The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Hall, first I want to tell you that I appreciate very much your testimony. I was very impressed by it. You are well aware that I am new here, but I believe that the Reorganization Plan of 1961 did give the Department of Commerce veto power over the maritime operation. My question is, What is the comparison of activity in the area of additional ships or vessels for the 5 years prior to 1961 and the 5 years since you have been under the control of the Department of Commerce?

Mr. HALL. I am sorry. Would you read that back? There was a little noise like a water hydrant.

(The pending question was read by the reporter.)

Mr. HALL. I would not be aware of the precise count but it would seem to me that the comparison would be that since 1961 that the building of vessels and the development of the industry has been on the downgrade and I take this as an immediate example that, while the overall program has called, I believe for some 17 or 18 vessels to be constructed annually, if I am not mistaken in the last budget, enough funds were allowed, I believe, for some 13 vessels.

That is in the most recent case. I believe that an examination of the record would indicate that in the period of time that you refer to since the 1961 Reorganization Plan that the industry has done much worse.

Mr. JONES. At the same time, it is my original information or at least belief that the aviation industry has improved a great deal with their services and facilities and improved equipment and even railroads themselves have staged a comeback economically while the very vital maritime operation has been neglected. Is that correct?

Mr. HALL. I think that is a matter of record; yes, no question about it.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Just as a matter of interest, I happen to have the figures here based on the contract awards. You can't go back 5 years because the whole replacement program didn't start until 1958; but if you take 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961, 4 years, and then take the 4 later years, in the 4 years preceding the reorganization plan there were 73 contracts let to construct ships and in the 4 years succeeding there were 60 contracts. Now, that is not really the answer to your question because some of the contracts let even in 1961 and possibly into 1962 were probably in the works before that. However, I think it does indicate that there has been a fall-off, not a substantial one, but a falloff after the reorganization plan.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, for appearing here this morning. You made an excellent witness.

The fact that everyone had some questions and was vitally interested and very attentive to every word that you have spoken this morning shows that your views will be a big help in enlightening other Members of the House about the bill.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Garmatz.

I want to express my appreciation to the committee for allowing me this time and tell you that as always, it is not only an honor but a privilege to appear before your committee here.

Thank you very much.

(The exhibits of Mr. Hall follow:)

Text of:

EXHIBIT No. 2

[Seafarers Log, Dec. 24, 1965]

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE & MARITIME POLICY ADOPTED BY AFL-CIO

CONVENTION

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE AND MARITIME POLICY

RESOLUTION NO. 217

Whereas, The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 sets forth the intent of Congress that the United States shall have an American-flag merchant fleet capable of carrying a substantial portion of our waterborne commerce and of serving as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.

Whereas, Despite the intent of the 1936 Act, our American-flag merchant marine has continued to decline in terms of the number of ships, in terms of the percentage of our cargoes carried by these vessels, and in terms of job opportunities for merchant seamen, shipbuilders and other workers in the maritime industry. As a result, the American merchant marine today cannot meet the criteria of the Merchant Marine Act; it is not adequate to fulfill its responsibilities as an arm of our national defense, a factor in our economy or as a productive symbol of America's position of world leadership.

Whereas, This is being most strikingly demonstrated in the current Viet Nam emergency in which, as a result of increased shipping needs, our Government has turned to foreign flag ships, not only to fulfill its commercial commitments, but to carry military cargoes as well.

Whereas, The decline of the American flag fleet has taken place largely because the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government have failed to implement the Congressional mandate set forth in the 1936 Act, and because budgetary expediencies, rather than national need, have been allowed to dominate maritime programs.

Whereas The Soviet Union meanwhile-recognizing the importance of a strong merchant marine to its economic, political and strategic objectives-has been moving rapidly to control the oceans and trade routes of the world, and within a few years is expected to surpass the United States as a maritime power in all areas-passenger liners, freighters, dry bulk carriers and tankers.

Whereas, To meet this crisis in U.S. maritime, and to assure that this nation will have an adequate merchant marine, the President's Maritime Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of labor, management and the publichas proposed a significant expansion of our merchant marine. Meanwhile, however, a so-called Interagency Maritime Task Force report, prepared by representatives of the same Federal departments and agencies which have been largely responsible for the decline of our fleet is being circulated.

Whereas, The Task Force Report outlines a program which is based primarily on budgetary considerations, calls for a restriction of our merchant marine, and the elimination of major existing safeguards of American flag shipping and shipbuilding. Proponents of the report have given strong evidence that they will attempt to have their views adopted by the President and the Congress as the new national maritime program which the President has indicated he will announce, probably some time early next year.

Resolved, the AFL-CIO reaffirms its support of a strong U.S. flag merchant marine, citizen-owned, citizen-manned and American-built, adequate to the needs of our country in peace and in defense emergencies and, therefore:

1. Endorses the report of the President's Maritime Advisory Committee, calling

for a significant expansion of the American flag merchant fleet.

2. Condemns the report of the Interagency Maritime Task Force as dictated only by shortsighted budgetary considerations and inadequate to the national need.

3. Calls for a Congressional investigation to determine the actual state of readiness of the U.S. naval and merchant fleets.

4. Calls for continued efforts to alert Congress to the Soviet maritime menace and to obtain revitalization of the American-flag fleet as rapidly as possible to meet this threat.

5. Calls upon the State Department to re-evaluate its position and support legislation to bar from U.S. commerce foreign-flag vessels which have been trading with North Viet Nam.

6. Calls upon the President and the Congress to resist and reject pressures to eliminate the requirement that at least 50% of the wheat and other grains sold to the Soviet nations be carried in American-flag ships and to assure strict enforcement of all cargo preference requirements.

7. Calls upon the President and the Congress to reject any "Built Abroad" philosophy regarding the building of American-flag merchant vessels and to preserve and strengthen regulations designed to safeguard American-flag, American-built shipping.

8. Supports a naval construction program in U.S. shipyards to assure our continued superiority as the world's leading naval power.

9. Calls for legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the NLRB to cover the crews of runaway-flag vessels in American commerce.

10. Calls for continued efforts to alert Congress and the public to the need for protecting the passengers and crews from hazardous conditions such as existed on the ill-fated Yarmouth Castle and calls on Congress to enact pending legislation to reserve cruise operations out of U.S. ports to American-flag vessels, unless unavailable, and to regulate any participation of foreign-flag vessels in these trades by requiring them to comply with U.S. safety standards.

11. Calls upon Congress and the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to enact and implement such measures as will restore the domestic merchant fleet, including those vessels in the coastwise and intercoastal trades, on the Great Lakes, and on our rivers and inland waterways and reaffirm our opposition to any attempt to destroy the protection afforded to domestic shipping by the Jones Act.

12. Supports legislation presently pending in Congress to protect our fishing industry, by extending our present territorial limits from the present three miles to twelve miles.

13. Urges the Government to exert its efforts to bring about early ratification by such nations as are necessary to put into full force and effect the Convention on Fishing and Conserving the Living Resources of the High Seas, as adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held at Geneva, Switzerland, February 4, to April 27, 1958.

14. Calls for introduction in Congress of legislation to increase U.S. carriage of our waterborne foreign commerce to the level called for by the Maritime Advisory Committee and support the building in U.S. yards of an adequate number of vessels to achieve this purpose.

15. Affirms our opposition to runaway flag operations and calls for the complete scrapping of the so-called "effective control" concept, and any policies placing reliance on foreign flag ships for the vessel strength essential to U.S. defense and economic requirements.

16. Supports moves to re-establish the Maritime Administration as an independent agency, outside of the Department of Commerce, and to centralize the administration of the cargo preference laws in the Maritime Administration.

17. Supports members of Congress who favor a stronger merchant marine and calls upon the Committee on Political Education of the AFL-CIO to cooperate in this endeavor by including votes on maritime issues in their standards for determining support or opposition to Congressional candidates, and to urge the cooperation of local, central, and state bodies, as well as the various AFL-CIO departments, in order to achieve this objective.

EXHIBIT No. 3

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PRESENT LEGISLATION RE: STATUS OF MARITIME