Mr. BRADLEY of California. I do not know and they do not. They assume no responsibility whatever at those schools. When I went to sea they had no responsibility for the first 2 years at sea.

Mr. LEVINE. Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out I am providing this only for the information of the committee. I am not arguing in behalf of these men.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am bringing it up to see if you can give me an answer as to why we should do it.

Mr. LEVINE. The only thing I would like to say is that it has been told to me by the medical authorities that these men would probably not have contracted this disability if they had not gone to maritime training school.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That may be said about a man who goes to the theatre and gets a bad cold.

Mr. LEVINE. If that is the case I perhaps suggested one way of getting around this problem. I hope it is one way of getting around it; that is, making a minimum duration of 6 months or whatever the period might be of service, and that would automatically get any man out who had solely remained ashore. It would probably cover the man who had the minimum sea period and spent some time either in the maritime school or some time doing training and teaching.

On page 4, lines 15 and 16, certain categories of vessels are excluded from this bill. Lines 15 and 16 exclude: "Any vessel engaged in operation principally within ports or inland waters."

I notice the United States Maritime Commission is suggesting an amendment to state "within United States ports or inland waters." I can see the intention there is that if a man was on shuttle service or in war zone it would be included. That man was-in hazardous zones more than any other man. I do not know whether it includes the man in the Panama Canal, for instance. I think that should be asked. There may be some cause for covering men who have had some outside work out of the Panama Canal Zone. I know several men were killed on one tug which hit a mine and several other men killed on another tug which a Navy airplane crashed into. Those inen unfortunately have not received any compensation. They are not covered under the United States Employees' Act and nothing under war-risk insurance. We have had private bills in their behalf for some time and we have not been successful in securing coverage for them.

I am not suggesting they necessarily be covered in this bill. I am just asking that you make sure what the amendment means.

Mr. BROPHY. How about those people who might be operating in the St. Lawrence River? Certainly that would be inland water. Mr. LEVINE. Yes, sir.

Is the St. Lawrence River considered solely a Canadian thing up at the mouth? I imagine it is.

Mr. BROPHY. Take the Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. LEVINE. That would be excluded.

Mr. BROPHY. If you bring the Panama Canal, that was not hit and neither was the Sault. But there were more vital materials passed through the Sault than through the Panama Canal.

Mr. LEVINE. You are correct, sir. The only difference I could think of possibly is that the Panama Canal was mined and I do not know whether or not there were mines in the Great Lakes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. On that particular phase certain pilots' crganizations also are endeavoring to be included.

Mr. BROPHY. You mean from down at the Panama Canal?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. No, pilots' organizations operating out of United States ports. They are endeavoring to be included. Mr. LEVINE. Civil Air Patrol, sir?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. No, pilots.

Mr. BROPHY. River pilots.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Pilots, as we understand the word, are those who go aboard ships and handle ships.

Mr. LEVINE. I raised the Civil Air Patrol because in preparation I was reading a bill to give them certain compensation benefits back in 1943.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I would not be surprised at anything. Mr. LEVINE. We will get to that subsequently.

On page 5, lines 8 and 9, require that: "Application therefor is made prior to March 2, 1948."

The Maritime Commission suggests that instead of that you put in "one year after the date of enactment of this bill." I think that is in a sense just a technical change. This bill was written many months ago and I would suggest you be very liberal on that because even 1 year after the enactment date of this bill it may perhaps work some hardship on a small group of seamen who have employment contracts up to 18 months. They may be still in shuttle services. So something reasonable, a year after the date of enactment, or a year and a half would be better than this language.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why would you want it more liberal than a year?

Mr. LEVINE. I think it is possible that some seamen would be out of the country as much as a year.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you not think they would know about this in plenty of time?

Mr. LEVINE. I imagine if they can make their application by mail and can secure the forms overseas when their ship perhaps is in tramping duty then there would be no problem. It is something to look into. however, if we want to have a workable bill.

Lines 10 through 14 have been discussed partly before. Congressman Brophy has suggested that should we secure citizenship for cer tain alien war-service seamen, or secure legal entry for certain alien war-service seamen, they may be brought in under this section of the bill. I might say from our viewpoint unfortunately there is no bill at the present time introduced to give alien war-service seamen either citizenship or legal entry. We do not contemplate introducing such a bill and we do not expect any Congressional action on it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. However, there is such a bill before the Judiciary Committee, is there not?

Mr. LEVINE. The bill before the Judiciary Committee is H. R. 2933. We have suggested the Attorney General have the power to suspend deportations of certain alien war service seamen with a minimum amount of service during the war. I doubt if that would be considered that these men were legal residents prior to the date of the bill or that they are even legal residents-I guess they would be legal residents should the bill go through the Attorney General suspend the deportation.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Levine was right here present when the group of people from the America came in and made such statements before our committee, I believe.

Mr. LEVINE. That is right. Since that time we have decided that there is very little possibility of securing passage of such a bill and that the problem is largely restricted now to certain groups of seamen. I mean by that that 40 percent of the war service alien seamen came from Latin-American countries. Those men can secure immigration visas at any time provided they show the normal types of character references and things of that sort. There are no quotas from Latin-American countries. Approximately five percent of those aliens are married to American seamen, and so forth. They will not be deported.

Approximately 20 percent of the alien war service seamen come from countries in which the quota is not filled. They are largely English or British subjects, largely certain Scandinavian countries which have not usually-I do not believe at the present time-quotas from those countries are filled. That reduces to a smaller group of men, 20 to 30 to 40 percent of the wartime-service seamen, who are from countries where the quota is filled. They are mostly from Greece, Spain, Portugal, certain European countries, Belgium, Holland, and so forth. Those seamen would need something like a legal entry bill or a citizenship bill. We have had those bills introduced in past Congresses and they have not secured favorable action.

We have had many talks with the Judiciary Committee and find they are not receptive to this idea of citizenship or legal entry. The committee is partially receptive to the idea of giving the Attorney General discretionary powers with regard to perhaps stopping the deportation of certain of the more favorable cases in view of the fact that certain of the other men can get into the country through normal immigration procedures.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. As a matter of interest, you have mentioned stopping deportation. Where would you get any advantage except temporary.

Mr.. LEVINE. I believe the stoppage of deportation is permanent so the man gets legal residence. If not, the man would sooner or later get the 5 years accumulation of seatime.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is it necessary for those men you speak of, such as Scandinavians, to return to their own countries to get their visas or not?

Mr. LEVINE. No; it is necessary for them to go to any foreign country. You cannot secure a visa in the United States but in any foreign country you go to the consul and you secure your visa from him. I believe the practice of going to Canada has been recently stopped by the Canadians because so many went across the border and could not get back in that the Canadians were having an immigration problem. But the man would ship to Cuba or Europe. He could go to the consul there and make his application.

Mr. BROPHY. You said the Attorney General could act on the most favorable cases. That is the way I understood you.

Mr. LEVINE. It would be within his discretion within certain limits. Mr. BROPHY. When would the limit of favorable cases come to an end? When they were all in?

Mr. LEVINE. Perhaps.

Mr. BROPHY. After you skim off the cream then those that are not are then the most favorable cases.

Mr. LEVINE. I would say, Mr. Brophy, that en toto there are probably 1,000 to 2,000 men involved who cannot get into the country otherwise through normal procedures. After you make the requirements. character records and so forth, perhaps it might be as low as 500 to a thousand men who would be involved in the suspension of deportation. That is another matter. I am just trying to suggest that I do not see the problem of those aliens coming in under this bill. It may exist and you may want further legal help on it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am interested in getting these points clear as long as we have the time.

Mr. LEVINE. I would like to say, however, it is our feeling that the provision as it stands is unfair and alien wartime-service seamen ought to be included in some respects. Those respects are cases of disability, death, and hospitalization. We do not suggest an alien wartime seaman should secure educational benefits or any other type of benefit which goes beyond normal type of civilian benefits or normal merchant marine benefits.

We think, however, it would be rather unfair to take an alien seaman who is injured aboard ship in our war effort who is covered under the war-risk insurance, not being also covered in those cases under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. They do not discriminate against them, and one who is covered under Public Law 449 and say to him "In this bill, however, if you die your dependents are not entitled to further protection."

Let me expand on that a little. 449 said that where a man received certain insurance payments under the war risk insurance program, and those payments cease, where the benefits are exhausted, another system shall take up from the point where that other one ceases. For some strange reason the taking up from that point on was made for the disability but was not made for the death causes. It was a slip-up in some way.

So you would have an alien wartime-service seaman who was injured during the war, perhaps, continuing to get benefits under 449 but you might have the dependents of alien wartime-service seaman killed in the war and not getting benefits after the war risk insurance.

I submit that in our opinion there is something unfair about that and we certainly would like you to give consideration to coverage of alien wartime service seamen for those provisions relating to death. disability and hospitalization.

Mr. BROPHY. Will you qualify your statement as to why there was a slip-up on that? Could it have been premeditated?

Mr. LEVINE. It so happens the man who wrote the bill was Ed McLaughlin, a former assistant to Mr. Ackerson in the Maritime Commission. The Commission decided to go for the bill and they gave him the responsibility of writing the bill. I checked with Mr. McLaughlin and he knows of no barrier in the Commission's mind and no specific reason why they wanted them excluded. As far as I know from the man who wrote the bill and who wrote it under the Maritime Commission direction it was something of a slip-up and not-I think it was probably the case that certain injury cases were pertinent at the time.

Mr. BROPHY. I believe all matter referring to the slip-up ought to be stricken from this record. We can ask the Maritime Commission about it. It is only hearsay. It is not fact.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I think it would be well to eliminate anything which might be considered critical because it might prejudice

your case.

Mr. LEVINE. It is not meant in a critical sense. It was my impression when the bill was written, and we urged the Maritime Commission, the bill should cover borderline cases. We thought until the day the bill was passed

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why do you not say that, then, and leave nothing the Maritime Commission could criticize?

Mr. LEVINE. I will move on. Mr. Haddock wants to make some points on that alien thing but I raise it for your consideration.

Now there was some discussion this morning on eligibility under this bill. It was questioned as to whether or not a man could serve just 2 years and then leave sea service without any decent reason and be covered under this bill. I should like to call your attention now to the provisions in lines 16 on page 5 through line 2 on page 6. You will note that that provision states that "Such maritime service was either of a duration of at least 6 months-" and that is the point where I suggested possibly you might want to consider adding sea service in there"and substantially continuous by serving not less than 9 months in each 12-month period or a proportional part of periods of less than 12 months from the beginning of maritime wartime service by such individual until March 2, 1946, or until such service is or was terminated upon a finding by the Chairman, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Chairman, that the individual's continued service is or was no longer necessary but not as a result of his own misconduct." Then it goes on to allow the man to get coverage before that date if he is injured before that date.

I should like to point out that what is stated here is that the man must have at least 6 months, but once he enters the merchant marine his service from that date forth must be continuous until March 2, 1946, unless the Chairman decides otherwise. The reason this is put in here, that the Chairman can decide otherwise, is that certain very aged men were taken into the Merchant Marine, they sailed a year or a year-and-a-half, they were in bad shape, and if they wanted to make an appeal to the Chairman that they had served their service and should be released, the Chairman should have some right to release those men.

But the only men who could serve a minimum of 6 months and get away with that being the maximum would be a man who started 6 months before March 2, 1946, because he would have served the 6 months and then there would be no need for continuing service thereafter.

This suggestion that the service must be at least 9 months out of every 12 months is a very stringent provision. I note that the Maritime Commission in its report estimates that 137,000 men out of 256,000 men would not come in under this provision. They would be irregulars and would not be eligible to the benefits of this bill.

In other words, about more than 50 percent would be knocked out of the bill by this provision. You would get coverage of perhaps only