within the proposed structure, nor to more clearly define the lines authority, responsibility, and communication between him and th other officials of the Department-the Assistant Secretaries, Unde Secretary, and Secretary.

With respect to policy, the amended version of the bill now requir that the Secretary's recommendations regarding national transporta tion policies be made to the Congress as well as to the President, bu there is still no indication of what these policies may be or of ho much authority and independence the Maritime Administration wi have in implementing these policies once they are established.

Certainly, with regard to policy, all of our past experience has taugh us that whenever jurisdiction over maritime affairs has been delegate to Federal departments or agencies whose primary concern has no been the merchant marine, the merchant marine has suffered, and wit it the Nation which should be the beneficiary of the contributions whic the merchant marine can make to its commerce and security.

This has been true whenever maritime affairs have been in the hand of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the De partment of State, or other Federal departments and agencies. It i true in the present instance, in which the Maritime Administratio occupies a subordinate position within the Department of Commerce and there is every reason to believe it would be true in the Departmen of Transportation, particularly since the role of the Maritime Admin istration is not clearly defined, nor are the lines of responsibility clearl drawn.

In light of this we feel very strongly that maritime would be com pletely swallowed up within the mammoth, complex structure of th proposed Department, that maritime concerns would be shunted asid or pigeonholed in a bureaucratic web, and that no proper representa tion would be given to maritime's interests which in many respects ar far different from those of other forms of transportation.

The merchant marine, it must always be remembered, differs from other modes of transportation-except possibly the airlines-in tha its operations are international in scope. In a sense, it is a politica instrument, as well as an economic instrument and an instrument o our national defense, and each of these roles must be given its full shar of consideration in the determination of maritime policy and the ad ministration of maritime affairs.

In the proposed Department of Transportation, we strongly fee none of these roles of the merchant marine would be given their fu and proper consideration, and neither the best interests of the merchan marine nor the Nation would be served.

The merchant marine, we believe, would have a far better chance fo survival and growth if its affairs were under the jurisdiction of Federal agency whose sole concern is maritime.

For this reason, we strongly oppose inclusion of the Maritime Ad ministration in the Department of Transportation and urge that th Maritime Administration be removed from the Department of Com merce and reestablished as an entirely independent and autonomou

agency.

And in this position, I might note, we are not only being supporte by other AFL-CIO transportation unions, but by, as previously stated the entire AFL-CIO which endorsed the concept of an independen Maritime Administration in Resolution No. 217 unanimously adopte

at the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco in December of last year, and appended here as exhibit No. 2.

Our reasons for favoring an independent and autonomous Maritime Administration are as follows:

1. The Maritime Administration now has no independent power and must compete with other programs administered by the Department of Commerce.

Thus, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 has not been properly administered and the inevitable result has been the decline of the American merchant marine. Putting marad in a Department of Transportation would not alter this situation.

2. The creation of an independent agency to administer this country's maritime laws would focus greater attention on our decaying fleet, and on the ultimate objective of revitalizing the industry and enabling the United States to meet its foreign commerce needs and defense commitments in line with the policy set forth in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.

3. The present structure of the agency constitutes an inconsistency in Government organization since, whereas the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the Federal Aviation Agency, thus giving independent status to aviation, the promotional activities of the merchant marineas well as administration of the subsidy program-were buried within the Department of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961. Also, subsidy functions of the Civil Aeronautics Board are not to be included in the new Department of Transportation but the maritime subsidy functions will be included.

4. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 provided for a 5-man independent Maritime Commission, to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. The Commission functioned independently and conducted a survey which resulted in a long-range program of shipbuilding designed to provide some 500 new ships over a 10-year period.

It was during this time that the "C" type vessel was designed for the carriage of cargo, and the passenger liner SS America was built. During the Commission's existence, between 1936 and 1950, an unprecedented strengthening of our merchant marine took place.

5. The Maritime Subsidy Board cannot now function independently as intended by the act of 1936 since its decisions are subject to review and veto by the Secretary of Commerce. An independent maritime agency, with a stronger and more independent Maritime Subsidy Board, would serve to cure these ills.

We are aware, of course, that prior to the introduction of H.R. 15567 and S. 3530, nearly a dozen other bills were introduced, mostly in the House, to make the Maritime Administration independent.

But, while we favor the intent of these bills, we do not feel that any of them would provide us with the type of Maritime Administration which we really need; that is, the type of Maritime Administration called for in H.R. 15567 and S. 3530.

This is particularly true because none of the prior bills separate the quasi-judicial subsidy functions of the Maritime Administration from purely promotional and administrative functions and it is our strong feeling that the interests of the maritime industry would best be served by giving independence to the Maritime Subsidy Board. The value of separating subsidy functions from other functions

has already been recognized in other areas-as in the case of the CAB which we have just cited—and it is our strong feeling that subsidy determinations are so important to the maritime industry that those charged with the responsibility for these determinations should be absolutely free to reach their decisions on the basis of the merits of the case, without regard to other considerations and without the overriding of their decisions by some other person who may be influenced by other considerations.

We believe that H.R. 15567 and S. 3530 would help to achieve the goal we have just cited, and correct the deficiencies which exist in the present system by altering existing legislation in the manner shown in exhibit No. 3.

As can be seen, these measures would not only establish an independent and autonomous Federal maritime agency, but within that agency the Maritime Subsidy Board would be a relatively independent body composed of the Maritime Administrator and two other members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Board would have complete and final authority to pass upon all matters related to construction and operating subsidies, and the affirmative votes of any two members of the Board would be sufficient for the disposition of any matter which comes before it.

No single Board member, including the Maritime Administrator, in other words, would have the power to override the decisions of the other two Board members, nor would any other official.

The Maritime Administrator would also be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and he would be appointed with due regard for his fitness for the efficient discharge of the powers and duties vested in and imposed upon him by the bill.

Previous employment by or previous pecuniary interest in any business or union associated with the maritime industry would not constitute a bar to appointment as Administrator. A Deputy Maritime Administrator, appointed by the Administrator under the classified civil service, is also provided for by our bill. The Deputy Administrator would at no time sit as a member or acting member of the Maritime Subsidy Board.

Thus, these measures would solve four of the most pressing problems now confronting the present Maritime Administration within the Department of Commerce:

1. They would establish a completely independent and autonomous Federal Maritime Administration.

2. They would establish a strong and independent Maritime Subsidy Board within the Maritime Administration, whose rulings would not be subject to veto by another agency or higher official.

3. By establishing such a Maritime Subsidy Board, they would separate within the Maritime Administration quasi-judicial subsidy matters from purely administrative and promotional matters. Yet a close liaison between the two functions would be maintained because the Maritime Administrator would be a member of the Board.

4. They would provide for the appointment of a strong Maritime Administrator who could devote a good portion of his time to promoting the merchant marine. Previous experience in the industry, either management or labor experience, would not be a bar to his appointment as Administrator, and such experience could be considered as an

asset.

In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to the members of this committee for the opportunity I have been given to appear here today to express these views.

I would also, on behalf of the parties whom I represent, like to thank the members of the committee for the resolution which they recently adopted opposing the transfer of the Maritime Administration to the Department of Transportation and favoring the creation of an independent Federal Maritime Administration.

I believe that the adoption of this resolution indicates an awareness by the committee members of the burdens under which the American maritime industry has been laboring, and of the steps which must now be taken in the best interests of the merchant marine and the Nation which it serves.

Mr. Chairman, that is the presentation of the brief that our various organizations have prepared for me to present here. Other than the brief itself, I might say that I could not again too strongly emphasize what, in my opinion, is the absolute necessity of those of us who have any feeling for this industry to make every effort that we can to attempt to establish this independent status for maritime.

Those of us who have been in the business a little while don't have to be particularly bright, and I know that some of us are not overwhelmingly bright, on the basis of our experience to find that this is going to be the only way out for the purpose of the preservation of this industry; that so long as we are a part of some other larger agency in which we are the small part, that even with the proper intention of the people involved in the larger department of which we are a part, without regard to their own feeling, it is simply impossible for them to do full justice to this industry and to give proper consideration to the many parts and aspects of the industry as it affects our life, whether it is defense, whether it is political, economic, or otherwise.

This is why we hope very much that those of us within the industry and management and labor as well as those of our friends on the Hill who subscribe to the same feeling would join with us and attempt to get something done in this session of the Congress, particularly so since it is quite evidently the intent of some people to force this Maritime Administration within the framework of a new Department of Transportation.

On the same subject, Mr. Chairman, I know that there are those people who feel that the labor movement, on this matter on which we have such strong feelings would, at a certain time, retreat to a socalled secondary position and say, "If we can't get an independent agency status, we would endorse the theory of becoming a part of the Department of Transportation."

To those who might think that, and I do not direct these remarks to the committee, but to those within the industry, so far as I am concerned and I think I reflect the majority feeling of the labor movement, we have no such intention.

If we are to be buried, we might as well be buried as we are. We might as well be buried one place as the other and it is not really important where that burial ground is to be if, in fact, it is to be that.

We have no intention of moving our position. I don't want to sound as though we are adamant, not at all, but in the defense of the industry in which we make our living, we do not think that any good service

could be done, nor would it be fair to this industry if we were to desert the position of holding and saying that we need independent agency status for maritime.

I repeat that there is no other position for us and on this point, we should rise or fall. We know that in the final analysis, as it should be properly so, the Congress of the United States is going to make the law as they see fit.

We hope and trust that they make it in the direction in which we feel it should be made. I want to point out that this is not only the position of the labor movement. This is, for the first time, one matter that affects this industry in which virtually all segments of management and labor are united entirely on this matter.

We are all of the same opinion. I know that some of the labor and some of the management people have indicated a willingness to move if they cannot achieve anything in the direction in which we are going, but I would suggest again that this is not this witness' attitude, nor, I believe, the majority of the labor movement nor do I believe it is the attitude of the majority of management.

But without regard to a second position, I think it is rather unusual that for the first time, to my knowledge, at least, in an awfully long time, all of the component parts of the maritime industry, management and labor, all of the special segments of each, licensed and unlicensed, and in the management end, the coastal, the intercoastal, the foreign, the subsidized and unsubsidized, the berth line operators, without exception across-the-board, are all in accord on one issue.

I would submit this as a matter for consideration to the Members of the Congress, to the members of this committee and to the members of the legislative body who will, in the final analysis, put this into law in one fashion or another.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hall, that was a very fine, an exceptionally fine statement. I think you expressed your views and the views of all the people you represent very clearly and to the point, your feelings about this proposed bill and this legislation.

Mr. Downing.

Mr. DOWNING. That was a very fine statement, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Do you remember what position you took on Reorganization Plan No. 7?

Mr. HALL. No, I don't recall that we took any position on that reorganization plan. I don't believe that we attended the hearing. I would have to check the record.

Mr. DOWNING. This bill will probably rectify what we did under that plan. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gilbert.

Mr. GILBERT. I first want to compliment Mr. Hall for his fine statement. May I say that in my experience in Washington before committees, this is the first time I have seen any industry as united with respect to any piece of legislation.

Obviously, the industry both from the point of view of labor and management is quite concerned about the fate of the maritime industry and as one of the sponsors of the legislation, I am very happy to see this unity in the industry.