Resolved, That the board of directors of the Virginia State Poultry Federation give strong support to these bills and request the Virginia delegation in Congress to support by appropriate means S. 3243 and H.R. 11583 to the extent that they would be applied uniformly, without favoring any single mode of transportation, provide for adequate transportation service and result in savings on transportation costs to the Virginia poultry and livestock industries. The above resolution unanimously adopted by the board of directors of the Virginia State Poultry Federation in session at Richmond, Va., on July 25, 1962. ARKANSAS COMMERCE COMMISSION, Hon. OREN HARRIS, Member of Congress. New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR OREN: Reference is made to S. 2560 by Senator Smathers. Attached is a copy of a resolution sponsored by members of this commission which was adopted by the Midwest Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners at its meeting on July 7, 1962, in Oklahoma City. It is our opinion that section 1 of the bill will not accomplish the desired results. On the contrary, it is more likely to operate as a deterrent to an effective cooperative enforcement program between State and Federal agencies. Conscientious efforts are being made by the National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners to bring about simplification and uniformity in regulation of motor carriers by the State agencies of their own volition, and substantial progress is being made. Regarding that portion of section 1 of S. 2560 dealing with uniformity in filing of evidence of security for the protection of the public with State agencies, I respectfully call your attention to the fact that the filing of such evidence is not a burden upon the carriers for the reason that this service is performed by the insurance companies for which they are adequately compensated. I will appreciate your opposition to section 1 of S. 2560 as it is presently written; we have no objection to other sections of the bill. Sincerely, Enclosure. JOHN H. GREENE, Commissioner. MIDWEST ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OPPOSING SECTION 1 of S. 2560 Whereas, section 1 of S. 2560 introduced in Congress by Senator Smathers provides that those States which require an interstate motor carrier to register its operating authority issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission with the State regulatory agency, shall do so only under such rules and regulations as the Interstate Commerce Commission shall prescribe; and Whereas the adoption of section 1 of S. 2560 as presently written represents further encroachment by the Federal establishment upon the rights and prerogatives of the State regulatory agencies without first giving the States adequate opportunity to adopt uniform procedures to accomplish the desired result: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Midwest Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners officially oppose the enactment of section 1 of S. 2560 as it is presently written or any other similar bill which would deprive the State regulatory bodies of their rights without first giving the States adequate opportunity to bring about uniformity in such matters in a majority of the 48 continental United States; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be served upon each member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and upon each Senator and Representative in the Congress representing the States which are members of this Association. Respectfully submitted, J. ORVILLE CHENEY, Arkansas. ARKANSAS PALLET CO., Pine Bluff, Ark., July 26, 1962. Representative OREN G. HARRIS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: We are vitally concerned over the principles involved by bill H.R. 11583, and urge that you give full support to its passage. The freedom to fix minimum rates is important to both shipper and consumer. We would appreciate your making this letter a part of the official record in the proceedings on bill H.R. 11583. Very truly yours, D. M. DRAKE, Sales Manager. ALASKA CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Subject: Proposal to eliminate minimum rate controls on bulk and on agricultural commodities. Hon. RALPH J. RIVERS, Congress of the United States, U.S. House of Representatives. DEAR RALPH : From time to time over past years the highly controversial subject of transportation has been before Congress for consideration. On April 5, 1962, the President forwarded to Congress his message on transportation. Bills to implement the recommendations in that message are currently pending before both the House and the Senate (H.R. 11583 and H.R. 11584 and S. 3242 and S. 3243). Hearings on this legislation may be held within the near future. Again, the transportation industry of the country finds itself embroiled in what will inevitably become a bitter and highly controversial debate over these proposals. The trucking industry, in whose behalf we are writing you, will support some portions of the pending legislation. However, the purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to one particular proposal. I here refer to the proposal contained in identical bills, H.R. 11583 and S. 3243, to which we must be unalterably opposed in their present form. This aspect of the legislation would remove from the Interstate Commerce Commission its power to condemn certain rates as being lower than reasonable minimum rates. If enacted, it would open the door for unlimited and uncontrolled rate warfare between carriers on a very substantial portion of the total traffic of the United States. The commodities involved would include all those which move in bulk, and all agricultural commodities. In other words, this would mean that the movement of petroleum products, chemicals, building materials, and innumerable other products which move in bulk, plus all agricultural commodities, would become involved in uncontrolled rate warfare between and among the great surface carriers of the country. At present, most of this competiiton is kept within reasonable bounds by the Interstate Commerce Commission through the exercise of minimum rate controls. In our opinion, by far the sounder approach to the problem of the present uneven application of regulation to these products, and to agricultural products, would be to extend minimum rate controls to those now not subject to them (barges in the case of dry and liquid bulk commodities-trucks in the case of agricultural commodities). In the case of bulk commodities, the President recommended this course of action as an acceptable alternative to the deregulation scheme proposed in the bills. Because of the highly charged nature of transportation legislation and the great number of people who are directly or indirectly affected by it, it would seem to us that the best course to follow is one which would concentrate on the areas of agreement reached by those directly concerned with transportation rather than in developing programs the effect of which is further to divide an already intensely competitive industry. We hope that when this matter comes to your attention for your consideration you will examine it with particular concern in view of the far-reaching consequences your action could have on the commerce and industry of this country. Respectfully yours, EDWARD R. SANDERS, Managing Director. CARNATION CO., Los Angeles, Calif., July 25, 1962. Hon. ARTHUR YOUNGER, DEAR CONGRESSMAN YOUNGER: I am writing you in support of H.R. 11583 and request that this letter be made a part of the committee's record. Carnation Co. and its affiliate, Albers Milling Co., are vitally concerned with the transportation of agricultural commodities. For years, we have struggled with transportation under the agricultural exemption clause and we know firsthand of the problems created for the railroads, shippers, and receivers because of the unequal regulation now imposed upon rail carriers. I have studied this problem individually and as a member of the various committees over the years and in my opinion, the present bill is a reasonable approach to this very complicated problem. It is certainly unfair regulation which prevents one mode of transportation from participating in the hauling of substantial quantities of agricultural commodities while permitting competing modes of transportation, namely trucks and barges, to move this traffic without similar regulation. Barges and trucks have the right, and they exercise it, to quote to any shipper whatever freight rate is necessary to get the business. Railroads, on the other hand, must publish their rates which are subject to attack by the very same carriers who are exempt from regulation, and often railroad rates are suspended and prevented from being effective by the regulatory agency. Not only is this unfair but it deprives the shipping public of the inherent advantages of what in many cases is the low-cost carrier. The present bill, as I read it, will not void the safeguards in the Interstate Commerce Act to prevent discrimination and prejudice and preference. What the bill proposes is simply to permit the railroads to adjust rates on agricultural commodities without observing any minimum rates which the Interstate Commerce Commission might otherwise apply. The railroads along with other segments of the common carrier industry are in serious financial condition, partly due to overregulation. It seems only prudent judgment on the part of the Congress to permit studied changes in the regulatory statutes which would assist the common carrier industry to regain traffic and thus preserve the railroads as independent and free enterprises. I believe this bill to be well conceived, in the public interest, and I strongly urge that the Senate act favorably upon it. Very truly yours, A. P. DAVIS, Jr., Assistant Vice President. Hon. VERNON W. THOMSON, House of Representatives Office Building, UPPER MISSISSIPPI TOWING CORP.. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMSON: I am enclosing a comparative statement of barge traffic on the Mississippi River and tributaries for the St. Paul District (which, as you know, extends down to Guttenberg, Iowa) from 1935 through 1961 which, as you will note, I have obtained from the U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Paul, Minn., and I trust this is the information that you requested of me during my testimony before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on August 10. If there is any further information that you desire, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I sincerely appreciate the courtesies that were extended me on August 10 and certainly hope the H.R. 11583 will be defeated. Thanking you, I remain, Yours very truly, WALTER G. BASKERVILLE, Sr., President. Comparative statement of barge traffic on Mississippi River and tributaries in St. Paul district Chairman, House Commitee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: I would like to urge you to support H.R. 11583 bill, generally called the minimum rate bill to give the railroads a break. We ship by rail frequently and think the railroads have had a big part in the de velopment of our business and of our part of the country. I trust that you will do all you can to get this legislation passed. Kindly make this letter a part of the official record in the proceedings on this bill. Thanks. Yours sincerely, J. E. ALLMON, Planter and Public Ginner. Congressman OREN G. HARRIS, SOUTHEAST CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN: You have before your committee House bill H.R. 11583 which will amend the Interstate Commerce Act to permit the railroads to meet some of the unfair competition now provided by trucks and water carriers. It will be appreciated if you will support this bill. We believe it to be a step in the right direction and will be beneficial to users of the railroads. Please make this letter a part of the official record in the proceedings on this bill. Yours truly, SOUTHEAST CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Hon. OREN HARRIS, ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC., Chairman, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. HARRIS: Enclosed is a statement of our company's position on the matter of House bill 11583 and Senate bill 3243. Because of the volume of work involved, it was necessary that we multilith this statement. We were so concerned about the above-mentioned bills that we decided to circulate this statement not only to the appropriate House and Senate committees but also to all legislators from the States of Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. It is our sincere hope that you find time to read this statement and that you oppose these bills for the long-term orderly development of our economy. We know that there will be many statements and much propaganda on this subject. However, we pray you are given wisdom to separate the wheat from the chaff and see through the opportunism of the moment to the long-term implications involved. We thank you most sincerely for the time taken in reading the enclosed statement and also for any expression that you have opportunity to make in opposition to these bills. Sincerely yours, J. H. FLES, President. ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC., HONORABLE SIR: On April 5, 1962, the White House sent a transportation message to Congress containing a variety of recommendations. This letter concerns one of these recommendations which is now in bill form, namely, H.R. 11583, and an identical bill, S. 3243, in the Senate. These bills are in the hands of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. These identical bills propose that the Interstate Commerce Commission be stripped of all authority to regulate minimum rates on bulk commoditie s and on agricultural and fishery products. The above items constitute 70 percent of all rail freight, with only 30 percent left under Commission regulation. This legislation contemplates that the "antitrust" laws will apply rather than present ICC regulations. At the outset let me state that the railroads favor such legislation and that the water carriers and the trucking industry are violently opposed to the removal of minimum rates and the removal of the Interstate Commerce Commission from the regulatory scene. The reasons why the writer, Associated Truck Lines, and the trucking industry oppose the above-mentioned bills are as follows: (1) Such legislation will promote a devastating and destructive price battle between rails, water carriers, and the trucking industry. If one is opportunistic in his thinking, this may sound good to shippers, chambers of commerce, and various governmental agencies. However, the transportation industry is not making enough money today and, therefore, we wonder how price cuts can solve the transportation problem. We, of course, do not know what the Government and the rails have in mind, but usually a devastating price war ends up with shippers and receivers of the other 30 percent of the freight paying a disproportionate amount for transportation. This usually takes the form of a horizontal price increase when the need becomes critical. On the assumption (which we sincerely believe) that the bulk and agricultural commodities would drop in price, who will pay the difference? A horizontal increase will not make up for the price cuts, and the rest of the freight will have to bear the brunt. (2) We sincerely believe that the removal of minimum rates on the abovementioned commodities is a move to destroy waterways and the trucking industry. If one reads his transportation history, this same battle has come up in different form time after time, especially between rails and waterways. After one mode of the industry has been put out of commission, then the one winning the destructive fight is in a most advantageous position to reconstitute rates where he wants them. (3) One wonders how long the other 30 percent of freight still under regulation will be held there. There is a relationship between products, and the pressure will be tremendous to remove the ICC from all rate regulation. This, in turn, will destroy the trucking industry and will put the railroads in a most favorable position to raise rates at their leisure. One must look at the longterm aspects of legislation of this type, and one must question the motives involved. Frankly, we believe that the bills involved here are a gigantic and |