. In my book, they are big business. They are not farmers, in the known description of a farmer. Mr. Halvorson was not speaking for big business, I hope. Mr. Halvorson tried to make you believe that if trip-leasing was abandoned the farmer would be unable to have the trip-lease truck come to his farm or provide him with truck service. This is far from the truth as the ICC will undoubtedly allow the present exemption, to trucks hauling exempt commodities, to remain. Mr. Halvorson testified on the same day before the ICC in Ex parte MC-43 but he didn't dare make the same statement because he knew that he would be cross-examined on such a statement. I'm afraid that Mr. Halvorson's experience as a practical farmer and as to actual practices in transportation are limited to his boyhood days when he lived on a farm. He hasn't been driving around talking to farmers and watching the transportation picture, as I have. As a matter of fact, I have yet to find one farmer who knows about this controversy. I trust that you will pass copies of this letter to all members of your committee. Respectfully yours, X P. M. GREENBERG, Vice President. |