I might say, since there are so many Members here this morning who are on the Oceanography Subcommittee, that, if our plans are not changed, on August 17, Thursday, in connection with the monthly meeting of the Commission in Washington, that we will hear members of the Council with respect to their activity. We had hoped to hear them on the 15th of August and on the 17th of August hear the members of the Commission, but Dr. Stratton has to be out of the country up until that time, and he suggested to me just this week in correspondence and in conversation that the Commission will be prepared in early September, before the 15th of September, to appear before our committee, and the distinguished Member is a member of that subcommittee, to report. There is a possibility that we may have to amend the law to extend the time for them to make the report because they are giving the time and interest and dedication to the assignment as members of the Commission that I had hoped that they would. I commend the gentleman again, and I am sorry I took so much of your time, Mr. Chairman, but I thought this might be of interest to the other members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Grover. Mr. GROVER. I have no questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dow. Mr. Dow. Not really, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the Representative from Alaska for shedding a great deal of illumination on a very serious problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. Dow. Indeed. Mr. LENNON. Can I ask the gentleman from Alaska to do me a personal favor in connection with the statement you made here today and the statement you made on the floor? Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. Mr. LENNON. Counsel from this committee will furnish to you the names of the members of the Commission appointed by the President, and I would appreciate it if you would send to each member of that Commission a copy of the statement that you made on the floor and of the statement that you made here today, and a statement that you are doing it at my request. Mr. POLLOCK. I would be happy to. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards? Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman has become a very valued member of the committee in a very short period of time. He has given a very fine statement today. Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reinecke. Mr. REINECKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to congratulate Mr. Pollock. I think it is interesting to note from the statement of the committee that we seem to have almost unanimous approval of the statement of the gentleman from Alaska, yet in almost complete opposition to the people downtown. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roth. Mr. ROTH. No questions. Mr. CLARK. No questions, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ruppe. Mr. RUPPE. No questions. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Alaska on a very fine statement and a very fine approach to the problem at hand. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pollock. Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be a distinguished member of the committee and of the subcommittee, Mr. Murphy of New York. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 154, a bill I introduced in January of this year to amend title II of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration. This bill would do much to strengthen the needs of our defense and commerce as intended in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The intent of Congress as set forth in that act was to 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. Despite this clearly stated purpose, however, our American-flag merchant marine has continued to decline in terms of number of ships, in percentage of our cargoes carried by these ships, and in terms of job opportunities for American maritime workers. Today America rates sixth in active tonnage and trails the Soviet Union. American-flag ships participating in foreign trade handled only 10.5 percent of our foreign trade in 1960; today it has fallen to 7 percent. In comparison, the last time the Maritime Administration was an independent agency, American-flag ships handled 41.4 percent of our foreign trade. In addition, two-thirds of our active tonnage is obsolete and our merchant marine faces 80-percent bloc obsolescence if positive action is not taken. In striking contrast to this dismal outlook, a recent article in Lloyd's list pointed out that 80 percent of the Soviet Union's 1,360 ships have been built in the last 10 years. Two-thirds of their vessels can develop a speed of over 14 knots, and they have a total deadweight tonnage of 9,450,000 tons. Because of the recent construction of their ships, most are automated and mechanized. Although the figures on American-flag ships are not exactly comparable, they are relevant. Of the 955 private American-flag ships, nine cruise under 10 knots, 438 between 10 and 15 knots, 475 between 16 and 20 knots, 32 from 21 to 25 knots, and one over 25 knots. In addition, the United States still leads the Russians in tonnage, with over 14 million deadweight tons. With Russian tonnage increasing at an annual rate of a million tons, however, it will take our most determined effort to keep our lead in this field. The passage of this legislation would be a good start. Our shortage of vessels is nowhere more obvious than in our activity in Vietnam. We are spending $500,000 to take rusty World War II ships out of mothballs, and still our shiping is strained. Our Government has had to rely on foreign ships, not only to fulfill commercial commitments, but to carry important military cargoes as well; many foreign ships have delayed our vital military supplies. Considering the fact that over 98 percent of our men and supplies going to Vietnam go by ship, this problem is critical. Most of the problem can be traced to the lack of any clear maritime policy and the lack of any strong maritime advocate in the Government-in spite of the words of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Although the act provided for a separate and independent Maritime Commission, over the last 30 years we have seen this Commission reorganized and reshuffled until today it is a small appendage of the huge Department of Commerce. The record is clear that every time the merchant marine is thrown into a position of competition with other interests or dominated by some superagency, it has suffered considerably. The creation of an independent Maritime Administration would focus greater attention on our decaying fleet and enable it to rapidly cope with maritime problems without having to go through the multiinterested channels of the Department of Commerce. What the maritime industry needs is an advocate, a strong independent voice in Government to present its case directly to the President; the Federal Maritime Administrator would be such an advocate under this bill. We cannot delay in this matter. The rest of the world is moving ahead at an alarming rate, and the longer we wait, the wider the gap will be. I urge your support of this bill as a vital first step to creating an American maritime industry as strong and powerful as it was once intended by the Congress in 1936. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for a very helpful state ment. We will hear now from our colleague Congressman Waggonner, of Louisiana. STATEMENT OF HON. JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views on legislation to create a new and completely independent Maritime Administration-legislation that has more than a hundred "fathers" in the House of Representatives this year. I hope there is some significance in that "100" figure. I recall the late President Kennedy quoting an old Chinese proverb to the effect that "success has a hundred fathers; failure is an orphan." If that is true, then the maritime industry of this Nation will soon no longer be an orphan. This is more than just a battle between two opposing opinions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to where we are going to put maritime affairs. This is a matter of life and death for our country. Here we are, in a showdown with international communism in Southeast Asia-in a race for the moon with the Soviet Union-in a situation where Communists are challenging us at every turn-and yet we ignore one of the greatest Soviet challenges of all: the threat on the high seas. Soviet Russia has threatened to "bury" the United States in economic competition. One of the ways that she is carrying out this threat is by building herself into one of the merchant shipping powers of the world. Look at the statistics: New ship deliveries to the Russian fleet have exceeded ours by a ratio of 8 to 1 over recent years. Soviet Russia has 395 ships presently on order or under construction; we have only 45. A 5-year expansion program is scheduled to provide the Russians with a 15-million-ton merchant fleet by 1970. The Soviet Union's fleet today carries 75 percent of its foreign commerce; we carry about 7 percent of ours. What is happening to the U.S.-flag fleet? Last year, U.S. shipping lines lost some 3.5 million tons of cargowith a resulting decrease in net revenues of about $32 million. Last year, our ships failed to carry the mandatory 50 percent of Government-sponsored exports of our agricultural surpluses, nor did they carry their legal share of shipments financed by the Inter-American Development Bank. Although oceanborne trade last year was almost three times as large as it was 20 years ago, shipping tonnage carried on U.S.-flag vessels was only one-third what it was 20 years ago. Merchant ship deliveries from U.S. shipyards hit a 10-year low of only 13 vessels last year. And over 60 percent of the total U.S. fleet is beyond the 20-year age limit that is deemed acceptable. In other words, our vital national fleet of vessels-a fleet that is indispensable to our international trade and that serves as the primary auxiliary force in our national defense structure has gone through a two-decade period of decline. What is particularly depressing is the fact that this decline continues even now, when the American involvement in Vietnam, the threat of a new crisis in the Middle East, and booming world commerce all are making increasing demands on U.S. shipping capabilities. And while we decline, the Russians continue to surge forward. I have seen it forecast that, if things continue at their present pace, then by 1970, the Russians will have about 40 percent more merchant ships on the high seas than we will; that by 1974, the vast majority of international trade will be dependent on the goodwill of Communist shipping; and that by 1976, sea commerce under Communist domination and control will no longer be merely a threat-it will be an accomplished fact. Where will that leave us? Consider, for example, the fact that of the 77 most strategic materials required to maintain our industrial and military might, more than 60-such as iron ore, manganese, copper, and rubber-are imported into this country. At the present time, 96 percent of the tonnage is being carried, not on U.S.-flag vessels but on foreign-flag ships. These are vessels over which we have no control-despite what the State Department and the Defense Department claim-and which could be denied to us at any time because of changing world political conditions. As a matter of simple survival, we must have a merchant fleet that will insure America of an adequate sealift in times of crisis, and that will safeguard our commercial interests in times of peace. We cannot afford the luxury-if, indeed, it is a luxury-of letting the Russians overtake us in maritime affairs, or of putting our reliance on foreign-flag vessels, or of building our ships in foreign shipyards. Any one of those moves can only spell disaster. The American merchant marine has been the victim of disaster over the past 20 years, and, frankly, I don't think we can afford any more. We have got to stop wringing our hands over the problem of the merchant marine, and start doing something about it. And the place to start is to give the Maritime Administration complete independence. We have seen what can happen to our maritime program when this agency is buried in a Cabinet-level department-we have had no program, and no action toward a program. So we have to remove the obstacles to getting a maritime program in the works. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, the biggest obstacle has been, and continues to be, the burying of this agency in the bureaucratic structure. The bureaucrats seem to be sensitive to every kind of influence except that of the merchant marine itself. Once we have hammered out this independent agency legislation, Mr. Chairman, and once it is armed with the annual authorization arrangement already voted by the House, then we can move ahead with a program to replace our wornout ships with new ones-at least 50 new ones every year-so that we can upgrade our fleet and expand our trade. We are moving in the right direction, Mr. Chairman. This committee is to be commended for its unstinting efforts on behalf of our merchant marine, and I am convinced these efforts will be rewarded with the establishment of the independent Maritime Administration. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waggonner, we appreciate your giving us your time to testify. Are there any questions? Thank you. Mr. WAGGONNER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. We will hear next from our colleague, Mr. Giaimo of Connecticut, the sponsor of H.R. 3053. Mr. Giaimo, you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT N. GIAIMO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3053, a bill which I introduced to amend title 11 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration, and for other purposes. If enacted, my bill will establish the Federal Maritime Administration as an independent agency. The head of the Administration will be appointed by the President subject to congressional approval. |