public. Well, that appears to be a practice that occurs with some degree of regularity in the produce trade.

I happened to be in the general meeting of shippers and receivers, and there was a receiver in the Birmingham area who was talking about the rate problem and the rate cutting tactics, and his comment was he did not mind the rate cutting in long-distance agricultural trucking as long as he, the receiver, received the benefit of it so he could pass it on to the people in the Birmingham area.

But, of course, the problem is where rate cutting starts it is sometimes difficult to know just where that comes about, and sometimes it may be a middleman who is able to pocket money which logically should go to the trucker.

In Jacksonville, Fla., in March 1963 the Watermelon Growers & Distributors Association passed a resolution as shown beginning on page 5, and they feel that deregulation would be harmful to watermelon growers and distributors.

They resolved that they should oppose this deregulation and that they should encourage other agricultural interests to also oppose this deregulation.

The suggestion contained in their resolution was as shown there to require, No. 1, no operating authority; No. 2, to require the filing of rates on these products for the long-distance trucking of agricultural products; and, No. 3, to require the exempt trucks to file proper

insurance.

Senator Lausche unfortunately had to leave, but several years ago I wrote the Senator a letter citing as an illustration an accident in Ohio where a produce trucker rounding a curve got out of line and overturned and killed two ladies from Ohio. This produce trucker had no insurance.

This question of low rates can endanger the public with respect to the lack of proper liability insurance, because sometimes the State laws are not adequate and sometimes the trucker may not have insurance.

Recommendation No. 4 would be to continue the requirement on the safety regulations under the Interstate Commerce Commission which is now required.

Now, in this field of exempt trucking it is one of the very few fields where the individual businessman can continue to operate, and we certainly feel that this field should remain open for the individual independent trucker as an independent businessman.

In this Jacksonville meeting of the Watermelon Growers & Distributors Association there was a vice president of a large railway there, and he mentioned that they wanted to just have some friendy competition with the exempt truckers.

Well, as far as I know there is no such thing as friendly competition, and in all earnestness I can say that in my opinion if a person is sincerely interested in open competition, then they should take the consistent view that all rate regulation should be eliminated on all commodities, and then if all rate regulation were eliminated on all commodities carry with it the elimination of the operating authority so anybody can haul anything they want.

So I feel that those that favor deregulation with respect to agricultural commodities could go the additional step and just suggest

eliminating all regulation of any nature. And personally I do not feel that that is the proper step. But yet I think it is a consistent position to take.

Naturally you gentlemen are familiar with the national transportation policy of the Congress. The present produce haulers called the exempt truckers are subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission safety regulations, and we believe the present national transportation policy should be extended to cover them, including rate regulations, but leaving out the element of operating authority so there would be complete freedom to get the trucks where needed to haul the produce and other farm items.

Senator Magnuson, as shown on page 6 here, addressed the 36th annual convention of the Washington Motor Transport Association, and he stated his belief that the committee would make it crystal clear that no form of transportation can lower rates at will to force other forms out of the competitive picture.

We wrote to him that we were very much interested in his comments, but yet that is exactly what has been happening in the exempt trucking field.

All I can say there is I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Magnuson that no form of transportation should be able to lower rates at will to force other forms out of the competitive picture, and I sincerely hope that these hearings will support these views and not grant the privilege of reductions in rates by the railroads as they have been proposed, and I believe they would have disastrous effects for the railroads themselves as well as to the long-distance trucker of fruits and vegetables as well as to the growers and shippers.

I would like to emphasize that our opposition to the legislation is not based on an effort to have an advantage. The present exemption actually is not an advantage, and the truckers do not enjoy it and do not want it, and we ask that you bring the rates under regulation for the long-distance exempt trucker similar to the railroads and the regulated motor carriers.

I would like to conclude with just the brief comment that we know for many, many years that two wrongs do not make a right, and that certainly in my opinion applies in this case.

I just want to bring this thought in mind: Shall we go back 100 years and have the ways of the dead, or shall we use our head as we forge ahead?

Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator THURMOND. As I understand, you would object to this bill because it brings about deregulation, and you would prefer to bring the trucks and the water carriers under regulation for bulk carriage? Is that right?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir. I am speaking primarily for the trucking. I am not too familiar with the water carrier movement. But I would agree with that principle, yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. In other words, rather than have them all deregulated, you would rather have them all regulated?

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is right. And I believe, sir, that would be definitely consistent with the national transportation policy of the Congress about fostering sound economic conditions and having reasonable rates and so forth.

SENATOR THURMOND. And if any one mode of transportation felt it could haul cheaper and give the public better rates you feel that could be accomplished by a request to the Interstate Commerce Commission on the part of that particular form of transportation?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I feel that that would be the proper procedure, and I think that the procedure would naturally follow that they should see that someone was not hauling below cost.

Senator THURMOND. Is it your opinion that the public would not gain the benefit of lower transportation costs if rates are lowered?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think, generally speaking, that the public would probably get the benefit as a general rule, but I think there could be a lot of exceptions. There are a lot of exceptions now in the produce trucking where the public would not necessarily get that benefit at the present time.

I think under a tariff procedure the public definitely would get the benefit of any lower rates that were published because that would be a matter of open record as to what the rates were, and that published rate would then in turn be passed on to the public through the public knowledge.

Senator THURMOND. Counsel has a question.

Mr. STILWELL. Mr. Buchanan, do you think it would be of any benefit if this bill were passed to make it necessary to file the tariffs and make them a public record, whether or not the ICC had regulatory authority over them?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I question, sir, whether there would be any value of having them filed unless there was some authority attached to it. I do not think just the filing of a rate sheet, for example, would do it. If I filed a rate sheet with you showing that I will haul for a dollar from point A to point B, if I then can go out and haul for 75 or 80 cents or some other figure, I do not see the point in filing it to begin with.

Mr. STILWELL. I just asked that because you said where they were not known to the public perhaps the public would not have the benefit of reduced rates. I was wondering if you think the filing requirement would help any from that viewpoint.

Mr. BUCHANAN. The regular filing requirement with the ICC?
Mr. STILWELL. Yes, sir.

"I

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir, I feel that would be a benefit. That would be a matter of public record, and anyone would know what the posted rate was, and in that way I think the public would get the benefit. When I say the "public," I am speaking of, for example, the receivers at the receiving markets. There is pretty heavy competition at these receiving markets, and due to the heavy competition at the receiving markets I do feel that under that tariff procedure it would be passed on to the public by the receivers.

But it would eliminate this question of kickbacks and rebates and special rates to certain people or certain packinghouses that have the reputation that they have the standard policy that no matter what the rate is they want a nickel under the rate.

Of course, that is the thing that to me seems so ridiculous-that a 17-ton load of produce can be subject to negotiation on each and every load. And that is perfectly legal, and that is perfectly proper. But I criticize as strongly as I know how that system, the same as if we

could chisel on the rate of a 1-ounce envelope in the U.S. mail. I think that would be grossly improper.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Buchanan, I want to thank you for your appearance here and for the testimony you have given.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing, Sen

ator.

Senator THURMOND. Our next witness is Mr. R. F. Thompson, president of the Vermont Transit Co., Burlington, Vt., Mr. W. G. Humphrey, traffic manager, Carolina Coach Co., Raleigh, N.C., accompanied by R. J. Corber.

Will you gentlemen come around?

I believe we have three statements here, one by Robert F. Thompson, one by W. G. Humphrey, and one on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Owners by Mr. Robert J. Corber.

Do you gentlemen want to put each of these statements in the record and then say anything additional you want to, or do you wish to present your statements individually?

Mr. CORBER. What we would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is this: We have prepared the testimony to be presented in sequence with some brief opening remarks by me as counsel for the NAMBO, and then followed by Mr. Humphrey and then Mr. Thompson. I believe we would like to read the statements.

Senator THURMOND. You wish to follow your statements as they are?

Mr. CORBER. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. All right. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CORBER, COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

Mr. CORBER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert J. Corber, and I am appearing as counsel for the National Association of Motor Bus Owners, 839 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C.

During the last session of the Congress I testified before your committee on behalf of NAMBO in regard to S. 3242 and S. 3243, the predecessors to the bills you are presently considering. I shall not repeat last year's testimony. Instead, our appearance today is designed to supplement the prior record with the statements of persons engaged in actual operations.

Thus, Mr. W. Glenn Humphrey, traffic manager of Carolina Coach Co., and Mr. Robert F. Thompson, president of Vermont Transit Co., Inc., will present statements.

Before they testify, I should like to make some general observations by way of background. I shall be brief.

NAMBO is in full accord with the objective of this legislation to create a regulatory climate in which a strong, dynamic public transport system capable of providing safe transportation at low cost to the public can be developed. Some of the provisions of the bills would not, in our judgment, however, serve this objective.

The provisions of section 1 (a) and (b) of S. 1061 to modify the exemption from the antitrust laws, as presently contained in section 5a of the act, is in this category. Mr. Humphrey will devote his testimony to that subject.

A similarly undesirable proposal is the one in section 1 of S. 1061 to remove the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to prescribe minimum reasonable fares for passenger transportation. Mr. Thompson will cover that particular proposal.

Section 6 of S. 1062 would extend the civil forfeiture provisions of the act to violations of safety regulations. I testified last year that the intercity bus industry opposes the application of civil forfeitures to minor safety violations and believes this proposal should not be extended to the bus industry which enjoys an exceptionally good safety record. Our detailed reasons for this position were set forth in my testimony of last year.

We are also opposed to the provisions of section 9 of S. 1062 insofar as it would authorize negotiated contracts with the Government for the transportation of traffic other than mail. My testimony of last year gives a full explanation of our position in this regard.

We support section 5 of S. 1062 which would clarify the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to make cooperative agreements with the States for enforcement of economic and safety requirements of law. We further support proposals for greater use of commercial facilities by the Government and for encouragement of through routes and joint rates among the several modes of carriers. Other provisions of these bills do not directly affect the bus industry, and we are taking no position on those.

As an introduction to Mr. Humphrey's statement, I would like to recall to you some of the legislative history of section 5a of the act, popularly named the Reed-Bulwinkle Act. Attached to my statement is an appendix containing an excerpt from the report of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on the bill which was ultimately enacted as section 5a.

It shows that section 5a was designed to authorize a broad range of joint activities by carriers in addition to joint rate activities. There was a demonstrated need for joint action on exchanges of equipment, maintenance services by one carrier for another, accounting practices, handling of loss and damage claims, tariff composition and publication, operating standards and others plus rate matters. This need exists in the bus industry today, as Mr. Humphrey will point out, just as it did in 1948 when the Reed-Bulwinkle Act was adopted.

If joint activities are limited to rates on through routes, as proposed in this legislation, most of the joint arrangements between passenger bus carriers would be jeopardized or eliminated altogether. It was recognized in the consideration of the Reed-Bulwinkle Act that these joint arrangements for other than rates on through routes are required by the needs of commerce.

It was further recognized in Reed-Bulwinkle that the need for joint consideration of rates cannot be limited to joint through routes. Thus, the Senate committee reported that:

The necessity for joint consideration of rates in order to meet the requirements of the act is by no means confined to joint rates, and in the case of a particular joint rate by no means confined to the carriers participating, or proposing to participate, in that one rate. The rates which together make up a rate structure necessary to satisfy both the standards prescribed by law and the legitimate requirements of commerce are interrelated and interdependent to an extent not generally appreciated by those who are not called upon to deal with them (S. Rept. 44, 80th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 3, 1947).