der the antitrust law if you retain that by not putting a bottom Mr. CABOT. This section 5a would permit the carriers to process es through the conference ratemaking and be relieved of the antiprovisions in those respects.

But, we still advocate the retention of sections 2 and 3 of the Inter"ve Commerce Act so that you can still attack those rates on the ss of discrimination, preference and prejudice, and as predatory. atory pricing would be the only one not covered at the present by the act and it is subject to present antitrust laws. If thought rable the same type of restriction could be incorporated in the act. As far as the ratemaking under section 5a, it permits carriers to -tly discuss rates and rules and regulations free from antitrust. Mr. SPRINGER. Even though there is no minimum rate fixed? Mr. Canor. Yes.

Mr. SPRINGER. I get your point.

Iank you, Mr. Chairman.

Te CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cabot, for your state

Mr. CAnor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN, Mr. Ernest R. May. We have our colleague from yoming, the Honorable William Henry Harrison, with us today. we are very glad to welcome you, Mr. Harrison, before the committee morning. We will be pleased to have you present your constituent the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you very much.

Mr. SPRINGER (presiding). This is the General Harrison, grandson fe Presdent and a great-grandson of another one. I think there Se tive William Henry Harrisons in my district that I know person

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate ry ruh the privilege of introducing to you and to the members of e committee a very good friend of mine, Mr. Ernest R. May of We, Wyo.

He is not only one of our outstanding businesmen but also president Wyoming Stock Growers Association, an organization which has

in existence even prior to the admission of our State, an organizan which has always worked for the interest of our cattlemen in To somanig.

I know that Mr. May is very familiar with the problems of our inry and I think that you will find him a very fine witness and I em to your mercy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Harrison. We are happy to ave had you with us and your comments. Mr. May, you may proceed you prefer.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST R. MAY, PRESIDENT, WYOMING
STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MAY. My name is Ernest R. May, and my post office address is Meeteetse, Wyo. I live on a ranch near this place which is just south of Cody. I am president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and I am here to testify in that capacity. I want to express our support, in general, for the proposals contained in H.R. 4700 and its companion bill, S. 1061.

These proposals come from one of the suggestions contained in the message on transportation submitted to Congress last year by the President of the United States. Among other things, he pointed out the basic inequality that results from an inconsistency in the law under which the transportation of agricultural products and bulk commod ties is strictly regulated when they are moved by railroad while the transportation of these same farm products is free of regulation when they are moved by truck and bulk commodities are free when moved by barge.

The suggestion in that message that some degree of equality should be accomplished by removing from the railroads some of the contro's over this transportation has been considered by our people. At the meeting of the American National Cattlemen's Association held at Las Vegas, Nev., earlier this year, the subject was fully discussed before the transportation committee which formulated a resolution and offered it for adoption.

Such resolution when considered by the resolutions committee, of which I was a member, was approved and was then adopted by action. of the membership. It reads as follows:

Resolved that we support Federal legislation which would free railroads to make competitive rate reductions on bulk and agricultural commodities in a manner which can better serve the cattle and agricultural industry. This leg islation must preserve the prohibitions against unjust discrimination, undue prvn udice, preference, and monopoly.

The legislation should also contain provision for a proper relationship betweed live animal rates and dressed meat rates.

As I have said, the foregoing resolution was adopted by the American National Cattlemen's Association in its convention at Las Vegas Nev., on January 31, 1963.

I believe this resolution fairly expresses the view of the great maiority of the people engaged in the cattle business. We have not considered and certainly have not endorsed legislation which won' make the transportation of bulk and agricultural products subjes: to regulation by the ICC or any other agency when moved by truk or by barge.

It is my personal opinion that the solution of the problem is not ta be found in shackling the trucks and barges merely because we have been unwise enough to shackle the railroads.

In my opinion there should be less, not more, regulation. We wa: " both the trucks and the railroads to be as nearly free as is practis to fix their rates at whatever level they think is good business. Wa want them free to compete.

Certainly we see the basic injustice of allowing one form of trarportation to change its rates at will while denying a competing form: of transportation the right to promptly reduce rates competitively.

In the cattle business as well as in other pursuits we use, and feel must have, transportation both by truck and by railroad. We think is commonsense to allow railroads every right to defend themselves truggle for business.

Much of our livestock is produced in areas remote from the densely pulated sections. We need the economy and the dependability which nherent in the mass movement of goods for long distances by rail

Ihat the obvious benefits to this proposed corrective legislation are * extended to cover all products is disappointing to the stockmen the freight bill on all our inbound supplies is no less a factor ir operations than is the freight bill on our outbound livestock. I wish it to be understood that we as cattlemen endorse the principle pon which this legislation is based but feel that it would be preptuous as well as unnecessary to suggest to this committee the lanby which it might be accomplished.

I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to present this statement I thank you for your time and attention.

I CHAIRMAN. Mr. May, I want to thank you and compliment you your concise and clear statement to the committee on behalf of your ***ation. Mr. Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Te CHAIRMAN. Mr. Springer.

Mr. SPRINGER. No questions.

I CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. May, I gather from your statement that would be against any form of regulating the hauling of livestock? Mr. MAY. Mr. Rogers, I do not quite follow the question. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. What I am getting at, Mr. May, is this: We aome truckers the other day who were engaged in hauling livestock advocate putting the truckers under regulation, taking them out

der the exemption. I am from a cattle area, myself. To me would be abhorrent because it would create a situation where the hers themselves would be put at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. MAY. I personally would rather see the railroads free to comrather than to see an equitable situation created between the by applying restrictions to the truckers. Actually it would not anyway in our country. They are not always directly comve by any means.

Ieur whole area we truck to the railroads and then go onto the It - not directly competitive at all.

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. You don't have a great deal of trouble with sy truckers out there.

M: MAY. No, they would not have the connections that would ⚫ them to operate, and assurance of reliability is essential to rasportation of our product.

MRERS of Texas. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN. Mr. Younger.

Me YoU NGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you give us figures, My, as to what proportion of the livestock is transported by for rriers and how much by rail?

Mr. Mar. Mr. Younger, I would say that in Wyoming the major of our livestock use both means of transportation from the time

* 514-63——pt. 1——23

they leave the ranch until they arrive at the marketplace. There are exceptions, of course, but most of us ship by truck to the railheal and then by rail to destination.

With the exceptions of those numbers of livestock that are going to local sales rings and in which case many of those go from there rail to their final destination, usually in the Midwest. So the jet centages, I would say 90 percent, in the course of their moveme” • from Wyoming to their ultimate destination, travel by both meats of transportation.

Mr. YOUNGER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moss? Mr. Glenn?

Mr. GLENN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. May, you have made a very interesting statement. You m tion here the resolution that I assume is your authorization for leg here. This resolution says as follows, "The legislation should als contain provisions for a proper relationship between live anna rates and dressed meat rates." Am I correct?

Mr. MAY. That is what it says, yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. That is part of the resolution of your organization Mr. MAY. That is part of the resolution of the American Catt men's Association, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. DINGELL. You are speaking on behalf of the

Mr. MAY. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association.

Mr. DINGELL. Do you endorse that principle? Does your orgi nization endorse that principle?

Mr. MAY. Yes, I think that that is a rather important thing. I has been in the past, it could very well be in the future.

Mr. DINGELL. Could you tell the committee why that is so!

Mr. MAY. Mr. Dingell, please understand that I am not a profes sional in the transportation industry but for a long time it was in possible for a packing or even a feeding operation to develop on a'y scale on the west coast because of the transportation cost, the tar between dressed meat and live animals was such that it was chea to put dressed animals from Chicago into Los Angeles than it w to ship live animals and slaughter them in Los Angeles or ship feedcattle to the west coast and feed them and slaughter them there.

It was not until there was an adjustment in those rates that a pak ing industry to supply the west coast market was able to develop Mr. DINGELL. Can you tell me what that change was? Is that a statutory change?

Mr. MAY. That I can't answer.

Mr. DINGELL. Or was that simply a rate change?

Mr. MAY. I think perhaps a rate change. Whether it was hard' by legislation or by regulation I can't answer.

Mr. DINGELL. Your point here is very interesting. We are com down to a particular difference I happen to have with this bill. Ce you tell me, sir, if you can, how you as a shipper of livestock will protected from particular discrimination-not discriminations b particular rate differentials that exist or could exist or has existed. regard to dressed and live animals under H.R. 4700?

Mr. MAY. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Dingell, you would !ke to know what effect on me as a stockman any differential in rates between dressed and live animals, what effect it might have on me? Mr. DINGELL. Yes.

Mr. MAY. As I pointed out, in the past the differential in those rates was able to prevent the development of a necessary packing industry on the west coast, at that very same time my animals were forced to go east, to the Midwest, I did not have a free choice of markets. It affected as well as that industry.

Mr. DINGELL. You feel it is very important then that you should have that distinction between rates on live animals and rates on dressed ar. mals, am I correct?

Mr. MAY. Not a distinction but an equitable situation so that it does De favor either one or the other.

Mr. DINGELL. As I read H.R. 4700, it exempts from minimum-rate lations shipments of livestock and also of agricultural commodit, I assume dressed meats. In other words, these are no longer subet to regulations by the ICC as to minimums and becomes subject ply to bulk rates to be fixed by the shipper subject only to the bition of the antitrust laws.

How will you be protected under this arrangement? This is what I am trying to see. You have raised a point here which I think is very .portant and you are endorsing a bill here which purports I think in yar statement to do one thing but which in fact I think may be doing

thing different and which may have a destructive impact upon particular business or any other stockman.

Mr. MAY. Sir, you are suggesting that the end result of a rate reda ton might ultimately work to my disadvantage because

Mr. DINGELL. I am not making that suggestion at all. The sugges n I am making is that under this bill, as I read it, there is nothing wh requires the distinction which you feel is essential to your protection and that is a distinction between the rates on dressed livestock ati on livestock on the hoof.

Mr. MAY. The suggestion of the resolution, sir, is that it should ain that distinction.

Mr. DINGELL. There is nothing of that kind in the bill at this time a I read it.

Mr. MAY. That is why the suggestion that the legislation should am this provision was put in the resolution.

Mr. DINGELL. Let me ask you this question. If that distinction is Tot inserted in the bill do you support the bill without the distinction between dressed livestock and livestock on the hoof?

Mr. MAY. I think the statement in the first pargaraph is that I want to express our support in general for the proposals contained in H.R.

Mr. DINGELL. I recognize that. But the bill does not have the pro1.on which you say it should have. What I am asking you is, Do you for that bill without the provision which you feel it should have wth regard to the distinction between packaged and dressed animals a: 1.vestock on the hoof.

I am not trying to trap you. I think it is a very important question at you should consider for your own protection as well as on behalf 4 the people for whom you appear today.