PAT HARRISON WATERWAY DISTRICT, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: This is in reply to your appreciated letters of June 7 and May 16 on the proposed Department of Transportation Bill. Please ask your committee staff to read again the second paragraph in my letter to you of May 11, which I quote as follows: "As you may know, the Pat Harrison Waterway District is a pioneering state agency set up by the Mississippi Legislature to coordinate Federal and local interests in the comprehensive development of the water resources of the Pascagoula River Basin. As such, we have found navigation to be a purpose which cannot be separated from other purposes in comprehensive water resources development. While we do not anticipate that the proposed Department of Transportation will work at cross-purposes to existing comprehensive basin development agencies, we think it is imperative that legislation make very clear how the proposed Department of Transportation will mesh with the intent of the Water Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80, 89th Congress, July 22, 1965). Agencies representing local interests, such as we do, must depend upon the Congress to clarify rather than confuse the working relationships among Federal agencies in comprehensive and coordinated water resources development." In line with this general approach, we think that the single purpose of transportation, as such, must be always subservient to larger policy decisions in the field of regional development. This is to say, in other words, that basic decisions governing Federal investment in resource development should remain a Congressional prerogative, since Congress can best reflect the democratic consensus. Once the Congressional intent is clear that certain regions or urban patterns should have priority in development, then a systems analysis approach can develop a program budget allocating investment priorities for such single-purpose components as education, or conservation, or flood control, or pollution abatement, or transportation, etc. We hope, therefore, that the proposed legislation will make clear that any function of a Federal Department of Transportation-whether it be research, capital investment, maintenance and operation, or regulation-must be coordinated with equivalent functions of other Federal agencies in the field of regional development. Unless Federal activities are coordinated, local interests in regional development can not work or plan efficiency. Specifically, we repeat again that "it is imperative that legislation make very clear how the proposed Department of Transportation will mesh with the intent of the Water Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80, 89th Congress, July 22, 1965)." We appreciate the caution with which your committee is moving toward new legislation in this complicated field of Federal resource development. We trust this statement reflecting the views of local interests affected by Congressionl action will be helpful. Sincerely, SWEP T. DAVIS, Executive Director-Secretary. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS Mr. JAMES R. CALLOWAY, Staff Director, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CALLOWAY: The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans has been very much interested in Senate Bill 3010 and, after careful consideration, the Board has passed a resolution opposing the enactment of S. 3010 for a number of reasons as stated in the attached certified copy. The Board is not opposed to the principle of establishing a Department of Transportation at cabinet level, but bases its opposition on objections to the language and the power as covered in the proposed bill in the Senate and the House. The Board would appreciate if its resolution be brought to the attention of the Committee and included in its records and consideration. Very truly yours, Attachment. W. J. AMOSS, Director of the Port. EXHIBIT 35 CERTIFICATION I, Emero S. Stiegman, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct extract from the minutes of the Board adopted at a regular meeting held in the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, on April 22, 1966: "Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans (hereinafter called Board), after careful consideration of S. 3010, a bill to establish a cabinet level Department of Transportation of the United States of America finds that the proposed bill in its present form fails to properly and adequately recognize the importance and necessity of the Maritime Administration to the United States; and "Whereas, the Board further finds the bill to be so broad as to be an unwarranted abrogation of legislative responsibility to the executive branch; and "Whereas, the Board further finds that Section 7 of the bill is completely objectionable in that it conflicts with and could effectively erode the powers the Congress has previously conferred on several agencies of government and be lieves that careful study may reveal many more serious conflicts with still other existing statutes involving the investment of government funds in projects related to transportation; and "Whereas, the Board further finds that as presently stated the language of S. 3010 fails to provide essential restraints or controls to protect the constitutional responsibilities delegated to the Congress: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans must record itself as strongly opposed to the enactment of S. 3010 or similarly worded legislation, as being contrary to the welfare and best interests of the people of the United States and the maintenance and expansion of its essential waterborne commerce and trade." Witness my hand and the seal of this Board, on this 15th day of June, 1966. Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, U.S. SENATE, June 7, 1966. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Chairman, Government Operations Committee, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter I received from Mr. J. Eldon Opheim, General Manager of the Port of Seattle, concerning S. 3010. I would very much appreciate having Mr. Opheim's letter included in the hearing record on this bill. Sincerely yours, HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. Senator. PORT OF SEATTLE, Seattle, Wash., May 31, 1966. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator JACKSON: The Port of Seattle is interested in proposed legislation-S. 3010-which would create a Department of Transportation at Cabinet level. This interest stems from the Port's ownership of airline and marine terminal facilities as well as our close working relationship with the railroads and motor carriers. We have examined the content of S. 3010 as well as various statements made by government and industry officials regarding the effect of this measure. Due to the lack of clarifying details on departmental organization and assignment of responsibilities, policies and policy changes and safeguards to assure impartial and equal treatment for all modes of transportation, the Port of Seattle wishes to be placed on the record as neither endorsing nor opposing the proposed legislation. Our initial reaction to S. 3010 is to recommend that the Maritime Administration be recognized and assigned independent status due to its great importance to the economic life of the nation and in national defense. The Maritime Administration has a particularly important role to play in our country's efforts to maintain and improve its balance of payments position. We do not believe its effectiveness will be improved by shifting it from one large executive department to another of tremendous size because the Maritime Administration has a statutory responsibility which should be exercised independently. Many of its responsibilities vital to the achievement of its objectives go far beyond the subject of transportation and involve the field of finance, foreign affairs, and military potential as well as the flow of vital commerce. Our principal concern with S. 3010 is that the Secretary's power under Section Seven of the bill-to develop standards for the investment of federal funds in transportation equipment and facilities-is too sweeping and uncontrolled by adequate criteria and standards. The language may be so broad as to amount to an unwarranted delegation of legislative responsibility to the executive. We recommend that this Section be given further study and clarification. In view of the above, we recommend that Congress should thoroughly investigate the far-reaching implications of this bill before taking final action. Very truly yours, J. ELDON OPHEIM, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, SOUTHEAST SHIPPERS ADVISORY BOARD, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMEN: At the 148th Regular Meeting of the Southeast Shippers Advisory Board held in Atlanta, Georgia, April 13–14, 1966, upon recommendation of the Executive Committee the delegation by unanimous consent adopted a resolution that the Board go on record in opposition to those sections of S. 3010 and H.R. 13200 that would transfer all car service functions now under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the proposed Department of Transportation. This resolution was adopted with the understanding that the motion related only to the car service functions of the proposed legislation; that the Board was not taking action on any other sections of S. 3010 and H.R. 13200 at that time; and that the entire subject would be a matter of continuing study by the Southeast Board, at least until the 149th Regular Meeting scheduled in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in September 1966. I have delayed transmission of this resolution to you with the expectation that I would be able to submit a complete transcript of the 148th Regular Meeting which, of course, would have included the resolution. However, there has been a delay in the printing of the proceedings; consequently, in the interest of time, this information is being submitted without the transcript which will be forwarded to you later. Yours sincerely, Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, JAMES T. DUNCAN, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, St. Joseph, Mo., June 17, 1966. Chairman, Government Operations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: For a number of years, the Shippers Transportation Committee, Chamber of Commerce of St. Joseph, Missouri, has been opposed to the principle of a Department of Transportation under the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Much of the opposition is based on the fear of executive encroachment on the powers delegated to regulatory bodies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, which traditionally has been accountable strictly to Congress. This position, in opposition specifically to S. 3010, has been reaffirmed by vote taken at a recent meeting of this committee. Sincerely, A. G. GRIMM, Vice President. TRANS-MISSOURI-KANSAS SHIPPERS BOARD, Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Washington, D.C., DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The Trans-Missouri-Kansas Shippers Board is composed of representatives of Industries in Missouri, Kansas, Southwestern Illinois and Northern Arkansas and Oklahoma, that ship or receive their products by railroad in interstate commerce. At this Board's regular meeting at Wichita, Kansas on June 8 and 9, 1966, consideration was given to S. 3010 and H.R. 13200, which would create a Department of Transportation, with a Secretary of Transportation in the Cabinet. The Board feels that all functions and authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as provided in the Interstate Commerce Act, should continue to be exercised by that agency as an arm of the Congress, and not in any way be transferred to the Executive Department. Accordingly this Board urges defeat of S. 310 and H.R. 13200. R. A. YOUNG, Trans-Missouri-Kansas Shippers Board. TRANS-MISSOURI-KANSAS SHIPPERS BOARD. Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Washington, D.C., DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The Trans-Missouri-Kansas Shippers Board is composed of representatives of Industries in Missouri, Kansas, Southwestern Illinois and Northern Arkansas and Oklahoma, that ship or receive their products by railroad in interstate commerce. This Board gave consideration, at its regular meeting on June 8 and 9, 1966, at Wichita, Kansas, to S. 2988 and H.R. 4972, which would prohibit discriminatory taxation of common carriers by States or subdivisions thereof. The principle involved has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a recent decision confirming an Illinois Supreme Court decision awarding refunds of taxes to 13 railroads because of assessment at full value compared with assessment of other non-rail property at 55% of value. This Board urges your support of S. 2988 and H.R. 4972 which would correct these situations. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR CHAIRMAN MCCLELLAN: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Transportation Association of America, I should like to express its support of the establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Transportation. The TAA Board, when approving such a policy position at its May 10 meeting, specifically rent on record as favoring the centralization within such a Department of "the major non-regulatory transport functions of the federal government which the Executive Branch of the government is now empowered to administer." The complete policy statement, including qualifications, is shown in Attachment "A". The policy shows that the TAA Board, while favoring centralization of nonregulatory transport functions in a Department of Transportation, opposes the inclusion in that Department of economic regulatory functions such as control over entry, routes and rates. These latter functions, we believe, should be performed by independent agencies responsible directly to the Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to "regulate commerce". In other words, we do not believe the Congress should delegate its economic regulatory responsibilities in the transportation field to an agency or department in the Executive Branch of the government. It will be noted in paragraph 2 of the policy that the Association does not have a position on four specific areas; namely provisions of S. 3010 that deal with investment criteria, safety, car service and the internal organization of such a department. The Association has not taken a position on these provisions because of difference of views among its Panels. It believes, however, that these provisions are of great importance and thus should be studied carefully, with affected transport interests given full opportunity to suggest constructive amendments. We are continuing our efforts to iron out differences in these four areas for the purpose of developing across-the-board positions on one or more of them within a very short time. If we are successful in developing any such positions prior to executive action by your Committee, we shall immediately advise you accordingly. For the record, TAA is a national policy organization composed of leaders in the transport user, investor and carrier fields, the latter including air, freight forwarder, highway, pipeline, railroad and water carriers. The Association's purpose is to help develop sound national policies that will maintain the strongest possible transportation system under private ownership and operation. TAA develops policy positions through its National Cooperative Project, which is made up of eight permanent committees, or Panels, on which serve over 300 top transport leaders (see Attachment "C"). These eight Panels-user, investor and six carrier modes-study policy proposals carefully and try to iron out differences in order to come up with positions that will be supported, or at least not opposed, by all Panels. Perhaps the significance of action taken by these eight Panels should be stressed, since their make-up is such that positions taken by them provide a good cross-section of thinking by transport interests on policy issues. For example, the TAA User Panel is composed of 85 traffic executives of major U. S. corporations that collectively spend billions of dollars each year for transport services, and the TAA Investor Panel is made up of 45 top banking and insurance executives who are responsible for billions of dollars in transport investments. The views of the six TAA carrier Panels, which are composed of policy-making officials, thus coincide with the views of their respective industries. Recommendations of the Panels, often after considerable "give-and-take" before agreement is reached, are submitted to the 115-Member TAA Board (see Attachment "C" for current roster) for final review and vote. This careful procedure was followed on a broad Department of Transportation proposal that has been unde consideration for over a year. When the Board took final action, with specific reference to the pending legislation, the detailed policy proposal was supported by the User, Investor, Freight Forwarder, Highway and Rail Panels. It was not opposed by the Air and Pipe Line Panels, and the Domestic Water Carrier Panel abstained. We request that this letter, along with Attachments "A" and "B" be made a part of the official record of the hearings on S. 3010. Attachment "B" contains a chart and brief description of the various Executive Branch agencies with major transportation responsibilities. Attachment "C", as mentioned previously, contains current rosters of the 115-man TAA Board of Directors and Members of the eight TAA Panels, and is attached as general information only." Sincerely yours, Attachment A HAROLD F. HAMMOND. TAA POLICY ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Transportation Association of America favors the establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of Transportation, within which would be centralized T Retained in the committee files. |