the national security may not be concurred in by certain thinking in the Defense Department. I hope, too, that the wisdom of your remarks will be heard also by the "whiz kids" and airminded people in the Defense Department. Mr. CELLER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon? Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend and compliment not just the dean of the New York delegation but the dean of the House of Representatives. It is a great honor to have him here. I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in what you said with respect to the merchant marine or foreign ocean shipping being unique and different from other forms of transportation. You have been here a long time and your fine Italian hand has been in everything that has happened in Congress. I think you would be interested in a question that was put to the former Secretary of Commerce in his testimony here last year on this same subject matter, this same legislation. He, of course, was supporting the position that it ought to be put into the Department of Transportation. I asked him this question: "Mr. Secretary, would you not agree that the Maritime Administration is unique and different; that is, so far as ocean shipping, foreign shipping is different from any other possible mode of shipping?" His answer was: "No, I would not agree." Mr. CELLER. Oh, my. Mr. LENNON, A categorical flat answer that in his judgment ocean foreign shipping could not be distinguished or was not unique or different. The difference between you and the former Secretary is that he had no experience, he had never been in public life until he was appointed for a very short time and came from a background where he had no general knowledge of the subject matter, but yet here he was speaking for the administration, taking a flat, unequivocal posi tion that the maritime industry, particularly so far as related not to coastal shipping, but ocean shipping, was no different whatever; and I even tried to pin him down. I said, "Even different from freight shipments overseas by air?" "No, sir," he said. That is what I wanted to get on the record. Here it is for the record. Mr. CELLER. That is incredible. Mr. LENNON. That is on page 154 of the hearings of last year. Thank you very much for being here in the support of what we think is right. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Watkins? Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is certainly a pleasure to see the distinguished gentleman from New York whom I respect so much as to his views and his knowledge in the operation of this great Government which you have participated in for so many years. It is nice to see you join the team of this Merchant Marine Committee, which I think is fighting for one of the greatest industries this Nation has ever destroyed. It's my hope and wish that you will use your power with the various departments of Government, including the great President of the United States, so that he will start thinking and his bureaus will start thinking along with us and give us the right to breathe again and let us set up a committee that will understand something about the merchant marine in this country and cooperate with this committee so that we can start anew because I feel that we just died. With your help, I am sure, and the giving of your time today to say that you do feel as many of us do on this committee, and practically all of us, that we must be born again, that you will help us do that and certainly by creating a committee of our own, I think that we will be able to accomplish just what we want to do for this country. Mr. CELLER. With all due modesty, I would say that I don't know if I have all that power you say, but I will do my best. The other day I said I was rather modest and somebody said, "You have a lot to be modest about." Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would rather say that this was the phrase that would apply: That modesty in the face of ability is hypocrisy and you don't want to be a hypocrite. Mr. WATKINS. I don't mind yielding to the gentleman if he would give me time to do it. I would have yielded to him. I do appreciate your being here. I am interested in what you have had to say. Please stay with us and join us in this rightful fight that we are having which is much more serious than many of the people of this Nation think. This is an industry that must be revived. You help us, and I would appreciate it for my people in the State of Pennsylvania, and especially the county of Delaware in which we do have a great shipyard that is being destroyed gradually by excuses and no effort to bring it back. Thank you very much, Mr. Celler. Mr. CELLER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Sullivan? Mrs. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to tell our famous dean of the New York delegation that we all appreciate his support for this very important legislation. I thank him for joining in helping us get it passed in the House. Thank you. Mr. CELLER. Praise from a lady is praise, indeed. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. No questions. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roth? Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California earlier pointed out that what Congress needs is an independent study, a blueprint for progress. It seems to me that not only the enactment of this legislation is important, but who is appointed to it. In other words, we need strong independent thinkers on this Commission. On the other hand, we can get those who will sabotage it. I wonder, due to your closeness to the White House, whether you think that strong independent thinkers would be appointed to this Commission. Mr. CELLER. That is a tough question to answer. You know there are so many factors that are considered in an appointment, geography and politics and friendships, intelligence, so many factors that I wouldn't want to answer that in a way that would be inadequate. I hope that the President will appoint men who are knowledgeable on the subject Mr. ROTH. I would like to join my colleague from Pennsylvania in hoping that you will use your influence in seeing to it that this type of man is appointed. Mr. CELLER. Are you a candidate? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helstoski? Mr. HELSTOSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to compliment the dean of the House on his clear and concise statement on the problem and especially the salient points on the shipbuilding problems. Mr. CELLER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morton. Mr. MORTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. LENNON. At this point in the record, I think it would be per suasive in the light of the necessity for an independent organization or an independent agency, to contrast what we could hopefully expect from an independent agency as compared with what the history of this agency has been in the Department of Commerce. I shall not take the time to go through this, but I would like to call the committee's attention to the fact that the maritime industry in fiscal year 1956 requested the Department of Commerce for ship construction, $492 million. The Department of Commerce cut that to $259,218,000; the Bureau of the Budget approved $175,450,000. In 1961, the Maritime Administration asked its parent agency for $344 million. The Department of Commerce interested in maritime advancement cut that to $250 million. When it went to the Bureau of the Budget, they cut it to $129 million. In 1963 the Martime Administration, who were charged with the responsibility of determining the need, asked the Department of Commerce to approve $388,550,000. The Department of Commerce, this agency that was interested in the maritime problem, cut that to $98 million. The Budget Bureau cut it proportionately to $50 million, and that is the typical history of the Maritime Administration since it has been in the Department of Commerce for the last 17 years. Mr. GROVER. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield. Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that Mr. Lennon has brought out some important points from the last year's record, so that we don't miss it, I would think it would be in keeping, with the chairman's approval or the approval of the committee, to incorporate that table in the full context into the record at this point. (The table follows:) Where obligations exceed amounts appropriated, unobligated balances of prior year appropriations were available to finance the obligations. Includes $18,000,000 for construction of the NS "Savannah." * Includes $675,000 for construction of the NS "Savannah.' Increase of $1,250,000 for payment of design expenses on 2 superliners authorized by Public Law 85-251. Includes $14,200,000 amendment to provide for an 18-ship replacement program and reconversion of 4 combination vessels added by the conferees. Preliminary. Total unobligated as of June 30, 1966. Unobligated Funds $48, 146, 000 Available for new ship construction in 1967a............---- Assumes Appropriations Committee will concur in change of method of funding trade-in ships 8,700,000 1,358,000 7,299,000 138,000 60,000 17,555,000 30,591,000 proposed in 1967 budget submission. Also assumes that funds previously reserved for retrofit program will be used for new ship construction. Note: Appropriation for fiscal years 1956 through 1961 also included funds for research and development. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morton. Mr. MORTON. I want to echo the words of my colleagues concerning the respect and the love we all have for the distinguished gentleman from New York. I have a question, Mr. Celler, and I think from your experience you can throw some light on it. We have just recently gone into the final development stages of a supersonic air transport. This program has been funded by the Federal Government with public funds. A program has been developed in which these funds will be returned based on the sale of aircraft and the development of uses for this supersonic transport. The question is: Why can we meet this challenge of constantly broadening of frontiers of air transportation with public funds, and can't move the maritime industry of America, which is just as vital to the development of this country as is air transportation, into the same sort of category of priority that is enjoyed by space, by air transportation, and other facets of our total environment? We have not had the glamor or haven't had the leadership or something that is necessary. Mr. CELLER. You have supplied the answer that there is not the leadership in the administration or the desire to do just that, and the private industry is more or less discouraged from coming forward with funds and with expertise because up to now the maritime industry has been treated, to use a phrase you used before, as a stepchild. There has been no encouragement given to these factors that you mentioned by the administration. I think the administration for that reason is at fault. I agree with you. There is no reason why we shouldn't go forward on all levels of transportation; not merely in space, not merely in aviation. We shouldn't relegate the Maritime Administration to a position that it is in the doldrums and should remain there. The administration should come forward and pull it out of the doldrums. That is the reason I think. Mr. MORTON. Has this reluctance come about as a result of labor difficulties that have shown up in the maritime industry from time to time? Mr. CELLER. There is no doubt that labor has played a part in this. I think more enlightened minds might well participate in the labor end on this situation. There must be give and take here. Let me say this. Labor must get its own, too. We have granted subsidies in various levels of American life. We have granted huge subsidies to agriculture. We have granted huge subsidies for housing, huge subsidies to further the so-called Great Society, and it strikes me that we must grant some of the subsidies or a good portion of them for our merchant marine which is just as important as aviation and just as important in my opinion as housing, because what good will the housing do, what good will all these other improved factors do, if our defense is weakened and we can't have the ready means to carry our personnel and our troops in the event of some unforeseen catastrophic situation? Mr. MORTON. Other than the efforts being made by this committee and individuals such as yourself, do you feel that there is anything new in the climate that should give us hope for turning this around? Mr. CELLER. I think there is. I think the fact that you are holding these hearings has given a fillip to the idea that we must rescue the merchant marine, but it must be continued. You know there is an old adage that if you rub a bar of steel long enough, you can rub it into a needle. We are going to do a lot of rubbing and rub and rub until we can rub it into a needle, and what you are doing here is part of that rubbing process. I think this committee, its chairman and the members, should be complimented on conducting these hearings in most excellent fashion. Mr. MORTON. I certainly do thank you and it is a privilege for me to have been here and heard your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pollock? Mr. POLLOCK. I have no questions. I just wanted to compliment the distinguished chairman on his very excellent testimony. Mr. CELLER. May I be dismissed, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. Mr. Byrne? |