posed amendments to the 1936 Merchant Marine Act which represent the views of both the subsidized and nonsubsidized operators of American-flag vessels in foreign trade. So that you might have an indication of the deep interest taken by the people of the Middle West, I want to read into the record a resolution unanimously adopted at the Thirty-first Annual Convention of the Mississippi Valley Association, held in St. Louis February 6 and 7, 1950, at which were present 802 registered delegates from 23 States in the Middle West and the South: We recognize the necessity for a strong and balanced peacetime American merchant marine, in order to be immediately available in event of national emergency, and adequate to provide the shipping services essential to our business and agriculture. Several segments of our American merchant marine are now in a critical, or deplorable, condition. Only two ship-construction contracts were awarded under the Merchant Marine Act during 1949 although there are at least 20 major shipbuilding plants in the United States. Shipbuilding and ship-repairing employment is at a dangerously low level should a national emergency require immediate expansion. We have neither sufficient United States-flag passenger ships to meet the requirements of our military services in event of emergency, nor to answer the demands for commercial travel. Further, our domestic shipping services are only a shadow of their prewar size. You note I say, "prewar size." To meet this situation in our American merchant marine we strongly urge and recommend: 1. That the 1936 Merchant Marine Act be clarified and expanded, clearly within its framework and upon its basic principle of parity, in order to permit the United States Maritime Commission to proceed with a long-range construction program, and to create conditions inducing private capital to build, operate, and maintain the passenger and other types of merchant ships necessary for our economic and national security. 2. That legislation be enacted which will establish a Panama Canal tolls policy reflecting fair and equitable charges, based upon the actual cost of transiting all vessels, including military ships, through the Canal. 3. That industry and Government cooperate and plan to reestablish immediately our domestic shipping services. 4. That we earnestly support the policy of our Government in granting financial aid for the operation and maintenance of regularly established United States flag-liner cargo and passenger services through the media of operating-differential payments to the extent necessary, and within the framework of parity with foreign-flag competitors as expressed in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Such Federal aid is fully justified by the importance of dependable shipping services thereby made available to our commerce. 5. We urge that any doubts now existing with regard to the intent of Congress in the interpretation of present laws be promptly clarified by the Congress as an aid to the continuance of private operation and enterprise. 6. We recognize the necessity for efficient, dependable United States flag steamship services, serving our ports in the foreign and domestic trade of the United States and essential to the future development and maintenance of domestic prosperity and full employment of the great central area of the United States. We further urge that American vessels engaged in foreign trade, now offering services to shippers second to none in the world, be patronized by the public and by the Government, and that the operation of vessels by the military authorities be limited to transportation directly related to the Military Establishment. We pledge our continued active support to the promotion and maintenance of a strong, privately owned and operated merchant marine in order to adequately provide the shipping services needed by our business and agriculture, and to be immediately available for our national security. Mr. Chairman, we appear today in opposition to Reorganization Plan No. 21 and in support of Senate Resolution 265 for the following reasons: The Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, under Senate Resolution 50, is now conducting a study of national policies with regard to the American merchant marine, the Maritime Commission, and all matters relating to the continuance, upbuilding, and maintenance of American-flag steamship services on the high seas. Much consideration is being given by committees of the House to the same subject. We believe that any reorganization plan should be postponed until these studies by Congress have been completed so that if any changes are found to be necessary, a wise program in the public interest can be formulated and put into effect. Should Reorganization Plan No. 21 go into effect this month, there is bound to occur a period of chaos and confusion covering the period of adjusting the Maritime Commission from its status as an agency of Congress to that of a bureau of the Department of Commerce. Such conditions might last 1 or 2 years before definite policies and programs were established by the new management. Should this country be drawn into a war and our merchant marine services were handicapped under the changes proposed, disastrous results would immediately follow. We have great respect for the present Secretary of Commerce who is an able administrator and rendering excellent service, but Secretaries of Commerce come and go subject to political adjustments, and we recall days when the Department of Commerce was not so ably administered and was brought within the sphere of politics to such an extent that it lost the confidence of the business people of this country. We remember only too well the period from 1933 to 1936 when our merchant marine services were under the direction of the Department of Commerce, and with all due deference to the gentlemen then in charge, no progress was made in the building or development of our American-flag services. Fortunately for this country, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 set up the Maritime Commission as a direct agency of the Congress, and when World War II started, the Commission was well organized, had activated a splendid program of shipbuilding, and during the entire war, under the outstanding leadership of Admiral Land, so ably assisted by Admiral Vickery and other members of the Commission, did such a magnificent job that all the world marveled. Permit us to reiterate that we believe it would be very risky business to abolish the Maritime Commission as an agency of the Congress under present world conditions except it be done after very careful study by the Senate and the House following the hearings and studies now being carried on by both bodies. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Macleay, you suggest that it is too important to be acted upon hastily by a plan that does not spell out what the program is to be in the future, how it is to be organized. Mr. MACLEAY. Mr. Chairman, we certainly do. It is too grave a matter, too important a matter to the welfare of this country to be picked up and chucked into something without careful consideration by the Congress. Mr. Chairman, plan 6 practically covers the main points laid down by the Hoover Commission and it was approved last August. We hold no brief for the present Maritime Commission nor for anybody else for that matter. But the facts are that the Commission has been continuously under fire. They have been hailed as individuals before committees. They have had to go before different groups and defend themselves. They have not had any time to put Reorganization Plan 6 into effect. And before they have time to put Reorganization Plan 6 into effect, comes along a plan to transfer them over to the Department of Commerce. We believe it is wrong. We believe the Congress should not permit it. We believe it to be highly detrimental to the welfare of our country. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Macleay. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. IDOL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to read it? Mr. IDOL. I will touch on a few points, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Whatever points you do not read will be published in full. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF EDGAR S. IDOL, GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. Mr. IDOL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edgar S. Idol. I am general counsel of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., the national trade association of the trucking industry. ATA is a federation of State trucking associations, one or more of which is chartered in each State and the District of Columbia. On the surface, plan No. 21 affects only the Maritime Commission. But section 301 establishes an Under Secretary for Transportation, and in this connection the President said: Over the years, however, transportation functions have become widely scattered throughout the executive branch. As a result, intelligent planning and budgeting of Federal transportation activities and the necessary coordination of transportation problems have become extremely difficult or impossible. The transfer of the functions of the Maritime Commission to the Department of Commerce will constitute a major step in correcting this condition. I would like to call your attention, Mr. Chairman and members, to the statement, "will constitute a major step." We take it there will be further steps. Without question the Department of Commerce is now the appropriate center for transportation problems. It contains the Civil Aeronautics Administration ** * the Bureau of Public Roads--the leading promotional agency dealing with land transportation. Also, it has the Inland Waterway Corporation * * *. These actions will go a long way toward the establishment of a sound and effective organization for the operating and promotional program of the Government relating to transportation. * ** Likewise, in line with the recommendations of the Commission, the plan assigns the determination of the over-all route pattern to the Secretary of Commerce * * *. It is my purpose to look to the Secretary of Commerce for leadership with respect to transportation problems, and for the development of over-all transportation policy within the executive branch. In closing, the President said that the plans will accomplish a major advance in the development of an effective organization of Federal transportation programs * * * It seems clear to us that the reorganization plans submitted March 13 will be supplemented by additional plans, and that plan 21 probably is the general pattern contemplated for regulation of all forms of transportation. For that reason, the motor-carrier industry has a very definite interest in plan 21. Further, the Under Secretary would have the responsibility and authority to develop national transportation policy without any additional legislation. We think that that would be accomplished, Mr. Chairman, without any further action taken either by the President or by the Congress, that you would have under plan 21 in effect a coordinator of transportation established in office. The weight of the administration would be behind his recommendations to Congress for new legislation; and the power to execute his policies would be limited only by congressional authority over appropriations. The importance of this proposal to all forms of transportation is evident. For years, our industry has been concerned over the inefficient and cumbersome administration of the regulatory statutes. In the postwar period particularly, our carriers have been growing more and more impatient with long delays in the hearing and deciding of cases, lack of enforcement, and the tendency to engage in what we consider unnecessary, time consuming, and wasteful regulatory practices. In general, our criticisms are not directed either at the regulatory commissions, or their individual members. Like most other people, we recognize that a commission or a board cannot, in the nature of things, be an efficient administrator. Moreover, appropriations for safety regulation and enforcement have been inadequate, at least with respect to motor transport. But a change in organization is essential, we think, if regulation is to be given a chance to work properly. As a general proposition, we believe that there must be a separation between the quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions of the commissions, and their administrative and executive functions. But we do not believe that there should be any weakening of the independent character of the agencies which render judicial decisions. On the contrary, we feel that the independence of the commissions with respect to the determination of basic questions of policy and of controversial issues should be strengthened. What does plan 21 do? It abolishes an existing Commission, and provides that its duties be taken over by a Maritime Board and a Maritime Administration within the Department of Commerce. Regulatory functions would be exercised by the Board subject to general policy guidance by the Secretary of Commerce as to functions transferred under section 105. The Chairman, designated from time to time, by the President, would also be the Maritime Administrator. As Maritime Administrator, the Chairman of the Board would report directly to a new Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, who in turn would report to the Secretary of Commerce. It is impossible, we believe, for a board under the "general policy" direction of a Cabinet officer as to some of its functions, and headed by a chairman, who can be removed by the President at will, to exercise truly independent judgment on any issue. As to separation of administrative functions from the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, we doubt that the plan goes far enough. Considerable administrative work is involved under functions with respect to regulation of rates and services. It may be doubted whether there is, in fact, any separation of functions under this plan. With the same man acting as Chairman of the Board and as the Administrator, the real effect may be simply to transfer all authority, both administrative and pudicial, to one man. A special subcommittee of ATA is now considering the problem of what should be done, in our opinion, by way of reorganization, to streamline administration, minimize delays, and improve enforcement of the law. Other interested groups are considering the same matters, and undoubtedly will make comprehensive recommendations for action by the Eighty-second Congress. We do not believe the job should be done in piecemeal fashion. We urge the committee to support Senate Joint Resolution 265 and to recommend that the Senate act upon it favorably. I thank you. STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. WOODWARD, WASHINGTON, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. Will you please identify yourself to the reporter and then you may proceed. Mr. WOODWARD. My name is Thomas M. Woodward. I represent no organization but have been here on request thinking I possibly might furnish some information as to a period in the past that has not been covered. The CHAIRMAN. Are you a former member of the Commission? I am a practicing attorney-at-law. I live at 3044 P Street, Washington. From 1937 to 1945, I was a member of the United States Maritime Commission, Vice Chairman from 1936 to 1942. In the reports of the Hoover Commission or elsewhere, I find little or nothing recounting or at praising the actual experience when the predecessor of the Maritime Commission, the Shipping Board, was under the Department of Commerce as a bureau from 1933 to 1936. From September '33, for about 2 years, I was an official in the Shipping Board Bureau under the Department of Commerce, as a member of the advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and Vice President of the Merchant Fleet Corporation. In the spring of 1933, the President, pursuant to his powers under the so-called Economy Act, transferred by Executive order the functions of the Shipping Board, then an independent agency of the Congress, and its affiliate, the Merchant Fleet Corporation, to the Department of Commerce. At the same time, there was an effort to effect a similar transfer of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Department of Commerce which was abandoned after opposition developed from many quarters. If you will pardon personal reference, merely to get the facts. General Saltzman, Admiral Cone, and I were asked by the Secretary of Commerce, about August 1933, to act as members of a three-man advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce, a governmental board and not a voluntary advisory board, and Vice President of the Merchant Fleet Corporation. We were assured by the Secretary that w Boa "e to exercise the powers of the then defunct Shipping ned in the law, both ministerial and regulatory, and |