I am referring to whispers that I have heard that some leaders intend to throw us a bone and upgrade this Maritime position in the reorganization in the Department of Transportation.

As I understand you, you want an independent Maritime Administration and not anything that might give somebody a little better title and more seeming authority to placate those who are opposed to placing of the Maritime functions in the Department of Transportation.

Mr. HALL. Congressman, let me first of all reaffirm that that is our position. Possibly we are a little late on the scene, as indicated by Congressman Mailliard, in the sense that maybe we are looking at it in retrospect when we look back at Reorganization Plan 7, but whether we are too late or not we have determined in our own minds that the only hope and salvation of this industry is to establish an independent agency, and it is on that point which we would like to feel that we will make the best efforts that we can and not compromise that position.

I repeat, whether we win or lose, we feel that we have an obligation to the industry not to move off of that position. To do so, in our opinion, is tantamount to continue to kill this business. This industry is in an unfavorable condition. We don't have to recite it here.

You have reams of testimony to that effect. We have given this a lot of consideration and I repeat that for the first time we have been able to get every single segment of Maritime, without regard to management or labor or any special interest group in either party, to sit down in long meetings and discussions and conferences and, as a result of that, we have all come to the same conclusion, that this is the only hope for the survival of this industry.

It is on that basis that we take this position and it is because of that reason that we say that we would prefer to stay with it, and we will stay with it. Whatever the Congress may decide in its wisdom to do, nevertheless, we are going to go right down all the way on that position of an independent agency.

Mr. PELLY. Well, you gather that I have heard that some of the friends in the Administration have in mind maybe upgrading the functions of Maritime in the new Department of Transportation, to make everybody feel a little more comfortable, but I take it from your position that this would not be satisfactory, because it would not give independence to the agency in which your membership is so interested.

Mr. HALL. Precisely. It is just a question of whether or not, if we were to go for an upgrading purely for appearances sake, as opposed to an independent status, then we are only arguing about the type of material to cover the coffin with.

We are not talking about stopping the burial.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take much time because there are a lot of others who want to question Mr. Hall, but I would like to divert a little bit and ask one question with regard to a report that I read that has to do with the promised policy for Maritme that the President said in 1965, in his state of the Union message, would be forthcoming.

I would like to ask you your view of this and see whether it coincides with mine. I read in the Baltimore Sun, the issue of June 17, that there had been a report-in fact, a statement-by a Member of the other body that the President was asking the Vice President to head up an effort to develop and coordinate a new maritime policy.

I wonder if you would agree with me that that would be a step in the right direction?

Mr. HALL. If I understand the question, let me just make this statement and direct myself to the remark that you have made, or the question that you have asked.

We were heartened over the fact that the President had made reference to developing a new maritime policy. We have been disheartened because that has never been forthcoming. Not only has it not been forthcoming, but you could imagine our feeling today when, instead of a new policy, we are told that the recommendation is to sweep us under the carpet, as it were as far as we are concerned, in a new Department, the Department of Transportation.

So, in the whole area I must say that I do believe this reflects the feeling of the people whom I am here to represent, that they are extremely disappointed that this has not been done and are quite frustrated over the fact that in the absence of any positive action on the basis of that position, that instead of acting, we are now being told to go into a new Department where in our collective opinion-again not simply the opinion of labor people, but the opinion of management and many other competent people to put us in Transportation is only to aggravate our position and hasten our death.

It has been a most frustrating experience.

Mr. PELLY. It seemed to me encouraging, if there is any basis for this report, that Vice President Humphrey could bring the interests of the maritime industry together and settle this problem, and we would have some basis on which to move forward.

I wanted to get your views.

Mr. HALL. As far as the statement that has been made by certain people that Vice President Humphrey is going to head up a group to study marine transport policies, I don't know. That doesn't impress me at all, because at the same time we are being pressured and put into the corner on the question of the Department of Transportation.

What does it matter. It would seem to me, to be perfectly logical about it, how many committees are appointed by the administration if, in fact, during the very process of such appointment or recommendation we are to be buried within a new department.

Mr. PELLY. In other words, what you are saying is that it wouldn't make any difference to you or be helpful in any respect if maritime affairs are going to be buried in the Department of Transportation to have any new coordinated policy suggested from the executive branch?

Mr. HALL. I am saying that it is a bit hard to understand, for me at least, and I am not a particularly bright fellow, but I think I can understand the English language, to reconcile the two points the announcement of a committee to consider a new maritime policy, while at the same time we are being pressed to be forced into a new Department, which the total industry agrees would be our death.

I would be more impressed by the announcement of the committee to study marine transport and problems, if at the same time the administration were not pushing to put us in the new Department of Transportation, because they can keep on studying forever then, whether it is the Vice President or whoever it may be.

My own point of view, Congressman, is that it is not consistent at all. With due respect to the Vice President, who is a very fine and

competent person-I am not sure of his knowledge of Maritime, but certainly he has understanding enough to grasp the problem-what does it matter if he has that ability, if as a matter of fact we are dead before he gets around to checking the policy. It just doesn't make

sense to me.

Mr. PELLY. In other words, after you are dead, it doesn't do much good to discover what your problems are?

Mr. HALL. Not at all. We would like to smell some of the flowers while we are alive.

Mr. PELLY. I think you have answered my question there and I take it from what you say that the most important thing we can do now is to report out legislation to restore an independent maritime agency.

Mr. HALL. I certainly do. I think if we could get that, at least we would have a fighting chance, because very frankly there are those people in Government here, as you know without belaboring the record here in detail, who are pressing very strongly on this issue, and it is my considered opinion that in doing so, it is not really the hope to answer a problem, but to hide a problem.

I think that, in effect, this has a tendency, and I am not sure it doesn't represent some of the thinking of the people who are advocating it, an attitude of "everybody is howling, let's sweep them under the carpet.' Certainly it is a feeling that I get. I think, if possible, as soon as we can get legislation on the question of an independent agency, at least we will then have an opportunity to present it to our friends in the Congress and try to advise them on what we think is the proper attitude, and then they will have both sides of the coin.

But to have them act on the new Department of Transportation, which on the surface would not be a bad thing to have, but without the details, to have this industry to act in that matter would be a disservice to the industry.

The passage of a bill so that we can start working on it would seem to me would be highly important and most helpful to us.

Mr. PELLY. I think more insidious and dangerous even than the defeat of this legislation would be some plan to give a new title and upgrade the functions on paper and still leave the maritime industry at the mercy of a dead and impotent department in the new Department of Transportation.

Mr. HALL. I would certainly agree.

Mr. PELLY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Thomas ?

Mrs. THOMAS. Mr. Hall, I think my question has just been answered. I am sorry I missed asking it.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I enjoyed your very well prepared statement, Mr. Hall. As has been mentioned several times this morning, we are late in getting started on objections to the Maritime being made part of a new transportation agency, and I understand that this legislation for this new agency will be brought before the House within the next 2 weeks.

So we on this committee have a real problem cut out for us to immediately act in some way to get Maritime eliminated from that Department of Transportation bill, and I doubt if we can get this legis

lation to be considered before the House before the Department of Transportation bill.

So, we must put forth our best effort to have the Maritime Administration eliminated from the Department of Transportation bill. I can assure you that, as one member of this committee, I will do what I can to work on it and see what we can come up with as an alternative to create a separate agency for Maritime.

Thank you.

Mr. HALL. Thank you. If I may, you know, the thing that seems to me is the most bothering aspect of this, is that people who are recommending that we be included in this new Department, at least to my knowledge, those of them with whom I have had the privilege of talking, some representing the administration, really have no knowledge of this industry, and I don't say that in a belittling sense at all.

They absolutely have no knowledge of this industry. Sometimes in attending these meetings, you wonder if you are going to a briefing session in reverse or whether you are trying to sit down and discuss basic problems.

I think it is bad that the decision to force this agency into a Department of Transportation, that the recommendations are being made by people not on the basis of knowledge, unfortunately; not on the basis of their knowledge of the situation, but rather as a practical matter to get rid of something that is a little bit unsightly and a little bit troublesome.

This is a distinct impression that I have. I think it is a terrible thing, and this goes to several administrations, not to this administration as such, but to a number of them, that unfortunately more frequently than not the administration does not have the advice of proper counsel relative to this industry. I have met a number of these gentlemen and with due respect, they are quite brilliant in their own manner and right but, where this industry is concerned, they are totally lacking in knowledge of its problems.

If they were to sit, for example, as members of this committee for a period of time, I would feel a lot better on recommendations that they might come up with. These are people who have had no relations with the industry in most cases ever in their lives, whose limitation of time is quite natural.

They have had no exposure. Yet, it is on recommendation of this type of background, this type of people that this industry is fixing to be pushed further down the line. This is the regrettable part to me.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. May I say that one of the difficulties that we all have to overcome is the type of editorial in many of the newspapers in which they say that, of course, every form of transportation is arguing now that they would like to be separate, and, if there is an exception for one, the others will be attempting to do the same thing. So that is a problem we must face and overcome.

Mr. HALL. Yes, that is quite right. There is no question that there is a divergence of opinion and attitude and I know that in management, this is particularly true but in labor, at least, and I know that labor doesn't make the whole coin since it is only one aspect of our whole society, but for that matter, the whole labor movement, it is interesting to note, Mrs. Sullivan, the entire labor movement have agreed on the basic issue of a Department of Transportation.

All of the labor unions have agreed that a Department of Transportation is fine for their specific types of labor with the exception of maritime and all parties agree that maritime should be considered on a separate basis.

So that the only separation in relation to the numbers of industries affected, the only separation within the consideration of the labor movement has only been this one exception. I know that in some of the management from other industries, there do exist differences, but I think those are minimal.

When you consider the complicated type of transportation structure there is in this country, there have to be differences and I think it is rather remarkable that, in view of such a broad recommendation as the Department of Transportation, that those differences of opinion, attitudes, and approaches have really been so few as they have.

They have not been nearly as large as some people think. There have been some, but not nearly as many as I would have thought myself, in the first instance.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Grover.

Mr. GROVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment Mr. Hall on his continuing excellent and effective testimony before this committee and to say that I am happy to see labor and management arm in arm in this matter because, unfortunately, the Congress is not quite arm in arm.

The House Government Operations Committee, as you know, has called the independent agency a very serious mistake. Well, they are in effect, throwing back to this committee the same words that we are throwing at them. We think we are 100 percent right. But I think we have to be realistic and look at the fact that we have an internal fight in the Congress on this and we have also another problem.

I look at a copy of this letter to our chairman from the Bureau of the Budget where the final paragraph says

Accordingly, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against enactment of the subject bills, none of which would be in accord with the program of the President.

I presume that means the Federal transportation program and this new Department and not a maritime policy program which we are all waiting for. I am just a little fearful that if we win this uphill fight, which is a difficult one, that we may be faced with the possibility of a veto. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. HALL. Well, it may very well be that if we win there may be a veto. I won't argue with that. You probably have more thoughts on it than I, but in any event, I don't think that should deter those of us who have this belief that to carry this out would be proper.

Mr. GROVER. I for one am very pleased to see that you are uncompromising on this and I hope you will continue to be uncompromising on it because I think it is so terribly important to the industry, but this expression of the Bureau of the Budget, also, as my colleague points out, would probably tie the hands of the Vice President in any efforts he might undertake to build up the agency even within the Department of Transportation on a prestige level where it probably or possibly might do some good.

So we do have an uphill fight and I would hope that you, Mr. Hall, could even go beyond this impressive list of the unions which

67-225-663