Mr. HOBBS. And you indicate in your statement that you want to file the two statutes?

1

Mr. BECKER. That is right, and some others indicated in the statement filed by the Office of War Mobilization.

For example, there is the Ship Warrants Act existing there. We are not using priorities at the present time. We have terminated that, I had thought for good. Of course, if this rail strike had gotten rough, we might have to invoke that. I hesitate to say we do not intend to use it any more. If you get some sort of transportation strike it would be a very useful thing to have.

Mr. HOBBS. But you concur with Mr. Snyder's statement?
Mr. BECKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. As far as it affects you?

Mr. BECKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. And the needs you emphasize the need of is the continuation of the two statutes?

Mr. BECKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. With reference to which you are here?

Mr. BECKER. That is right, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your statement. Mr. BECKER. You are quite welcome.

Mr. EMERSON. We have next the Office of Defense Transportation. Mr. Silver is here.

Mr. HOBBS. We are delighted to have you and will be glad to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS A. SILVER, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION

Mr. SILVER. Francis A. Silver, general counsel, Office of Defense Transportation.

May it please the committee, under the executive orders of the President we perform certain functions; for instance, under Executive Order 8989 we are given the Presidential authority to certify to the Interstate Commerce Commission the necessity for the preferential transportation of certain traffic over other forms of traffic. We recently exercised that authority in connection with the rail strike when the general embargo was placed on the rails. That authority is contained in section 1, paragraph 15 of the Interstate Act as amended. That is 41 Stat. 476.

Another section of the Interstate Act, section 6, paragraph 8, gives the President authority in time of war to demand preference or priority for the movement of troops and material of war.

In each of these two sections occur the wording "In time of war or threatened war," so that the authority which may be exercised under those two sections is conditioned upon the existence of a war or a threatened war, and I assume, if by proclamation the war should be terminated or be declared terminated, that these sections would no longer be operative.

During the course of the war and since the actual termination of hostilities the Office of Defense Transportation has made 10 seizures under Executive order. In each of those 10 seizures we relied, in whole or in part, upon an act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 645, which provides

that the President in time of war, through the Secretary of War, may assume possession or take control of any transportation system. It is this statute, used in conjunction with the redistribution of power under the First War Powers Act, that was invoked in connection with the seizure of the railroads quite recently. This statute, of course, would become inoperative if the war were declared terminated.

A large portion of the authority which the Office of Defense Transportation now has derives from title III of the Second War Powers Act, which title, as you gentlemen know, is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1946.

Mr. HOBBS. Has not that been extended?

Mr. SILVER. It has passed the House. My understanding is that it. is in the Senate.

Mr. NEAL. Yes; it is in the Senate.

Mr. SILVER. It has not passed the Senate, but if it does pass the Senate as it passed the House it would extend title III to March 1, 1947, according to my understanding.

Also, in the seizures that have been made since the passage of the War Labor Disputes Act the authority of that legislations has been exercised by the President through the Office of Defense Transportation.

The War Labor Disputes Act, as I understand it, is one of those that carries the provision that it shall remain in effect until 6 months following the termination of hostilities. So that if seizures are to be made in the future through the Office of Defense Transportation of transportation systems and that act is employed it will be necessary of course that the authority shall continue to exist.

The seizures that have been made through the Office of Defense Transportation, I think with the exception of two, were made under the act of August 29, 1916, and also under section 9 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.

There is only one other law that we have a particular interest in now in addition to those mentioned, and that is section 12 of the Small Business Mobilization law, the act of June 11, 1942, 56 Stat. 351.

Back in 1943, about 3 years ago, the Office of Defense Transportation, supported by the Army and Navy, requested the Chairman of the War Production Board to issue certificate 44 which would permit transportation agencies, carrier, and others to confer for the purpose of establishing rates and regulations, and procedures pertaining thereto. That certificate has been maintained continuously in effect and will remain in effect, under its present expiration date, until July 1, 1946. If the functions of the Office of Defense Transportation are to be extended beyond July 1, 1946, it would seem necessary that certificate 44 be also maintained in effect.

I believe that concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FELLOWS. Do you feel you should extend the power indefinitely to seize the roads?

Mr. SILVER. On that I am not in a position to express an opinion. Mr. FELLOWS. You see we have got to?

Mr. SILVER. Yes.

Well, as I pointed out, Mr. Congressman, there are certain statutes which contemplate that in time of war the power therein conferred shall come into play, and that as soon as it is determined that war no

longer exists it shall cease-like the act of August 29, 1916, for instance.

Mr. SPRINGER. You say you derive this power out of these two acts, and also out of the Selective Service?

Mr. SILVER. So far as seizures are concerned.

Mr. SPRINGER. So far as seizures are concerned. Does that give you ample power for these seizures without reference to this question of war power?

Mr. SILVER. I would say no. We have hesitated to rely alone upon section 9 of the Selective Training and Service Act because of its particular wording.

We think the authority which is granted by the act of August 29, 1916, is broad enough to include anything that we have done, and we do not feel the Office is too much concerned with the selective service. Mr. SPRINGER. Therefore, you are not greatly concerned with selective service.

Mr. SILVER. That is right.

We would feel handicapped if we had to rely wholly upon the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940.

Mr. HOBBS. Åre there any other questions?

Mr. SPRINGER. How long, if you have any constructive idea on the subject, do you think this war power should be continued for that particular purpose?

Mr. SILVER. Well, we recently went through an emergency which required us obtaining even more war power than we had previously been given. The President gave us all of his allocation authority under title III of the Second War Powers Act for the purpose of allocating the use of transportation equipment and facilities by water carriers, motor carriers, rail carriers, and air carriers, which authority we did exercise during the emergency, and, if we can foresee in the future any similar emergency arising, then that authority should continue to exist.

Mr. SPRINGER. That would be entirely speculative?

Mr. SILVER. It is speculative, yes.

Mr. HANCOCK. That should be permanent labor legislation rather than war legislation, should it not?

Mr. SILVER. Well, we are drawn into the picture as the agency responsible for maintaining transportation when there is a break-down in transportation due to labor disturbances. We do not get into the labor side of it. We never undertake to determine wages or hours or terms of working conditions while we operate. So, while there is a labor problem, there is that other problem that arises by reason of a break-down in necessary transportation.

Mr. HOBBS. This committee, as you know, in the report of the bill extending the Second War Powers Act, took occasion to compliment your agency, and we were perfectly sincere in it because of the splendid record that you had made in the voluntary surrender, control, and release for other war purposes, war agencies, of the personnel that you had employed.

This commitee and I think the Congress and the Nation is very grateful to you for the liberality which you have evinced in not seeking to retain powers that you did not need at the moment.

We want to again compliment your Office of Defense Transportation for your history in this war emergency and defense emergency. In view of that fact we would, I think as a committee and probably as a Congress, be very responsive to any suggestion that you might make as to the necessity for continuing the powers to the ODT.

This question arises in the minds of some of us at least as to the making permanent the powers and changing of the name of your organization. It is now, as you know, the Office of Defense Transportation, and we would like to have an expression from you as to the desirability, here or no, of changing the name and the grant of certain powers that you perceive might be needed with regard to the general picture.

Mr. SILVER. Well, may it please the committee: On the change of name I know from my association with the late Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman that he felt that from the beginning the name was a mistake, and so far as the change of name is concerned I believe I can say that that would be very acceptable to the agency.

As to the necessity for continuing the authority of the Office of Defense Transportation beyond the current fiscal year I think it is the best thought of those identified with transportation that there will be many emergencies arise where they cannot be effectively handled except through such an agency as the Office of Defense Transportation.

With that thought in mind it is my judgment that the authority that the agency now possesses should be extended to March 31 of 1947. That is three quarters of the next fiscal year, which would coincide with the House approved extension of title III of the Second War Powers Act to March 31, 1947. I think our ideas would fit right in with the House's ideas on that, and that we should be allowed in the meantime to exercise the Presidential authority of allocation with respect to the use of transportation equipment and facilities.

One of our great problems is this: During the war the transportation plant of the Nation, particularly the railroads, was utilized to such a high degree there was not time to make all necessary repairs and replacements and meet developed transportation needs. Now, at this particular moment, when we are interested in the programs of the railroads and the motor carriers to take up the slack of the war, we find that they cannot get a sufficient amount of materials and supplies to do the job.

I have heard Director Colonel Johnston make the statement recently that there are 100,000 cars being used by the railroads at the present time which should be junked, but cannot be junked because they cannot get wood and certain other material to replace them.

Mr. HANCOCK. The CPA is handling that proposition?

Mr. SILVER. They are, but they are handling it only to a certain degree. There are so many claimants that, without material available to meet all claims, it has to be allocated around. So it does appear. During this fall, for instance, when there will be a heavy movement of grain, if we get into reconversion on a large scale, there just will not be enough cars to handle all the traffic that may be offered to the railroads. It may be necessary to set up a certain sort of priority for the movement of it.

Mr. HOBBS. It is obvious the production in the Office of Civilian Production Administration is certainly a temporary organization, whereas, what has been the Office of Defense Transportation is a part and process of the Interstate Commerce Commission at least, in a sense, and I think its parent organization will be permanent. Therefore, if we repose in an Office of Transportation instead of in an Office of Defense Transportation certain powers that all of us can easily foresee might be necessary for short periods of time it might be very well, do you not think so?

Mr. SILVER. Yes; I think it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. HANCOCK. How big is your organization now?

Mr. SILVER. We expanded it within the last week and we contracted it. I would say before the expansion we numbered about 60 persons, and after the contraction has taken effect, which will be by the end of this week, we will be back to that size. We may have to expand a little bit because we are having demands made upon our personnel we cannot meet because of lack of personnel, but it would not be in any event a big organization like it was.

We had at one time close to 5,000 employees, about 4,000 of which were in the field.

Mr. HOBBS. And after VJ-day you came down to the point where you had voluntarily relinquished all of the controls that you had been exercising and transferred them to other agencies, all of the employees?

Mr. SILVER. That is right.

Mr. HANCOCK. All your employees?

Mr. SILVER. No; not all. The field employees, we got rid of most of them on November 1. We got rid of over 3,000 employees. We only have at the present time sixty-odd.

We have still in effect several rail orders, which are quite necessary. One relates to carloads, which requires rail cars to be loaded to the maximum; another order relates to less-than-carload shipments; a third order relates to shipments through ports. We still have to protect the ports because of the heavy movement abroad. One order exists because of the current shortage in coal supply. It requires that coal-burning locomotive passenger mileage be reduced not less than 25 percent.

Mr. HOBBS. We were impressed and very favorably with the adaptability of the organization and the way you handled the emergency with regard to the return of the veterans. You are not exercising the power you had to command, but through consultation reaching a thoroughly satisfactory agreement which accomplished the same end, and we do express our appreciation of the way you handled that situation, and it has bred confidence in us in this organization. Mr. SILVER. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOBBS. Any other questions? If not we are delighted to have had your presence and your testimony, and we appreciate your being with us this morning.

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a representative of the Interstate Commerce Commission here.

Mr. HOBBS. We are delighted to have you with us.