90,000 or 91,000 men under the bill because of this requirement that the man sail continuously after entering the merchant marine.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Going back, Mr. Levine, to this part on page 5, line 21, and so forth-"or until such service is or was terminated upon a finding by the Chairman, in accordance with Regulations prescribed by the Chairman"-do you understand that to mean that in accordance with regulations heretofore prescribed by the Chairman or in accordance with regulations which might be prescribed next year or two years from now by the Chairman! Mr. LEVINE. I would understand that the Chairman would have to write regulations relating specifically to this bill, in other words subsequent to the bill.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Exactly, but when? One of the conditions of this bill and the looseness with which it is drawn is such that the Chairman of the Maritime Commission has it within his power to regulate large parts of it or to make certain provisions all inclusive. As I read this, I am simply trying to get your impression of it, a chairman could come in next year with very liberal ideas and could simply sit down and say, "Why, sure. I make regulations that anybody could quit when he pleased. So we will look back over the records, and anybody who quit is eligible."

Mr. LEVINE. The problem there is not that the regulations will be made with the Chairman but the problem is in the words "that such individual's continued service is or was no longer necessary." I participated in the drafting of some of the bill and originally it was meant that these types of old cases could be allowed to stop sometime in the middle of the war, I think. But that language never made much sense to me, "no longer necessary." Obviously the man was necessary at all times. He may not have been able to fill the job because of old age. I should think you would have to leave something up to the promulgation of rules and regulations because otherwise you have to be all-wise and all-seeing. You cannot possibly cover all the cases. You have to leave some judgment. You can circumscribe it by giving certain rules which the Chairman has to follow.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You can also circumscribe it by giving a date beyond which he cannot make any new rules?

Mr. LEVINE. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is one of the provisions?

Mr. BROPHY. There is an individual back there who raised his hand.

Mr. PAUL JACKSON. The bill has been amended by the Maritime Commission to make that clear to change it from the Chairman to the Administrator of the War Shipping Administration, who no longer is in existence. It was intended to refer to past regulations regarding relief.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is that in this amendment?
Mr. PAUL JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You missed that?

Mr. LEVINE. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. BRADLEY of Colifornia. I see that the Maritime Commission picked up that discrepancy, as I have, and has made a suggestion which would cover my objection.

Mr. LEVINE. I might say I am not going over all of the changes that he Maritime Commission proposed. They will do that themselves. picked out only the ones I thought we would have some interest in nd give you our viewpoints on it. I am glad that problem is leared up.

Let us move along to page 6. The Maritime Commission has an mendment proposed on page 6 which is a little confusing to us. I hould just like to suggest that it is somewhat confusing to us and uggest that you try to get it cleared up. They suggest that on line 21, fter the words "in such service" we insert the words, "and if not, he result of the seamen's misconduct and if not incurred or aggravated uring unauthorized absence."

You will note there that this states that a seaman does not have to e sailing during the period in which he has a disease or a disability, whether or not incurred in such service. Originally that was meant o cover the man who comes ashore perhaps after he signs off the ship and gets ill ashore that he should not have to go back to sea ill, but should not be deducted from maritime wartime service.

Mr. BROPHY. It would also take care of an individual who was sailng and then went into an office when he became ill?

Mr. LEVINE. Not if he is excluded in the other part of the bill. That s, not if the man has to have sea service all the time.

Mr. BROPHY. How about the fellow who would comply with the balance of the bill but still was ashore?

Mr. LEVINE. If you allow a man with service only six months and hen shore service he would not necessarily need this provision. Oh, t would take care of him while he was sick while in the training facilities. But that is a decision which we do not necessarily endorse. I represent primarily men who sailed only..

Mr. BROPHY. All right.

Mr. LEVINE. The thing that is a little disturbing there is that it is all right to say you should not deduct time that a man takes off from illness or disabilities incurred through his own misconduct, but if you say "not incurred or aggravated during unauthorized absence" I would like to make sure that that time after he signs off a ship and is ashore on legal time, that is, he is not overstaying his draft status, that does not mean unauthorized absence. He does not bother getting authorized leave for that period. He knows the draft board says he can have a certain number of days. I think the Commission means only when he gets ill ashore somewhere while overseas on unauthorized leave. would like the point cleared up when the Maritime Commission gets on the stand.

I

On page 7 I had some question with regard to lines 3 through 7. The Chairman has indicated he feels that section is very broadly drawn. I was going to make the suggestion there that if you do include some section like that, there is no reason to make it more restrictive than your citizenship requirements on page 5. You will notice on page 5 you are going to give a certificate to a man who is either a citizen, or was prior to July 4, 1946, a national, or a man who was a bona fide resident. On page 7, it is suggested the Chairman be allowed to give a certificate where it is against equity or good conscience to deny one only in the case where a man is a citizen or was a national prior to that time. You certainly, if you are going

to have a provision of this type, want to include the bona fide resident of the United States.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. This paragraph, as I see it, though. would permit of a determination for a certificate to anybody whom the Chairman of the Maritime Commission considered should have it. regardless of qualifications?

Mr. LEVINE. No: I should think the Chairman would have to have some reason. It seems to me you can not legislate-I am not a legislator-but you can not legislate to cover every possibility which exists in the world and at some point a discretion of the Administrator must come in. It may be this is a bad provision. I am not suggesting we necessarily support it. But if a thing like this is removed, I think we should go back over the rest of the bill and be careful to try to cover as many deserving cases as possible.

For instance, if a man had been hurt on December 6th by a German torpedo, say there were some ships which were torpedoed befor December 7, and if you had the stringent provisions of December 7 as the beginning date and you had no provision that the Chairman could give a certificate except under those terms, that man would be cut off forever.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Listen to this. A certificate of maritime wartime service may be issued for a seaman who is a citizen or was prior to July 4, 1946, a national of the United States when, in the judgment of the Chairman, the denial of a certificate of maritime wartime service would be against equity or good conscience. Any seaman-it does not say anything about where he must serve or what he must do who was a citizen prior to July 4, 1946, or a national of the United States, may be issued a certificate if the Commission wants to do it.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Did I understand you to say that that in effect excludes a bona fide resident who is not a national or a citizen? Mr. LEVINE. I would interpret it to mean that.

Mr. BROPHY. It depends upon who is interpreting it, though. Mr. LEVINE. I think it states that. I think it is very clear it excludes a bona fide resident.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. There is absolutely no limit on that. It states a man must be a seaman and he must be a citizen.

Mr. BROPHY. Or was a citizen.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Or a national. It is not necessary that he ever even served in the merchant service during the war in any way. He could have been a retired seaman before the war started. Mr. LEVINE. I suggest you ask perhaps Mr. McCandless or some of the other attorneys. I am not a lawyer so I do not know about that. Mr. BRADLEY of California. It seems like it is a joker in the thing. Mr. ALLEN. What would be equity or good conscience? Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have not idea.

Mr. ALLEN. I think the limitation there is that it can be granted only in certain conditions. The condition is when it would be against equity or good conscience to do otherwise.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In the opinion of the Commissioner. Mr. ALLEN. That is true.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is up to him.

Mr. BROPHY. If it happened to be his grandmother's uncle or something?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, it is taking legislative power away from Congress and giving it to an individual, in which I do not believe.

Mr. ALLEN. I would not go that far. I think it gives him the power but it also gives the court the power to determine whether or not he acted within the bounds of discretion.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, it would be necessary for the United States to start suit to prove the man was not entitled to it, which would be a very foolish situation.

Mr. LEVINE. In the absence of this neighborliness to ask for either a private bill or an amendment in individual cases where there is an injustice.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Far better to do that if those cases should come up, far better to ask for a dozen individual cases than o have a thousand which are unjust go in.

Mr. LEVINE. I do know the lawyers have some meaning for equity and good conscience. It appears in other bills. I suggest you ask the

awyers.

Mr. BROPHY. Maybe it takes care of a little of their business in nterpreting it.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. That is what makes life interesting in his country. We all have our own opinions.

Mr. LEVINE. I have no further suggestions on page 7.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Proceed.

Mr. LEVINE. On page 8 we come to a section entitled, "Disability Endorsements." The content of this section is that after finding that man is eligible for a certificate of maritime wartime service and issung such certificate the responsible authority under the bill may place disability endorsement upon the bill stating that the man has an jury or a disease which was incurred in or aggravated by maritime artime service. I will discuss those words, incidentally.

First I have a prior point. I think there is a little confusion in the ill which must be eliminated by virtue of the fact that this part f the bill is a carry-over, or somewhat of a carry-over, from the revious bill which contained disability benefits based on the veteran's oncept of physical impairment. I think I spoke a little of that yesteray. If we can go back to it a bit you will notice that down in lines 5 and 16 the disability endorsement would cover the nature of the jury or disease and the nature and probable extent of the disability sulting therefrom.

Those words "probable extent of the disability" are important if ou are following a concept of physical impairment. If you are folwing concept of loss of earning power, inserted in this bill, there no need to discuss the probable extent of the disability because that automatically and scientifically determined for you by the actual ss in earning power. Do I make myself clear on this point? Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes, I understand that.

Mr. LEVINE. Therefore it would be confusing to the Administrator O have the language which is at the end of line 15 and line 16 reaining here. I do not think it should be the responsibility of the [aritime Commission to say what the extent of a disability is, alhough I do think it should be their responsibility to say that the inry or disease was incurred in or aggravated by maritime wartime ervice. That is the next point I am getting to. We will need some

amendment there to bring that section in line with the new concept in title 5.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I think we should allow you only another 15 minutes, Mr. Levine, because that will be almost an hourand-a-half. The gentlemen must get back to their offices some time this afternoon.

Mr. LEVINE. All right, sir. I will try to cover just two points in the remaining 15 minutes. I think they are the two most pertinent points. One is this question of the conflict between the concepts of payment for disability and what these words incurred in or aggravated by maritime service would cover, and so, then the question of the education, which is the most controversial point in this bill. The United States Employees Compensation Bureau has suggested that merchant_seamen be placed under the provisions of their act as it exists at the present time.

I should like to get their report. They have a good point from their own viewpoint. Their point is that their act covers some 3,000,000 of the Government workers and that it is a problem to them if you bring in a new group of workers, a small group of workers, under somewhat different type of coverage than the act normally takes care of. However, it has been our feeling that if you brought the seamen in under the straight Workmen's Compensation concept that exists in the United States Employees' Compensation Act, that is the concept tha you have to prove causal relationship with the employment itself. you will defeat the purpose of this bill which is to cover a certain number of border-line cases which have not been covered to date to give them some sort of protection.

The Federal Security Agency says that if you want to accept the somewhat broader language, such as was incurred in or aggravated by maritime service that they prefer that the seaman be covered on the basis proposed in the bill, that the functions of this agency, meaning Employees' Compensation Bureau, be strictly limited to the determination of wage costs and the existence of the dependents and to the payment of benefits, all other eligibility determinations being made by the Maritime Commission. That is what we favor.

I am thinking mainly of some cases we have had during the war. cases, for instance, of tuberculosis. I know of a merchant seaman who had an examination in Seattle, the United States Public Health Serv ice. The X-rays showed no problem with his lungs. The man went to sea and came back after some 10, 12, or 14 months of sea service and now is in the United States Public Health Service facility in Fort Stanton, N. Mex., with tuberculosis and received no compensation. We endeavored to prove that in view of the fact the man did not have any recognizable tuberculosis in the first X-ray, and had been to sea in crowded conditions perhaps with a lot of carriers, perhaps in bad ventilation, black-outs, and inability to ventilate the ships properly. being common, perhaps that was an important contributing factor to his securing tuberculosis. We would like to see that type of case covered in this bill.

years

I have another case of a man who went to sea and after 2 of sea service is now mentally ill. The doctors analyzed the case and I will say the Maritime Commission tried to be extremely fair under the war risk insurance program. If there was some reasonable basis for feeling that such cases of mental illness were directly related to