this continues unabated, to raise the rates of highway users. Of course, one solution right now to that would be if Congress, instead of diverting $1.7 billion a year to the general fund would put it in the highway fund where it belongs and where we were told the money was going to go, we wouldn't have the problem that we are now faced with in building all these highways. We live by a set of double standards or double rules. The Congress of the United States says to all the States, "This money that you collect for highways must be used for highways, but when it comes to the Federal Government that is not so because we want to use that money to feather our nests for some other project."

I think, Senator, that actually is about all that I need to say at this time. I am sure that when you read my full report you may find some things you wish to question me on. I will be very happy to come back to Washington at my own expense and answer any further questions that your subcommittee or your full committee might wish to ask. Thank you very much.

Senator MCGEE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wendt.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. WENDT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
STATE OF WYOMING, ROCK SPRINGS, WYO.

Mr. WENDT. I hope I am not out of order, but this gentleman who testified a few minutes ago made a statement about the railroads not wanting that less-than-carload-lot traffic from Chicago to Denver. I would like

Senator MCGEE. This was an editorial comment.

Mr. WENDT. I would like to introduce a mimeographed statement. I have outlining three types of less-than-carload-lot service that we offer in piggyback transportation between Chicago and Denver, for the record, as a supplemental statement.

Senator McGEE. We will take it in at this time. We don't want to interject with rebuttals. If you want to submit them, it will follow at the end of the record.

Mr. WENDT. I live in Rock Springs, Wyo. I am an employee of the Union Pacific Railroad, in the car department, a member of the Carmen's Local 332, and I am here to represent the carmen and railroad workers in our particular area. Also, the people of Sweetwater County as their representative in the State legislature, and of course, the Union Pacific Railroad.

I have my printed copy here which I will go into and make as short as possible.

Senator MCGEE. Thank you.

Mr. WENDT. I present these comments and statements in the interests of railroad employees and, also, as I think, the economy and welfare of Sweetwater County, State of Wyoming, which I represent in the State legislature.

It would seem to me that in arriving at a decision regarding the setting of rates, rules, and regulations governing the transportation of all classes of freights, whether it be piggyback or otherwise, we should weigh each as to its merits, safety to the public, moneysaving to the public, and economy of the Nation. We must analyze the be

72199-62- -13

ginning of so-called automation, which has been very instrumental in bringing about the present conditions. Railroads competed with railroads when the turn from steam to diesel was brought about. Many skills used in steam operation were not necessary in the diesel operation, so were furloughed and many with 35 and 40 years of service, and at the age when it was almost impossible to be employed by someone else.

Following that turnover in operation, it was apparent that coal was not necessary. So in our community the coal mines were shut down, causing the layoff of some 2,000 coal miners. These people who lost their jobs went into other fields looking for work and many were absorbed by other industry, but not all, because of their age. They did not ask to be subsidized or have the rules and regulations changed or requested payments from the manufacturers of the diesel units of so much per unit to help them.

During this time the trucking industry, which is vital to the Nation and necessary, were increasing their business and expanding, and when the final checking was done it was found that railroads were shackled with rules and regulations which made it impossible to compete and naturally gave them reason to request changes in the rules to allow them to compete. They were granted some relief but not sufficient to openly compete, to maintain their necssary income to operate and retain their employees. Thus, more men were furloughed. This, in line with progress, was met with the building of equipment which made it possible for shippers to move their commodities; namely, cars and trailer trucks on flat cars, for much cheaper and safer delivery, which over a period of time projected its service to such an extent that it is now an accepted mode of transportation. This affected the truck industry, which has immediately requested the change in rules to help them meet the competition and also rates to effect the shipments and with the thought of forcing the freight back on the highways.

Mr. Hoffa says the danger of piggyback is that scores of Teamsters are losing their jobs. He does not recognize the number of railroad workers who have lost their jobs. I, as a railroad worker, feel that each of us have our rights to protect ourselves and we have suffered sufficiently while the Teamsters were growing that we lost half of our union membership. Let's think: Is Mr. Hoffa's motive selfish or progressive?

The piggybacking, which is the issue, was handled by 19 railroads in 1955 and it has proved so efficient that at the present time some 55 railroads are offering the service. It has increased from approximately 44,000 carloadings in 1954 to over a half million carloadings in 1960. To me, it proves that that is the accepted mode of shipping. Let's compare the trucking industry with the railroads on a tax basis. It is agreed that the truckers pay taxes both as property and road tax. The road tax is paid only when used. It is also agreed that the taxes paid by the truckers help to build and maintain highways. They in turn are only held responsible to follow the rules and regulations governing their operations. The repairs, upkeep and building of new highways is the responsibility of the State.

Now, let's look into the tax side of the railroads. They own their own roads and they pay annual taxes which amount, in some cases, to as much as 30 to 40 percent of the total taxes in some counties.

This is paid whether 1 train or 100 trains travel the rails. They are then restricted by rules and regulations far more severe than the truckers, namely, agricultural commodities, for instance, and it is their responsibility and expense to maintain and operate their railroads. The moneys needed for this must come from their income of operation and no part is subsidized by taxes from the people. We should consider these things.

We must not overlook the part played by the railroads in our national defense. Let's set the record of the railroads and the part they played in World War II. With only minor changes and additions, railroads almost doubled their movements of freight. This was done with very few additional increases in manpower. A crew of five people can handle 9,000 tons of freight between terminals. How many trucks and people would it take to move this on the highways and how much wear and tear would the roads and equipment used suffer in doing it?

Equipment and personnel are a big factor in time of war. Railroads moved 75 percent of all freight during the war, 90 percent of which was military category, and moved and transported 97 percent of the military personnel. This was done at a very much less cost than it could be done by highway travel equipment at a large saving in materials which are necessary in war. In an emergency at the present time the railroads could double their operations with much saving in time, which would be of the essence if war were brought on, which could happen without too much notice, and being of the nuclear type, time would be a great factor.

If railroads are shackled and forced to decrease their forces, restrict the maintenance of equipment and furlough forces, it would be hard to produce the necessary results. Billions are spent to protect the Nation, so let's recognize the part the railroads would play in the defense of the Nation. Should we by rules and regulations for other interests saddle industry with hardships and fight for survival?

In closing, I feel that the security and welfare of the public in a safety sense and economical sense should be of prime consideration, and we as railroad workers do not ask concessions of anything unjustifiable. Give us equality in rules and regulations and we will meet competition.

Senator McGee, I wish to thank you for the time I was allowed on your hearing.

Senator MCGEE. Thank you, John. I want to thank you for a very articulate statement.

Mr. Hunter.

STATEMENT OF L. A. HUNTER, RETIRED AGENT, CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD CO., SHERIDAN, WYO.

Mr. HUNTER. Senator McGee, gentlemen, my prepared statement was prepared several days ago, being more or less in the dark as to what to bring up. When a hearing has gone as far as this hearing has gone, anything that anybody says from here on out is bound to be more or less a repetition of what has already been said. I submit my report as a retired employee of the Burlington Railroad. You may wonder why a retired employee would have anything to worry

about in the present hearing. But I might advise you that we retired employees are just as much concerned about the future of an industry that has supported us for the last 40 or 45 years as those who are presently employed by that concern.

I am not going to read my report because time is of the essence, and I want to get back to Sheridan this evening.

You stressed this morning that you had no desire to let any one segment of our economy be restricted at the expense of another segment. That is my only reason for appearing here.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I will be on my way. Senator MCGEE. Thank you very much. Being a local citizen of this part of the State, I hope it snows so hard you can't get home. Mr. HUNTER. So do I.

(The statement as filed with the subcommittee is as follows:)

Gentlemen, what I may say at this time you may have already heard, and I can only reiterate these facts known to me from my 44 years' experience in the freight department of the Burlington Railroad.

It has been my experience to witness the decline of railroad business and subsequently the loss of employment by railroad employees since the late 1920's and early 1930's. This decline in business and subsequent layoffs caused a loss to railroad employees of some 600,000 jobs.

From its infancy the trucking industry has been encouraged, and actually subsidized, by the expenditure of billions of dollars by the Federal and State Governments in the building of public highways. They had no right-of-way to purchase and no roadbed to maintain. The trucking industry today makes the claim that they finance more than their share in building and maintaining the public highway system. However, I would wager that if the trucking industry had to build and maintain their own roads that there would be no intercity trucking.

However, getting back to the piggyback situation about which this hearing is being held, down through the years the trucking industry has gone along having the advantage of this unfair competition, absorbing business from the railroads, causing a decline in railroad business and the loss of railroad jobs. They apparently thought it was OK for railroad jobs to decrease while Teamster jobs multiplied, and this very thing is still happening today.

As one small example of what has happened all over the United States, the freighthouse at Sheridan, Wyo., where I was last employed, during the early 1930's employed some 15 freight handlers, and today there is only 1 railroad employee on that dock. The balance of the work has been taken over by trucks and truckers.

This loss of business to the railroad industry was brought about, in part, also by the fact that they were operating under a heavy weight of regulations that were designed for a different age, while their competitors were encouraged to help themselves to all the business they could get, which they did in a big way. As you well know, by the early 1950's this decline in railroad business had caused the railroad's financial situation to become very serious, serious enough. in fact, that it prompted the Congress and other Government agencies to make a series of studies which were the forerunners of the Transportation Act of 1958. With the passage of this act some of the restrictions were lifted and the railroads were allowed to get back into more equal competition with other forms of transportation by establishing rates which were really competitive, and thus they were able to retrieve some of the business which had previously been theirs and which had been lost to the trucking industry. The use of the piggyback is one of the examples of this regained business.

It seems that the Teamsters are alarmed about the loss of jobs which the use of piggyback may cause them. By the same token, what about the some 600,000 railroad jobs that have already been lost to them? Is the loss of a job to a teamster of more importance to the Nation than the loss of a job by a railroad employee?

I am now a retired employee and I, too, have a welfare fund to worry about. I ask another question: Is the welfare fund of the teamster of more importance to the economy of our Nation than the welfare fund of a railroad worker?

In closing, it would seem that in our ever-expanding economy there is plenty of room for the piggyback as well as the over-the-road truck, and why should one truck service be restricted at the expense of the other? In addition, any use of piggyback would in some small way relieve the congestion on our highways, and in relieving this congestion it would certainly enhance the safety on our highways, and this in itself is no small factor.

Senator MCGEE. Mr. Spracklen.

STATEMENT OF L. L. SPRACKLEN, PASSENGER CONDUCTOR,
C.B. & Q. RAILROAD, BILLINGS, MONT.

Mr. SPRACKLEN. Senator McGee and staff, I am L. L. Spracklen. I live at 1029 Wyoming Avenue, Billings, Mont., at the present time. I have been employed by the Burlington Railroad for 41 years and 9 months as a brakeman and conductor.

I am going to have to go along with Mr. Hunter. Anything I would say would be repetitious.

There is one thing I would like to bring out: the fact that I was a legislative representative for the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen for some 16 years here and I attended the legislature. We tried to do something about equalizing what we thought was wrong about the trucking and railroad industry but we didn't get it done. But, as I see it now, it was economics at that time and I think it is economics now that we are regaining some of that. So, if the truckers are losing their jobs, they want to remember that they took the jobs from us in the first place.

I thank you, gentlemen. That's all I have.

Senator MCGEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Spracklen.

(Statement of L. L. Spracklen as submitted to the subcommittee is as follows:)

My name is L. L. Spracklen, living at the present time at 1029 Wyoming Avenue, Billings, Mont.

I have been employed by the C.B. & Q. Railroad on the Sheridan division for 41 years and 9 months as a brakeman and a conductor. All but the last year I lived in Sheridan where I worked in freight service. I am now working as passenger conductor with the terminal at Billings. From 1947 until 1960 I worked part time as State legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and attended the State legislature for each 40-day session during that time.

As I understand it, this hearing is to determine if so-called piggybacking is to the best interest of the public and if it is taking employment from one class of workmen to the benefit of another class. We know that it is serving the public better by better service at a cheaper rate. That should be sufficient reason for maintaining this service. Too, there is the factor of keeping the transports out of traffic for the long hauls, which should relieve some of the congestion on our highways and streets.

As to the taking of jobs away from one group to the betterment of others, that should not enter the picture as the truckers took the business and jobs from the railroads in the first place. I can well remember when all automobiles were shipped by rail in cars built by the railroad companies especially for that purpose. They were just plain big boxcars with wide doors. As time went by, racks were put into them in order that more cars could be handled with safety. However, the trucks came up with transports that could carry as many cars with one trailer and tractor as could be hauled on a railroad car. They were moving them over highways built and maintained by the public, while the railroads were using their own tracks, built and maintained by the railroads, and in addition, were paying taxes on all installations. The railroads and their employees tried to correct these conditions by legislation but due to strong lob bies of the truckers and their employees we were unable to get what we con