No one believes for a moment that we can get this housing by giving the construction industry its head. Anyone who argues for reliance on the industry is arguing that we ignore the problem we face.

That is from the Bowles letter. We have serious doubts as to the fundamental philosophy as to the creation of this National Housing Agency and we believe Congress should take time to understand fully the philosophy of this type of reorganization before such illadvised measure would be adopted in this emergency way.

Senator FERGUSON. Of course, this hearing is part of a procedure and method that Congress has of looking into these problems. You see we have 60 days in which to study it.

Mr. WHITLOCK. I understand, Senator, that you do have and I think in my testimony I have pointed out some of these philosophical questions as outlined in this letter from Chester Bowles to Wilson Wyatt.

Going back again, in the reorganization of these housing agencies, we should understand the basic philosophy behind it. I have seen no witnesses explain to the committee, those who have prepared this plan, what the theory and philosophy behind it is.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know who has prepared this plan?

Mr. WHITLOCK. No, Senator; I watched very intently the House hearings, where there was an effort to bring out from Mr. Harold Smith, who did submit these plans to them.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know any reason why Congress should not be told whose philosophy this is?

Mr. WHITLOCK. I think Congress should know. I am very much in favor of your adopting the concurrent resolutions that are before you in order that the hasty action may not be taken in which dire results may result, until we know the facts behind this plan.

Mr. SOURWINE. When Mr. Smith was before us last Friday, I believe, he testified that it would be possible for him at the request of the committee with respect to any of the particular items of one of these plans, to give the committee a memorandum of who had worked on it. Mr. Chairman, de you want to request such a memorandum with regard to this report?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes; I think that would be well.

Mr. SOURWINE. The representatives of the Bureau of the Budget are here, and it can be noted by them.

(The information is as follows:)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25, D. C., June 24, 1946.

Hon. PAT MCCARRAN,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: The informal request of your committee to the effect that I furnish information with respect to the development of part V of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1946 (concerning the National Housing Agency) has been communicated to me.

The Reorganization Act of 1945 was approved December 20, 1945. On that date the President transmitted a letter to the then Director of the Bureau of the Budget, Mr. Harold D. Smith, requesting him to take the lead in preparing reorganization plans for the consideration of the President and suggesting that the recommendations of Federal agencies be obtained.

Consonant with the letter of the President, Director Smith, on December 26, 1945, issued Bulletin No. 1945-46:15, requesting Federal agencies to submit their recommendations by January 25, 1946, together with drafts of suitable reorganization provisions.

By letter of January 29, 1946, to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the National Housing Administrator, pursuant to the above-mentioned bulletin, recommended the establishment of a National Housing Agency under the Reorganization Act of 1945 and draft of pertinent reorganization provisions.

Revisions in the plan draft, primarily as to form, were made by the Bureau of the Budget with a view toward making part V of Reorganization Plan No. 1 generally consistent with the other provisions of that plan and with the provisions of the other two plans.

In connection with the development of the final form of the plan, Bureau of the Budget staff consulted with representatives of the National Housing Agency, namely, Messrs. Lyman Moore, Leon H. Keyserling, and B. T. Fitzpatrick. As you know, the Attorney General advised the President with respect to the form and legality of the plan.

In the course of the preparation of part V of the plan, frequent and length conferences were held with the President and there was also some consultation on our part with the National Housing Administrator, Mr. Wilson W. Wyatt. The role of the Bureau of the Budget, as a part of the Executive Office of the President, was essentially that of rendering a service to the President in this connection and facilitating the discharge of his responsibilities under the Reorganization Act of 1945.

Bureau of the Budget personnel most fully informed concerning the language and intent of part V of plan 1 are Edward G. Kemp (general counsel of the Bureau), Frederick J. Lawton, Fred E. Levi, and Harold Seidman.

I attach hereto copies of the various communications referred to above.
Sincerely yours,

PAUL H. APPLEBY,

Acting Director.

With

Mr. WHITLOCK. I think we are all entitled to it, Senator. Senator FERGUSON. I think we should go into it now. respect to the request that we cannot do it in this short time, I have not been able to come to the conclusion that that is a valid request. I think we ought to look into it. If it is right, we should authorize it, but if it is not, we ought to refuse it.

Mr. WHITLOCK. We in industry have only to put together what we see. We found the Bowles letter written to Wilson Wyatt, we found the Wyatt plan coinciding point by point with the Bowles letter. The philosophy of the Bowles letter is certainly one of central management and disregard of private enterprise. We find the creation of Mr. Wyatt as a National Housing Administrator under the emergency powers. We find statistics advocating rather than formulating policies.

We feel that we should not be refused the privilege of knowing the thinking that is behind this plan and that Congress should know the thinking before we allow this to become a law.

Senator FERGUSON. We have this request in now, and we will be able to get that.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you have anything further to present, Mr. Whitlock?

Mr. WHITLOCK. I think that covers the high points.

Senator FERGUSON. The next witness will be Mr. Haddock.

MARITIME

STATEMENT OF HOYT S. HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
COMMITTEE

Senator FERGUSON. Will you give your occupation and address, Mr. Haddock.

Mr. HADDOCK. My name is Hoyt S. Haddock, I am executive secretary of the Congress of Industrial Organizations Maritime Committee, 930 F Street, Washington, D. C.

I appear today, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946.

The CIO Maritime Committee is composed of seven CIO marine unions: National Maritime Union, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, National Union Marine Cooks and Stewards, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, American Communication Association and Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific. While our committee represents only CIO maritime unions, we should like to emphasize at this point that all maritime unions, AFL, CIO, and independent alike, are opposed to having these functions continued under the Coast Guard.

Senator FERGUSON. Did you accomplish that?

Mr. HADDOCK. No, sir; we did not accomplish that.

On March 21, 1946, 11 representatives of AFL, CIO, and independent maritime unions called upon Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace, urging that he do whatever necessary with a view to having the functions of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation returned to the Commerce Department. Present at this same meeting was retired inspector Milne of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. While we appear today, for the specific purpose of opposing part I, section 101, of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, we understand that the entire plan must be killed to accomplish this aim.

Senator FERGUSON. I think that is all taken. The way we have drafted this law, we have made it impossible to turn down any part of a plan. I have never agreed with that theory of the law, and I do not think we should have done it, but that is what-that is water over the dam.

Mr. HADDOCK. I think it is unfortunate and to be regretted that that is the situation.

Senator FERGUSON. If you had a bad part it would be well to eliminate the bad part. I believe in reorganization, and I think that is the way it should be accomplished. If Congress should adopt all or any part of a plan, I think they should be accomplished in that way. I believe you are right when you say that if one part here is bad and should not be adopted, then it all must be thrown out to accomplish that.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is unfortunate, but since that is the way it was drawn, we think it should be.

Senator FERGUSON. Therefore, you think that is of sufficient importance that we should defeat the whole plan in order to defeat this one part, that is your feeling?

Mr. HADDOCK. That is my feeling. I think that would apply to any plan. If there are parts of the plan which are bad, those parts need correcting and Congress should not penalize any one section of the population or any one agency or any one person for the purpose of gaining goods for others when they can avoid hurting anyone. Senator FERGUSON. We can send it back and the President could send us the good part alone.

Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct, sir.

If there are parts of the plan which should become effective it is to be regretted that the drafters have here attempted to railroad an obviously poor plan along with them. Any good proposals in the

plan should be redrawn and resubmitted. Our opposition is for the following reasons:

1. The 1938 Merchant Marine Act, specifically designated that the merchant marine be operated as a civilian service. The continuation of the maritime functions under the Coast Guard completely invalidates Congress' desire with respect to having a civilian merchant marine.

2. The Coast Guard demonstrated that it does not have the ability to enforce laws relating to discipline of merchant seamen in a fair and impartial manner.

3. Civilian personnel of the inspection service has been grossly discriminated against by Coast Guard officers and personnel.

Let us examine into the reasons why we oppose this part of the reorganization plan as stated above.

Our organizations have over a long period of time been receiving personal complaints from civilian inspectors who were transferred to the Coast Guard, concerning the treatment they were receiving.

To date we have not been able to get any of these people who were on the pay roll to make a statement which could be made public. The reasons for their not wanting to do so are, we are sure, obvious to this committee.

In the meeting with Secretary Wallace, however, retired Inspector Milne summed up all of the complaints we have heard from inspectors on duty. Mr. Milne, stated in effect, that there was no freedom. whatsoever in the Coast Guard, that all the activities of the Coast Guard with respect to the civilian personnel was such as to discourage their continued employment.

It was Milne's feeling, that the primary reason why the "heat" was being applied to them was because they were not Coast Guard officers. In any event, when the administration of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, under the Department of Commerce, inspector personnel was chosen from shipboard personnel. This was the primary outlet of seagoing personnel to shoreside jobs; and, incidentally, was considered by shipboard personnel as a promotion. Under the Coast Guard, this practice was discontinued and Coast Guard officers were given jobs formerly held by civilian inspectors who came up from the ranks aboard ship.

During the war years, the Coast Guard prepared a proposed revision of maritime law, which was commonly referred to as the Marine Safety Act. This proposed act contemplated the consolidation and revision of most of the existing bodies of maritime law.

In October 1945 at New York City, the Coast Guard held a public hearing at which the National Maritime Union appeared and offered suggestions and criticisms with respect to the proposed Marine Safety Act. These suggestions and criticisms are contained in an 81-page detailed analysis and report which pointed out the shortcomings in the proposed legislation.

One of the primary shortcomings of this proposed Marine Safety Act was its failure to make provisions for the protection of the rights of merchant seamen in various respects.

Up to the present time, the Coast Guard, has failed to urge enactment of any of the proposed revisions called for in that report so as to deal adequately with many of the present problems which are concerned with maritime workers.

Now, let us examine into some of the specific acts of discrimination. The National Labor Relations Board ordered an election to be held aboard the S. S. Horace Mann at Charleston on March 29, 1946. When the National Labor Relations Board attorney and the union representative sought to board the vessel for that purpose, access was denied them by the master.

Thereafter, a launch pulled alongside and the election was held in the launch, with the crew going over the side for that purpose, and then returning back aboard ship.

At the end of the voyage, the master appeared before the Coast Guard at New York, demanding that charges be filed against the unlicensed personnel for going over the side of the vessel to vote, despite the fact that he had ordered that they should not do so.

Although this action on the part of the master was a confession of a violation of section 12 of the National Labor Relations Act, subjecting him to a $5,000 fine and/or 1 year's imprisonment, the Coast Guard failed to take any disciplinary action against him. Instead, it undertook an investigation of the unlicensed personnel to determine whether they should be charged with misconduct for allegedly refusing to obey what was clearly an unlawful order on the part of the master.

Such action of the Coast Guard would only result in encouraging masters and ship operators to violate the provisions of the Wagner Act with impunity, knowing that in the event of a labor disputesuch as in this case-the Coast Guard would seek to take action only against the unlicensed personnel, and not the violator.

The unlicensed members of the crew of the S. S. Jonathan P. Doliver were found guilty of participating in mutinous conduct in refusing to perform duty about October 1945.

The circumstances of the case were that their articles had expired while the vessel was abroad. Instead of returning to the United States, the master ordered the vessel to proceed to another foreign port to take on a new cargo destined for the States. For their refusal to work until their rights could be clarified, the men were found. guilty of misconduct and their seaman's papers were permanently revoked, by a west coast merchant marine hearing unit of the Coast Guard.

An appeal was filed, in which the authorities were requested to follow their previous decision in the case of the S. S. Forbes Road, wherein an acquittal was obtained of a licensed officer who walked off that ship upon the expiration of the articles, under similar circumstances. The present Coast Guard Commandant, however, refused to follow his predecessor's decision on the S. S. Forbes Road case, and sustained the ruling of the west coast merchant marine hearing unit. From this it appears that where a licensed man walks off a ship in a foreign port upon the expiration of the articles and upon the master's refusal to return to the final port of discharge without further delay, the Coast Guard will find him not guilty of misconduct.

On the other hand, if unlicensed personnel engaged in a concerted protest against being kept in involuntary servitude upon expiration of the contract period for which they were employed, then, even although they continue with the ship, the Coast Guard will find them guilty of misconduct and deprive them forever of the right to earn their livelihood as seamen.