discussing this issue, there was another interagency group discussing the issue, which resulted in the interagency task force report; is that correct?

Mr. HALL. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. DOWNING. Where there any members on the MAC that were on the interagency group?

Mr. HALL. Yes. As a matter of fact, Congressman, as you probaby well know, the members of the MAC committee were not advised that this committee was working with the thought in mind of the type of report that it produced, although as the record now clearly indicates, the workings of the two groups were simultaneous.

We were working in the MAC committee area and the interagency task force groups were working over on the side, wherever they were working, at the same time. Those of us serving on the committee had no knowledge of what was occurring on the other side.

We knew that some of the agencies were working in relation to the MAC committee work, because in the structure of the MAC committee it had been suggested by the Secretary of Commerce, I believe, that in the due process of the work in the research, that the appropriate agencies or their representatives would make available to the Presidential committee, the MAC committee, the necessary records for study and review and research.

Now, we knew that this type of work was being done, because, quite frankly, they did a competent job in supplying for the committee over this period of a year various documents and records which were essential to the committee's work, but what we did not know was that in addition to being a research group, as it were, against the records of the Government, that they were also compiling for themselves a report, the Boyd report.

We had no knowledge of it at all.

Mr. DOWNING. Was Mr. Boyd a member of the MAC group?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Boyd participated with the MAC committee of several occasions. Mr. Boyd presented the original Boyd report to the MAC committee.

Mr. DOWNING. Well, who made the decision to turn down the MAC report and accept the interagency task force report?

Mr. HALL. I am not aware of who in the structure of Government made the decision to stifle the MAC report, the person in authority. It was rather strange in a sense and this is why it puzzles us. The Secretary of Commerce was not unfriendly to the work of the com mittee. We were informed later that he had been in favor of the report and it was under his jurisdiction which the committee was, fact, working.

He, as you know, was the chairman of that committee and both tax Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Hodges, and Secretary of Conmerce Connor-and I have said this in other hearings-I thoug they did an excellent job in the conduct of the committee hearing. They allowed a wide scope of evidence to be brought in.

The guidelines were quite broad and they were quite cooperativ Yet, in spite of the fact of the departmental heads, the Cabinet-leveofficers, the Secretary of Commerce having been friendly to the wors and the results of the committee, it was stifled. It must have bee

mewhere between that Cabinet-level officer, it seems to me, and the hite House.

As to who did this job, I am not quite sure.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. I think you have ade a significant contribution.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. I have just two short questions, Mr. Chairman. First, I too would like to commend Mr. Hall for a very forceful atement. I don't know that we have had any witness before this ommittee who has given a better background of our maritime posture nd at the same time a better argument for an independent agency. My question has to do with what we now are considering, an indeendent Federal Maritime Administration. This morning on my desk found a release from Joe Curran's committee which stated that here were two misconceptions regarding an independent agency. One was that it would avoid the exercise of financial control by the Bureau of the Budget. Surely no member of this committee is laborng under that misconception and I am sure you are not, Mr. Hall. Mr. HALL. No.

Mr. PELLY. We all know that the Bureau of the Budget is the one hat in the last analysis controls the finances. Mr. Curran says, too, hat there is a second misconception which comes from the first and hat is the idea that an independent agency in itself can build a tronger American merchant marine.

Well, I am sure that no one has testified to that effect. We just hope in independent agency would come up with a program or a blueprint hat was not dictated by the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. PELLY. Such a program would give guidelines to Congress upon which to legislate. After all, it is the responsibility of the Congress to legislate.

It isn't the function of the executive branch to legislate but rather to carry out the laws passed by the Congress.

Mr. HALL. Congressman, if I might comment on the latter point that you made, that there may be a misconception on some people's part that an independent agency, per se, would mean a good industry, no one is under that illusion.

I think what the evidence has been, or at least we have felt that it indicates this and we have tried to establish this wherever we have had the opportunity, is that an independent agency within itself is no final means to anything, but certainly it would provide an atmosphere and condition under which a better industry could be achieved.

I think, for example, if you just examine for a brief few moments the manner in which this whole question of the MAC report and of the Boyd report were handled, this is the classic example of how not to do a job.

An independent agency acting only in the interests of a better industry would certainly have at least dealt openly and honestly with the MAC report. So long as the Maritime Administration is subservient in the power structure to an agency which at the top is opposed to something that this lower element, in this case Marad, wants, where there is a conflict of attitude or desire, it is quite evident who is going to suffer on the short change.

That is that part of the agency that comes under the jurisdictio the Department. Of necessity, let me repeat, had all these issues be discussed, the Presidential Committee and all, in an area or at a t now when there had been an independent agency, all these dicusc and recommendations could have been given the proper consideran This, I think, would be the first reward of an independent agen Certainly I don't believe, to reiterate this and underscore what said, Congressman Pelly, and no one to my knowledge in any ser thought has felt that the mere creation of an independent agency w in itself would create a healthy industry, but it would on the ot hand create an apparatus and atmosphere by which there would be better chance and hope for a better industry.

Mr. PELLY. What you are saying basically is that had the MA report been written by an independent agency of Government, it wo have gotten into print and have had to go before the scrutiny of American people for their opinion. It was killed because it was undr someone who could strangle it and keep it from the light of p

scrutiny.

Mr. HALL. Yes. In other words, if I could just say what I think are in accord with, had this report been delivered during the period time when there had been an independent agency, then full pus review of that report would have been had, would have been made.

All of that report would have been made available to the Amer public and then the dialog that was mentioned a moment ago . have taken place on it. But it was foreordained that within the s department in which this committee was working that there wa desire to prevent the committee's report from ever coming out or be heard so that, even though the committee had this report and had do this work, it was a foregone conclusion that it would never be give any serious attention by the very people who have as their responsi ity the administration of the needs of the industry.

-F

In this case, it was the Department of Commerce. Mr. PELLY. Therefore, the Congress, and particularly this comm tee, is being blackjacked by a Cabinet member, who is saying, either take what I say or nothing at all." In other words, he is tempting to do the legislating and, as far as I can tell, to thwart th Congress from listening to responsible witnesses and coming up a program of its own.

Mr. HALL. It certainly seems to me that when anybody, in this c Mr. Boyd, doesn't even bother to put it in coy or sweet language this comes out as he has publicly or with us, as well, that anyth that you get from this Government must be predicated on profixed c ditions in other words, foreign building or whatever prefixed o tion on it isn't important, which it may be-that to have any re or hope for the future that you have to agree to a set of prefi conditions without any consideration of the value of those prefix conditions, you can define it any way you like.

I call it taking an absolute unfair advantage. I call it taking a really saying, "We will slow down the whole due process of gover ment unless you do things the way we want them done." They tell to have the perfect democracy in our system of government you to have the three departments of government. Each serves a fur tion.

What I would suggest is that Mr. Boyd is not satisfied with being he executive. He is attempting to preempt the rights of the legislave and say, "You have not only got to listen to me as the executive, ut legislatively if you don't do the right thing here, we will not coperate with you in the executive."

So what he is doing is aborting the whole process of the principle f the three arms of government, it seems to me.

When you boil down what Mr. Boyd is doing outside of the anger hat we may have as professionals in this industry, I think he is going bove and beyond. It seems to me, philosophically at least, he is doing nore damage than good to the industry. He is aborting the whole ue process of government, if the executive can say, "You either do this r else."

That is precisely what he has done and remarkably enough, Congressman, he hasn't made any pretention to anything else. He has said his quite publicly and openly, "You either do this or else." Mr. PELLY. Thank you very kindly.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess until tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. the following day, Thursday, July 27, 1967.)

83-195-67-34