House on April 18, 1955. It was unanimously approved by all regular and participating members of the Advisory Committee.

The report deals primarily with two major areas of Federal transportation regulatory policy which, it declares, are "urgently in need of revision if the transportation industry of the United States is to maintain itself at maximum effectiveness." The major objectives set out in the report are:

1. Increased reliance on competitive forces of transportation in ratemaking in

order

(a) to have transportation enterprises function under a system of dynamic competition which will speed up technical innovation and foster the development of new rate and service concepts; and

(b) to enable each form of transport to reflect its abilities in the market by aggressive experimentation in rates and service in order to demonstrate to the full its possibilities for service to the shipping and traveling public; 2. Maintenance of a modernized and financially strong system of common carrier transportations:

3. Encouragement of increased efficiency and economy in the management of all transportation services in order to give the ultimate consumer the benefit of the lowest possible transportation costs; and

4. Development of an efficient transportation system for defense mobilization

or war.

Legislation to implement the report's recommendations was drafted by the Department of Commerce and sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate on May 5, 1955. The Department's purpose in drafting the legislation was stated in its letter transmitting the legislation to be:

Our intention with respect to this draft of legislation is to provide a useful tool for the Congress in considering the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. The Committee believes this matter to be one of considerable public importance to which the Congress will wish to give the broadest consideration and that this legislation will serve as a helpful basis for the development of a sound national program with respect to these matters.

The drafted legislation was introduced in the House by request in identical bills H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142, introduced by our late Chairman Priest and the ranking minority member, Mr. Wolverton. The companion bill in the Senate, also introduced by request, is S. 1920. This committee's Subcommittee on Transportation and Communications, of which I have been chairman, convened hearings on the Advisory Committee's report between sessions of the 84th Congress on September 19 through September 22, 1955. The legislation was not under consideration. The purpose of this hearing was to receive a full explanation of the report from the members of the Advisory Committee and a general discussion thereof by representatives of each of the major segments of the transportation industry so that the subcommittee might be in a better position to consider specific legislation during the 2d session of the 84th Congress. All three members of the Advisory Committee testified in support of the report's recommendations. Representatives of the motor carrier, railroad, water carrier, and freight forwarder industries presented testimony both in support and in opposition to the recommendations.

The Subcommittee on Transportation and Communications commenced detailed hearings on H. R. 6141 and H. R. 6142, together with

related legislation,' on April 24, 1956, with the hearings continuing through June 20, 1956. During these hearings testimony was received from numerous witnesses representing Government agencies, the various transport segments affected, as railroads, motor carriers, water carriers, and freight forwarders, labor shippers and shipping groups, and the general public. Such testimony exceeded 1,850 printed pages. The Subcommittee on Transportation and Communications recommended to the full committee that, owing to the voluminous and comprehensive record developed, further study be made to sharpen the issues involved in the Advisory Committee report and the proposed legislation. As a result of the subcommittee recommendation, the committee on July 3 directed its staff, following the adjournment of the session

to prepare a digest of the testimony, analysis of the differing positions on major proposals, and amendments offered, so that the consideration of these important proposals affecting transportation policy may be assisted upon the return of the committee at the beginning of the next Congress.

The digest, analysis, and index submitted herewith have been prepared to meet this directive.

METHOD OF PRESENTATION

Section I is a reprint, for reference purposes, of H. R. 6141 introduced by Chairman Priest (H. R. 6142 introduced by Mr. Wolverton being identical). Sections II through XIV consist of a digest and analysis of the testimony presenting a résumé of the differing positions of the witnesses on 13 major proposals, and section XV presents the same on a series of miscellaneous items, embodied in the proposed legislation. Under each topic is presented:

(a) Summary of present provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act;

(b) Amendments proposed by H. R. 6141, H. R. 6142, and related bills;

(c) Purpose of the amendments proposed;

(d) Digest of testimony of Department of Commerce sponsor ing the amendments;

(e) Digest of testimony of other proponents of the amendments;

(f) Digest of testimony of opponents of the amendments. Owing to the desire to keep the digest within reasonable and useful space limitations, the testimony of the major spokesmen on each position has been utilized at length, with an indication given of the position taken by additional proponents or opponents of each proposal. The arrangement for presenting the digest of testimony by other proponents and by opponents under (e) and (f) above is alphabetical by organization-the first named where more than one is represented by the witness. At the end of each of these sections, there is an alphabetical listing of organizations with witnesses whose testimony has not been summarized.

H. R. 525, relating to sec. 22, Government rates; H. R. 6208, relating to the fourth section; H. R. 9177, H. R. 9548, H. R. 9771, and H. R. 9772, relating to freight forwarders; and H. R. 6111 and S. 1777, relating to the transportation of certain disabled persons.

Certain organizations, in the course of their testimony, suggested substitute language for specific proposals. Since these alternate proposals usually stemmed directly from comments on the specific proposals, they have been included with the digest of the testimony for reader convenience, rather than shown separately.

The diversity of views on the various topics has made it difficult in some instances to classify an organization as a proponent or opponent. For example, a witness may have favored the principle of a particular proposal but disapproved of certain features or amendatory language. To avoid too much fragmentation of the digests, such a witness is generally shown as a proponent with the expressed disagreement left in the same digest. Similarly, where the emphasis appears to have been one of disagreement, the witness is shown as an opponent but with his favorable comments included. Again, inasmuch as the digest and analysis is centered upon H. R. 6141, a witness, accordingly, who may favor a general principle, but supports a different bill for its accomplishment, or believes that no amendment to existing law is necessary or desirable, generally has been classified as an opponent.

Testimony by individual witnesses regarding maximum-minimum specific rate power and the rule of ratemaking tended to overlap in certain instances. Depending upon the identification made by the witness or his principal emphasis, the digest of the testimony was placed under one or the other topic.

Similar overlapping occurs in regard to the definitions of common, contract, and private carriers. For this reason it has not been practical to separate the digests in accordance with type of transportation. The little specific testimony on the proposal concerning the cancellation of through routes in section 15 (3) has been included with maximum-minimum specific rate power.

Witnesses testifying with respect to the long-and-short-haul clause, in certain instances, combined disagreement with the proposals of the principal bills with approval of H. R. 6208. It seemed advisable from the standpoint of clarity of position not to separate the digest of testimony as to the bills or as to proponents and opponents. Where separation was feasible it was followed. Similarly, the joint consideration of H. R. 525 with the principal bills made it advisable to treat the subject of transportation free or at reduced rates in the same

manner.

Testimony on the individual freight forwarder bills and the bill providing for free transportation of attendants for the physically handicapped are separated by bill number under the section "Mis cellaneous."

An index, containing separate alphabetical lists of organizations and witnesses, cross referenced, is appended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the preparation of such digest and analysis, our late distinguished and greatly beloved chairman, J. Percy Priest, made arrangements with Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks and Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission Anthony Arpaia for providing additional technical staff assistance. The committee here expresses its

appreciation to Messrs. Philip A. Ray, Edward Margolin, Alfred U. Krebs, Donald C. Leavens, Robert G. Rhodes, Byron L. Nupp, and Ernest Nash, of the Department of Commerce, and to Messrs. Hiram H. Spicer, Dale W. Hardin, James A. Murray, Harold A. Downs, Chester Zyblut, Eugene Kline, James Heatherly, and Robert Berrien, of the Interstate Commerce Commission, for their assistance; as well as to Secretary Weeks and Chairman Arpaia for making possible the utilization of the services of these contributors to this work.

OREN HARRIS, Acting Chairman.