I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. POLLOCK. I thank the gentleman from the State of Washington. He has been a distinguished member of the committee.

I should like at this point to say that while I am sure there are Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in support of the position I have taken today, candidly I must state that the present administration does not seem to be very friendly to the merchant marine or to the commercial fishing industry. Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POLLOCK. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama. Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Alaska shows remarkable insight into a very difficult problem, in the short time he has been here. I want to commend the gentleman for getting into the subject, for understanding the subject, and for coming here today and clearly expressing to us the real problem which confronts this Nation so far as the merchant marine and fisheries industries are concerned. Mr. Speaker, it is always a problem when we start comparing our situation in the merchant marine and fisheries industries with that of Russia, for example, a Communist or socialist country where the state owns and constructs the vessels.

I am sure the gentleman in the well agrees with me when I say I still have great faith in the old American ingenuity, in the free enterprise system. I am convinced that our free enterprise system can, if we will but put our minds to it, find the answers to these problems without having to follow in the footsteps of our Socialist friends across the sea in solving the problems.

Mr. POLLOCK, I believe the problem in the area of the merchant marine is that we are not talking about small investments but are talking about rather massive investments.

This is an area where I believe the U.S. Government can effectively work in partnership with private industry, such as we see in Japan. The Government there does not own the industry in Japan, but it does provide research facilities and does provide excellent financing. It has incentives for those people in private industry. Together they have a very workable partnership.

I believe our Government thus far has not been sufficiently interested to make this a very satisfactory arrangement so far as industry is concerned.

Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. The gentleman is correct. The big problem is, I believe, that our maritime industry desperately needs a sense of direction. We have been floundering around in the maritime field because there has been no national policy to give us a direction.

As the gentleman from Washington stated a moment ago, we were promised, some 2 years ago or a year and a half ago, that we would receive such a policy or such a direction from the administration and it has not been forthcoming. We find ourselves today with the Maritime Administration in the Commerce Department, but all the so-called policy and main decisions are being made in the Department of Transportation by the Secretary of Transportation. Obviously this is because the administration wants the Maritime Administration in that Department.

I hope we will find the Maritime Administration eventually an independent agency, where it can do the job that needs to be done.

The gentleman has done a real service to the House, I think, and to the Nation. He serves his State well, and I think he is serving the Nation well in bringing this present problem to the floor here today. I want to commend him for it.

Mr. POLLOCK. I thank the distinguished and very capable gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from the State of Washington. I enjoyed having them participate in this colloquy on the floor today. I think it is time that this information should be brought forth so that all of the Congress and indeed all of America might take a new and fresh look at the problem we have and perhaps consider the possibility of this new approach.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I have no questions. However, I do think Mr. Pollock has made a great contribution. We have become preoccupied solely with the merchant marine question and certainly the whole issue of the proper development of the resources of the sea is as much in the national interest as the maritime problem with which our legislation

deals.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sure you are aware that this committee has passed legislation which is now law and which has set up a Commission to study somewhat this problem which you have mentioned. We went into it in some detail in the past Congress. That is to have a study on the maritime resources and how it should be developed, and of the organization as well. It is to make its report to the Congress and to the President through a national council on marine resources we hope in about 6 more months so that we should have something that could perhaps help us in solving this problem that you have pointed out today.

Mr. POLLOCK. I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remark that some of the statistics that were brought forward yesterday before this committee, I think, were really a startling demonstration of what has happened by taking the Maritime Commission and putting it under the Department of Commerce and what really has happened since then.

If we could bring this whole aspect of the ocean development into a coordinated unit with the merchant marine, the fisheries, the oceanography, and all of it into one aspect of major importance with an ear right at the White House, I think we would tend to achieve somethings that we have all been striving for and maybe skirting around. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pelly.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, in line with Mr. Rogers' reference to the study of marine resources, I think we only have to look back and see what happened when President Eisenhower recommended an agency for the exploration of space to see what tremendous strides have been made in that respect.

I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska for combining all of the various marine resources in his presentation on this subject today. I hope that those who are studying the marine resources problem, through whom the recommendation to the President will come to Congress one of these days, will consider the testimony and remarks of the gentleman from Alaska. I hope his statement gets to them, because I think it would be very helpful.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Murphy?
Mr. MURPHY. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lennon.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska who has brought to this committee the enthusiasm and interest and dedication and an unusual amount of knowledge and concern for our problem.

the

I think it would be well for this record to show that in December of 1960 the then chairman of this committee, Chairman Bonner, wrote to the then Senator Jack Kennedy, the President-elect, and suggested to him that there be brought together into one central agency Maritime Board, the Maritime Administration, the Coast Guard. the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, certain functions of the Hydrographic Office and facets of oceanography that you have indicated are spread among 22 agencies. That was in December of 1960.

I think it would be well for the gentleman to be advised, and I am sure that perhaps he already has, as the gentleman from Florida indicated, that we wrestled with this program and problem for several years culminating in a series of 10 total days of hearings.

We had some 42 suggestions. Among those was what the gentleman has suggested. I must say that some of those gentlemen, after hearing the testimony and rationalizing in trying to reach a judgment with respect to the type of legislation that we could hope to get enacted into law through the help of our counterparts on the other side of the Capitol, as well as the executive branch and the agencies there, ultimately came to a recognition that the roles and missions of certain agencies of the Federal Government were such that you could not at that time bring together such a grouping as you have indicated, and, as the gentleman from Florida has so well put it, we had a problem.

We finally resolved it, as you know, under the Marine Science Engineering and Resources Act of the 89th Congress, which was enacted into law, signed by the President on June 17, of 1966, just last year. We had some doubt and fear that the establishment under that act of a national council would preempt the Commission from making a fair evaluation and a determination as to the governmental structure.

I would say to the gentleman that one of the things that we emphasized not only in our report but in the language of the act was that the Commission would make a recommendation with respect to governmental structure such as you have just indicated.

Now, let me say to the gentleman that assuming that the Congress should pass such legislation as you have introduced, we would be impaled on the horns of not one dilemma, but I am afraid several, because of the jurisdiction involved. Since I happen to serve on the Armed Services Committee, the Navy has historically taken about 70 percent of our total budgetary figure each fiscal year for oceanography related principally to antisubmarine warfare. That committee has the authorizational process, as the gentleman so well knows. I don't think you would ever take it away from that committee.

You move into some of these other things that you have suggested be brought together, and we would be faced with the dilemma of what legislative committee on the Hill would have the authorization.

I might say to the gentleman, too, that I was afraid with the estab lishment of a national council that there would be some inhibition on the part of the Commission, which included the private sector of our economy, as related to ocean science and marine science, and they might hesitate to recommend a governmental structure since there was one permanently in existence.

So we resolved that, as the gentleman knows from the study of Public Law 89-454, by providing that the Council, too, should phase out of existence, I believe, 120 days after the Commission makes its report. As a member, along with the distinguished gentleman from Ohio who is not here, Mr. Mosher, I will assure the gentleman that I am well pleased with the attention and interest and effort that is being made not only by the Council but by this Commission headed by a very distinguished scientist, Dr. Stratton.

I might say, since there are so many Members here this morning who are on the Oceanography Subcommittee, that, if our plans are not changed, on August 17, Thursday, in connection with the monthly meeting of the Commission in Washington, that we will hear members. of the Council with respect to their activity. We had hoped to hear them on the 15th of August and on the 17th of August hear the members of the Commission, but Dr. Stratton has to be out of the country up until that time, and he suggested to me just this week in cor respondence and in conversation that the Commission will be prepared in early September, before the 15th of September, to appear before our committee, and the distinguished Member is a member of that subcommittee, to report.

There is a possibility that we may have to amend the law to extend the time for them to make the report because they are giving the time and interest and dedication to the assignment as members of the Commission that I had hoped that they would.

I commend the gentleman again, and I am sorry I took so much of your time, Mr. Chairman, but I thought this might be of interest to the other members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Grover.

Mr. GROVER. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dow.

Mr. Dow. Not really, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the Representative from Alaska for shedding a great deal of illumination on a very serious problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. Dow. Indeed.

Mr. LENNON. Can I ask the gentleman from Alaska to do me a personal favor in connection with the statement you made here today and the statement you made on the floor?

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes.

Mr. LENNON. Counsel from this committee will furnish to you the names of the members of the Commission appointed by the President, and I would appreciate it if you would send to each member of that Commission a copy of the statement that you made on the floor and of the statement that you made here today, and a statement that you are doing it at my request.

Mr. POLLOCK. I would be happy to. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards?

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman has become a very valued member of the committee in a very short period of time. He has given a very fine statement today. Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reinecke.

Mr. REINECKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to congratulate Mr. Pollock. I think it is interesting to note from the statement of the committee that we seem to have almost unanimous approval of the statement of the gentleman from Alaska, yet in almost complete opposition to the people downtown.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roth.

Mr. ROTH. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ashley.
Mr. ASHLEY. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clark.

Mr. CLARK. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ruppe.

Mr. RUPPE. No questions. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Alaska on a very fine statement and a very fine approach to the problem at hand.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pollock.

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness will be a distinguished member of the committee and of the subcommittee, Mr. Murphy of New York. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 154, a bill I introduced in January of this year to amend title II of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to create an independent Federal Maritime Administration.

This bill would do much to strengthen the needs of our defense and commerce as intended in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The intent of Congress as set forth in that act was to have an American-flag merchant fleet capable of carrying a substantial portion of our waterborne commerce and of serving as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.

Despite this clearly stated purpose, however, our American-flag merchant marine has continued to decline in terms of number of ships, in percentage of our cargoes carried by these ships, and in terms of job opportunities for American maritime workers.

Today America rates sixth in active tonnage and trails the Soviet Union. American-flag ships participating in foreign trade handled only 10.5 percent of our foreign trade in 1960; today it has fallen to 7 percent. In comparison, the last time the Maritime Administration was an independent agency, American-flag ships handled 41.4 percent of our foreign trade.

In addition, two-thirds of our active tonnage is obsolete and our merchant marine faces 80-percent bloc obsolescence if positive action is not taken. In striking contrast to this dismal outlook, a recent article in Lloyd's list pointed out that 80 percent of the Soviet Union's 1,360 ships have been built in the last 10 years. Two-thirds of their vessels can develop a speed of over 14 knots, and they have a total deadweight tonnage of 9,450,000 tons. Because of the recent construction of their ships. most are automated and mechanized.

Although the figures on American-flag ships are not exactly comparable, they are relevant. Of the 955 private American-flag ships, nine cruise under 10 knots, 438 between 10 and 15 knots, 475 between 16 and 20 knots, 32 from 21 to 25 knots, and one over 25 knots.