42 INDEPENDENT FEDERAL MARITIME ADMINISTRATION The demonstrated inadequacies of the Maritime Administration stem directly from its subordinate status. Only an independent agency can command sufficient attention to avoid the national disaster now confronting the American merchant marine. More than 80 percent of the existing ships of our merchant marine fleet will reach the end of their economic life within the next 5 years and our replacement production is about 100 ships behind schedule. Just the other day one of the once-great shipbuilding yards of this Nation passed into virtual oblivion. I refer to New York Shipbuilding Corp. at Camden, N.J., not to far from my home district in Pennsylvania. To me, this is the type of tragedy which should be and could be avoided if due recognition was given the Maritime Adminis tration. In the city of Chester, in my own district, the Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., once one of the giants of the shipbuilding industry, has been dealt severe blows by this lack of foresight. Although we are already far behind the schedule we should be maintaining in building new ships, budget requests for fiscal 1967-68 for new merchant ship construction is 30 percent below the previous year's appropriation and provides for construction of not more than a dozen new ships. Today, the American shipbuilding industry generally faces the same bleak future that has already caught up with New York Ship. Today American-flag ships carry less than 5 percent of the bulk commodities transported in our waterborne commerce, even though bulk trade comprises almost 80 percent of our total waterborne commerce. Tomorrow, at this rate, we can expect to become totally dependent upon foreign shipping even though we may expect a constant growth in U.S. foreign trade. We must also remember that a strong American merchant marine fleet is absolutely vital for defense purposes. Ninety-eight percent of the military equipment and supplies and two out of every three fighting men are being transported to Vietnam by ship. For 3 years now the present administration has promised to send to Congress a new maritime policy to revitalize our ailing merchant marine. We are still waiting for it. While the United States has slipped from first to sixth place in size of its active fleet and from sixth to 14th in ship construction, the only thing we in Congress have heard from the executive branch is that it wants to place the Maritime Administration under the Department of Transportation. Yes, put it there and bury it even deeper. We have listened to promises for years. Meanwhile the voice of the Maritime Administration and the industry as a whole has been muted by being buried in the Commerce Department. I fear the same fate would be in store for it under the Transportation Department. Now is the time for our merchant marine fleet to emerge as a vital link, both in world trade and in defense of the United States. It can only regain its rightful place as No. 1 on the seas of the world through the legislation before you today. I urge its adoption. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. That was an excellent statement Mr. Watkins. I would now like to call on the Honorable William T. Cahill as our next witness. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM T. CAHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman, I want to appear in support of this legislation. As the sponsor of H.R. 348, I am happy to join in urging the adoption of H.R. 159 and related bills amending the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to create a separate Federal Maritime Administration. Since my election to the Congress of the United States in 1958, I have been each year urging the implementation of the policy set forth in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. As a representative familiar with the great need for domestic shipbuilding and the danger to the national welfare by a continuation of the existing policy, I have tried to alert the Congress and the American people to the results that we are now experiencing as a result of the war in Vietnam. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the war in Vietnam brings into sharp focus our failure to effectively implement the national Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The objectives of this policy are stated in the Merchant Marine Act as follows: The United States should have a merchant marine capable of carrying U.S. domestic waterborne commerce, of carrying a substantial part of U.S. waterborne foreign commerce, and of providing shipping service on all routes designated as essential by the Maritime Administration. This merchant marine should be capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in war or national emergency. This merchant marine should be owned and operated under the U.S. flag by citizens of the U.S., so far as is practicable. This merchant marine should consist of the best-equipped, safest and most suitable vessels, constructed in the U.S., and manned by trained, efficient U.S. citizens. However, at present, 31 years after the declaration of this policy, not one of these objectives has been attained. In the absence of an independent and effective Maritime Administration, our peacetime merchant marine policy has not been that authorized and established by Congress in 1936. Rather, in the absence of war, our Nation has permitted increased reliance on foreign ships and shipping because it has appeared cheaper than construction and operation of a U.S. merchant fleet. During such times of peace, it has been speculated that if war or national emergency should occur, the United States could rely on its "effective control" of foreign shipping to transport needed manpower and materiel. The war in Vietnam has proven the fallacy of both the economic and the strategic defense capabilities of reliance on foreign shipping. With few exceptions, foreign ships have refused to carry military supplies to Southeast Asia. In some cases "friendly" foreign governments have not permitted their ships to make the voyage for fear they would lose their status as "neutrals" or because they might jeopardize their trade with Red China, Cuba, and the Iron Curtain counrties. In others, crews of foreign ships have refused to sail on the grounds that they would be aiding "imperialist aggression." 83-195-67 With the inadequacy of our "effective control" over foreign shipping clearly demonstrated, the United States has pressed back into service more than 120 World War II cargo ships to supply our troops. These ships not only lack carrying capacity, but are slow and expensive to operate. Our Government in its immediate need for a more modern fleet now turns to the long-neglected shipbuilding industry and finds that many construction yards have been closed, equipment has fallen into disrepair and obsolescence, and that critically skilled workers have been absorbed by other industries. History shows that our Nation's shipbuilding industry has faced and overcome similar difficulties during both World Wars and the Korean conflict. I have no doubt that, given proper resources and immediate attention, it will once again surmount the obstacles presented by governmental neglect. I am firmly convinced that the first step in revitalizing our merchant fleet is to create an independent Maritime Administration. Only by such action can the Maritime Administration develop a continuous, yet flexible, policy which will provide a fourth line of defense in times of emergency or war, and a profitable commercial industry in times of peace. As an independent agency, rather than a subordinate one, it could devote full advocacy and consideration to the need for appropriations and new or supplemental legislation. I commend you and your committee for your efforts to find effective means to implement our national merchant marine policy. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Cahill, for a statement which will be very helpful to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. We have Mr. Multer here, from New York. STATEMENT OF HON. ABRAHAM MULTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee and give you my views. I thank you and your fellow committee members for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 159 and companion bills to create an inde pendent Maritime Administration. As one of the more than 100 Members who have sponsored companion bills to H.R. 159, I welcome this opportunity to set forth m views in support of an independent Maritime Administration. My bill is H.R. 931. Any struggle for independence is difficult, and the maritime industry's struggle is no exception. A few days ago the American people celebrated the anniversary of this Nation's declaration of independence from foreign domination. In many respects parallels can be drawn between that struggle of long ago and the current battle facing the maritime industry of this country. In 1776, the American patriots realized that this country was too big and too important to be governed as merely part of a whole which eventually became the British Empire. The needs of America and its people were being neglected and ignored. The needs of Americans were being subjugated to the needs of England. Mr. Chairman, as you will recognize, the American maritime industry faces a similar situation now. Today, in 1967, the needs of American shipbuilders, American ship operators, and American seamen are being neglected and ignored. Today the American maritime industry, which extends the influence of the United States across the seas and carries this Nation's flag to the far corners of the earth is being governed as part of a whole. The maritime industry of the United States is too big and too important to be submerged within the Department of Commerce or any other Government department. Maritime needs an agency of its own, with its own budget. The problems of this industry are too complex and diverse to be handled on a part-time basis-they need full-time consideration. Let us consider for a moment the multifaceted importance of the maritime industry to our country. Ships carry the products of American factories to foreign markets and return to this country with the raw materials and foreign goods which make possible the American standard of living. Ships comprise an integral link in the supply and distribution phase of our economic life. Obviously, it is not feasible to carry a thousand tons of ore, a million barrels of petroleum, or a million bushels of wheat by airplane. We must have ships to do these jobs efficiently. In wartime, ships form an integral part of our national defense. Ships carry the soldiers and material to fight wars in foreign lands. Ships carry the food and raw material needed by our allies and by our own industry and people. In wartime, without merchant ships, this Nation would face defeat. We are big, and we are powerful, but we are not self-sufficient. In today's highly industrialized world, no country is. The production of ships-like any heavy industry-forms a vital part of our economic balance. Every one of the 50 States produces at least one item, and some produce 25 or more, all of which are needed to build a merchant ship. For every man employed in American shiyards, a job is created for another man in industries supplying materials for shipbuilding. The more ships we build here at home, the more jobs we create throughout our economy, the more consumer incomes we create, and the more tax dollars we generate. Like ripples spreading on the surface of a pond, the importance of maritime pervades our entire economic complex. The man in a West Virginia coal mine may not realize it, but maritime touches him. Maritime touches the Kansas wheat farmer, too, and the Detroit autoworker, and the California electrician. Maritime touches all of us, whether in the imported shoes we wear, the special services we provide, or the newspaper we read. Mr. Chairman, this is the reason maritime is too big and too important not to be given its own agency, its own voice, its own freedom. Today the maritime industry's voice is lost in the clamor of the Department of Commerce; its cries of need are not heard. Certainly maritime is a vital part of the Nation's commerce, but it is more than just that. Certain maritime is a vital part of the Nation's transportation network, but it is more than just that. Maritime is commerce, industry, transportation, and national defense all rolled into one, and the problems posed by these diverse roles can only be properly dealt with by a separate and independent agency for maritime and maritime alone. I urge this committee to resist pressures to give maritime anything less than it deserves complete independent status. In 1936 Congress in its wisdom gave maritime independent status. In the pressure of demands following World War II, the wisdom of that action was forgotten, and maritime lost its independence. The members of this committee are friends of the maritime industry, and these hearings on independent maritime status are the products of wise and farseeing action. I, too, am a friend of the maritime industry, and I pledge my support to the passage of H.R. 159 before this session of the 90th Congress adjourns. I indicate that Chairman Celler, whom you have just heard, is not only the dean of the House, as already indicated, and the dean of the New York State delegation, but is also chairman of the steering committee of the congressional delegation from the State of New York, made up of the 41 Members of Congress from the State of New York, and when he talked here today, as already indicated by Mr. Grover, he is talking I believe for the 41 Members of both parties from New York State. There is no point in my reiterating some of the points he has already made. May I make this further statement: There has always been an effort by departments which are Cabinet departments to absorb or to keep within their jurisdiction other departments which well could be independent agencies. I have in mind the Small Business Administration. At one time a Small Business Agency was part of the Department of Commerce, and the fight all through the years was to keep small business problems within the Department of Commerce, despite the fact that there they, too, were treated as stepchildren. As you all know, for many years now the Small Business Adminis tration has been set up by the Congress by legislation as an independent agency. Nevertheless, Commerce all through those years has sought to absorb that agency back into Commerce. There has not been a Secretary of Commerce in all the years I have been here, which goes back to 1947, members of both parties, that did not attempt to make the Small Business Administration a part of Commerce again, and to destroy its independence. We have had to resist that, just as now you must again try to reinstate the idependence of the merchant marine as an independent agency of Government. Commerce will again oppose that. I think one of the reasons that they can probably get the ear of the President more readily than others |