fusing. Every time we hear indirectly or otherwise what the Secretary's proposals are, they end up being different from what they were the day before. They appear to be in a constant state of change.

Mr. CURRAN. You are going to have him here in a couple of days, aren't you? You are going to have him before you in a couple of days? Mr. MAILLIARD. I hope so.

Mr. CURRAN. Then you will probably get a good clarification.

Mr. MAILLIARD. It is interesting to me that of the 10 or 11 points you outline, as being the Secretary's proposals, there are only two of them that are not authorized by law right now.

Why doesn't the administration go ahead with the program? They have all the authorization they need except foreign building. The authority is not in the Department of Transportation, but it is in the law right now.

This is why I am a little suspicious that we may be taken down the garden path here. We are hearing about a lot of vague suggestions enticing us to capitulate and do what they want but what happens then

Mr. CURRAN. As long as the program is in the Department of Commerce, I have spent 30 years trying to figure what end of the stick

it was on.

The War Shipping Administration and all the others were independent agencies and had no way to go.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I don't understand the basis for your optimism if this was changed and the Maritime Administration was put in the Department of Transportation.

Mr. CURRAN. I didn't come here optimistic on change. I said we have to do something. Everybody has pussy footed on it for years, and the merchant marine is down the drain. I am fearful of what will hap

pen.

As I said, we have developed a complete program which we want every one of you gentlemen to have a copy of.

In it, we set forth our whole position very clearly and on the question of shipbuilding here in this country as well. I have to repeat even though it is an old saw, we find great consternation in the field of building ships abroad and as I pointed out before, the midbodies were built abroad and the compromise was that they were towed over here and the repairs and put-together was done here.

I don't see any compromises in this great corporation rush to foreign manufacturing and import into this country at all.

Just this one segment is singled out on it. I would like to see an overall program coming from Congress to put a stop to the great corporation investments abroad for importing foreign sweatshop-built material in this country at the expense of the workers in this country. Mr. MAILLIARD. That is not within our jurisdiction.

Mr. CURRAN. I know that.

I merely point it out, sir.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Item No. 3 on your list of Secretary Boyd's broad program suggestions is "Retention of cargo preference laws." I was checking to see what Mr. Boyd said on this subject when he testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce on May 1 of this year. Senator Bartlett asked him:

In your opinion, would we be taking a step forward or would we be retreating if we were to increase the percentage in the cargo preference laws of freight to be carried by U.S. ships, thus reducing the operating subsidy and making more money available for construction?

Secretary Boyd replied:

I am philosophically opposed to cargo preference.

This statement was made not long ago.

Mr. CURRAN. I know, but when he was head of the Interagency Tasi Force

Mr. MAILLIARD. Did you change your philosophy?

Mr. CURRAN. I will tell you something about Boyd. Boyd came storming into our advisory meetings over in the Department of Com merce when we were working for a whole year like a dog trying o bring out a program.

This gentleman came from left field. He was, I think, from the
Mr. MAILLIARD. CAB.

Mr. CURRAN. He came in there and submitted a program that he couldn't even defend, couldn't talk about, couldn't do anything with but it was to completely wipe out the American merchant marine.

Since that time, this man has gotten an education somewhere and has a pretty good education and has changed his position a lot. I think when he comes before you, gentlemen, this week or next week, you will find that he has changed for the better.

The CHAIRMAN. You say for the better?

Mr. CURRAN. I think so.

Mr. MAILLIARD. It seems to me that this is something that we really don't know. For example, you say you have submitted your own program, but how much of it is going to be acceptable to the administra tion? Do you know?

Mr. CURRAN. That is a hard thing. The administration takes this position and has taken it with us: That if a position comes out of the industry that labor and management and Government officials will get together and map out a program satisfactory to all segments, that the administration is prepared to push that program.

Mr. MAILLIARD. That will be a great day. I have been waiting around here for 5 years for just such an event, and I have yet to see it.

Mr. CURRAN. We had such a program which came out of the Mar time Advisory Committee and that was stabbed to death by Brutus Boyd and his Interagency Task Force.

Since then, he has been educated. He is no longer the Brutus of yesterday.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Was the report of the Maritime Advisory Committee unanimous?

Mr. CURRAN. It was. No; I am wrong. Only two operators, I think Lee White and the Standard Oil of New Jersey. That is all, but the real industry that counted, not the ones that run foreign-flag ships al over the place and wanted to defend them, and the effective control ships, but the industry that counts, the American merchant marine industry was unanimously in agreement on it.

Mr. MAILLIARD. And I think this committee expressed itself as being in substantial agreement, but it didn't do any good. Mr. CURRAN. That is right.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I think a very vital part of this question of the possible transfer of the maritime administration to the Department of Transportation is the maintenance of at least the same degree of organizational and procedural protection for the agency contained in the bill, S. 3010 of the 89th Congress, as it passed in the Senate. But, I again quote Mr. Boyd as saying just this past May that, "The Maritime Administrator would be at exactly the same level as the Highway Administrator, the Rail Administrator, and the Federal Aviation Administrator, reporting directly to the Secretary."

Mr. CURRAN. NO; we are against that. We have spoken time and time again of the protections contained in the Bonner bill. If we can move into the Department of Transportation with those protections, we are prepared to go down the line.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Have you any indication that Mr. Boyd would agree to that?

Mr. CURRAN. No; we don't. We don't.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Curran, at what time in the past year did the National Maritime Union come to the position that you are taking here this morning as the spokesman for the National Maritime Union, AFL-CIO?

Mr. CURRAN. When did it come to this position?

Mr. LENNON. Yes.

Mr. CURRAN. During the last year.

Mr. LENNON. I mean more particularly if you can get it down to a time.

Mr. CURRAN. At our several executive council meetings with the National Maritime Union, which we hold every 6 months, and at our last convention, which was held in October of 1966.

Mr. LENNON. October of last year?

Mr. CURRAN. 1966; yes.

Mr. LENNON. And the position that you state here now as the spokesman for the Maritime Union, wearing that hat, was reached in October, at your convention last October?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes; and has been reaffirmed from time to time.

Mr. LENNON. From time to time. As spokesman today for the Labor-Management Maritime Committee, which is in substance the same statement you made in your other capacity, when was this concensus reached by the Labor-Management Maritime Committee; about the same time; in October of last year?

Mr. CURRAN. It was somewhere around October. We have the meetings of the Labor-Management Committee twice a year. It was sometime around there.

Mr. LENNON. When did the Labor-Management Maritime Committee and when did you as the president of the National Maritime Union notify Chairman Garmatz that you would like to be heard on this subject matter; when this year?

This Congress convened on the 10th of January.

Mr. CURRAN. I don't know. When the chairman set up the hearings and said that he was going to hear from labor, industry, and Government on this question, we applied to be heard.

Mr. LENNON. But you didn't volunteer your views until you were notified by the chairman of the setting of these hearings?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, we notified of our views at our convention. We released our views from our executive council meetings. We released that publicly and sent it to all Members of Congress.

We didn't, of course, at that time volunteer them to any hearing. There was no hearing, but when the hearings were set by the chairman, we then asked to appear before you.

Mr. LENNON. Now, you have set forth in both of these statements the conditions under which you, as spokesman for both the union and the labor union committee, would agree to the Maritime Administra tion being placed in the Department of Transportation. Is that true! Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. And you have indicated, however, that you believe there must be a positive maritime program on the part of the admin istration and a proper climate before that was done. Do I understand you correctly that the Congress should move to put the Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation, that there should be a positive maritime program of the administration and a proper climate?

Do I understand you correctly that these are the two conditions that you enunciate before Congress should move to taking the Maritime Administration from the Department of Commerce and placing it within the Department of Transportation?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes. As a matter of fact, when we appeared before the Senate, we were assured that there was a program that would be coming from the administration.

Mr. LENNON. Which would guarantee, reasonably guarantee a positive and appropriate maritime program on the part of the adminis tration?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. You make it crystal clear in your statement as pres ident of the National Maritime Union that the administration to date has failed to enunciate and to proclaim a positive maritime program so that we are just standing still, if I understand you correctly now. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes. They haven't submitted a finished program. That

is true.

Mr. LENNON. I quote you from page 10 of your statement wearing the hat of the president of the National Maritime Union:

We have hoped for some time now that the Administration would present a positive and well-rounded maritime program to Congress ***. But, as we all know, the Administration has failed to do this.

Are you saying now that they have presented to the Senate what you consider a positive maritime program and we have a proper climate now to move in the direction that you have suggested?

Mr. CURRAN. No, I didn't say that. What I said was that there were apparently guidelines being submitted today that gave us the im pression that we could now move toward getting a finished program that would enable us to move into the Department of Transportation with proper safeguard and with a proper program.

Mr. LENNON. You made it rather clear that in your judgment, speak

ing in the dual capacity, that it is unlikely that if an independent agency was created, that it would get the support of the administration because you say that the President would have no personal responsibility and, therefore, would not demonstrate the interest and for that reason, it wouldn't be adequately financed.

Mr. CURRAN. We went even further. We said that he probably would veto such a thing.

Mr. LENNON. You go further to say that even if such an agency is established even overriding the veto, which you inferred, you didn't infer that it could be done, but you go on to say that even if one was so established, that it is unlikely that he would support it and without his support, we would be in the same position we are now. Mr. CURRAN. That is true.

Mr. LENNON. That is the feeling you have about it now?

Mr. CURRAN. That is the feeling we have, yes.

Mr. LENNON. And that is the feeling you have as the president of the National Maritime Union and also as spokesman today for the Labor-Management Committee of the maritime industry?

Mr. CURRAN. I think that without the support of the White House, the administration on a program of this type, I certainly don't believe that it is sufficient or enough if he did veto it for the Congress to override it.

As a matter of fact, such a bill as this, we believe, now wouldn't get through the Senate at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield there a moment?

Mr. LENNON. Yes, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Along the same thought in one statement on page 14, you say:

We would also doubt if the Chief Executive would in turn give the support and attention to an agency for which he has no direct responsibility.

Then on your other statement as the Maritime Union statement, on page 9, you say:

The Chief Executive would probably be less than enthusiastic about recommending the substantial appropriations needed for an agency over which he has little or no control or responsibility.

Why would you think he would have no control or responsibility? Mr. CURRAN. Well, I think one is consistent with the other, Mr. Chairman. I think the matter may read a little differently, but it means the same thing. After all, the President of the United States submits a recommendation that this agency be incorporated in the Department of Transportation and then the Congress turns around and votes that down and creates an independent agency which he was completely in opposition to and he raised a great many questions as to why.

He certainly would not give it the attention if it was shoved down his throat that it would reserve if it was gotten with the wholehearted support of the White House.

I just can't see where this question isn't clear. I think the Congress has run into that situation a great many times. When the battle takes place between the Congress and the Executive over the passage of legislation, the White House will work like heck to get it off the books in one form or another, either let it die or starve it to death or things of that type.