Senator NEELY. This communication says: At a meeting of representatives of the Rocky Mountain coal producers, including the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Washington, Utah, and Wyoming, a resolution was adopted suggesting that if either S. B. 1 or H. R. 4985 (Bituminous Coal Act of 1937) is to become law, the following amendments should be first made: 1. The bills should be amended to expressly include transactions between producers and the United States or any State or Territory or political subdivisions thereof. * * * 2. Lines 24 and 25, page 20, of H. R. 4985 should be amended to conform to line 19, page 40, of S. B. 1 so that there would be no exemption as to transactions under preexisting contracts unless such contracts were entered into prior to June 16, 1933. * * * * 3. In view of the delay necessarily incident to the securing of final approval of price structures by the Bituminous Coal Commission, appropriate provision should be made so that prices initiated and established by each district board, in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by such commission, shall become and remain in full force and effect until modified by the district board or such commission. 4. Provision should be made so that in the computation of costs and realization, wholly captive tonnage should be excluded. The inclusion of wholly captive tonnage in several districts results in weighted average realization and cost levels bearing no true relationship to the cost and realization of the competitive commercial properties. The competitive abuses sought to be corrected by the legislation are those arising in the commercial operations, and the price provisions of the act should have relation to these operations. In the State of Wyoming, for example, the Union Pacific Coal Co. produces approximately 57 percent of the total Wyoming tonnage at a cost approximately 53 cents per ton below the weighted average cost of the commercial producers. The inclusion of this tonnage in determining minimum prices for this district will result in a price destructive to the commercial operators and operators in competing districts. The difficulties arising from this situation were clearly demonstrated in price negotiations under the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935. That is the substance of the suggestions contained in the memorandum. We shall endeavor to dispose of these proposals tomorrow. (Thereupon, at 5 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, Mar. 9, 1937, at 2:30 p. m.) TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BITUMINOUS COAL MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1937 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2: 45 p. m., in the Interstate Commerce committee room in the Capitol, Senator Matthew M. Neely (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Neely (chairman of the subcommittee), Minton, Moore, Davis, and Austin. Present also: Senator William H. Dieterich. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. HOSFORD, JR., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION-Resumed Senator NEELY. Mr. Hosford, do you recall that some amendments were pending when the committee last adjourned? Mr. HOSFORD. Do you refer to the amendments proposed by the American Bar Association, Senator? Senator NEELY. Yes. Mr. HOSFORD. An amendment was proposed by the representative of the American Bar Association, having to do with the method of selecting members of the district boards, the effect of the amendment, being that district board members, when selected, should be Government employees. I believe that is the one to which you refer. Senator NEELY. On what page? Mr. HOSFORD. In the recommendations of the American Bar Association it appears as no. 5 and refers to pages 9, 10, and 11 of the bill. S. 1. Senator NEELY. Senator Davis requested time to consider that amendment. Mr. HOSFORD. That is correct. It was held over for further consideration. Senator NEELY. Senator Austin, you will probably recall that consideration of one of the amendments proposed by the American Bar Association was postponed. That amendment is listed as no. 5 on the work sheet. It refers to the method of electing district boards. Do you favor it. Senator AUSTIN. I have not considered it since we were together the last time, and then Mr. Hosford's amendment covered it rather completely. 73 Did it not, Mr. Hosford? Mr. HOSFORD. That was my judgment, Senator. Senator AUSTIN. In other words, I felt pretty well satisfied with the amendment that Mr. Hosford had presented here, covering this subject matter. Do you recall where the one that you introduced is? Mr. HOSFORD. The one that was approved by the committee, sir, was to the effect that the Commission should have power, after hearing held upon notice, to remove any member of a district board. for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. I do not believe that the exact language was agreed upon, so I have prepared and included in my list today as no. 3 a suggestion as to the language of that amendment. Was that the one to which you referred, Senator? Senator AUSTIN. I do not remember. It does not seem to me as if it were. Senator NEELY. Senator Austin, do you consider the amendment to which you refer as a substitute for amendment no. 5 on the work sheet? Senator AUSTIN. It was not offered that way, but the similarity in the scope of power struck me at that time. I mentioned it, if you recall it. Mr. HOSFORD. Now, I recall, sir, the one you refer to. Senator NEELY. Is there any objection to voting on amendment no. 5? Senator AUSTIN. Well, the gentleman thinks he recalls the one we spoke about the other day. Mr. HOSFORD. I think we are referring, Senator Austin, to different subjects. The one that was under discussion the other day had to do with vesting power in the Commission to set aside temporarily, from time to time, prices for any district. Senator AUSTIN. Yes; you are right. Mr. HOSFORD. The one that is being discussed at the moment is the proposal of the American Bar Association that members of district boards should be Government officials. Senator AUSTIN. Oh, yes. Mr. HOSFORD. At the previous meeting of the committee I stated, first, that I did not think it was necessary to vest in the Commission power to determine the number of district board members in each case; and, furthermore, that there were certain nice questions that might arise if district board members became Government officials, as this amendment of the Bar Association proposes. Senator AUSTIN. Questions about disqualification, and so forth? Mr. HOSFORD. That is right. I stated that, in my judgment, the situation would be amply taken care of if a provision was included, vesting power in the Commission to remove any member of a district board, after notice and open hearing, in case he was found guilty of inefficiency or neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. That was the first one discussed. Senator NEELY. Gentleman, after further consideration I am impelled to vote against this amendment. I am willing to vote for the amendment suggested by Chairman Hosford. As many as favor amendment no. 5, and which you have heard discussed, say "Aye"; contrary, "No." The noes have it. No. 5 is rejected. There is one other amendment. Senator AUSTIN. I have a notation on page 4 that the one relating to funds appropriated under the authority of subsection (b) of section 20 shall be available for the administration of various district boards. We first held it and then later disagreed to it. Senator NEELY. Are there any other amendments on the work sheet? Mr. HOSFORD. These two which I have reported, Senator. Senator NEELY. Mr. Hosford, are you ready to propose the amendment which you have just discussed? Mr. HOSFORD. I have suggested, sir, again referring to the bill S. 1, that on page 10, line 10, the following should be added: The Commission shall have power to remove any member of any district board upon its finding, after due notice and hearing, that said member is guilty of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Senator NEELY. As many as favor the amendment, say aye. Mr. HOSFORD. I have used the same reasons for removal as are specified on page 2, section 2, of the act as grounds for the removal of a Commissioner by the President. Senator AUSTIN. Did you consider using the word "willful" before those words "neglect of duty"? Mr. HOSFORD. I would have no objection to so doing. Senator AUSTIN. This gives a tremendous grant of power. I would feel better about it if the word "willful" were attached to that second ground. The other two grounds are descriptive and exclusive and complete in themselves, but there is no limit to "neglect of duty." It leaves it wholly to discretion. One offense of neglect of duty without any willfulness in it might give the cause. I therefore would like to see that. Senator NEELY. Are you willing to accept the suggested amendment to your amendment? Mr. HOSFORD. Yes. Senator NEELY. Without objection, the amendment proposed by Senator Austin is adopted. As many as favor the amendment, as amended, say aye. Gentlemen of the committee, with your permission we shall suspend consideration of the amendments for a few moments, to hear Senator Dieterich, of Illinois, who is a member of the committee, and who desires to discuss a matter which particularly affects his State. Senator Dieterich. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. DIETERICH, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator DIETERICH. Mr. Chairman, I should probably apologize for appearing before the committee with no more definite knowledge than I have at the present time of the specific provisions of this bill that I am going to call to your attention. I think the bill differs from the bill that passed the Congress at the last session in that there are no marketing areas. I think the bill at that time laid off certain marketing areas. I think those are now included in minimum price areas, in which a certain price is to be |