Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Those 200,000 trucklines almost a half a centry ago evaporated into about 20,000 trucklines at the beginning of World War II. By 1946, there were about 19,999 trucklines.

Today, those privileged in the trucking industry, to hold what is known as certificates of authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission, are quick to chant free enterprise, because they hope to fool the Congress and the public into thinking that there is a healthy competition in the trucking industry. There is competition, all right, but it is unhealthy. The trend is easily discoverable, for today, there are about 15,000 trucklines with ICC operating authority. Over the past 30 years more than 3,000 ICC-certificated trucklines have disappeared. That is an average of one truckline every 3 days gone forever. But these figures do not spell out the whole dramatic clutch that those remaining trucklines have on the almost unnoticed but vital independent truckers, for it is that clutch that catches and keeps the independent trucker in the net of bureaucracy. Those regulated trucklines have developed, in cooperation with the ICC, an almost sinister hold over the lives, and certainly the purse strings, of tens of thousands of independent truckers. For the seemingly farfetched example presented before, about the kickback from the clothing manufacturers, is stark reality in the trucking industry today, this very day. For if an independent trucker wishes to haul regulated goods—and this means just about anything-he is forced to give up to 50 percent of the gross revenue to a company that may not own even so much as one truck. That company, though, holds an ICC certificate, and that gives them the license to continue a sharecropping system which is costing the consumers. It is virtually impossible for anyone to apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission and get the rights to haul goods, even when the manufacturer or shipper of those goods wishes you to haul them. These are facts well documented in the accompanying evidence. If, then, the country enjoyed some 200,000 trucklines less than half a century ago, and if those certificated carriers that are dwindling at the rate of one every 3 days help continue the trend, will the Interstate Commerce Commission clean house when there is finally but one huge trucking company?

Is the country to allow the trucking industry to continue to wither on the vine? Do we need to resurrect Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine to point out to the citizens that, as there is less and less competition and more and more centralized power, the Government must step in and protect the public with more and more rules, simply because the Government has not responded to what should be an obvious trend: the complete nationalization of all transportation in this country.

But let us look for one brief moment at the cries of those trucklines which, some 42 years ago, were against Federal regulation.

One of the oldest transportation journals in the country, in its November 1934 issue, on page 16, quoted the then Federal Coordinator of Transportation, Mr. Eastman. Mr. Eastman said that the administration was going to develop an economically sound national transportation policy, "and, at the same time, reserving and continuing for the industry the benefit of self-regulation under the code of fair competition for the trucking industry." The then Federal Coordinator of Transportation then went on to say, "on the other hand, if, at this

time, Federal regulations were favored at the expense of selfregulation under the code, the industry would be thrown into a mess." Well, we charge that the mess occurred, because shortly afterward, the trucking industry was covered by the umbrella of regulation. It should be remembered that the pioneer truckline owners of 42 years ago were dead set against Federal regulation because, and this time I quote from the September 1934 issue of that same magazine, on page 13, the editor of that magazine said, "it is obvious that any regulation would increase earning power of the railroads."

Now the terrible irony of those statements is obvious, for that particular magazine grew to support those trucklines, and those trucklines grew fat in the garden of regulation, watered by the ICC. Today, that same magazine, originally the mouthpiece of the trucklines opposing Federal regulation, champions the continuance of regulation because, today, the regulated trucking industry is in a similar position of the rails of the early depression years-they hold the reins, the routes, and, consequently, the power.

But the Interstate Commerce Commission is not the only villain, for the Commission ultimately is controlled by the Congress. And other abuses of the small, independent trucker are rampant.

I have brought with me a sample of every single form required to be filed by what is known as an exempt carrier. An exempt carrier is one that is theoretically exempt from a lot of regulation, but, in actuality, even though an exempt carrier-limited severely by the kinds of commodities he may haul-has less Government regulation, the stack of paperwork he must wade through just in order to legally license his truck is staggering. The individual State license and fuel permit applications required by the 48 contiguous States weigh 1 pound, 934 ounces. I have brought a sample of each application, and the subcommittee will note that there are no two States with similar requirements, no two States with duplicate forms, no two States with anything in common except one thing-those forms exist due to those regulations and the oppressive Interstate Commerce Commission regulations which allowed the already noted kickback scheme to the regulated carriers.

Now, the State permit applications submitted here do not-I repeat the word "not"-include any of the required forms or papers for quarterly or monthly reports. These forms are merely the forms for starting out. And if a trucker is prorated, that is, licensed in several States that have reciprocity with one another, he has to be saddled with a comparable pile of forms that must be completed annually. And this example, it should be remembered, is for an exempt carrier.

The history of change is not stuffed with examples of a people who cleaned their own house. When recent pressure forced a modest inhouse inspection by the ICC, they had to admit that all their policies favored the big trucklines. But the ICC will not legislate itself out of existence and certainly will not modernize itself to the point where any significant reduction in personnel would be effected. Every single major legislation or reform has been sparked by outside influences, and this is what has been needed to help the small, independent trucker for many years. But the independent hasn't had that help.

As partial proof of the dire need for immediate reform, you have only to refer to the number of trucks that were repossessed last year.

While the Nation's financial position as a whole was rocky, the truckers' position was disastrous. In a leading produce publication last month, truck brokers reported that surveys showed as many as 13 out of 14 produce haulers who were in business a year ago have disappeared completely. While this is, I believe, a much higher percentage than the nationwide average, these deep pockets of despair punctuate the need for immediate reform to help the independent trucker.

Such reform could come through passage of House bill 12386 and its Senate companion, S. 2271. Those pieces of legislation would allow the independent trucker to compete with the large fleets, yet would not allow any unfair rate-cutting.

The system whereby an independent trucker becomes a sharecropper should have been abolished years ago. If the mood of America is for a rebirth of free enterprise, there is no nobler cause than that of the independent trucker.

The original purpose of the ICC-whose own rules were an offshoot of British postal laws of 1850-has been subverted. The regulation of the trucking industry in 1935 completely ignored the small one-truck operator.

In fact, the independent trucker, or owner-operator, was really ignored until he raised his fist 22 years ago. That fist has remained passive and patient, awaiting the concerned action of the U.S. Congress.

The independent trucker is not asking for, nor does he need, a Federal handout. The myriad of regulations and laws that hamper him also constrain the artery of free enterprise, for if a trucker cannot legally compete with the large monopolies, do we truly live in the free society we advertise around the world?

As additional evidence of the gravity of the situation, I have, under separate cover, submitted to this subcommittee not only some examples of the need for sweeping changes in regulatory reform but comments from some distinguished colleagues in the House and Senate. I could scarcely enhance those comments. The bipartisan support for the legislation referred to indicates not just the desire, but the necessity for action, not rhetoric.

These words and thoughts may be my own, but they reflect the needs of tens of thousands of truckers. In our files we have the names and addresses of almost 100,000 independent truckers engaged in the hauling of every single commodity that moves on the highway. The responses we receive from polls, questionnaires and letters run into the thousands, so this presentation can be backed up with documents and letters and petitions running into the thousands. The overwhelming frustration of the Nation's long haul truckers lies first in not being able to make a living because of inability to compete, and second, the mountain of repetitious, costly, burdensome, and unfair paperwork which is just about the only load trucks are straining under these days.

We invite the subcommittee to call on our members. We can produce witnesses from every congressional district in the country-witnesses who can testify as to the unfairness of today's monopolistic trend in transportation.

But we respectfully request that the subcommittee bear in mind that we are aware reform of such evils as unnecessary paperwork-especially on the State level-is time consuming. And while the clock ticks on, truckers continue to go out of business.

In our opinion, the only progressive stopgap measure with which to buy enough time to iron out all the regulatory wrinkles would be through passage of legislation that would allow the small trucker to earn a decent living. If he can do that, he at least can keep his head above water while the Congress continues to press-we hope for more extensive regulatory reform.

The mood of America is watchful and grim. Since truckers are the microcosm of the spirit of free enterprise, we trust the most immediate needs will be attended to in priority order.

It has been 212 years since some of the problems of independent truckers hit the front pages of the newspapers.

Since that time, numerous promises have been made for regulatory reform. A huge Department of Transportation bill which offers some relief seems destined for mothballs in this Congress. But if nothing concrete is accomplished for the independent trucker before election time, another 1,000 trucks will be repossessed, adding to the glut on the marketplace of used trucks that earn nothing. For 21/2 years the truckers have waited for action from either the ICC or Congress. We hope now as we near the July 4th celebrations, that the true spirit of free enterprise will not be forgotten.

Nor should the small independent trucker be forgotten any more as he has been for more than 40 years.

For many years the truckers of America offered their hand in friendship by the side of the road. Today, the memory of those hands envisions the clenched fist of those memorable days of 2 years ago. Tomorrow, if the Congress acts, the truckers will be able to use those hands to hold onto their trucks, their jobs, their dreams but it will be reform, sweeping reform, that will accomplish that. This subcommittee has the power of that reform, for it is obvious that it will never come from within the bureaucracy.

And that ends my formal statement, to which I would like to add the fact that I did bring with me the documents referred to. And I believe the members of the subcommittee, and the chairman, have copies of various letters and so forth?

Mr. HUNGATE. Will you file all the State forms to which you referred as an exhibit?

Mr. PARKHURST. Yes, sir; I can give you either the originals in all their splendid colors, or I can give you photocopies in all their bureaucratic drabness.

Mr. HUNGATE. Unless there is a reason for not doing it, we would like to have the originals.

Mr. PARKHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection that will be so done. [The forms may be found in the subcommittee files.]

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Bedell, please.

Mr. BEDELL. I have no questions.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mrs. Fenwick?

Mrs. FENWICK. I wanted to ask you, as I understand it, fresh produce is exempt?

Mr. PARKHURST. That is right. Except bananas. That is the wonderful thinking of the ICC, that they regulate bananas but not apples. Mrs. FENWICK. How does that come about?

Mr. PARKHURST. Actually I believe that it comes about because most of the bananas are imported through ports, and the large shipments of

bananas thereby can be controlled by the monopolies, particularly regulated carriers. So they decided that they would regulate bananas, although at one time they were not regulated.

Mrs. FENWICK. When was that instituted?

Mr. PARKHURST. I believe it was about 20 years ago, although I may be incorrect as to the date.

Mrs. FENWICK. You spoke of a number of repossessed trucks. Do you have that number, or some approximation, as to how many trucks have been repossessed?

Mr. PARKHURST. It would be several thousand.

Mrs. FENWICK. I would like to ask you this. Those of us who are interested in some reform in this area to allow more equitable practices, are often told that chaos would result, and that a situation of cutthroat competition, violence, and chaotic conditions was indeed a fact before the regulatory agency got to work. What would be your comment, and what would be your view of that situation?

Mr. PARKHURST. That is a typical whitewash put out by those who favor the continuance of the monopolistic regulations that we have now. And I love to hear that argument, because I like to then ask anybody how they ate in the morning or yesterday, because every single piece of food, with the exception of those famous bananas, comes by exempt carriers, with no regulation whatsoever as to the price other than the bid-ask system on which this Nation theoretically is founded. And if there is chaos, then I want to know why is it that you can go to any market, whether it be in Washington, D.C. or Breezewood, Pa., population 79, and get fresh produce. There doesn't seem to be any chaos there. And yet that is completely deregulated, and everybody in this country has the ability to buy fresh lettuce and tomatoes that come by completely deregulated trucks.

Mrs. FENWICK. Deregulated, but still under those paperwork demands that you have outlined?

Mr. PARKHURST. Yes. Those are just the State forms, as I pointed out, in order to get into the various States. These forms are not the forms required to be filed monthly. This is just to get into it.

Mrs. FENWICK. Could I ask you, are there similar forms required by the Interstate Commerce Commission to these being required by the State for an exempt carrier?

Mr. PARKHURST. No.

Mrs. FENWICK. There is no necessity to file with the ICC for an exempt carrier?

Mr. PARKHURST. No.

Mrs. FENWICK. Have you any idea of what proportion of the tonnage is carried by exempt carriers? In other words, what proportion is fresh produce, excluding bananas?

Mr. PARKHURST. Based on the total tonnage of the entire country, including all manufactured goods-I wouldn't have those figures on the top of my head, but the number of produce haulers is around 20,000 in the country. And that represents approximately 25 percent of the owner-operator population engaged in long-haul trucking. And we could supply those figures if you would like them.

Mrs. FENWICK. The figures you have given interest me. 20,000 produce haulers now operate under only State paperwork, right? Mr. PARKHURST. Except for the safety requirements which come under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

« PředchozíPokračovat »