I commend the members of this committee for their undertaking and nsideration of this vital matter. I urge that the committee report a ll to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration and romise my support and help to secure its passage and enactment to law.

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is grateful for your fine statement. The Honorable Joseph Minish will be heard next. Congressman, ou may proceed.

TATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH G. MINISH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. MINISH. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine, I appreciate your invitation to submit this stateent to the subcommittee on the important issue involving the estabishment of an independent Federal Maritime Administration. This egislation, of which I am sponsor, affords Congress the opportunity o take the first step toward reestablishing a merchant marine equal o America's international status.

Our merchant fleet since 1946 has dwindled to less than 1,100 essels-a drop of approximately 5,000 from the World War II level. The great majority of ships now operating are more than 20 years old nd we have fallen behind other seafaring nations by every measure of shipping productivity. The United States now stands sixth in the world shipping and 16th in shipbuilding, both areas in which we led ll other countries 20 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, independence and consolidation as a governmental mit is essential if the Maritime Administration is ever to emerge from the suppressive bureaucratic control it has lived under for 18 years. This condition has prevailed regardless of the political affiliation of the Administration. The U.S. merchant marine, if it is to survive and prosper, is in dire need of a direct line to both the Congress and the White House. I urge prompt and favorable action on this vital issue. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your fine statement.

We have for our next witness another Member from New Jersey, the Honorable Charles Joelson.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. JOELSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, as a member of a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee dealing with the State, Justice and Commerce Departments, I have had the first-hand sad opportunity to be a witness to the steady diminution of our merchant marine. Not only has our merchant marine activity continued to wane, but this has been accompanied by a fall off in shipbuilding.

I believe that the maritime industry is such that an independent agency must be established to promote and protect it. This is not only needed for the protection of the merchant marine and the people employed in it, but it is also necessary from the standpoint of our national security.

Not long ago the Congress established a separate Department of Transportation. I believe this was an important step and I was pleased

to support it. However, because of the specialized and complicated nature of the merchant marine industry touching upon internationa! problems as well as defense policy, I am of the opinion that a separate and distinct agency must be established in order to breed new stability into our ailing merchant marine. I strongly support and urge favorable action on H.R. 159.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly appreciate your statement, Congress

man.

Next witness will be our friend from Alabama, Congressman William Dickinson.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. DICKINSON. I vigorously support the legislation to establish at independent Federal Maritime Administration. My bill to achieve this objective is H.R. 7399.

In my opinion this question goes far beyond any petty consideration. The total and vital interest of the Nation is at stake. This country has allowed its merchant fleet to deteriorate until today it is barely abe to support a major national effort in supplying our fighting forces Southeast Asia.

The Maritime Administration, as a subdivision of the Department of Commerce, has been swallowed up in the Federal bureaucracy to such an extent that formulation of an effective merchant marine poli has been totally impossible.

The President's wish to transfer the Maritime Administration the Department of Transportation offers nothing but a transfer to another bottomless pit of stagnation, delay, and lack of progress.

An independent Maritime Administration will not, of course, bring about a solution of the merchant marine problems overnight. It rather an essential first step in giving a reasonable chance to the Min time Administration to give the Nation effective direction in rebui ing a merchant fleet in accord with our national needs.

Russia has laid down a challenge to us with the threat and promise that its merchant fleet would exceed ours in terms of nune and in terms of quality, by 1970. So far there is every reason to bel Russia will succeed. The reason is that our merchant fleet progra not only show a failure to meet the challenge but show a failure understand the challenge exists.

And yet it has tremendous significance. The United States has clined to 12th place in the world in merchant ship construction. It fallen to sixth place in the size of the merchant fleet, and most of tonnage we do have is obsolete.

Government machinery has completely failed to deal with this s ation. And for this reason it is vital that we establish the Mar Administration as an independent agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statement.

We have a very distinguished Member of Congress from Califor ready to speak next. Mr. Talcott, if you will proceed.

TATEMENT OF HON. BURT L. TALCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this istinguished subcommittee to urge affirmative action on this imortant legislation which will amend title II of the Merchant Marine ct, 1936, to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration. We in congress must share some of the blame for permitting the xecutive branch of the Government to allow our merchant marine to eteriorate to its present deplorable state. We have too long ignored he warnings of the expert witnesses from both business and labor ho have pleaded year after year for a realistic replacement program or our merchant fleet.

If a realistic replacement program had been in effect for the past wo decades, we would not be faced with the situation in which our resent merchant fleet numbers only about 1,000 ships, most of which re 20 or more years of age. This is all the more implausible and alarmng when one considers that we emerged from World War II with a nerchant fleet of some 5,000 ships, nearly all of which were less than 3 years old.

According to projections developed by the Committee of American Steamship Lines, based on a 25-year ship life and present replacement programs, by 1980 our merchant fleet will have dwindled to 355 ships. Mr. Chairman, while each of us knows that we cannot permit this to happen, the question we face today is simply this: "Are we in the legislative branch sufficiently concerned regarding the seriousness of the present situation to take the action that is necessary now, in this first session of the 90th Congress? I submit that our answer must be affirmative.

Not only must we have an independent Maritime Administration, but it must be staffed with people who are familiar with problems peculiar to the merchant marine and with people who are determined to effect a speedy solution.

In an era of widespread global crises, we cannot be dependent on foreign-flag vessels to carry on water-borne cargoes, and we cannot entrust to foreign shipyards the task of rebuliding the U.S. merchant fleet.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that the creation of an independent Federal Maritime Administration is a necessary first step in rebuilding our merchant fleet.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee appreciates your fine statement. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Paul Hall, president of the Seafarers Intenational Union of North America and president of the Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Hall is no stranger to this committee. We are always glad to have the benefit of his views and his broad experience and knowledge of the maritime industry.

Mr. Hall, do you have someone else with you?

STATEMENT OF PAUL HALL, PRESIDENT, SEAFARERS INTERI TIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AND PRESIDENT, AFIMARITIME TRADES DEPARTMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY RAY M DOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANDREW FURUSETH FOUNDAT FOR MARITIME RESEARCH

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Ray Murdock with me. T you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of attending this hearing for the privilege of testifying before you on this important matter. have with me, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ray Murdock, who serves as executive director of the Andrew Furuseth Maritime Research F dation, who sits on my right.

My name is Paul Hall. I am president of the Seafarers Interna Union of North America. I am also president of the Maritime Tr Department, a constituent department of the AFL-CIO, cons of 37 national and international unions. Representing these unio am here to discuss maritime problems, and particularly the bill pe ing before you, H.R. 159, and companion bills, which we suppor

In the consideration of this legislation we are confronted on the hand with a political theory; and on the other hand with his experience, and facts. And the theory and the facts are in comp conflict. The theory is a very good one. It is that all executive age concerned with transportation should be combined in the Departm of Transportation, presided over by the Secretary, who will keep modes of transportation healthy and prosperous, and correlate programs and activities in a national transportation industry.

History, experience, and the facts prove beyond doubt that Maritime Administration, if included in an executive depart having other duties and responsibilities, becomes submerged, is lar ignored and languishes from neglect. Broadly speaking, these are reasons why we have opposed and still oppose the transfer of Maritime Administration to the Department of Transportation. why we urge with all the vigor at our command that it be reestablis as an independent agency.

But there is more to a Government department than an organ tional chart, and these neat patterns seldom correspond either with policy or the program of the department charted.

I propose today, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to dis the history, experience, and facts which impel us to oppose the tr fer of Marad to the Department of Transportation, and to urge independence.

The maritime industry has experienced many changes in regi tory and administrative agencies. A brief review of the history of the changes may serve a useful purpose.

From 1916 to 1933, the U.S. Shipping Board operated, first ur the Shipping Act (1916) and then under the Merchant Marine A of 1920. This board was an independent bipartisan board with motional, administrative, and regulatory functions. It performed t functions during World War I and beyond. Among other funct it owned and operated vessels designed and constructed to meet maritime requirements during the First World War.

T

In 1917, the board chartered the Emergency Fleet Corporation ich acted as its agent in the ownership and operation of vessels acired or constructed by the board. From 1921 to 1927, this corporaon was directed by a separate individual under the supervision of the ipping Board.

In 1927, and until 1934, the operations of the Emergency Fleet orporation were absorbed and performed by the Merchant Fleet orporation, which in turn operated under the supervision of the hipping Board. From 1934 until the enactment of the Merchant Mane Act of 1936, the U.S. Shipping Board Bureau discharged the inctions formerly performed by the Merchant Fleet Corporation as constituent bureau of the Department of Commerce and operated nder the supervision of the Secretary of Commerce.

The 1936 Act created the independent bipartisan agency known as he U.S. Maritime Commission, which was invested with promotional, perating, and regulatory functions. Among the distinguished public ervants who headed the Commission during its brief life were the Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy and Admiral Emory S. Land.

In 1942, the President, by Executive Order 9054 of February 7, 942, created the War Shipping Administration which was directed by he Chairman of the Maritime Commission and given authority and esponsibility to carry out the wartime ship operations made necessary by World War II. The Commission directed the shipbuilding program, which was probably the largest and most suuccessful program of building merchant ships ever undertaken by any government. In 1950 by the 1950 Reorganization Plan No. 21, the Federal Maritime Board was created as a constituent part of the Department of Commerce, although the Secretary was denied the power to reverse or direct any regulatory decision made by the Board. Under Reorganization Plan No. 21 the Maritime Administration was created as an agency within the Department of Commerce, with residual powers vested in the Secretary of Commerce.

Reorganization Plan No. 7, 1961, created within the Department of Commerce the Federal Maritime Administration, with an administrator appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to direct the agency. The same reorganization plan created a separate and independent Federal Maritime Commission to regulate the maritime industry and perform other related activities.

Under Reorganization Plan No. 7 (1961) and Commerce Department Order No. 117 (August 11, 1961) the Maritime Subsidy Board was created with the Maritime Administrator as Chairman, and two other members drawn from the Maritime Administration.

Against this chronological recital of the changing maritime agencies, it is interesting to consider the numbers and tonnage of U.S. privately owned merchant ships built.

From 1916 to 1933, inclusive, while the U.S. Shipping Board was an independent bipartisan board, we built almost 2,000 ships of 10.5 million gross tons, or an average of 111 ships per year. This period inincluded the World War I years, 1917 and 1918, during which we built 506 ships of 2.3 million gross tons, or an average of 253 ships per year. This also included the post-World War I years, 1919 through 1921, when we built 1,268 ships of 6.5 million gross tons, or an average