therefore takes the stand that enactment into law of S. 1141 would be a dangerous step toward suppression of free enterprise. Rather than attempt to testify on the technical detriments to independent small barge line operators passage of this bill would create, I would like to simply state that men of business already experience too many restrictions. The American Association of Small Business is against S. 1141 because the association is against any reduction of individual initiative.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions?

Mr. PATMAN. Not now.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Not now.

The CHAIRMAN. We may want to question you later, if you will be available.

Mr. HENDERSON. I will be available. Thank you.

Mr. FORISTEL. At this time I would like to call Mr. Frank Perrin, executive assistant to the Director of the ODT, and the official representative this morning of the Interstate Commerce Commission, whom I have requested to state the ICC's views regarding regulations of certain cargoes and its possible effect on this group of small businessmen.

The CHAIRMAN. Before Mr. Perrin proceeds, I would like to say that this legislation which is mentioned is before the Senate Committee of Interstate on Foreign Commerce. It is not the intention of this House committee to inject itself into the province of any other committee, particularly another body of the Congress.

But after discussion with the Senate, following complaints, there was an understanding that this hearing would probably be advisable, and this committee had invited either members of the Senate committee or their staff to observe the hearing.

Mr. FORISTEL. That has been done in the House, too.

The CHAIRMAN. That has been the common practice of this committee in the House, with other standing committees.

Mr. FORISTEL. The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce also. The CHAIRMAN. They have also been invited to observe.

Now, Mr. Perrin, if you will identify yourself for the record. Mr. PERRIN. My name is Frank Perrin. I am at present Executive Assistant Director of the Office of Defense Transportation. On this particular matter this morning I am speaking for the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you raise your right hand and swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PERRIN. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

TESTIMONY OF FRANK PERRIN, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY V. E. HANINGER

Mr. PERRIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate sincerely the opportunity to appear before your committee and explain the reasons for the Commission's recommendations to Con

gress for the enactment into law of S. 1141, a bill to amend the Transportation of Explosives Act, also the purposes of this proposal.

My prepared statement has been approved in its entirety by the Legislative Committee of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

As I understand it, the complaint to your committee regarding this proposed bill is, basically, that it will subject contract carriers by water of bulk petroleum and petroleum products to complete economic regulation by the Commission.

At the outset it should be explained that the law relating to the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles is completely divorced and separate from the Interstate Commerce Act. The former was originally enacted on July 3, 1866 (14 Stat. 82), whereas the latter was enacted on February 4, 1887.

Water carriers were made subject to the Interstate Commerce Act by the Transportation Act of September 18, 1940. Contract carriers by water of commodities in bulk in non-ocean-going vessels are exempted by section 303 (c), (d), and (e) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

The line of demarcation between the two laws is distinct. The Interstate Commerce Act, on the one hand, regulates the territorial operations of the carriers; the equipment and facilities used in transportation; the rates and charges of those carriers; and, to some extent, their financial practices. On the other hand, the present Transportation of Explosives Act and the proposed bill only regulate the handling, labeling, packaging, and stowing of explosives and other dangerous articles for the protection of life and property.

The Commission, in its fifty-seventh annual report, dated November 1, 1943, recommended on page 133 that the Federal statute commonly known as Transportation of Explosives Act (U. S. Code, title 18, secs. 382-386) be completely rewritten in the light of important developments relating to this subject which had occurred in the 22 years since the last revision of those statutes. Each annual report since that time has reiterated that recommendation.

The need for modernizing this law has been further emphasized by the exigencis of World War II, thus confirming the Commission's foresight and judgment in requesting this legislation. The volume of explosives and other dangerous articles transported has increased progressively beginning with 1939. It is our understanding that the commercial transportation of these commodities is now at an all-time high. Fighting a two-front war accentuated the need for bringing the law up to date. During the war many situations too numerous to mention arose which, under the present law, could not be adequately dealt with. New types of explosives and dangerous articles became. common articles of commerce.

Because of the enormous increase in the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles by other modes of transportation, namely, motor and water transport, the Commission, on April 20, 1943, by order, extended the application of the Commission's explosive regulations to private and intrastate motor carriers. This order was amended on August 27, 1943, limiting its effectiveness to the duration of the war and 6 months thereafter.

Another aspect of regulation of the handling, labeling, packaging, and stowing which is important and demands uniform regulations

has been caused by the increase in interchange of traffic between the various modes of transportation; namely, motor-air, motor-rail, and motor-water. Further, increases in this interchange of goods between various types of carriers can be expected as time goes by

Furthermore, the proposed bill would simplify regulation of the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles since there would be a single regulatory body to which a carrier or shipper could look for uniform rules pertaining to their transportation. This seems particularly desirable, both from an administrative standpoint and from the point of view of the carriers and shippers themselves. It can be expected to result in substantial economies in the administration of regulations pertaining to the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles. Of course, the end product of the proposed bill is to assure protection to life and property.

The proposed revision does not attempt to put carriers now exempt from the Interstate Commerce Act under that act. It has no effect whatsoever on carriers' operating rights. Neither does it make the carriers subject to record and report requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act. This applies with equal force to the rate and charge provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Even assuming that the above were not. true, the proposed bill as now drawn exempts (1) any public vessel which is not engaged in commercial service and (2) any vessel constructed or converted for the principal purpose of carrying inflammable or combustible liquid cargo in bulk in its own tanks, which vessel is subject to the provisions of section 4417-a of the Revised Statute (U. S. C., 1940 ed., title 46, sec. 391-a.)

In conclusion I should assure you that the Commission in recommending and urging enactment of the proposed bill is not attempting to make a flank attack on any carrier not now subject to the Interstate Commerce Act by placing such carrier under that act.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Foristel?

Mr. FORISTEL. Turning to page 4 of your statement, but "assuming the above were not true," may I ask you if these provisions were taken out of the bill?

Mr. PERRIN. They are.

Mr. FORISTEL. If they were not taken out of the bill before passage there might be some danger to the carriers that the foot would be in the door for regulation.

Mr. PERRIN. I do not think so.

Mr. FORISTEL. Let us go back to page 3 of your statement. The third paragraph you say "Of course, the end product of the proposed bill is to assure protection of life and property." May I ask you what regulation there is now, by what department of Government, over these cargoes?

Mr. PERRIN. Well, today, the particular carriers here involved, I think they are regulated today by the Coast Guard regulation. Mr. FORISTEL. Coast Guard regulation?

Mr. PERRIN. That is right.

Mr. FORISTEL. And they do have a complete code of regulations.
Mr. PERRIN. Yes. I understand that they do.

Mr. FORISTEL. Then this bill, only attempts and the only purpose of it is to place that policing under the ICC's jurisdiction.

Mr. PERRIN. That is right. The only purpose of the bill is to provide a single regulatory body to which any transportation agency

can go.

Mr. FORISTEL. So the public is protected at the moment?

Mr. PERRIN. The public is protected at the moment, yes, sir.

Mr. FORISTEL. And there is no charge being made by the ICC that this is not adequate?

Mr. PERRIN. That is right. There is no charge.

Mr. FORISTEL. I think that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the particular reason, Mr. Perrin, for transferring this?

Mr. PERRIN. The only reason for it, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in the future, of course, we do not know when it will happen, there may be emergencies that arise that need the exercise of over-all control by one agency of this particular traffic. We have, during the war and since, experienced an increase in interchange of commodities between various carriers. Undoubtedly, as time goes by, that will further increase.

Just to give you one example as apropos, during the rail strike last year we were confronted with mobilizing, that is, the ODT was confronted with mobilizing the other transportation facilities of the Nation to provide essential civilian needs. In that particular situation we run into many disregarding the full utilization of our transport capacity of this Nation. That applies to both private, contract, and permanent carriers.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not the Presidential war powers give you sufficient authority to command most any type of transportation?

Mr. PERRIN. Well, they do with respect to the allocation of the equipment itself, but not with respect to the matters that rise from the compensation that may result from the transfer of commodities from one type of carrier to another.

The CHAIRMAN. But you could command and allocate every type of equipment.

Mr. PERRIN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. In our transportation system?

Mr. PERRIN. At that time. We cannot today.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not expect to be able to do that forever, do you?

Mr. PERRIN. Naturally we do not, no, sir.

Mr. CROST. Does this proposed legislation look toward jurisdiction beyond the contract carrier?

Mr. PERRIN. No, it does not.

Mr. CROST. Are you not thinking of air traffic, for example?

Mr. PERRIN. It certainly does in that respect. It applies to air, water, and highway, and rail carriers.

Mr. CROST. Will you take over some of the rules, presumably, of the Coast Guard?

Mr. PERRIN. Yes.

Mr. CROST. Do you at the present time have in mind changing any of those rules in any important respect?

Mr. PERRIN. No. I think the last section of this bill provides that— This Act shall become effective 90 days after the date of its enactment. The Interstate Commerce Commission may, in the performance of its functions under section 233 of the Act, as amended, adopt the regulations of any Federal Govern

ment Agency in effect on the effective date of this Act, governing the safe transportation of dangerous articles,

In other words, the act provides for the take-over at an intermediate period until regulations are promulgated.

Mr. CROST. What I am trying to get at, are there any specific things in the Coast Guard regulations which you feel do not adequately take care of the public interest, and which you as a coordinating agency would change?

Mr. PERRIN. I could not answer that.

Mr. CROST. Presumably that would be the basic reason for wanting to take it over, to make some comprehensive changes.

Mr. PERRIN. NO. I think the basic reason is to unify the regulatory processes under this particular law. In other words, today the air lines, for example, have their own regulations. While they, to a great extent have adopted the regulations that are promulgated by the commission, they do provide under their own act for the issuance of regulations. I think the same is true to some extent with the motor carriers. Not all motor carriers are today under the regulations.

Mr. CROST. You talk about the need for uniformity. Can you give the committee some examples of the lack of uniformity with respect to this particular problem of the contract water carriers?

Mr. PERRIN. I do not believe I could do that, because I do not have the regulations before me, and I do not know whether there is any lack of uniformity in the regulations or not.

Of course, when you talk about uniformity I think you have to keep in mind that even though you may have uniform requirements on certain aspects the difference in the type of transportation operation will necessarily call for some distinction being made in the types of regulations promulgated.

Mr. CROST. Do you mean by that that the problems of the contract water carriers are so peculiar that any regulations governing them have to take into consideration those special circumstances?

Mr. PERRIN. That is exactly right.

Mr. CROST. Do you at the present time-when I say "you" I mean either ODT or the Interstate Commerce Commission-have experts in the problems of the contract water carriers?

Mr. PERRIN. As far as the contract water carriers are concerned the Commission has a Bureau of Water Carriers down there that is staffed with people who are well acquainted with the problems of the carriers, and I think that if the regulations of the Coast Guard were worked on, they would be able to cope with the situation sufficiently. Mr. CROST. Would it require more personnel?

Mr. PERRIN. I would not say it would require very many more, at least.

Mr. FORISTEL. Just one more point that I want to make. Back to uniformity of packaging, and this is what this amounts to.

Mr. PERRIN. That is what it amounts to.

Mr. FORISTEL. This group before us this morning-and for the purposes of this discussion let us limit it to that group-80 percent of all their business, I am told-and if I am wrong in saying this, gentlemen, please correct me-deals with the carriage of petroleum. Am I right when I say that, Mr. Limbaugh?

Mr. RUSH H. LIMBAUGH. Yes, sir. That is correct.