was passed. And the whole thing was started and the whole opposition came absolutely from these so-called brokers that engaged in trip leasing and wanted to exploit these people.

That was the absolute basis for it. Some of them went out and got some of these farm organizations to back them up. That is what happened. They went to the Department of Agriculture, because, as I said, the Department of Agriculture did not come down there to the Commission.

However, the Commission bent before the storm stirred up by the agricultural community. In order to accommodate the agricultural community, it amended its original leasing rules in a manner which we regard as completely unjustified by the facts in the case.

In substance, it proposed to grant the farmer the right to obtain a return load of general commodities. It specified only that the return load had to be a genuine return load by a farmer. Any farmer who carried his produce to market was given the right to trip lease his vehicle to an authorized carrier for a return load of general commodities provided only that he return to the State of his origin. That is all that provided.

This concession, large and unjustified as it is, was completely unsatisfactory to the agricultural community. They did not wish to be confined to genuine return loads, nor were they willing that the exemption be confined to a vehicle owned by a producer or grower of agricultural commodities.

The Commission yielded again. They yielded again, because, I think, they get worried about the Congress up here passing some rule; but the trouble was that a committee of Congress is unable to give the same time that this Commission has given to this problem.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman, and Senator, I know from your long experience both as a Senator and as chairman of this distinguished committee and your work since then, that you know how these laws come into existence and the responsibility that rests upon members of not only the committee that has to pass on it, but the subcommittee to the full committee, and then from the full committee to the floors of the respectives Houses. I do not speak for the House committee, of course, because I am a Member of the Senate, and I know there are many Members of the House whose study has followed these matters, too; as able men as there were in your day in the Senate, and in the House, too, but the House overwhelmingly passed this measure overwhelmingly passed it.

And there are men over there of national reputation-
Mr. WHEELER. I agree with you.

Senator SCHOEPPEL (continuing). Careful men, skilled in transportation problems. They could not all have been stampeded. They must have seen some justification for certain modifying changes.

Mr. WHEELER. Let me say this to you: I did not appear before the House committee, but I did attend some of the committee hearings. There was some testimony before the committee-but I still say that a committee of Congress, whether it is the House or the Senate, the committee voted for it and recommended the bill.

I think, I am not sure, but I think it was pretty near unanimous; but I did want to say this, with all due respect to the committee and the membership of that committee-I have known and worked with many of them when I was in the Senate-I say it with all due re

spect to them that it was impossible for them to get a full picture of what this meant to the transportation industry as a wholethat is to the legitimate truckers-and at that time I think some of the trucking industry, which have since changed their minds, were then taking the opposite position.

You know and I know that the Congress of the United States has to set up a body, and they have to give them certain authority, because the Congress itself cannot write out all the rules and regulations in a bill.

They have got to set up groups, and they have got to let them work out the details.

The railroads have complained many times about the Commission down here. I know it, and some of them criticize the Commission. I said to them one day, you criticize it, why do you not ask for the repeal of it? They said, we do not want to do that.

But you have got to let it rest somewhere, to let the Commission work out the rules and regulations, because it is a physical impossibility for Members of Congress to give the study to this transportation problem that the Commission has, and it is a terrific problem in this country, not only with the trucking but the water carriers and the planes and everything else.

Let me say this: You will find that the Grange and these farm organizations will not be in here favoring legislation to let the railroads reduce their rates to compete with water carriers or gypsiesthese brokers who want these gypsies.

No, they will want to keep the railroad in a straitjacket.

I say to you, and I am not in favor of letting the railroads have their own way about everything, but when the GSA says that the trucking industry ought to know best what is good for them, I say if that is true, then we ought to say the railroads ought to know what is best for them, and they ought to be able to reduce their rates and do as they please.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, Senator, carrying this thing further, here is the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission against us on record, saying unequivocably today what the Commission will do and that it will remain steadfast in that respect. Of course, I know Commissions change, and so do you, Senator.

Mr. WHEELER. Certainly.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. We have a law before us, a strikingly similar law to that passed overwhelmingly and almost unanimously by the House, and I understand some of those fellows said, "You fellows on the other side of the dome have the cat on your back now."

Mr. WHEELER. That is not unusual. The House of Representatives frequently says, "We will protect ourselves because we are coming up for election, we will just sent it over to the Senate and let them handle it."

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, giving full faith and credit to what was. said before this committee today in open committee by the distinguished Chairman of that Commission, would you go so far as to say— I know you said a while ago that the Commission is wrong.

Mr. WHEELER. That is right.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. But we would certainly be in an untenable position, in view of those statements if in the wisdom of this subcom-

mittee and of the full Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, it would refuse to go as far as the distinguished chairman said they did by way of law.

Mr. WHEELER. This bill goes much further than what they have

gone.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Yes, I realize that in this one particular. Mr. WHEELER. Let me say this: Supposing the Commission did change, and the members changed, and they did change, and supposing that when they did change, and they went to work and said you have got to have this 30-day rule again, and so forth, and so on, supposing they did it, of course, the Congress could always act and say, well, now, here we are going to pass the law and say that you cannot do it.

I say this: that this Commission has studied this bill. This Department of Agriculture does not know anything about transportation to amount to anything.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Senator, put me down this way: I believe that it comes down to this: it has a more all-inclusive grasp, and I do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone.

I agree with you that the Commission has a long history of having a better grasp on technical details on all those things.

Mr. WHEELER. They have to take the circumstances; they have to take the policies laid down in the 1940 act; they have to look at it not only-and I wrote it in the other law-be fair to the trucking industry, but also to be fair to the railroads, and to be fair to the shipping industry.

You take the 1940 act, as I said in 1935, the truckers were in here opposing the regulations; and they criticized the Commission, but they would not ask for the repeal of it, because now they will not say that the Commission is unfair to the trucking industry.

The railroads sometimes say, well, they are too friendly to the trucking industry. The trucking industry says, well, that decision is too friendly to the water carriers. They have carried on a tremendous campaign against the regulation of water carriers.

They say it is railroad minded, and it will not be fair to the water carriers. The water carriers are not complaining about it today, but that Commission has to look at the overall transportation policies of the country. They have to look at it not from the standpoint of the little trip leaser, but they have to look to see how it affects the trucking industry as a whole, how it affects the water carriers.

They have to make up their minds, and they study it. The Agriculture Department is not in any position-they have not the facilities to study this like the Commission. They have not had the experience. Down there in the Commission, you have had people that have made a study of these problems.

Senator SMATHERS. I am going to have to interrupt you, Senator Wheeler. We are going to have a vote over on the floor.

It is now 5 o'clock. I know there are witnesses here who are from out of town, and there are some who are in town, temporarily.

We have reached Mr. Sidney Alterman, who is here from Florida, and who, I understand, cannot be here tomorrow. After we vote, we will come back and we will finish up with him.

Senator Wheeler, have you completed your testimony?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. I honestly apologize for taking up so much. of your time.

Senator SMATHERS. It has been very interesting and we enjoyed having you.

We might say to the other witnesses, that after we hear Mr. Alterman, we will recess until tomorrow morning when Senator Schoeppel will conduct the meeting at 10 o'clock.

Mr. WHEELER. I just want to say this to you, that if I were not representing the teamsters union in this matter, I would feel exactly the same way about it, and I would give the same testimony that I have today, because I feel very keenly about it, looking at it from a whole transportation policy.

Senator SMATHERS. The meeting tomorrow will be in room G-16. Senator SCHOEPPEL. I appreciate your views on this thing, Senator, because of your background and experience.

Senator SMATHERS. We will recess now in order that Senator Schoeppel and I may go over to the floor and vote.

(Thereupon, there was a recess, after which the hearings were resumed, the following proceedings were had.)

Senator SMATHERS. The next witness is Mr. Sidney Alterman of Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., of Miami, Fla.

Mr. ALTERMAN. Senator, we are both from Florida.

Senator SMATHERS. That is right. You are the fortunate one. You are returning there right away.

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY ALTERMAN ON BEHALF OF A GROUP OF FLORIDA CERTIFICATED MOTOR TRANSPORT CARRIERS OF FLORIDA

Mr. ALTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am Sidney Alterman, president of the Alterman Transport Lines, of Miami, Fla. I have been authorized to appear before you and represent the following motor carriers: Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Belford Trucking Co., Frigidways, Inc., Frozen Food Express, Caroline Freight Carriers, Great Southern Trucking Co., Mercury Motor Express, Inc., Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., R. C. Motor Lines, who are certificated and operate in interstate commerce over regular and irregular routes.

Some are carriers of general commodities, and others handle specified items, including perishables. These carriers operate long distance between the South, Midwest, and Northeast, and one operates from Texas to the Midwest and California. Because of the widespread operation of these companies, we would like to present in a general way examples of truck operation and our needs, as well as point out to you why this bill should not be passed.

Senator, the above companies have a gross revenue income of $15,192,317, employ 4,369 persons, operate 3,237 pieces of equipment, both company-owned and under long-term lease.

All of us do trip leasing, yet we ask that this bill should not be passed. Having carefully gone into this matter with much thought and study, we find for the best interest of the general public, that to pass a law such as this could be most harmful to our industry and leave on one to govern or control.

67414-559

We most definitely feel that leasing should come under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission; that the Commission is properly designated to handle this transportation problem. Congress has set up such a department of highly experienced Commissioners to make rules, and they should be allowed to do so.

If you permit this trip-leasing bill to pass, an alarming increase of leasing will prevail. Shippers and independent truckers have in the past few years heavily and widespread gone in for leasing, based principally on a one-way deal and banked on the exemption of agricultural commodities, which the trucker carries one way, and a trip lease made for the return movement of a nonexempt commodity.

In Florida, the rapid growth of rental companies advertising leasing of a one-way or trip from any point in the United States to Florida has drawn great attention, and a dangerous and alarming concern of all authorized carriers and State officials there.

For 2 years this practice has been going on, and the public utility commission has not been able to stop it. Due to heavy court calendars and lack of funds, the Federal cases are still pending against these rental companies. And there are those that believe the rental companies have every good change of proving their case to be within the law.

If leasing will have no control or anyone to govern it, and you strip the only regulating body of power to regulate, then certificated carriers will be faced with unregulated competition, which will result in driving them out of business.

Not only will authorized carriers face losses, but the States and the Federal Government will also lose, since private and exempt operators are likewise exempt from many State taxes, license tags, mileage tax. and 3-percent transportation tax.

Rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission impose upon authorized carriers the responsibility for the operation of the vehicles, their safe and proper conduct in compliance with all laws, and it is unfair to authorize carriers to be asked to assume the responsibility of independents who consider their exemption applies to safety rules of inspection and hours of service.

Re

Since the lease is for a short period, they refuse to comply with what choice or enforcement can an authorized carrier take? cently an independent trucker delivered a load in Atlanta; and the certificated carrier to whom he had leased for one trip, asked him to secure a doctor's certificate before paying him his money. A fist fight resulted, and a court case is pending because of it.

In reviewing the 30-day leasing law, as prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex parte MC-43, we find a liberal rule and proper provision made for trip leasing. This permits an exempt commodity independent to trip lease to a certificated carrier for the return movement in the general direction from which he originates: and this provision has been accepted and approved by the agricultural interests and so stated on record before the Commission.

This provision was granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and presented to the committee last year at the hearing on H. R. 3203. To my knowledge, it still stands; and as of April 7, at the hearing before the full Commission, the situation was gone into again. It was surprising to hear the complete change of those that testified on the acceptance of the 30-day leasing rule. I found only the Na