(3) Small trucking groups as a rule could not afford this additional cost of dual registration, but they also could not afford not to have dual registration due to weight laws.

Example: A D.C. licensed truck hauling into Maryland with a legal D.C. load of 65,000 pounds (which also is legal in Maryland if registered according to Item #2) would have to pay a weight violation of $911.50 each time the violation is imposed on the trucker resulting in more cost than dual registration. This additional cost has to be passed on, and if not passed on would put the minority trucker out of business. We, therefore, feel it only fair to the minority trucker to have this reciprocal law between the District of Columbia and Maryland. (4) If this reciprocal arrangement were in force it would mean additional revenues to the District of Columbia, as most truckers working in the Metropolitan Area would buy D.C. tags with weight permits at a total cost of $2,149.50 per truck. D.C. would receive this revenue due to the fact that only D.C. would have the reciprocal agreements giving truckers the authority to operate in D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH YELDELL, D.C. CITY COUNCIL

Mr. YELDELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I hope I don't seem to be in a confusing position here as one member of Government testifying in opposition to another member of Govern

ment.

However, my interest in this matter precedes my reappointment to the City Council, where I have been working with minority truckers in terms of getting more jobs on the subway. There is a continuing concern among those minority truckers that they be allowed, in fact, to operate. And the ever-riding constraints of economics sort of governs their entire operation.

Accordingly, I communicated with the District Government some weeks ago in terms of the probability of working out a reciprocal agreement between the District and Maryland which, it was my understanding, already existed between the District and Virginia-to the end that minority truckers who were domiciled in the District would in fact have to purchase only one set of tags and would be able to go from a point in the District to a dump in Maryland.

This, of course, was precipitated by the fact that the work on the subway would involve the movement of some 20 million cubic yards of dirt and in fact will necessitate the bringing back of ten million of those cubic yards for fill. Since that was going to be heavy in the District, on the subway system, it became a point of economies as to whether they could effectively and efficiently operate. So this has been

my concern.

It's to that end, as I say, that I ask the District Government if they could in fact negotiate such an agreement. I think that that was agreed upon and that the Director of Motor Vehicles has actually entered into negotiation with Maryland on a reciprocal agreement. The simple

fact of the matter is that the lower the cost per truck on these small independent truckers is the difference between their capability to oper ate and their going out of business.

It's strictly from that point of view that I have approached this whole issue and that I have a concern for the issue currently before this Committee. In talking to people in the District, I understand that the weight permit is an amount that is applied to the repair of streets. My concern is that the minority truckers have the capability to purchase these tags which are enormous to begin with and to have the capability of taking this dirt from the District into Maryland without having the responsibilty of purchasing another set of tags.

As I have looked around the subway site and see these trucks every day, most of them bearing Maryland tags, doing most of the hauling in the District and particularly on the subway, it becomes an ever increasing concern that this kind of situation be altered.

So it's because of that and on behalf of the minority truckers that I have the concern that we do make it as lenient as possible on them in terms of their ability to operate so that they can take a meaningful role in the building of the subway, not only from a point of view of using it after it's built but from working with it in its construction stage, to help build it and, of course, to realize the economic gain that would necessarily result from that operation.

This is the thrust of my testimony. I would hope that if this bill as I understand it—and I must admit I am extremely confused on itis to allow the truckers to operate in the District of Columbia and in the State of Maryland without the necessity of dual registration, then it seems to me to be in the favor of the District to keep those truckers operating to do so. If that is the strength of the bill, then I would have to support it in that respect.

I have talked to the Deputy Mayor on it only this morning and I am somewhat confused as to the real thust of it. But certainly there is no confusion in my mind in the thrust of helping minority truckers take a meaningful role in the building of the subway and in other operations in this area, recognizing fully that the dumps that exist are mainly in Maryland at this time. So anything that is going to make it easier for them to move from the District to those dumps in Maryland without dual registration requirements I would support on behalf of the minority truckers.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it your opinion that this bill would authorizenot necessarily provide the authority itself but would authorize-the District Government to enter into agreements with the Governments of Virginia and Maryland which would have the effect of exempting a person from buying a tag or a license to operate across the District and State line?

Mr. YELDELL. That is my understanding, that it would in fact allow the purchasing of a tag in one location and then have the capability | of operating in all three locations.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Watt, is that your understanding as to what this bill will do? I don't mean confined to that, but it would allow such as that, it would permit such as that?

Mr. WATT. I believe it would. On the other hand, I would have to point out that it is my personal observation that most commercial vehicles-trucks and buses-are required to be registered and licensed

in all of those State jurisdictions in which they operate. That is why you see on the back of a truck, for example, as wide a variety of lícense plates.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand.

Mr. WATT. I think the answer to your question, as I understand it,

is yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That answers my question.

Mr. YELDELL. Mr. Chairman, my intention here is not to be in direct opposition to the Deputy Mayor, who I consider speaks for the City. I have no problem with that.

The thing that is confusing to the minority truckers is that everywhere I look in the City I see trucks operating with either Maryland or Virginia or Maryland and Virginia tags but few with District tags.

My concern is that we bring into this whole play as many District operators as possible. If that is not the intent of the bill, then I am confused. But if it is the intent to allow those truckers to get into the operation economically in the City and to get to those dumps in Maryland where they exist, then that is what I am talking about.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it your opinion that you don't see the tags from the District on them because you think the District people are unable to provide the type of tags the people in Maryland and Virginia are able to buy?

Mr. YELDELL. It's my understanding that the minorities cannot stand the dual cost situation and it is my understanding that this would be confined to the State of Maryland.

Mr. ABERNETHY. If the District trucker gets the same pay for a load as the Maryland and Virginia trucker gets, why can't they afford it? Mr. YELDELL. In the first place, I don't think they do. Most of the small truckers I am talking about operate under sub-contract to major contractors. In a situation where a major contractor has a contract to do which he has priced at maybe nineteen dollars an hour and his trucks are being utilized in some other job and he has need for additional capacity, he will then hire these minority truckers at maybe twelve dollars an hour to finish out his job. So they don't get paid the same rate. They are not the prime contractor, so they are not getting paid the same rate. So it becomes difficult for them to operate any way.

Mr. ABERNETHY. A trucker in from Maryland or Virginia, who is not a prime contractor, is faced with that same situation, is he not? Mr. YELDELL. Yes. If what I am saying is true, it would apply to that same person. I am talking of the fact, sir, that there are major trucking companies that in fact operate huge fleets. These are the ones we see on jobs across the City. These are the ones that have economics to meet the cost situation who can bid therefore on the jobs and the smaller trucker, having to face this as another economic barrier, is in fact hurt in this whole bidding process.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it your opinion that if this becomes law you feel that the District Government might persuade the Maryland and Virginia governments to waive the purchase of licenses in those States for the minority truckers from the District and at the same time collect it from their own?

Mr. YELDELL. Here again, sir, what I am saying is that it's my understanding that such an agreement already exists between the District and Virginia, that the movement here, which I had worked on prior

64-916 0-71- -3

to this and prior to my returning to the Council, was to get the District to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Maryland.

I worked with the District government and it was my understanding that things were generated to make this come about. Then this legislation was actually introduced. What I am saying is that the minority trucker needs every assistance he can get in terms of economic load on him.

If in fact it is reasonable to allow a D.C. trucker who happens to be a minority trucker to move to the dumps in Maryland without incurring additional cost from the State of Maryland, then that is what I am trying to support. Obviously it would require Maryland's compliance with that before it could take place.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have any information that the Maryland government might go along with this idea?

Mr. YELDELL. Sir, it was my understanding this was well under way in discussion between the District and the State of Maryland and that the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in the District was communicating with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in the State of Maryland. The thrust is to allow as much flexibility as each jurisdiction would allow so that we can in fact get these truckers to bid equitably on these jobs and to get a portion of this economic load that is taking place.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I think maybe we might be getting the cart before the horse. This is just my judgment about it. I am throwing this out to see what you think it's worth.

If there had been negotiations and if they are currently taking place, I think you might find a time when somebody comes in from the District government and say now, "We are negotiating with Maryland. We agreed to do thus and so." Then you might take up this bill. As it stands right now the District government says no.

It's not that we should just rubber-stamp what the District government says which I don't always do, as you well know-but I think if the District government should present itself here and say, "We have worked this out with Maryland", then there might be a little more consideration given thereto. That is just my personal view about it. I don't know about the others.

Mr. YELDELL. Mr. Chairman, it puts me in a rather peculiar situation, being on the Council.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That I understand.

Mr. YELDELL. But this is an issue that I had worked on prior to my reappointment to the Council. I only talked to the Deputy Mayor on this just before noon today. I am not for any movement that will take money from the District of Columbia, particularly with this present revenue problem.

My only concern is that if we can get a viable economic operation going in the City that will in fact allow these truckers to more meaningfully participate, that the money generated and the jobs made may in fact offset the situation. I can't go into that cost figure because I haven't gone into it with the District.

Again just to sum it up, my only concern is that every consideration that we can give be given to the minority truckers so that before this subway is built they will have had an opportunity to at least participate meaningfully. We are not getting the prime contracts. Many truckers have bought trucks anticipating work coming from the Metro

with this twenty million cubic yards of dirt being removed. In my thinking it would be folly to have done so, to be hampered from doing it because they cannot meet the economic needs, particularly if the jurisdictions can agree on this movement without requiring dual registration in the States.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Are there any questions?

Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Yeldell, I commend your purpose, but I think the vehicle you have chosen comes out diametrically opposite to the intention you want. Because right now, at least if the facts we have been given by both the D. C. and the staff of the Committee are correct, a D. C. trucker has an advantage over a Maryland trucker that this bill will take away.

Right now the D. C. trucker pays only the D. C. fee, and is allowed to dump in Maryland as long as it's not point-to-point delivery in Maryland, without paying a fee to Maryland. Whereas a Maryland trucker must pay both his own Maryland fee and pay a D. C. fee if he wants to come into the District.

I suspect that what is happening, if you see all those D.C. license plates, is that there are some other factors which is usually the case besides the license fee which determines who gets the job, such as bonding requirements and a lot of other things I am sure you are familiar with.

If the bill were to pass, it would take away one of the few advantages the D. C. truckers had, and that is that right now they have to pay only one license fee. The Maryland truckers have to pay two fees. If this bill passes, the Maryland truckers will only have to pay one. I think that, commendable as your purpose, this particular vehicle has a reverse English effect.

Mr. JACOBS. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Is the gentleman saying that if a D. C. trucker takes a load of dirt out to Maryland to dump it that now he does not have to pay the dual license?

Mr. MIKVA. That is what the staff memo says:

Since the small trucking companies in Maryland are complaining about the burden which this is placing upon them as they are obligated to operate to some extent in the District, they feel it is particularly unfair because at present similar vehicles registered in the District can operate in Maryland with no fee required unless they operate from point to point within that State.

Is that true, Mr. Airis, as far as you know?

Mr. AIRIS. Sir, I didn't hear the last of that sentence.

Mr. MIKVA. "They feel it is particularly unfair because at present similar vehicles registered in the District can operate in Maryland with no fee required unless they operate from point to point within that State."

Mr. AIRIS. Generally, my understanding is that that is correct. I am not an expert on what happens out in Maryland, but that is my general understanding. But there is some confusion on that point.

Mr. MIKVA. In any event, if the bill were to pass the most it would do is to put the D.C. trucker in the same position as the Maryland trucker, whatever that position is. If Mr. Yeldell's figures are correct, the D.C. trucker would still be at a competitive disadvantage under those circumstances because the total fees are about $105 more per year in D.C. than they would be in Maryland for a similar sized truck.