1 For each forwarder in each column is listed the number of markets in which that forwarder has a pr in the category described in the column heading. 2 There is a total of 32 markets analyzed by exhibit 3. Columns 1, 2, and 3 list the percentage of the markets within which each forwarder publishes a price in the category described in the column heade Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Society of American Florists, through its traffic committee, continues to work toward the preservation of the agricultural (including horticulture) exemption from the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation and to actively oppose any efforts to repeal, narrow, or restrict the agricultural exemption. As the executive director of the society, I am offering this statement in furtherance of the above resolution. Unmanufactured products of agriculture, including floriculture and ornamental horticulture, have never been subjected to economic regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Commission, however, is attempting to regulate all shipments of agricultural and floricultural products via motortrucks. The section of the Interstate Commerce Act revised October 1, 1958, shows the status of our industry under section 203 (b) (6) of the ICC "of those commodities listed, based upon Administrative Rulings Nos. 107 and 110 of the Bureau of Motor Carriers." "Horicultural commodities: Bulbs-Exempt Flowers, growing or cut-Exempt Nursery stock-Exempt Plants, vegetables, and flower-Exempt Roots, rhubarb, asparagus, mint, etc.-Exempt Trees, growing, balled in earth-Exempt Wreaths, holly or other natural material with small amount of foundation or decorative material--Exempt" The Society of American Florists, since the enactment of the Motor Carrier Act in 1935, has supported the retention of the agricultural exemption in section 203 (b) (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We understand that bills before this subcommittee do not contain provisions to repeal or modify the existing agricultural exemptions. As an association, we are opposed to the alternate plan of extending regulation to those areas exempt. Our growers and floricultural shippers must retain the agricultural exemption clause that will preserve their competitive position. Our exempt haulers of our highly perishable products must be free to move our flowers and plants on very short notice. They must rely on their own trucks and not wait for a scheduled run that might be subject to delays. There is little question but that, should our industry lose its exemption, it would bring accompanying increased rates, increasing their cost of doing business. Many of our growers, no doubt, would be squeezed out of business. Many markets now being served by our exempt haulers would be cut off should the growers be forced to depend on regulated common carriers. An alternate mode of transportation would, of necessity, prove costly and time consuming. Our industry is depending more and more upon the preservation of existing notor carrier facilities. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Society of American Florists respectfully requests this committee and the Congress to support us in our efforts to preserve the agricultural exemption from the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation and to actively oppose any efforts to repeal, arrow, or restrict the agricultural exemption provided for carriers of our loricultural products. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL The council was established in 1933. Its membership is comprised of some 1,000 industrial and business concerns in the 16 Southern States from Maryand to Texas, inclusive. This membership includes all lines of manufacturng and processing, mining, transportation and related industries and accounts or very substantial employment throughout the region. At a meeting held in Hot Springs, Va., on May 21-22, 1963, the board of irectors of the council unanimously approved the following statement: "It is a generally recognized fact that the financial condition of the railoads is serious due to governmental discriminatory treatment as compared o other forms of transportation. Under such treatment this defense-vital ndustry is faced with the possibility of financial collapse and perhaps eventual ationalization. "The council therefore urges prompt action by the Congress in passing ppropriate legislation to remove such discrimination." EXHIBIT 7 Airfreight forwarder tonnage—Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FLORISTS Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John H. Walker. I am executive director of the Society of American Florists. This is a national trade association of floriculture, representing growers, wholesalers, retailers, and allied tradesmen in floriculture and ornamental horticulture, including 182 affiliated floral organizations. In general, the Society of American Florists supports changes that would be made by the enactment of S. 1061 and S. 1062 in the Interstate Commerce Act. We do recommend certain modifications, however. The exemption from economic regulation of for-hire motor vehicles transporting domestic agricultural and horticultural commodities certainly should remain in effect to give our growers needed flexibility. Motortrucks move a great portion of our products from the greenhouse to the consuming public. The owners of these trucks are, for the most part, small growers. Present State and Federal Government regulations give our grower members a great amount of economic and geographic flexibility which must be retained. The traffic committee of the Society of American Florists, comprised of traffic specialists from a widely scattered geographical area of our country and industry, passed the following resolution dealing with the agricultural eremption: Whereas the movement of horticultural products is clearly dependent upon the flexible and economical services of motor carriers; and Whereas the transportation of horticultural products by motor carriers has been clearly facilitated by section 203 (b) (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act which exempts such operations from the economic regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and Whereas the continued expansion and development of the horticultural industry is to a material degree dependent upon the preservation of existing moter carrier facilities, Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Society of American Florists, through its traffic committee, continues to work toward the preservation of the agricultural (including horticulture) exemption from the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation and to actively oppose any efforts to repeal, narrow, or restrict the agricultural exemption. As the executive director of the society, I am offering this statement in furtherance of the above resolution. Unmanufactured products of agriculture, including floriculture and ornamental horticulture, have never been subjected to economic regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Commission, however, is attempting to regulate all shipments of agricultural and floricultural products via motortrucks. The section of the Interstate Commerce Act revised October 1, 1958, shows the status of our industry under section 203(b) (6) of the ICC "of those commodities listed, based upon Administrative Rulings Nos. 107 and 110 of the Bureau of Motor Carriers." "Horicultural commodities: Bulbs-Exempt Flowers, growing or cut-Exempt Nursery stock-Exempt Plants, vegetables, and flower-Exempt Roots, rhubarb, asparagus, mint, etc.-Exempt Trees, growing, balled in earth-Exempt Wreaths, holly or other natural material with small amount of foundation or decorative material-Exempt" The Society of American Florists, since the enactment of the Motor Carrier Act in 1935, has supported the retention of the agricultural exemption in section 203(b)(6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We understand that bills before this subcommittee do not contain provisions to repeal or modify the existing agricultural exemptions. As an association, we are opposed to the alternate plan of extending regulation to those areas exempt. Our growers and floricultural shippers must retain the agricultural exemption clause that will preserve their competitive position. Our exempt haulers of our highly perishable products must be free to move our flowers and plants on very short notice. They must rely on their own trucks and not wait for a scheduled run that might be subject to delays. There is little question but that, should our industry lose its exemption, it would bring accompanying increased rates, increasing their cost of doing business. Many of our growers, no doubt, would be squeezed out of business. Many markets now being served by our exempt haulers would be cut off should the growers be forced to depend on regulated common carriers. An alternate mode of transportation would, of necessity, prove costly and time consuming. Our industry is depending more and more upon the preservation of existing motor carrier facilities. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Society of American Florists respectfully requests this committee and the Congress to support us in our efforts to preserve the agricultural exemption from the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation and to actively oppose any efforts to repeal, narrow, or restrict the agricultural exemption provided for carriers of our floricultural products. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL The council was established in 1933. Its membership is comprised of some 2,000 industrial and business concerns in the 16 Southern States from Maryland to Texas, inclusive. This membership includes all lines of manufacturing and processing, mining, transportation and related industries and accounts for very substantial employment throughout the region. At a meeting held in Hot Springs, Va., on May 21-22, 1963, the board of directors of the council unanimously approved the following statement: "It is a generally recognized fact that the financial condition of the railroads is serious due to governmental discriminatory treatment as compared to other forms of transportation. Under such treatment this defense-vital industry is faced with the possibility of financial collapse and perhaps eventual nationalization. "The council therefore urges prompt action by the Congress in passing appropriate legislation to remove such discrimination." At the same meeting, the board also unanimously adopted the following resolution and directed that copies be sent to all Members of Congress. "Whereas identical bills, S. 1061 and H.R. 4700 were on March 5, 1963, introduced in Congress which will give all forms of common carriage more nearly equal competitive opportunity under our free enterprise system; and "Whereas passage of this legislation would greatly strengthen the entire common carrier industry so that it can perform its vital functions in peace and war; and "Whereas these bills are now before the Committee on Commerce of the U.S. Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in the House of Representatives, respectively, now, threfore, be it "Resolved, That the Southern States Industiral Council, through its board of directors in annual meeting assembled at Hot Springs, Va., this 22d day of May 1963, does hereby go on record in support of S. 1061 and H.R. 4700, and does hereby direct that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to all Members of Congress; and be it further "Resolved, That copies of the resolution be transmitted to each member of Southern States Industrial Council." The statement and the resolution make clear the council's position with respect to the bill now before you-S. 1061. It supports it. It supports it for many reasons, including— The fact that the railroad industry is in deep financial trouble. Its rate of return on net investment declined from 4.22 percent in 1955 to 2.74 percent in 1962. The Southern railroads did a little better, the rate of return on net investment declining from 4.48 in 1955 to 4.08 in 1962. The average for the past 5 years is even worse; 2.46 percent for the industry as a whole; 3.31 percent for the Southern railroads. The fact that the railroads are the mainstay and backbone of our surface transportation system in war and peace. As the President recognized in his transportation message last year, it is "an industry which serves, and is affected with, the national interest." Continuing, the President said that "whatever the cause (of rails' current difficulties), the common carrier performs an essential function that should not be extinguished." Both of the foregoing considerations suggest that, if a viable solution for this problem is not found, the only alternative will be nationalization. Most of the council's members are shippers and hence have a direct economi: interest in restoring and preserving full and free competition between the different modes of transportation. To the extent that the railroads have lost traffic due to the superior economic capability of other modes of transport. neither they nor the council have any just cause for complaint. That's com petition-the free way of the marketplace -the American way. What the council objects to-what, as we understand their position, the railroads object to-is governmental discrimination against them and in favor of other modes of transportation. I should like to dwell on this for just a few minutes if I may. Of what-precisely does this governmental discrimination consist? I consists of minimum rate regulation for the rail carriers and no corresponding rate regulation for other modes of transportation as to an important percent) volume of freight. As the President said in his message of last year "some carriers are subject to rate regulation on the transportation of particul commodities while other carriers, competing for the same traffic, are exempt This built-in discrimination is specifically provided for in the act itself (se 203 (b) (6)—agricultural exemption; sec. 303-"dry bulk" exemption) a consequently, can be removed only by Congress. This, as I understand it. the purpose of S. 1061, which provides that there shall be extended to carriers (including the railroads) an exemption from regulatory control the level of minimum rates on the transportation of agricultural and b commodities. It is unnecessary to go into all the delays and bureaucratic redtape wit which rate regulation is attended, or the immense competitive advantage whic a nonregulated mode of transport has over its regulated competitor. T latter is fully evidenced by the steady and growing shift of traffic away fre the rails to the highways and waterways. During the postwar period t railroad percentage of total traffic has been reduced about one-third while truck percentage has more than doubled and the percentage of water carri on rivers and canals has tripled. |