decades of neglect, the time is ripe to take some effective actions to cr STATE maritime problems. Today, in a time when our industrial machines at a level never before attained in the history of the world, our me chant marine is carrying less than 8 percent of our total foreign oce Mr. borne commerce.

The 1936 Merchant Marine Act was intended to provide this country an with a strong and dependable arm of defense. Its full capabilities wak tested in World War II, and the merchant marine performed admin bly during these troubled and demanding times. Since the war, ho ever, the shipping industry has been afforded little recognition eithe of services performed or of services it may someday be called upo perform.

The war in Vietnam has shown the need for a dependable merchan shipping program. Of the vessels called from the reserve fleet for ser ice in the war, many have proven inadequate, have broken down at and have caused delays which hinder our efforts in that part of th world.

The defense need for shipping cannot be argued, but at the sa time this is not the only reason for providing a strong shipping dustry. While the major maritime nations of the world continue expand and modernize their fleets, the U.S. fleet is being increased by less than 15 vessels per year. At the same time, nearly twice that many vessels become obsolete, reaching the end of their normal expecte economic life of 20 years. It is true that the United States has more merchant tonnage than any other nation in the world, but it is furth true that over 80 percent of this active tonnage is obsolete, while mos of the remainder is part of a reserve fleet with little commercial valu The question is often asked: "Is the present U.S. merchant marit in a condition to meet another emergency?" The answer must sure. : be "No," since in the face of even a limited conflict such as the war Vietnam, the capacity of our merchant marine is being severel strained. The reserve fleet which has been called upon to meet this nee is sorely inadequate. In addition, it costs over $500,000 to call a sing vessel from this fleet into active service; and 40 days are required: accomplish this reactivation.

Today in a world of modern warfare, 40 days may prove tool: a time to wait for the service of an aged vessel which almost certain will prove inadequate to the demands made of it once it does get in service.

In face of this, it is apparent that the Maritime Administratio must be given a new role if it is to give us a fleet that will provide t kind of service and security that has been traditionally provided: this country. Only through the intensive and well directed efforts a separate maritime agency can this revitalization be effected. Mr. DOWNING. We appreciate your statement, Mr. Green. It will b helpful to the members in considering the bills.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. The committee will now hear from our colleague, M: William C. Cramer of Florida.

Mr. Cramer, you may proceed anyway you wish.

TATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, last year I had the privilege of testifyg before your distinguished committee in support of identical legistion I sponsored then and again in this Congress to create an indeendent Federal Maritime Administration, which would be headed by five-member board appointed by the President with the advice and onsent of the Senate.

The alarming condition of our U.S.-flag merchant fleet I described the committee last year is no less alarming this year. The crisis of ajor proportions facing America's merchant marine is no less critical. Briefly reciting the facts I presented previously, following is a omparative current accounting of our maritime situation:

At the close of World War II, the United States had a merchant marine fleet of over 3,500 vessels. By 1951, there were 1,955 active U.S.lag ships. Today, there are only 1,093, which includes just 13 new hips completed in 1966 and 142 reactivated reserve fleet ships, most of which are over 20 years old.

The United States had dropped to 12th place among the world's najor shipbuilding nations as of last year. Today, it ranks 15th. Russia, which last year had risen from 12th to seventh place, has of oday risen to fifth place.

Out of the total world deliveries of new merchant vessels in 1966, 13 were built for U.S. registry, while 110 were built for U.S.S.R. registry.

Out of the total of merchant vessels of 1,000 or more gross tons building or on order in world's shipyards as of April 1, 1967, the United States places 11th in line. In addition to the U.S.S.R., countries leading the United States are Japan, East Germany, West Germany, United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Spain, and France.

As previously noted, 13 ships were built for U.S. registry in 1966. The President's budget request for fiscal year 1968 is again just 13 ships.

Tonnage volume to Vietnam reported last year was 300,000 tons a month. The latest tonnage volume figure available now is 800,000 tons a month. Last year, and to date, two out of every three soldiers in Vietnam are transported by ship, and 98 percent of the supplies and cargo for the war go by ship.

Approximately 546 ships are now under direct operational control of the Military Sea Transportation Service and most are engaged in the sealift to Vietnam. This compares with last year's figure of 470 ships. With respect to the use of foreign-flag vessels for assistance in the Vietnam sealift, the Military Sea Transportation Service advises that foreign-flag shipping is used as required to cover shortterm peaks in requirements to the extent that U.S.-flag shipping cannot meet requirements.

Despite the obvious need for a strong and adequate U.S. merchant marine fleet, it is evident from the facts that the United States continues to steadily decline in stature among the world's merchant marine nations and, further, that this ever-steepening rate of descent

will continue unless immediate action is taken to reverse the pre trend.

I commend the members of this committee on the excellent jobyl are doing of detailing what the dangers are, in terms of our marit program, and what should be done to correct this increasingly alar ing and deplorable situation.

The problem has been and continues to be the apparent inal Th of the administration to recognize or admit that the problem ex I believe a beginning point of understanding on the administrati part would be the establishment of somebody downtown to u stand, make, and control maritime policy. Under the present arrat ment, everybody in the administration is making maritime po T The result is that nobody is solely responsible for making marar policy and the end result is no policy at all.

To begin with, the Secretary of Defense, in making his own a time policy, made the disastrous decision some 5 years ago that transport could be substituted as a primary military supply hicle. The decision was made despite the fact that it would take of the C-5A planes to carry the load of a single ship, and air transp tation, if utilized, would cost six times as much per ton-mile.

We continue onto the maritime policy of the Secretary of St which as nearly as can be determined, appears to be more conne"". with turning our commercial and defense shipping over to other co tries to score some kind of nebulous coup.

The Secretary of Agriculture has his spot on the maritime pl game team as he tries his best to run interference through our c preference laws.

We would be remiss in omitting the Secretary of Transportation for despite congressional action last year specifically rejecting the pr posal that the maritime program be subordinated within his ea Department, the Secretary blissfully proceeds with his own ideas r garding the maritime industry. Like the medieval doctor bleeding patient to death to cure him, the Secretary of Transportation advoca solving the shipyards' problems by putting them out of business.

Of course, the Department of Commerce, wherein the Maritime A ministration still resides, must receive its share of credit for the pre abuse and neglect of its "stepchild," which the Department anxiously would like to shuttle to obscurity within the Transportar Department in accordance with the executive branch's designs.

And high on the "hit parade" of maritime policy stars is the Bur of the Budget which consistently slashes the funds available for construction and ship operation until there is nothing left with wh to do the job.

The stew over maritime policy brings to mind the old adage si too many cooks-it is obvious we need just one good recipe for succe with just one qualified agency responsible for its administration.

Looking back to 1936, we see that Congress established its maritime policy when it passed the Merchant Marine Act of that y The Congress said we should have a fleet of commercial ships would carry a "substantial portion" of our waterborne commer Congress said we should build enough ships every year to do that and that we should make certain the Federal Government's finan

contribution would be large enough so that in the building and operating of those ships we could compete against low-wage shipbuilding and low-wage shipping of foreign countries.

That policy, as the facts of record clearly substantiate, has been honored more in the breach than in the observance down through the years.

This committee, Mr. Chairman, has devoted its best efforts to encouraging the establishment of a well-thought-out program for building new ships-enough ships each year so that we can replace our obsolete vessels with fast, new ships that will carry the American flag to every port in the free world.

This kind of program cannot become a reality unless there is established an independent Maritime Administration-one agency that Congress can hold accountable for any failure to carry out our express wishes that we have a strong, viable merchant fleet. As one of the original sponsors of this legislation, I wholeheartedly endorse and support this committee's efforts to bring such legislation to the floor of the House.

As an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the future well-being of our Nation, I urge enactment of this legislation so that this Nation of ours which once boasted the greatest merchant fleet in the world will not be left on history's shore waiting for ships that never came in.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Cramer, for a very fine statement. You have been very active in this field and we appreciate your help. Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Our next witness is Mr. Alfred Maskin, legislative director of the American Maritime Association.

Mr. Maskin, the House will soon be meeting. You may proceed in any way that you want. If you want to submit your statement you may

do so. STATEMENT OF ALFRED MASKIN, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND LEGISLATION FOR THE AMERICAN MARITIME ASSOCIATION

Mr. MASKIN. I would prefer to read my statement. It is quite brief and I think I can go within the time allotted.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Alfred Maskin and I am the director of research and legislation for the American Maritime Association, which consists of 93 companies operating 237 unsubsidized American-flag liners, dry cargo tramps, bulk carriers, tankers, containerships and specialized vessels-totaling 2.5 million deadweight tons-in all U.S. trades, foreign and domestic.

As you can see from these figures, the AMA is the principal spokesman for the unsubsidized fleet, which makes up two-thirds of our total privately owned oceangoing merchant marine.

Today, on behalf of these unsubsidized companies, I am appearing before you to voice our support for an independent Federal Maritime Administration, and to state our reasons for opposing inclusion of the

Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation, as han been proposed by some persons in our Government.

From 1936 to 1950, as you know, maritime affairs were under the jurisdiction of an independent agency-the independent, bipartisa U.S. Maritime Commission established by the Merchant Martin Act of 1936-and it was during this period that the merchant maris experienced its most impressive growth.

prewar

The Maritime Administration's Handbook of Merchant Shipping Statistics, Chart No. 1, shows, for example, that the percentage d U.S. cargoes carried by American-flag ships rose during the years of 1937-40, from 26.5 to 30.5 percent, and that even though afte World War II there was a decline from the wartime high of 68.4 per cent, the figure still stood at 42.6 percent in 1950 when the existence of the Commission was terminated.

Other Maritime Administration figures show that the number of privately owned American-flag ships of 1,000 gross tons and over only remained relatively stable during the prewar years, but th after the war-built fleet was substantially disposed of by the Sh Sales Act, the fleet began to regain its strength and increased from 6: ships in 1946 to 1,170 ships in 1950.

Moreover, and although these matters are not reflected in the statis tical tables, it should be noted that during the independent Commis sion's existence a survey was conducted which resulted in a long-rang program of shipbuilding designed to provide some 500 ships over 10-year period; and it was also during this period of independen that the "C" type vessel was designed, the passenger liner Amer was built, and the mariner ship program was conceived.

Conversely, ever since the existence of the independent Maritime Commission was terminated, and the Maritime Administration w established as an agency of the Department of Commerce, through Re organization Plan No. 21, the number of ships in the fleet, again a cording to Maritime Administration figures, has declined from a hig of 1,264 in 1951 to a little more than 900 at present, while the percen age of U.S. cargoes carried by these vessels has dropped from near 43 percent in 1951 to its present low level of about 7 percent.

Obviously, the American merchant marine has fared badly ever since jurisdiction over maritime affairs was placed in the Departme of Commerce; nor did President Johnson's proposal of March 19 that the Maritime Administration be transferred to the Departmen of Transportation seem to us to offer much promise of a brighter dar for it proposed only the transfer of the Maritime Administration fro one Federal department not basically concerned with maritime pro lems to another Federal department not basically concerned wit maritime problems.

Since that time, however, events have transpired which cause us view this recommendation with even greater concern than we d originally-and I am referring now, of course, to the proposals for 1 new Federal maritime program which have been advanced by Secretary of Transportation.

It is not my intention to discuss here in detail the proposals of Se retary Boyd, which have been the subject of hearings by another legilative committee.