Enclosed are copies of the committee's resolutions Nos. 10 and 11 which were adopted in executive session today. Sincerely, EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION No. 10, ADOPTED JUNE 21, 1966 Whereas the American maritime industry comprised of American-flag shipping, American shipyards, and associated industries constitutes a vital national asset; and Whereas the American maritime industry has been steadily declining in recent years and at an accelerated rate during the past five years; and Whereas a strong and healthy American maritime industry is necessary to the defense posture of the United States; and Whereas the demands placed upon the American maritime industry by this Nation's commitments in Vietnam have highlighted the deficiencies of this industry requiring prompt remedial action; and Whereas the national defense reserve fleet maintained to meet contingencies such as Vietnam has been found lacking in its ability to fully respond to such limited demands; and Whereas the United States has been forced to entrust the carriage of significant portions of its oceanborne commerce, both defense and commercial, to foreign-flag vessels owing to the demands in southeast Asia for American-flag merchant ships; and Whereas several foreign-flag vessels chartered to transport military cargoes to Vietnam have refused to carry these vital war supplies to American troops; and Whereas foreign-flag vessels are offering in at excessive charter hire owing to the demands for tonnage to transport supplies to Vietnam; and Whereas a stable and encouraging financial climate is necessary to the future existence and well-being of the American maritime industry; and Whereas the seeds of vacillation and indecision presently accelerating the decline of the American maritime industry stem from Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, placing the Maritime Administration within the Department of Commerce; and Whereas the subordinate status of the Maritime Administration under the Secretary of Commerce has been a vehicle of confusion and inactivity; and Whereas the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and other members thereof, as well as Members of the House of Representatives not on the committee have introduced legislation for the establishment of an independent Federal Maritime Administration as the first constructive effort in more than four years of continual and indecisive study of the industry: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that it is the sense of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries that there be established a new independent agency, to be known as the Federal Maritime Administration, not under any other department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government, or under the authority of any such department, agency, or instrumentality; and Resolved, that the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries be directed to write to the chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, advising him of this committee's views and urging that H.R. 13200, a bill to establish a Department of Transportation and for other purposes (89th Cong., 2d sess.), be amended accordingly so as to exclude therefrom all provisions thereunder pertaining to the transfer to and vestment in the Secretary of the proposed Department of Transportation of all functions, power, and duties of the Secretary of Commerce and other officers and offices under the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (41 Stat. 988); the Merchant Marine Act, 1928 (45 Stat. 689); the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (49 Stat. 1985); the Shipping Act, 1916 (39 Stat. 728); the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 41); the Maritime Academy Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 622); the act of June 12, 1940 (54 Stat. 346), relating to assistance to maritime schools; the act of August 30, 1964 (78 Stat. 614), relating to the fishing fleet; the act of September 14, 1981 (75 Stat. 514) relating to appointments to the Merchant Marine Academy; the act of June 13, 1957 (71 Stat. 73), to the extent it relates to operating-differential subsidies; the act of June 12, 1951 (65 Stat. 59), relating to vessel operations revolving funds; the act of July 24, 1956 (70 Stat. 605), relating to the grant of medals and decorations for service in the U.S. merchant marine; the act of August 9, 1954 (68 Stat. 675), relating to emergency foreign merchant vessel acquisition and operation; Reorganization Plan No. 21 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1273); and Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961 (75 Stat. 840); and Resolved, that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries request the chairman to schedule hearings at the earliest practicable date on legislation pending before it calling for the establishment of an independent Federal Maritime Administration, with the objective of full and careful consideration of the merits of such proposal, and early action by the committee and report to the House. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION No. 11 ADOPTED JUNE 21, 1966 Resolved, that it is the sense of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries that all functions, powers, and duties relating to the Coast Guard remain vested in the Secretary of the Treasury and other officers and offices of the Department of the Treasury; and Resolved, that the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries be directed to write to the chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, advising him this committee's views and urging that H.R. 13200, a bill to provide for the establishment of a Department of Transportation (89th Cong., 2d sess.) be amended accordingly so as to exclude therefrom all provisions thereunder pertaining to the transfer to and vestment in the Secretary of the proposed Department of Transportation of all functions, powers, and duties relating to the Coast Guard, of the Secretary of the Treasury and of other officers and offices of the Department of the Treasury. For the past 15 years or so, the American merchant marine has experienced a steady decline. The unfortunate state in which it finds itself at present was amply demonstrated by our recent hearings on merchant marine problems of the Vietnam situation, in which it appeared that we are hardput to find sufficient vessels to serve the needs of our troops in southeast Asia. And we have had to sacrifice our commercial needs in order to do so. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 contemplated a merchant marine sufficient in size and quality to serve not only our defense needs but also our commercial needs. From 1936 to 1949, the affairs of the merchant marine were administered by an independent agency, the Maritime Commission. A vigorous program was initiated and carried forward in the prewar years. It provided the nucleus that enabled us to meet the tremendous demands of preparing for and winning World War II. In 1949, the Maritime Commission was abolished and its functions transferred to a subordinate status in the Department of Commerce. Since that time, under successive administrations, less and less interest and time have been devoted to it by the successive Secretarieswith the results that we know. The Transportation Act, presently before the House, would transfer merchant marine functions from the Department of Commerce to the new Department of Transportation, where, again, it would be in a subordinate position. Judging from the Department of Transportation bill and now the accompanying report, it would appear that in the new Department the various modes of domestic transportation would take precedence and merchant marine problems would continue to receive inadequate at tention. To meet this situation, 21 Members of the House have introduced bills which are before us today-to organize a separate and independent Maritime Administration to function substantially as the original Maritime Commission did for the first 12 years of the Merchant Marine Act. 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 à 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 The association refers to the bill, H.R. 15567, by our colleague, the Honorable Frank M. Clark, of Pennsylvania, which is identical to my bill, H.R. 16098, and urges adoption of this legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter may be made part of 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 interest of the members of the Marine Draftmen's Association in two pieces of legislation presently before the House and the Senate. They both pertain to the future of 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 of the largest marine design force in the world, it is easy to understand their interest in the dwindling of marine design work in this country. The communities which comprise the Greater New London area are composed of a majority of citizens who earn their livelihood directly from the shipbuilding industry with 16,000 being employed at Electric Boat Division, Groton, Con. The state to which our Merchant Fleet, once a world leader, has fallen, and the plight of the shipbuilding industry in this country are lamentable commentaries on the lack of effective legislation and lack of interest of those in the industry as well as those in Government who have permitted this to happen. The recent difficulties experienced in shipping supplies to trouble spots in the world most notably Viet Nam, due to the sadly insufficient merchant fleet under the United States flag are a mere suggestion of the dilemma we would find ourselves in with respect to the transporting of supplies and goods, in the event of a major world crisis. The problem of American shipping is twofold. First is the small number of ships in our Merchant Fleet and Second is the erosion of the United States shipbuilding industry by the increasing tendency of shipping companies to turn to foreign shipbuilding, particularly in Japan, for new construction and overhaul. Many private shipbuilding yards in the U.S. have gone out of business, others have cut back employment to a fraction of their former levels. Some private yards which used to maintain their own design forces are now required to resort to hiring job shops to perform any design work which they may have, due to their inability to keep a stable work force. Several Navy yards have been either closed down or are being phased out. Shipbuilding is one of this country's oldest industries dating back to the birth of our nation and in order to remain healthy it must have the cooperation of the Government in providing appropriate legislation to assist in competing with the shipbuilding industries of other nations which enjoy certain economic advantages. Most of the members of our organization possess talents which are not solely restricted to shipbuilding and should, by and large, be able to obtain gainful employment in other fields of endeavor if required. However, if we stand idly by and watch the death of the industry, we will be doing a serious disservice to future generations. The decline of the industry and loss of people with many years of shipbuilding experience and skills cannot be remedied overnight in time of need. I wish to request on behalf of the members of the Marine Draftsmen's Association, Port of New London, that you lend your support in passing of legislation designed to help combat the serious continuing decline of our industry, to promote its continued existence, to reverse the trend of the past several decades and to restore our Merchant Fleet and shipbuilding industries to their rightful place of world leadership. We urge you to use the power of your office to help bring about hearings by the Senate Commerce Committee, (Chairman Senator Warren Magnuson), and by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, (Chairman Congressman Edward Garmatz). Sincerely yours, E. R. COLVILLE, Secretary. |