bill in case of death incurred in or resulting from such service. Attention is called to the fact that the 1946 amendments to title II of the Social Security Act relating to death benefits for the survivors of veterans of the armed forces provided against duplication of pension or compensation payable through the Veterans' Administration. Although the situation is not exactly parallel because veterans did not contribute toward the benefits which would be payable under the Social Security Act, solely because of their war service, none of the benefits otherwise payable on account of such service are paid after notice by the Veterans' Administration that pension or compensation is payable, and benefits previously paid are set off against accrued pension or compensation.

We are still of the opinion that adjustment should be made to avoid duplicating benefits payable on account of the same death, although some allowance may be made for the contributory nature of the old-age and survivors insurance and other social insurance programs.

Certain other questions concerning the drafting of the bill may be raised. Section 103 (a) provides for disability endorsements on the application of persons "eligible for disability benefits" under title V, but under section 501 eligibility cannot be established without such an endorsement. Line 8, page 24, contains some words which have no meaning with respect to the title, and we, therefore, suggest that the word "benefits" be substituted for that line. The purpose of the proviso beginning at the end of line 25, page 24, and ending in line 4, page 25, is not entirely clear but we believe the intent is to keep any part of wages or other payments made with respect to specific periods of time from being credited upon or applied toward the satisfaction of compensation which may be payable for any other period of time. The words "any sum received per month" seem inadequately descriptive of such payments and might in fact be held inapplicable to wages paid in lump, say, at the end of a voyage. On the other hand the proviso as phrased might give rise to the argument that a lump sum payment of insurance, a payment not designed to cover any particular period of time, should be credited only on the compensation payable for the month in which the insur ance payment was received. The next proviso, beginning in line 4, page 25, by the words "nothing in this section shall be deemed applicable, "seems to destroy the effect of the first proviso of the section making inapplicable section 7 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, with respect to social security benefits and contributory insurance, and thus to make section 7 applicable to these benefits. Two provisions in title VI seem to have been carried over from an earlier version of this bill and to relate to a different benefit system from that now proposed. We refer to the sentence beginning in line 12, page 27, and to section 604. The effect of this latter section might be to bar employees' compensation benefits even though certain payments made by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs are considered pensions not barring benefits under section 7 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. The first proviso of section 504 makes section 7 inapplicable to seamen's compensation.

Finally, if title V, or similar provisions, should be enacted that portion of Public Law 17, Seventy-eighth Congress (50 U. S. C. App. 1291), excepting seamen employed by the United States through the War Shipping Administration from the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, and 50 U. S. C. App. 1292 (c), providing payments for permanent total or partial disability in accordance with certain "rate schedules" should be modified or repealed.

We may summarize our views on the bill by saying that the objectives of titles III, IV and V, providing an educational benefit system for veterans of the merchant marine, expanding the authority of the Public Health Service to care for such veterans, simplifying the procedure for obtaining vocational rehabilitation, and providing compensation for injuries or death of wartime service seamen are highly desirable. We recommend, however, that the time limits for the educational program be extended, that relatively minor changes be made in the Public Health Service provisions to bring them into line with the character of that Service and make them consistent with the other provisions of the Public Health Service Act, and that the employees' compensation provisions be rewritten so as better to define the scope of coverage and division of responsibilities between the Chairman of the Maritime Commission and the Federal Security Admin istrator. We shall be pleased to have representatives of the various parts of the Agency affected by the proposed legislation testify before your committee when hearings are again decided on.

Time has not permitted us to obtain the advice of the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of the views expressed herein to the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

WATSON B. MILLER, Administrator.

Mr. ANDERSON. In the middle of page 20 you will notice a paragraph designated as (b). It states:

All records or copies thereof, in United States Government departments and agencies, domestic and foreign, pertaining to merchant seamen, their employment, training, conduct, hospitalization, illness, repatriation, insurance, death, detention by enemy; and insofar as it relates to seamen, all records or copies thereof pertaining to the torpedoing, shipwreck, or other marine casualties to any vessel, as defined in section 101 (d) of this act, from September 3, 1939, to March 2, 1946, shall be transferred to the Division of Wartime Service Benefits, United States Maritime Commission, with the exception of the active records of merchant seamen, maintained by the United States Coast Guard, which shall cooperate with the said Division of Wartime Service Benefits as to the verification of statements made by a seaman on his application for benefits under this act.

It provides for transferring records from certain agencies. We would like to have included the Public Health Service in these exceptions. The paragraph, of course, is relating, in our instance, to the medical records of seamen who have been cared for in our hospitals in the past. It is a policy of our hospitals to maintain records of all cases we have treated, for purposes of readmission and for past reference. We would prefer not to transfer a hospital record to some other agency. Any information they would desire would be furnished them in the form of a duplicate record or abstract, or whatever the requirements would be.

Mr. BRADLEY of Colifornia. It would be very easy to see why you would object to that. We have only a very few moments more before we have to adjourn. Would you care to comment at all on this question I'brought up as to the practicability of drawing the line somewhere in service-connected disabilities in the way of time limits, or would your idea be that it should be left wide open?

Mr. ANDERSON. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if I am competent to express any authoritative opinion other than to generalize by saying that I believe there is a time limit that is imposed. As, for example, the Bureau of Employees Compensation has designated an interval of time. They are an organization with considerable experience, and it would seem if they see fit to designate an interval, that it might be appropriate.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you. We will bring that out with the Bureau of Employees Compensation then. Thank you very much indeed, Doctor. We find it necessary to adjourn now because the House is going to meet. If we need further assistance we will call on you. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock the committee will reconvene with the intention of taking up the testimony of the Maritime Commission.

However, Mr. McCandless, at that time if it seems more desirable to take up the Employees Compensation or some other branch we can arrange that with you.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, sir. We will be very happy to accommodate you in any way the Chairman wishes.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee adjourned until Thursday, May 22, 1947 at 10 a. m.)

SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE,

ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Willis W. Bradley of California (chairman) presiding.

Present: Messrs. Bradley of California (chairman), Tollefson, Maloney, Allen, Seely-Brown, Brophy and Havenner.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We will have some other members in a very short time. The committee will meet now and in the meantime, Mr. McCandless, will you start, please? The other members will be ible to read the testimony you give.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES V. MCCANDLESS, ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION; C. W. SANDERS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MARINE DIVISION; DONALD R. HORN, ASSISTANT CHIEF, LABOR RESEARCH SECTION; PAUL 0. JACKSON, LABOR ADVISOR; AND LOUIS LANDE, ATTORNEY; ALL OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You may proceed whenever you are eady.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Would the Chairman prefer that I first read the tatement of the Maritime Commission which is printed as case docket No. 31, or would it be preferable to take the

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You may do as you wish. After all, you are giving the statement and you mak make it as you wish. We vill ask questions as you go along.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Then I think it would be preferable to read the tatement and let me stimulate such inquiries as the committee may vish to make.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Thank you.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. H. R. 476 would provide certain benefits, essenially civilian in nature and limited in extent, to seamen who volunarily rendered outstanding service to our country during the recent

war.

Theirs was a constant and dangerous service, covering every ocean nd sea. They took munitions of war through hostile waters to our allies and were in direct contact with the enemy long before our own armed forces were ready for full-fledged battle. Even before our country was directly involved by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,

a number of our merchant ships were sunk and their crews suffered death and injury in the fulfillment of their duties.

These men faced dangers of every kind, natural and man-made, but "delivered the goods" in every zone of war. Without a powerful American merchant marine, a most necessary auxiliary to the armed forces, the war could not have been fought, much less won.

From an estimated minimum of 55,000 men actively employed in our merchant marine on December 7, 1941, the number grew to approximately 250,000 in August 1945. In all, it is estimated that 400,000 seamen served in the maritime labor force between July 1941 and July 1945. Over 250,000 men received training at the training bases of the United States Maritime Service. Their work was considered so necessary that the Selective Service Board exempted seamen from military service. Furthermore, the armed forces released large numbers of men from active military duty, for service in the merchant marine, on the ground that they could render more vital aid to our country in that service.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Stopping right there for the moment. Mr. McCandless. the report of the Commission says that selective service exempted seamen from military service. I don't quite find that justified by the directives of the Selective Service System. Local Board Law No. 115-H, says

Men found by the local board to be actively engaged at sea may be considered as engaged in active defense of the country.

The question there is, "men actively engaged at sea," and your loose term which you have used in the Maritime Commission is "seamen." Seamen are in a great many places. They are ashore and in different establishments, and in a great many kinds of establishments. Would you consider those people as all being exempt?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Within certain limitations, yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sanders had direct contact in the administration of the relationship between the Selective Service System and the Maritime labor force. I think he can furnish it in detail and probably more convincingly than I.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am reading directly from the order. Would you amplify that, Mr. Sanders?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to 115-H, on the second page, of June 2, 1944? Subject, "Affirmative Men in the Merchant Marine and in Training Therefore."

Mr. BRADLEY of California. No; I was reading from paragraph B on the first page which seems to be

Mr. SANDERS. That is dated June 22, 1944.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. June 2, 1944.

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, June 2, 1944, and also the same date, June 2. 1944, this is signed by General Hershey, "Importance of Ocean-Going Shipping."

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Where is that exactly?

Mr. SANDERS. The second page you have, 115–H.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have 115-H, the second page.

Mr. SANDERS. The agreement made with the Selective Service for trained personnel was that they would be exempted in all cases, which was entirely up to the local draft boards, and the Selective Service had no control over the draft boards other than to issue directives.