Mr. TENZER. I agree with you there, and I would suggest to my stinguished colleague that you are probably aware of the statistics at today we have the highest number of people and a percentage our people gainfully employed. I don't know how many among the or have the training to work in shipyards, but we can retrain eople. This is our job.

That is the highest form of philanthropy, teaching a man to become lf-sufficient, and that is what we ought to be doing.

Mr. EDWARDS. On this we agree.

Thank you.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Reinecke.

Mr. REINECKE. Yes. Mr. Tenzer, this was a fine summary as people ave indicated before.

Do you have any reason, coming from the majority side and peraps being privy to some information that we don't have over here, >think that the administration will treat an independent agency ith any more favor than it would treat it in Commerce or in the Deartment of Transportation?

Mr. TENZER. I may say that I have no information other than what read and obtain from the same sources available to you.

I have no reason to believe that the administration would prefer ne method of handling this to another, but I think it is our job to alk out of this what we think and we ought to urge the administration o do what the Congress wants when it works its will in legislation to e developed.

Mr. REINECKE. But unfortunately we have heard from the departent witnesses and know that they are all opposed to this particular cheme, and I wonder if we might be actually antagonizing the situaion rather than helping.

Mr. TENZER. Let me tell my distinguished colleague that there was time when they thought that we couldn't split the atom. We did. et us move forward if we think this is right.

Mr. REINECKE. I am not in full agreement with you, but I am conerned and thought you might have some information which we don't

lave.

Mr. TENZER. I am sorry. We don't.

Mr. REINECKE, I didn't realize Mr. Edwards was thinking about this, but I had made some studies in southern California and find a very high component of semiskilled and unskilled labor used around shipyards, not in the ship construction itself, but in construction of yards and facilities.

In this regard I have been trying to formulate a program which could be incorporated into OEO or some MDTA program which could be used to help these people. I think we found 35 percent of the labor needed to build these facilities classified as semiskilled or unskilled.

Mr. TENZER. I would be agreeable to training these people to be put to work. I remember with great distress many years before I ever came to Congress or ever dreamed of entering public service the big mothball fleets lying over the Hudson River, ships that should never be permitted to stand idle, loaded with wheat when we were hiring foreign bottoms to take the wheat off those ships and then transport it to the people overseas who were starving.

This is the point that was made before that this is a lack of priorities You cannot have blinders when you are dealing with massive proble The OEO can train the people. The manufacture of ships and prod tion of ships and the fleeting of ships is an entirely different cup of

tea.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Schadeberg.

Mr. SCHADEBERG. I would like to commend my colleague, the dis tinguished gentleman from New York, for a very excellent statement in regard to the maritime problem. I appreciate that we are all try to achieve the same goal. We need all the help we can get to get the j done and I feel we are going to get it done.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Roth.

Mr. ROTH. I have no questions.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Watkins.

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say to the distinguishi gentleman from New York that I was certainly happy to listen to you: testimony, even though I missed part of it.

Welcome to our team.

I don't want to talk about rats and all I can tell you on how to g rid of rats is that I have 24 cats and don't have any rats on my far. where I live.

Mr. TENZER. The rat bill may put the cats out of work.

Mr. WATKINS. That is the thing. That will be the next thing. We w.. have them in the OEO.

I certainly agree that there is a lot of serious thought that the gente man have passed on here. I certainly agree with the gentleman fr Alabama and I think you do, too, that the only way to relieve pover in this country is to supply work.

I happen to be at the present time in the position where I have received very valuable information. After a year of worry, and, I m say, we have all worried, I have just had a grandson return fre Vietnam, and where he was associated in the work of unloading sh with landing barges, I understand there were about 26 of them over there and 18 of the 26 were broken down waiting for parts because *had broken down ships that couldn't get the stuff over to them, I jude and from what he has told me and I am not going to go into le here-perhaps it would give some information to somebody as to wher the bombs were dropping if he testified here and told about the pr lems of trying to unload cargo off the vessels we had over there.

From what he tells me we have nothing. These ships are brok down laying in the harbors, the winches are broken and the mater. cannot be unloaded. We are using all World War II boats.

We have a disgraceful industry. This country is disgraced by merchant marine, and I don't think anybody can do anything about very seriously, a great nation with practically no representation the ocean at all.

I have heard many figures. I think the correct figure is around 5 percent. We are going to have to reach some of the higher-ups. Y can do it, Mr. Tenzer. You are in the majority party and you have m audiences and you have more opportunities to talk to the people th

re stopping this program and it is being stopped by Mr. McNamara and his Department and the higher-ups who have lost all interest in he merchant marine in this country.

I think it is a very, very serious matter. I think it all ties in with nany things, with employment and all. I think it is high time that ve are going to have to talk. Whether we as Congressmen are listened o or not I don't know. This is my third year and I don't think anybody as listened to me.

Mr. TENZER. I came at the same time you did.

Mr. WATKINS. I think we need the help, not only the help of you because I think you are with us. I believe you are sincere. I know you re an honest man. We are going to have to drive this point home to he higher-ups.

Mr. TENZER. The way to reach the upper echelons in Government n a democracy is through the voice of the people. If we speak out, as his distinguished committee is now doing, and the people realize what is involved in this question, the "higher-ups" to whom you refer, and I put it in quotes, will listen. We have the technology.

When this committee speaks out and if this committee stands together and influences other Members of Congress as to the importance of having cargoes transported by the American-flag ships, then we night even be able to encourage private industry to use the capital hat is required to build the ships.

But will the Congress back it up to see that they have the cargoes o carry? This goes hand in hand and I think the distinguished gentlenan is correct. We have to keep speaking about it. We have to act and I think the voice of the people through the Congress will be heard by hose who have to listen and will listen, but we should do it as a team such as you suggested.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Pollock.

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express o the gentleman from New York my appreciation for the statement hat he made this morning concerning the merchant marine.

We may have some disagreement as to the priorities of things, but I think both of us feel very strongly, and I think everyone in this room Teels that the merchant marine should have a very high priority because it concerns our status, our position in the world.

I think one thing. Whether you have an in with the higher-ups or not-and I certainly think you do more than those of us sitting on his side of the aisle I would say, Mr. Tenzer, that the first job we all have is to get our colleagues in the House behind us to really get his thing pushed and get it passed through the House and get it worked on over on the Senate side, and then we can worry about what happens from there.

I appreciate your statement this morning.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Tenzer, we do appreciate your taking the time to give us the benefit of your views. We appreciate your testimony very much indeed.

Mr. TENZER. Thank you.

Mr. ASHLEY. IS Congressman Carey in the room at this time?

If not, we will call upon Rear Adm. Ralph K. James, U.S. Nary (retired), executive director of the Committee of American Steam ship Lines.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. RALPH K. JAMES, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT S HOPE, COUNSEL, COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN STEAMSHIP LINS Admiral JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Robert Hope of the law firm of Kominers & Fort assist me in my presentation. Mr. ASHLEY. We are very happy to have him.

Admiral JAMES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am Rear Adr. Ralph K. James, U.S. Navy (retired), the executive director of the Committee of American Steamship Lines, commonly referred to as CASL. I welcome the opportunity and privilege of appearing today to present the position of CASL with regard to H.R. 159 and simila bills designed to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration.

CASL is an association of 13 U.S.-flag steamship lines operating cargo and passenger services on essential trade routes under operat ing differential contracts with the U.S. Government.

The CASL lines are aware that most members of this commit tee have introduced bills to create an independent Maritime Adminis tration. We realize that you have sponsored these bills because of your concern for the maritime industry and appreciate your interest and support. Accordingly, we have given most serious and detailed consideration to the question of whether or not we should suppor H.R. 159.

The decision cannot be mad in a vacuum for, no matter what it ultimate form of organization, the maritime agency must have suff cient appropriations, congressional and administrative support, an new policy authority to meet the present maritime crisis. The natur of the crisis, as I will discuss later, is such that action is essential this year on a number of interrelated maritime matters.

More than 5 years have passed since President Kennedy on Apr 4, 1962, in his message on transportation reported to the Congress or the serious state of the U.S.-flag merchant marine. Since that time President Johnson and many Members of the Congress have expressed their growing concern but no concrete action has been taken.

The concern in the two principal branches of Government has bee paralleled by intense and often acrimonious debate and controversy within the maritime industry. This record of frustration and ever futility should not blind us to the fact that there has been importar progress in two critical areas.

First, ignorance and doubt, often in high places, as to the nee for a U.S.-flag fleet has been swept away by many years of deba and factfinding. No one can continue to doubt after reading the record of this committee which set out the almost complete reliance of " Armed Forces in Vietnam upon merchant-type sealift.

No one any longer seriously believes that a world power such the United States can rely upon foreign-flag fleets to meet our e

P

ential sealift requirements for these ships have not been available o the United States in support of the Vietnamese operation, and, in act, are often engaged in carrying supplies and equipment to our -nemies in Hanoi,

No one any longer seriously believes that our maritime resources could support a Korea-type operation in addition to Vietnam without erious supply problems and the complete abandonement of commerial trade route operations which are essential to our balance of paynents, foreign aid programs, and export expansion aims.

No one any longer seriously believes that the reserve fleet is much nore than a hollow shell or that even the few useful elements left in hat fleet will be available for more than another 3 to 5 years.

No one any longer ignores the vast Russian maritime buildup as a serious threat to the commercial and economic interests of the United States. Thus, unlike 5 years ago, there is no longer a question of whether or not the United States requires a vigorous merchant marine. Second, 5 years ago, only a relative handful of individuals were knowledgeable and concerned about merchant marine matters. Today officials in all branches and levels of Government are showing an increasing concern and awareness of the need for action. The public press almost daily decries the decline of U.S.-flag shipping.

Perhaps the best illustration of the new concern is the fact that over a hundred Congressmen of both parties have introduced bills similar to the one before this committee today. Unlike 5 years ago, senior Government officials appear to be ready to enact and implement a vigorous merchant marine program.

Given this new climate, we believe that our years of fumbling and indecision concerning a new maritime policy may be nearly over and that we now have an opportunity to forge a program that will accomplish the job without serious compromise of the fundamental interest of anyone.

One of the principal areas of controversy standing in the way of the adoption of a new maritime policy has been the question of whether the Maritime Administration should be transferred to a new independent agency, placed in the Department of Transportation, or left in the Department of Commerce.

Before discussing CASL's position on this issue, I would like to point out briefly why we feel the next 5 years are ones of crisis requiring legislation this session. The nature of this crisis has been known to most of you for some time. Mr. Frank Nemec, CASL's chairman, outlined it in testimony he presented before the Senate Commerce Committee on June 26, as follows:

CASL has prepared a qualitative analysis of our present fleet which is presented in a series of tables below and in charts appended to this statement. In this analysis we have assumed continuation of the present level of subsidized shipbuilding and have embraced the widely-accepted standard that ships over 25 years of age are not suitable to effectively support either the commerce or the defense of the United States. In this age of rapidly moving technology this is an optimistic assumption.

As a starting point, let me qualitatively assess the age and deficiencies of our present privately owned ocean going fleet. On January 31, 1967, this fleet consisted of: