It is the belief of the sponsors of these bills that the reorganization contemplated would be more effective in arresting the decline of the merchant marine, and by providing for specialized leadership, would serve to restore it to its vital status as an arm of our defense and commerce. During these hearings we expect to get a cross section of expert testimony and viewpoints from maritime labor and management and from the appropriate segments of the executive branch. I might say here that the following members are the ones who have introduced bills: H.R. 11364 by Mr. Garmatz; H.R. 11419 by Mr. Downing; H.R. 11696 by the late Mr. Bonner; H.R. 11820 by Mr. Lennon; H.R. 16263 by Mrs. Sullivan; H.R. 11355 by Mr. Mailliard; H.R. 11356 by Mr. Pelly; H.R. 11416 by Mr. Reinecke; H.R. 11549 by Mr. Chamberlain; H.R. 11826 by Mr. Cramer; H.R. 11704 by Mr. Murphy of New York (similar bill); and bills, "To amend title II of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to create the Federal Maritime Board-Administration, and for other purposes": H.R. 15567 by Mr. Clark; H.R. 15838 by Mr. Gilbert; H.R. 15910 by Mr. Murphy of New York; H.R. 15945 by Mr. Byrne of Pennsylvania; H.R. 16098 by Mr. St. Onge; H.R. 16104 by Mr. Charles H. Wilson; H.R. 16123 by Mr. Toll; H.R. 16147 by Mr. Karth; H.R. 16283 by Mr. Burton of California; and H.R. 16079 by Mr. Cahill. Our first witness is our colleague, Mr. Byrne. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. BYRNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the past 15 years, those of us who have been concerned with the welfare of the merchant marine have watched its continued decline and, as we all know, at the present time it has reached the point where the needs of our campaign in Vietnam have to be met at the expense of our commercial trades. Although the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was intended to supply the needs of our defense and commerce, we cannot do both with the ships presently available. The decline has not been related to the omissions of any particular administration, but interestingly enough, has continued throughout the period that the merchant marine has been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. The Merchant Marine Act as originally enacted provided for a separate and independent Maritime Commission. Under successive reorganization plans the role of the merchant marine has been downgraded until it is presently a minor agency in the Department of Commerce. Under the proposed Transportation Act, its lowly status as a very small part of a very large organization would be continued and I fear that its present decline would continue to the point where our welfare would be actually endangered. My bill, and those of the others along the same lines, would, by establishing an independent agency, assure us that the problems of the merchant marine would be considered in their own light rather than as an element in some overall picture of transportation. Somehow I cannot picture our merchant marine in the same category as, for example, our tugs and barges on the inland waterways. But as a matter of fact, they would have the same degree of importance under the new Department. I am convinced that such a situation would be very dangerous and accordingly I have introduced this bill and urge its favorable consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Byrne, for a very helpful statement. Our next witness is Mr. St. Onge. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my views on the bills now under consideration before your committee which seek to establish a Federal Maritime Board-Administration by the amendment of title II of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. As sponsor of one of these bills I wish to express my deep gratitude to you for scheduling these hearings. The American merchant marine has been a major backbone in the success of industry in this country for many years. The importance of this branch of transportation is still tremendous to our Nation's continuing growth. The United States requires a strong merchant marine to carry its commerce overseas and in our domestic seaborne trades and to act as a defense auxiliary in time of peace, as well as in war. The importance of this service warrants a separate and independent administration. This committee has adopted a resolution strongly favoring an independent Federal Maritime Administration. Every AFL-CIO labor union and every management association has endorsed this concept. as it was discussed in relation to the hearings on the Department of Transportation bill held by the House and Senate Government Operations Committees. To make the merchant marine responsible to an executive agency concerned primarily with our domestic land- and air-based transportation system would be to continue a condition which has seen our merchant marine drastically reduced. Since Congress appears to be the only branch of our Government to understand the value of the merchant marine for our Nation, the Congress is rightfully the only body which can properly oversee these activities. Mr. Chairman, I urge you and the committee to report favorably this bill, H.R. 16098, or a similar bill and to recommend its passage immediately, so as to restore the merchant marine to its proper place in the overall economy of our country and to assure its complete readiness in the event of an international emergency. Mr. Chairman, I should also like to include as part of my remarks the text of a letter I received a few days ago from the Marine Draftsmen's Association of the port of New London, in my congressional district. 67-225-66- 2 The association refers to the bill, H.R. 15567, by our colleague, th Honorable Frank M. Clark, of Pennsylvania, which is identical t my bill, H.R. 16098, and urges adoption of this legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter may be made part o the record. Thank you, Mr. St. Onge, for a helpful statement. (The letter follows:) MARINE DRAFTMEN'S ASSOCIATION, PORT OF NEW LONDON, Groton, Conn., July 6, 1966. Hon. WILLIAM ST. ONGE, DEAR CONGRESSMAN ST. ONGE: I am writing to apprise you of the keen interes of the members of the Marine Draftmen's Association in two pieces of legislatio presently before the House and the Senate. They both pertain to the future o our merchant fleet. They are H.R. 15567 in the House and S. 3530 in the Senate Since our 2,300 members (all employed at Electric Boat in Groton) are part o the largest marine design force in the world, it is easy to understand their inter est in the dwindling of marine design work in this country. The communitie which comprise the Greater New London area are composed of a majority o citizens who earn their livelihood directly from the shipbuilding industry wit 16,000 being employed at Electric Boat Division, Groton, Con. The state to which our Merchant Fleet, once a world leader, has fallen, an the plight of the shipbuilding industry in this country are lamentable commer taries on the lack of effective legislation and lack of interest of those in th industry as well as those in Government who have permitted this to happen. The recent difficulties experienced in shipping supplies to trouble spots in th world most notably Viet Nam, due to the sadly insufficient merchant fleet unde the United States flag are a mere suggestion of the dilemma we would find our selves in with respect to the transporting of supplies and goods, in the event of major world crisis. The problem of American shipping is twofold. First is the small number o ships in our Merchant Fleet and Second is the erosion of the United States ship building industry by the increasing tendency of shipping companies to turn t foreign shipbuilding, particularly in Japan, for new construction and overhau Many private shipbuilding yards in the U.S. have gone out of business, other have cut back employment to a fraction of their former levels. Some privat yards which used to maintain their own design forces are now required to reso to hiring job shops to perform any design work which they may have, due t their inability to keep a stable work force. Several Navy yards have been eithe closed down or are being phased out. Shipbuilding is one of this country's oldest industries dating back to the birt of our nation and in order to remain healthy it must have the cooperation o the Government in providing appropriate legislation to assist in competing wit the shipbuilding industries of other nations which enjoy certain economic ad vantages. Most of the members of our organization possess talents which ar not solely restricted to shipbuilding and should, by and large, be able to obtai gainful employment in other fields of endeavor if required. However, if w stand idly by and watch the death of the industry, we will be doing a seriou disservice to future generations. The decline of the industry and loss of peopi with many years of shipbuilding experience and skills cannot be remedied over night in time of need. I wish to request on behalf of the members of the Marine Draftsmen's Associs tion, Port of New London, that you lend your support in passing of legislatio designed to help combat the serious continuing decline of our industry, to pro mote its continued existence, to reverse the trend of the past several decades an to restore our Merchant Fleet and shipbuilding industries to their rightful plac of world leadership. We urge you to use the power of your office to help brin about hearings by the Senate Commerce Committee, (Chairman Senator Warre Magnuson), and by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, (Chair man Congressman Edward Garmatz). Sincerely yours, E. R. COLVILLE, Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Paul Hall, the president of the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department representing the Seafarers International Union, Sailors Union of the Pacific, Marine Cooks and Stewards, Marine Firemen, Oilers and Watertenders, International Longshoremens Association, National Maritime Union, and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, District No. 2. Mr. Hall, we are most happy to have you here this morning and hear your testimony on the bills I have just mentioned. STATEMENT OF PAUL HALL, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO MARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED MASKIN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Garmatz. I appreciate the opportunity of being here before the commitee. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to have someone else with you? The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? Mr. HALL. No, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the committee has been supplied with copies of the statement that I am about to read into the record. My name is Paul Hall, I am the president of the Seafarers International Union of North America but the views I am about to express today represent the views of all AFL-CIO maritime unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, the AFL-CIO Metal Trade Department, and the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee. I am, therefore, here today as a spokesman for virtually all of American maritime labor-licensed and unlicensed. Moreover, I might add that other AFL-CIO transportation unions in the airline, railroad, and highway carrier fields have endorsed the views I am about to present, and that certain of our views, as I will note later in this presentation, have also been endorsed by the full AFL-CIO, so that with respect to these views we carry into these hearings the support of the entire organized American labor movement. The organizations I represent understand that this committee is considering a number of measures, all dealing basically with the establishment of the Maritime Administration as an independent Federal agency, but varying in certain details. The labor organizations I am representing have specifically endorsed the identical bills which have been introduced in the House and Senate-H.R. 15567 by Congressman Clark and S. 3530 by Senators Bartlett, Bass, Brewster, Prouty, and Scott-because we believe that these bills most accurately embody the proposals for an independent Maritime Administration made by the AFL-CIO maritime unions in their joint testimony before the Senate and House Committees on Government Operations on May 18 and 19, relative to the establishment of a Department of Transportation. A number of companion measures to H.R. 15567 have also been introduced by Congressmen Gilbert of New York, Murphy of New York, Byrne of Pennsylvania, St. Onge of Connecticut, Wilson of California, and Karth of Minnesota, and these bills we also support. Before going into a discussion of these bills, however, I would like to comment briefly on the proposal which has been made for including the Maritime Administration in a new Department of Transportation, since our views with respect to this proposal cannot be divorced from our views with respect to an independent maritime agency." To begin with, I might note that the President's transportation message of last March 2, while calling for the inclusion of the Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation, and while setting forth a number of general proposals for improving water transportation, left unanswered many basic questions regarding maritime's position in the proposed Department. I might also note that the identical legislation which was introduced in the Senate and House to implement the President's recommendations S. 3010 by Senator Magnuson and H.R. 13200 by Congressman Holifield-similarly left unanswered the same basic questions. Neither the transportation message, in fact, nor the proposed legislation was specific about maritime's position in the new Department, about the functions and duties of the Maritime Administration within the Department, or about what future Federal maritime policy will be a matter with which maritime labor is extremely concerned. In fact, if one studies the proposed structure of the Department of Transportation, as reported by the Congressional Quarterly of March 25, 1966, and appended here as exhibit No. 1, one will note that all we really have here is a brief sketch of a new and mammoth Federal Department within which the present Maritime Administration could very easily become lost in a bureaucratic maze. The chart indicates, for example, that the proposed Department will have a Secretary, an Under Secretary, five Assistant Secretaries— one of whom will be an Assistant Secretary for Administration-and a General Counsel. But the functions of these officers are not delineated, nor are the lines of communication and responsibility between them and maritime clearly drawn. What, in other words, is the channel of communication between maritime, at the bottom of this structure, and the Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretary, Secretary, and finally the President himself, at the top? Neither the chart, the transportation message, nor the proposed legislation makes this clear. Now it is true that the House bill, which has been reported out by the House Committee on Government Operations as H.R. 15693, "does amend the original legislation in a number of ways. Notably, in the case of maritime, the amended bill now provides for a Federal Maritime Administration within the Department, to be headed by an Administrator appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate. This revision, however—and it is, in our opinion, one of the few revisions of any import-scarcely increases the desirability of the legislation. For one thing, the Maritime Administrator now is appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate, so that the amendment. represents no real gain, but merely corrects an omission in the original legislation. More important, the amendment does nothing, in our opinion, to more clearly delineate the position of the Maritime Administrator |