Mr. NEALE. I might say, Mr. Chairman, there may be some others. We do not guarantee there may not be; but that is what our research has disclosed. Something else may turn up later in which we may be interested. But we have given you approximately 80 statutes in which we feel we are directly concerned because of the pending resolution. Mr. HOBBS. Thank you very much.

We are delighted to have heard you.

Our distinguished general counsel of the Federal Works Agency is now here, who is the Honorable Alan Johnstone.

STATEMENT OF ALAN JOHNSTONE, GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as I understand the issue here it is whether legislation of the type of one of these resolutions should pass, or whether the committee will recommend the repeal of certain specific acts.

Mr. HOBBS. And we are also considering, if you will pardon the interjection, the legal authority of this committee to report a bill and recommend it to the Congress for passage in declaring war or the hostilities and emergency ended with regard to certain statutes, and continuing it with regard to others.

We have some grave doubt as to how that might be criticized successfully.

We have no doubt that we would report a bill to repeal certain statutes, modify others, and extend the life of others. But we are very doubtful whether we should do so because of conflicting committee jurisdiction. And we would like for you to give some thought to those propositions, because they are in the forefront of our thinking as well as the points that you have to submit.

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. I do not mean for you to address yourself to those questions at the moment, but we would like to have the benefit of your advice and counsel as representing your agency.

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Thank you.

A good part of the activities of the Federal Works Agency during the war were carried out under what has been commonly called the Lanham Act, Public Law 849 of the Seventy-sixth Congress, approved. October 14, 1940, as amended.

That act, Mr. Chairman, as many of you are aware, contains provision not only for the procurement and the construction of defense housing and defense public works, but also contains provision for the disposition of those facilities after they have been constructed.

The act specifically provides that those parts of it relating to the acquisitions of land and the construction of properties shall cease upon the cessation of the emergency.

It also provides that the balance of the act shall remain in force, so that under its authority the various facilities may be disposed of by the responsible officials.

I would say to the committee that with respect to the procurement and the construction of public-works facilities it would not adversely affect our activities if the Congress should resolve the emergency to

be at an end, because we have already ceased to construct projects and are now in the act of disposing of them.

Now, a reference to the activities of the Public Roads Administration: the Congress passed what was known as the Defense Highway Act, which authorized the Public Roads Administration of the Federal Works Agency to construct certain defense and strategic highways during the war. Those activities differed from the activities of the Public Roads Administration, in that the Public Roads Administration with respect to defense highways and strategic highways was. authorized to pay the entire cost without sharing on the part of the State, the theory being that the roads were, for the most part, required for defense installations and were not useful during and after the emergency was over. That program has been almost completed except that there are two or three projects, particularly on the west coast that relate to the permanent defense facilities of the Navy.

One of them is at Terminal Island off of San Francisco.

The statute provides, and I might read it:

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated during the continuance of the emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941

the sum of so many million dollars.

We are not seeking any further appropriations, and insofar as appropriations have been made, in my judgment, they would remain available even though the emergency were declared to be at an end. But the act further provides

that during the continuance of such emergency the Commissioner of Public Roads is authorized to enter into contracts not exceeding the total of such authorization.

If the emergency were declared to be at an end the contracting authority of the Commissioner of Public Roads would be at an end, and would leave certain of these defense installations uncompleted.

So, I would suggest, and I would be glad to furnish to the clerk of the committee some language which might be added to this resolution which would continue the authority for the completion of approved projects.

Mr. HOBBS. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record, after which the following occurred:)

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Now, Mr. Chairman, we come to the activities of our Public Buildings Administration.

At the outbreak of the war we found that we were required to acquire space throughout the United States for the expanding of the Federal establishment. And there was no power on the part of our building guards to make arrests, or to expel unauthorized persons from these Federal establishments.

We sought an act to authorize the building guards of the Public Buildings Administration to make arrests and turn the arrested persons over to the local civil authorities. And that is limited to the emergency. It ought to be continued, and we have now pending in the Congress a bill that would continue that authority. I suppose the Congress will pass it. But we should like it continued until that does take place.

I have not, Judge Hobbs, had an opportunity to review in as much detail as I would like two resolutions of the Seventy-seventh Congress, Resolution 209 and Resolution 36, under the terms of which

our Public Buildings Administration removed from Washington certain of our Federal establishments to other cities to make room for certain other war establishments. We have the impression that that authority should continue for the purpose of bringing back those establishments which need to be brought back.

I am not able to say this morning whether or not that legislation by its terms was limited to the emergency, and I should like an opportunity to look that up and file a memorandum with the clerk about it. (This memorandum appears at the close of Mr. Johnstone's statement.)

That, I think, sir, is about all we have to say on this subject.

Mr. HOBBS. Without objection it is so ordered. We would be very grateful if you do that.

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. Are there any questions any member desires to ask? Mr. Johnstone, we are very grateful to you, sir.

Mr. JOHNSTONE. Thank you. It is a pleasure to have come. Thank

you.

(Letter submitted by Mr. Johnstone pursuant to permission is as follows:)

Hon. SAM HOBBS,

House of Representatives.

MAY 29, 1946.

MY DEAR MR. HOBBS: In my testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee considering methods of terminating the war emergency. I requested and was granted permission to submit suggested language to be inserted in any resolution which may be reported by the subcommittee to assure that defense highway projects heretofore approved may be completed. My suggested language follows:

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the completion of any project heretofore undertaken under the Defense Highway Act of 1941 nor affect the availability of funds for such purpose heretofore appropriated to carry out the provisions of said act."

With kind personal regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,

ALAN JOHNSTONE, General Counsel.

Mr. HOBBS. All right; who is your next witness?

Mr. EMERSON. The War Shipping Administration, Mr. Arthur Becker.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR BECKER, WAR SHIPPING

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. HOBBS. While I am thinking about it, before you begin, the Veterans' Administration was notified only this morning that their testimony was desired, and Mr. Birdsall, Assistant Administrator, is working on the statement which he desires to file sometime during today or tomorrow. This need not be on the record except as to the omission of his being here.

If there is no objection he can file that statement in lieu of his personal testimony. Is there any reason why that should not be granted? (No response.)

Without objection then it is so ordered and the Federal Works Administration will grant permission for him to file his testimony in writing.

85413-46-ser. 17, pt. 2- -5

Mr. BECKER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we have not had an opportunity due to lack of time to prepare a formal statement.

I would like to say that the War Shipping Administration agrees generally with the schedule submitted to the committee by the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion.

There are just two acts that we are particularly concerned with. Those are most important from our point of view. These acts are section 902 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, and the act of June 6, 1941, Public Law 101, Seventy-seventh Congress.

The first act, section 902, authorizes the War Shipping Administration to requisition the title to or the use of any vessel under the American flag or owned by a citizen of the United States.

Now this act is most important to our present program of getting out of the shipping business.

The way the act is being used at present is as follows:

We are now engaged in redelivering to the owners all merchant vessels we took from them at the beginning of the war. Many of these vessels, which are obsolete, will require repairs to put them back in the condition in which they were before the war far in excess of the present value of the vessel, and in the ordinary course of operations if these vessels were repaired and returned to the owners they would then be swapped in on a new ship and scrapped by the Government.

When we are confronted with that type of situation where a vessel, for example, in sound condition would be worth one-quarter of a million dollars and it would take one-half million dollars to place it in sound condition, and then it would still be worth one-quarter million dollars we avail ourselves of this power, under section 902, to take title to the vessel and give the owner one-quarter million dollars, thus obviating the cost of these repairs, and then eventually and ultimately scrapping the vessel.

Also a great many of our operating powers are contained within section 902. We are authorized by that section to repair the vessels, to operate those vessels, and to charter them for operation.

And I might add that we were considering, using our powers under that section, if the railroad strike had continued. That would have been the type of emergency where it would have been necessary to invoke all our operating powers in order to substitute steamship transportation for rail transportation.

The other section, the other statute, is the act of June 6, 1941. This statute declares that during the national emergency declared by the President on September 8, 1939, to exist the War Shipping Administration can acquire vessels and charter these vessels out. That program, the program of chartering our own ships out to private operators, is most essential in order to take the Government out of shipping operations.

What has happened is this: the Congress has passed a most comprehensive plan for the sale of the war built tonnage in the Merchants Sales Act of 1946. The act was passed rather recently and we did not have much of an opportunity to act under it. It was passed about a month ago and it would not have done much good to have passed it before that because of the UMA agreement requiring the maritime

nations to restrict the use of their vessels which expired on March 2, 1946. When the act was passed we were confronted with an extreme emergency with respect to shipping. Also there was a 60-day period before vessels could be chartered. They had to be offered for sale for 60 days before they were chartered.

In order to get out of private operations quickly as possible we have used our powers under the act of June 6, 1941, to charter to private operators the vessels in this interim period while they were being offered for sale, and in that way we have made very considerable progress in getting the Government out of the shipping business and we hope to continue to do so, but we do feel that that act should continue until there is a reasonable time under the Ship Sales Act to sell the vessels or to charter them for regular, normal operation, and we feel that unfortunately we may not for sometime be able to charter or sell all of our vessels because there are certain uneconomical cargoes that just have to be handled.

Mr. SPRINGER. What do you consider a reasonable time in which to accomplish that purpose?

Mr. BECKER. I really do not know sir.

It depends largely upon the labor situation. That is one of the things that is affecting private operations of vessels.

An example of what I mean is this: The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration desires to transport a great many animals, livestock to European areas. Now it is awfully difficult to have that done on a straight commercial operation, because it is impossible for an operator to figure his cost. He does not know whether transportation, fuel, strikes or something else may prevent the animals from getting there. If the ship has to wait 2 or 3 weeks for a carload of animals why you just cannot run it as a private operation unless you charge very prohibitive costs to cover every possible contingency.

And I would say, though, it is our intention by the end of this year, if not sooner, to get rid of the bulk of these vessels, but there will still, I am afraid, for sometime to come be isolated trade routes where you just cannot run commercially because there is no backhaul, or you cannot figure your cost. Or, take the example of intercoastal shipping: the War Shipping Administration has now requested the Interstate Commerce Commission to do something about raising rates up to a cost level. You see the tariff on coastwise and intercoastal shipping in many places is such that it would be impossible to run it except at a tremendous loss which only the Government could take.

Mr. SPRINGER. These animals that are being sent across now, are they being sent across for food purposes or agricultural purposes? Mr. BECKER. They are sent across for agricultural purposes? Mr. SPRINGER. For agricultural purposes.

Mr. BECKER. I would not know whether for food purposes or other agricultural purposes. Some of them are undoubtedly for straight farm purposes because I know some mules and some horses have been sent over.

Mr. SPRINGER. Are any cattle or hogs sent across?

Mr. BECKER. I do not know. We have not got much to do with what is actually shipped. We are just making the vessels available. So those are about the only two statutes we are primarily concerned with preserving.