when they are just transporting them ordinarily inside a commercial zone and there is an opportunity for men in that situation to secure employment as drivers.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I understand that. But I feel that you are arbitrarily denying an opportunity to this man to make full use of all of his faculties, his facilities, and his abilities when his abilities may be equal to those who already operate.

What I am suggesting is that the individual himself, this be put on an individual basis, and the individual who does prove himself to be equally competent to the other individual shall not suffer arbitrarily, and I use this word reluctantly, "discrimination."

It does not seem likely. I am sure you will have to agree with me in private that it is not right. Your objection to this thing is in the mechanics of doing it. Is that not right, basically?

Mr. GoFF. Well, I would not quite say that. I think I ought to invte your attenton to the fact that the statutes say that we are responsible for safety. Now, however, I might have a human impulse, a humantarian desire to individually approve qualification by one of these men, and heavens knows, I know plenty of them who I admire very much.

Mr. WILLIAMS. How about a fellow with the loss of a couple of fingers on his hand? Is he barred?

Mr. GOFF. No: he would not be.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yet, with his three fingers he might not be as strong as a man with good working prosthesis.

Mr. GOFF. That may be true but our responsibility is to maintain as far as we can safety on the highways. We have no responsibility such as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to take care of these other people, however, we might individually desire to do it.

Our responsibility on the Commission is to do what we think is going to assure safety on the highways. I can only point out that if we did have a man who is so handicapped with great big trucks, we could only have to have one bad accident and you know who would be blamed for it.

The answer would be, "What was wrong with those fellows, letting a man drive in that condition?"--they would not know all the answers, we are not dodging criticisms, we get it both ways, but it is simply that we know there is one way highways are going to be safe and that is that at least the fellow who has a terrific physical handicap won't be driving one of these vehicles. It is too dangerous.

It is the same proposition as I see it as putting a man with a prosthetic device in one of these big transport planes. I just don't think there is enough demand for it that anybody would do it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I quite agree with you except I do not think he should be barred from operating one of these big transport planes if he proves himself physically capable of doing so.

Perhaps you agree with me in principle on that?

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with you on principle.

I do.

Mr. WILLIAMS. As a matter of fact, we have handicapped people operating big transport planes, perhaps not for the airlines but they are operating.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Do you have any provision for a fellow who has awful big feet? I wonder if some of this trouble is caused by big feet, a heavy foot? I am not being facetious.

Mr. GoFF. No, you are not, because I know what you mean, it is heavy on the foot throttle.

Mr. HEMPHILL. A man with big feet would naturally have more pressure.

Mr. GoFF. Mr. Cox has one more statement. We don't want to take too much of your time.

Mr. Cox. It might be of interest to you, sir, to know that of those accidents that now occur under presently existing regulations, 56 percent of the truckdrivers who are killed are killed in accidents involving loss of control, jackknifing, overturning, vehicle leaving the road. Forty-four percent of those who are injured are drivers of commercial vehicles of the carriers reporting to us. Twenty-two percent of all the people injured in accidents reporting to us by common and contract carriers are drivers of the carrier-owned trucks. For this reason we have felt that we are serving the interest of the handicapped person, himself as well as that of the public in general.

Mr. WILLIAMS. These statistics are very interesting but I fail to see relevance. When you have two individuals equally competent, one who may have suffered some type of physical impairment and the other who has not, why one should be arbitrarily ruled against and the other for it is hard for me to understand. As I say, we have pretty well covered the subject in this testimony. Let me ask you one more question.

Mr. Goff, this committee would like very much to have the agency or the Commission come up with some constructive suggestions for handling this situation. I think all of us realize that a central examination by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy probably does not meet the safety standards.

I certainly would welcome the cooperation of the Commission in assisting in the drafting of legislation should it become necessary or should the committee decide to approve such legislation to assist us in putting it into proper shape.

Mr. GoFF. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I speak for the Commission in saying that if it is the desire of this committee and you, Mr. Chairman, we will try to work some kind of proposal.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think there is anyone on the committee and I doubt if there is anyone in Congress who would not be sympathetic to the purposes of this legislation. Of course, I am not authorized to speak for the Congress but I certainly have not spoken to an individual in Congress who has not expressed sympathy with this situation, and who has not said that something should be done to remove this absolute prohibition against these people if they prove themselves to be equally competent.

Thus far all we have from the Commission is just arbitrary opposition to any move that would be in the direction of licensing persons who may have suffered certain types of disability.

I would certainly hope that the Commission would cooperate with us, particularly in trying to set up certain criteria which should be followed in the licensing of these people should the Congress decide to take such action.

I would like to have some recommendations or suggestions from the Commission to this effect.

Although we oppose doing anything about it, nevertheless if the Congress insists upon it we would suggest so and so.

Do you follow what I mean?

Mr. GOFF. I do. If Congress directed or authorized us to certificate drivers, that is permit drivers, to operate these long-distance vehicles in interstate commerce, what is our recommendation as to means to facilitate the desire of Congress if that desire is manifested by the Congress.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Mr. GOFF. That is what you want?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Mr. GOFF. We will go ahead on that basis. I think that Mr. Cox and his staff will prepare some recommendations for that purpose. Now I do think you should realize that this study which has been referred to at Harvard has taken a long while, and it is going on at a lot of Government expense. Just as Mr. Cox has stated, we feel that that is going on, they are going to make findings on this and we hesitated because why should we be spending money for the same purpose on which it is being spent at Harvard?

Mr. WILLIAMS. If they want to subsidize that study, let us move it on down to the University of Mississippi. We need the money. Mr. GOFF. We will make some recommendations and get them up in a reasonable time.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Goff. The committee, of course, will give you a reasonable length of time to submit suggested recommendations. We are not in a position to want to force a thing on the ICC which it cannot handle. I do feel and I am sure other members of the committee will agree, that this is not an impossible situation, it can be handled and it can be handled fairly. We would like to have the suggestions of the Commission in that respect. Thank both of you gentlemen very much.

Mr. GOFF. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have two other witnesses listed on this legislation appearing together, I believe. Mr. Neely and Mr. Rennolds. Mr. Neely, how long is your statement?

STATEMENT OF J. R. NEELY, VICE PRESIDENT, EASTERN GREYHOUND LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

Mr. NEELY. The two statements should not take more than 10 or 15 minutes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Fine. We will do our best. The House is in session right now. We will continue until we have to leave.

Mr. NEELY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Neely, are you testifying on behalf of yourself and Mr. Rennolds?

Mr. NEELY. No; we have two statements to present.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I see.

Mr. NEELY. My name is J. R. Neely and I am vice president for safety and personnel training for Eastern Greyhound Lines with

headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. I have been employed in the bus industry for more than 34 years. Presently, my duties are primarily concerned with safety of operations and personnel selection and training.

I appear today on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Owners, a national trade association which serves as spokesman for approximately 1,000 intercity motor common carriers of passengers who provide somewhat more than three-fourths of the Nation's total intercity passenger travel by motorbus.

I am also authorized to present the views of the Greyhound Corp. of which my employer, Eastern Greyhound Lines, is one of the four operating bus divisions. As a whole, Greyhound operates a fleet of 5,000 buses approximately half a billion vehicle-miles annually and, during 1962, supplied more than 10 billion passenger-miles of travel. To do this we employ approximately 10,000 drivers.

Our records show that our passengers are 17 times safer than those who travel by private automobile, 4 times safer than those who fly and equally as safe as those who travel by train.

This outstanding safety record is primarily the result of continuing emphasis on our safety programs involving maintenance of vehicles, constant attention to driver training and retraining and, of paramount importance, extremely rigorous standards in the selection of driver personnel; well under 10 percent of our applicants meet our standards and still fewer survive the training program and subsequent qualifying tests.

Specifically, applicants to qualify as Greyhound drivers must be between 25 and 35 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches to 6 feet 2 inches in height, 155 to 210 pounds in weight and proper proportioned; be in top physical condition and possess the appropriate psychological, emotional, and aptitude characteristics.

These requirements are substantially more stringent than those prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in recognition of the fact that each one of our drivers, while on the road, has the sole responsibility for the safety and welfare of up to 50 passengers and must, therefore, be in top condition at all times.

During the course of a year the intercity bus industry bears the responsibility for the safety of more than 460 million passengers.

Mr. B. A. Rennolds, who will present a statement following my testimony, will provide more specific detail on the requirements of the busdriver's job, and I shall not repeat this material since our two statements have been coordinated as a package.

I wish, however, to comment briefly on three points. May I preface those comments, however, by emphasizing that we earnestly support the objectives of the various organizations which are encouraging the employment of handicapped persons.

We can and do employ such personnel in terminals, offices, stockrooms, and in other capacities where such practice is consistent with safety. But we do not include driving an intercity bus in this category for reasons which Mr. Rennolds will detail.

Attached to my statement is a copy of an official policy statement on this issue as adopted by the National Association of Motor Bus Owners. Unless the subcommittee wishes me to do so, I shall not read this statement, but I respectfully request that it be included in the record.

Under H.R. 827, the Commission could not prohibit the operation of any motor vehicle in interstate commerce by an individual who has suffered the loss of a foot, leg, hand, or arm, or impairment or loss of hearing if the individual has been examined by a licensed physician who determines that the individual is capable of operating such a vehicle safely.

As Mr. Rennold's testimony will indicate, the safe operation of intercity motorbuses and all of the techniques involved therein constitute a highly complex and specialized field with which physicians in general could not be expected to be familiar.

By this same token, we, as safety specialists, do not presume to conduct physical and other examinations of drivers, delegating these functions to physicians and psychologists.

I recall a case in which we discharged a driver who had been diag nosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. The driver's own physician held that he was qualified to drive under certain specified conditions and the case went to medical arbitration under our labor contract.

Two of the three physicians held for the driver, and it was necessary for us to enlist the assistance of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Public Health Service to get a final ruling that this man was not qualified to drive. I mention this to emphasize that we require the present regulation prohibiting the use of amputee drivers in view of the difficulties of enforcing our own company standards which our many years of experience have proved essential.

It should also be noted that we could not, in any event, employ handicapped drivers since to do so would put us in violation of regulations in a majority of the States which have adopted rules identical or similar to those of the ICC. This is so because, on virtually all of our operations, we carry intrastate as well as interstate passengers and are thus subject to regulation at both the State and local levels. Finally, it should be pointed out that common carriers of passengers are required by law in most States to exercise the highest degree of care of their passengers consistent with the operation of their business. "Highest degree of care" means more than "ordinary care" as would be involved with other vehicular traffic and places a burden on the carrier to foresee any reasonable possibility that might result in an accident.

A determination by a jury of failure on the part of the carrier to exercise the highest degree of care in any accident or property damage litigation could result in a holding of negligence under the law. An accident involvement when the busdriver is handicapped might constitute prima facie evidence of failure to exercise the highest degree of care on the part of the carrier.

Further, we are required by the ICC and the several State regulatory agencies to be adequately insured against public liability. Uncontroverted testimony in the proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte MC-40-Sub 1 (In the Matter of Qualifications and Maximum Hours of Service of Employees of Motor Carriers and Safety of Operations and Equipment, decided September 16, 1949, 49 MCC 669), in which consideration was given to possible modification of the present rule proscribing the employment of amputee drivers, showed that the largest inclusive insurer of motor carrier operations in the country would refuse to cover