vide such service," we call attention to our previous recommendation that it be incorporated in the statement of national transportation policy. We also believe that it should be retained in section 15a, to avoid any argument as to whether it is substantive law. We also feel that rates on competitive traffic or services should not be prohibited by regulatory bodies because of their effect upon the rates, traffic, or competition of another form of transportation, provided such rates are not less than minimum reasonable rates for the type of carrier proposing them. We believe that such a standard should be made a part of the rule of ratemaking. In other words, we feel that railroad rates should be made independently of truck rates and truck rates independently of railroad rates, as is the case with water rates now. In its determination of minimum reasonable rates, we support the use of the standards already established and employed by the Commission and the courts, with the exception of those relating to the effect upon competing carriers by another form of transportation, as referred to above. We also recommend approval of the proposed section 15a (3), which would be in furtherance of the principle expressed in section 15a (1). 6. Dry-bulk commodity exemptions Section 14 of H. R. 6141 proposes repeal of the existing exemption from regulation of the carriage of dry-bulk commodities when not more than three such commodities are carried in a single vessel or tow. The chamber is opposed to the repeal of this exemption since we do not believe that the public interest requires this extension of regulation. The exemption has been in effect for over 15 years. In that time, many industries using or producing bulk commodities have located expensive plants and other facilities on water under the impression that they could depend upon this 1940 declaration of Congress. Unregulated bulk carriers provide a flexible, "tailor-made" transportation service that is a necessity for many types of industry. Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. You have made a very clear and concise statement of the views of the United States Chamber, which we appreciate. Are there any questions? Mr. ROGERS. I have just one question, Mr. Arnold. I notice a tremendous number of references to the section 22 situation and the competition that it creates. I was just wondering if that is what you call dynamic competition? Mr. ARNOLD. Not in that fashion; no, sir. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Hale? Mr. HALE. No questions. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Arnold. Mr. ARNOLD. Thank you, sir. Mr. HARRIS. May I inquire if Mr. R. E. Bridges, vice president of the Ingraham Barge Co., of Nashville, Tenn., is here? The CLERK. He is not here. Mr. HARRIS. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock Tuesday next. (Whereupon, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 o'clock Tuesday, May 29, 1956.) TRANSPORTATION POLICY TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1956 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS Washington, D. C; The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order. A few days ago, when it was observed the Memorial holiday would interfere with some of the general procedure in Congress, because the holiday comes during the middle of the week, and recognizing that many Members would be away, it was suggested that some of the witnesses could continue in giving their presentations on H. R. 6141 and other bills regarding the transportation policy, and we advised the American waterways operators and their two witnesses to come back today. In view of the fact that we do have to make progress, we will proceed, Mr. Thompson, today as scheduled, because I know you have brought your representatives a long way here for this meeting. I have been advised that other members will be present in a few minutes. However, we have another problem because at 11 o'clock we will adjourn out of respect to our colleague and member of this committee, Mr. Granahan of Pennsylvania, who passed away last Friday and whose funeral is being held in Philadelphia beginning at that time. We will come back this afternoon in an effort to accommodate the witness who has come from a rather long distance. I would like to make this announcement, which I think is important, and I would like everyone interested to take notice for their information and guidance. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of our committee, Mr. Priest, and other members. These hearings have been underway, with the exception of 1 week's interruption, since April 24. The chairman of our committee has other legislative proposals to which he wants to give prompt attention. We feel there will be witnesses with new or additional testimony. Ultimately the testimony is going to get quite repetitious. It is already beginning to get that way, in some points and problems connected with the proposals. So, on behalf of the committee, I wish to announce that hearings on this overall transport policy contained in these bills, including these hearings, will close June 15. The last day, June 15, will be given to the Department of Commerce, who requested that they be permitted to come back at that time, together with members of the Interstate Commerce Commission. So the witnesses who desire to be heard from throughout the country will have to make it convenient to come in between now and the 14th of June. Of course, permission has already been given to anyone who desires to file a statement on any part of these programs involved with this overall omnibus transportation program. Mr. Thompson, I believe you have with you Mr. W. Y. Wildman. STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HARRIS. We will be glad to have you present Mr. Wildman. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Wildman of Chicago, who is here representing the Waterways Freight Bureau organization of common carriers. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Wildman, we will be very glad to hear you. Do you represent, as one of the witnesses, the American Waterways Operators, Inc. We had some of your witnesses, including Mr. Thompson's very valuable statement already. STATEMENT OF W. Y. WILDMAN, COMMERCE ATTORNEY AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT, WATERWAYS FREIGHT BUREAU, CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. WILDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I shall as far as possible avoid being repetitious. There is bound to be some repetition, but I have tried to avoid it as far as possible. Mr. HARRIS. We appreciate that. Mr. WILDMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is W. Y. Wildman and the statement I am about to make is presented on behalf of the common carrier barge lines that are members of Waterways Freight Bureau and is in opposition to H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142. Waterways Freight Bureau is a voluntary, nonprofit association, comprised of all of the more important common carriers by water operating on the Mississippi River and its several tributaries as well as on the Gulf Intracoastal Canal. It is organized and operates pursuant to section 5 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, commonly known as the Reed-Bulwinkle amendment. These common carriers that I speak for today handle approximately 90 to 95 percent of all of the tonnage handled by the common carrier barge lines operating on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. There are 17 freight companies that belong to this association for whom I speak and the amount of tonnage that they handle annually is in the neighborhood of 33 million tons. I have been in transportation work for nearly 44 years and have been actively engaged in practice before the Interstate Commerce Commission since about 1920, representing shippers, railroads, barge lines and freight forwarders. I have been in private practice for a little more than 10 years, during which time I have more or less specialized in the handling of trans portation work for water carriers. In addition, I have acted as attorney and executive secretary for Waterways Freight Bureau from the time it was first organized, some 51⁄2 years ago, up until January of this year. In this work I have acquired familiarity with the problems of the barging industry, particularly as they have been affected by competition with the rail carriers which I feel qualifies me to express the views of the common carrier barge lines on certain of the provisions of H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142, in regard to which these hearings are being held. As far as possible, I shall try to avoid covering the same grounds as did Mr. Harry C. Ames who spoke to you on behalf of these same barge line interests a week or two ago. It is patently clear that the prime purpose of the H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142 is to give the rail carriers the greatest possible freedom in meeting the competition of other transportation agencies, particularly the motor carriers and the water carriers. It is claimed by advocates of the bill that the present Interstate Commerce Act is outmoded and obsolete; that the present law was enacted when the railroads enjoyed a monopoly of the traffic in the country and as this is no longer the case, it should now be revised in such a manner as to permit the forces of competition to come into greater play. It is the position of the common carrier barge lines, whom I represent, that these competitive forces can and do come into full play under the present Interstate Commerce Act and for that reason no new legislation is needed at this time. It is their further position that should the bills here under consideration be enacted into law, the forces of competition eventually will become less rather than more of a factor for the very obvious reason that many of the transportation agencies which are now competing with the rail lines will be severely crippled if not driven completely out of business. The bills now before your committee will not encourage competition. They will destroy it. As the common carrier barge lines will be among the first to be destroyed, they obviously are opposed to the bills. I should first like to point out to the committee that under the present Interstate Commerce Act, the rail carriers have extremely wide latitude in meeting their competition. This is manifested by the fact in recent years they have waged a most vigorous campaign to wrest business away from the water carriers or to prohibit their obtaining new business through the establishment of a large number of selective subnormal rates, generally on a point-to-point basis, where water competition is encountered. As your committee no doubt knows, a carrier subject to the provisions of the present act, in the exercise of its managerial discretion, has the right to publish any change in its rates that it desires, up or down, and unless the Commission, as a result of the filing of a formal written protest, or upon its own motion suspends its operation so that it might investigate its lawfulness, the rate so published becomes effective, normally 30 days after date of publication. Such action by the Commission is only taken when there is a prima facie case of the protested rates being unlawful in some respect. Probably 99 percent of the rates now published by the rail carriers have gone into effect automatically without specific consideration being given to them by the Commission. While the general trend of freight rates during the past 10 years has been definitely upward, during the same period there has been a |