The purpose of this bill is to provide educational training, vocational employment, disability and death benefits, and medical treatment to merchant marine war service personnel generally similar to those provided under the GI bill of rights for armed forces personnel. The bill provides for the issuance of certificates of maritime wartime service to persons who served at least 6 months of substantially continuous maritime service between December 7, 1941, and March 2, 1946, or a lesser period if such service was terminated by an injury or disease incurred or aggravated by such service, death, or detention by the enemy. Those persons receiving certificates of maritime wartime service are entitled to the benefits outlined below. A. Education and training 1. Preference in admission to any Federal and State maritime training schools. 2. One year's education or training at any institution approved by the Federal Security Administrator, and upon satisfactory completion of such course, an additional period of education or training equal to the period of maritime wartime service, the total of such education or training not to exceed 4 years. 3. Subsistence allowance of $60 per month, if without dependents, or $80 per month for persons with dependents, for persons pursuing such courses. B. Employment rights 1. To provide wartime service seamen with the maximum job opportunity, the Administrator of the Federal Security Agency is authorized to furnish such services and facilities as may be necessary or appropriate to such end. 2. Reemployment for persons who left their positions to serve in the merchant marine if application is made within 90 days after completion of merchantmarine service or termination of hospitals or other type convalescent care which immediately followed such service. C. Hospitalization, Medical Treatment, and Vocational Rehabilitation 1. Medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization for disabled wartime-service seamen incurring such disabilities in line of duty. 2. Appliances which are necessitated by disabilities incurred in line of duty, and training in the use of such appliances. 3. Transportation to and from Public Health Service facilities for such treatment as is required under (1) and (2) above. 4. Medical treatment and hospitalization for veterans of the merchant marine of World War I for injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by maritime wartime service and domiciliary care for such veterans who are permanently disabled. 5. Vocational rehabilitation for disabled wartime-service seamen under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1920. D. Disability and death benefits 1. All the benefits prescribed by the act entitled “An act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties," approved September 7, 1916, as amended, for wartimeservice seamen or their dependents where disability or death resulted from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by wartime service. 2. Flags to drape the caskets of veterans of the merchant marine of World War I and of the Spanish-American War when they die. The bill H. R. 476 is similar to H. R. 2180 and H. R. 2346 of the Seventy-ninth Congress concerning which the Navy Department recommended against enactment in its report to your committee on October 17, 1945. The present bill differs mainly from previous bills in that it makes no provision for medical treatment for dependents, loan privileges, unemployment compensation, and veterans' preference in Federal employment. The general purpose remains the same, however, which is to provide wartime merchant-marine seamen with benefits comparable to those granted veterans of the armed services. While it is recognized that employment in the merchant marine during wartime is frequently hazardous, and that merchant seamen have performed heroic deeds which contributed greatly to the war effort, they are, nevertheless, voluntary civilian employees whose duties and responsibilities differ greatly from those of personnel in the armed services. As civilians, they were exempt from military discipline and its attendant obligations. The time of separation from employment by personnel of the merchant marine lies to a great extent in their own hands, whereas service in the armed forces cannot be terminated voluntarily by the individual, who is subject to trial by court martial and penal sentence for desertion and other dereliction of duty. In addition to the above differences, merchant seamen received pay which was considerably greater than the pay of members of the armed forces. Furthermore, merchant-marine personnel received substantial bonuses for each voyage in the war zone, whereas personnel in the armed forces who performed hazardous duty in combat continued in receipt of their regular pay. In considering these differences, it is the opinion of the Navy Department that the bestowal of benefits on merchant-marine seamen, which would approximate those extended to veterans of the armed services, would be highly detrimental to the morale of the armed services and, therefore, would not be in the best interests of the country. If the present policy of the Government is to be changed by no longer limiting veterans' benefits to those who served in the armed services, then it would be inconsistent to limit such benefits to a special group of civilian maritime employees, and at the same time to deny similar benefits to other civilian workers who also performed hazardous and highly essential war work. Included in this latter category are thousands of civilian personnel who served with the armed forces overseas, many of whom were exposed to the dangers of the most active combat areas. In view of the foregoing comments, the Navy Department recommends against the enactment of the bill H. R. 476. The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation to your committee of such report on the bill H. R. 476 as may be deemed appropriate. Sincerely yours, JAMES FORRESTAL. Mr. BRADLEY. That completes the reports I now have on hand. We met this morning principally for the purpose of receiving statistical data from the Maritime Commission to insert in the record. We did not have a great deal of time as the House meets this morning at 11 o'clock and I do not know how soon a quorum call may come thereafter. We shall be pleased to have the Maritime Commission representative proceed with what presentation he would like to make. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday you asked for certain data on insurance and on wages and bonuses. We have Mr. Godfrey Butler, Director of the Maritime Labor Relations, and Mr. Paul Jackson, his assistant, here who will answer any questions that you might ask them. Mr. BRADLEY. I do not recall the exact questions we wished to ask. Mr. SANDERS. It was to justify the table which was presented. Mr. BRADLEY. I think the first question we asked was with regard to the various bonuses during the war. As I recall it, Mr. Levine gave us a fairly accurate presentation or picture of those bonuses just before we recessed. We should, however, appreciate a review by an official source such as the Maritime Commission. STATEMENTS OF J. GODFREY BUTLER, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MARITIME LABOR RELATIONS, MARITIME COMMISSION; AND PAUL JACKSON, MARITIME COMMISSION Mr. BUTLER. My name is J. Godfrey Butler. I am Acting Director of the Division of Maritime Labor Relations of the Maritime Commission and also serve as secretary of the Marine War Emergency Board which, as you know, is a nongovernmental agency set up by agreement between maritime unions and the maritime industry operators to have exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of war-risk compensation and insurance for merchant seamen during the period of the war. Mr. BRADLEY. May I interrupt just to confirm a previous opinion. Mr. Butler? As I recall it, the operators and the seamen, through their organization, got together and agreed to accept the decisions of this board of which you speak, during the war, did they not? Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. As I further recall, they did completely and honestly up to their commitments in that regard. live Mr. BUTLER. That is correct, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. Mr. BUTLER. At the time of the entrance of this country into the World War II there had existed various varied agreements between ship operators and their crews with respect to war-risk compensation and insurance. It became evident that a unified system of providing for bonus and insurance was necessary and, as an outgrowth of a series of meetings between the unions representing the employees and the operators who were the employers, the Board was vested with complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the question of bonus and insurance. With respect to bonus, while it has been referred to sometimes as a part of wages, the wage question and the wage element in the bonus was delegated, jurisdiction over that element was delegated by the War Labor Board to the Maritime War Emergency Board, so that the additional war-risk element was considered separate and apart from the basic wages and overtime provided for in the majority of the collective-bargaining agreements in existence between the unions and the employers. Mr. BRADLEY. We have heard during these long discussions quite a lot of these things. In order to keep right down to what we are driving at, we would like, if you can give it to us, a simple statement as to what these war-risk bonuses were, what they amounted to, and how they were achieved in the different periods. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BUTLER. Prior to our entry into the war the unions and the operators individually had arranged various systems of special compensation for voyages into danger zones, although we were not a combatant at that time. When the Board attempted to establish a uniform system of compensation they surveyed what had been done in the past, during the Spanish War and the early days of the world conflicts. Their first bonus ruling, which became effective on December 7, 1941, provided for voyage bonus which was separated into two types; that is, a high bonus rate of 100 percent of the basic wages, or $100 monthly minimum and, secondly, the low bonus rate of 40 percent of the basic wages or $40 monthly minimum. In addition to the voyage bonus, provision was made for port bonuses; that is, a form of war-risk compensation which provided payment in addition to wages and voyage bonus. Mr. BRADLEY. Is that in the last year's hearings? Mr. BUTLER. Part of that is. Mr. BRADLEY. Are you reading from the hearings? Mr. BRADLEY. What page? Mr. BUTLER. Page 134 of part 1, at the bottom of the page, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. Mr. BUTLER. Port bonus was paid on the theory that a vessel in a danger port was unable to maneuver, and, therefore, an easier prey to enemy attack. As the war developed Mr. MALONEY. What was that port bonus? Mr. BUTLER. It was graduated from a maximum of, I think, $125. Let me check one moment. It was a maximum of $125 for such ports as Russian ports, United Kingdom ports, Philippine and Far East ports, down to $100 for calls at such ports as Rangoon and north Ireland ports, somewhat removed from the most intense danger zones, and then down to $60 for calls at ports at such places as Iceland and the Persian Gulf. Mr. LATHAM. You say there was a bonus paid for ships while they were in north Ireland ports? Mr. BUTLER. For a call at a port at north Ireland. Mr. LATHAM. It made no difference how long the ship stayed there? Mr. BUTLER. A flat payment for calling at a port. Mr. LATHAM. Was there ever any raid in north Ireland ports? Mr. BUTLER. I have no record of that, sir. Mr. LATHAM. That island was neutral. Mr. JACKSON. North Ireland. Mr. LATHAM. I see, north Ireland. All right. Mr. MALONEY. Those are flat payments. They were not $125 a month. Mr. BUTLER. No; $125 for making a call there. If the vessel happened to stay there 1 day or 1 month that was paid. Mr. MALONEY. That was in addition to the voyage bonus? Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. That system of compensation by payment of port bonus was suspended in 1943, in March, by the installation of the system of port-attack bonus which was a form of war-risk compensation providing payment in addition to wages in the event an attack by enemy occurred while the vessel was within a port or harbor. The basic theory was that such a vessel was hampered by very limited maneuverability. Mr. MALONEY. What was the bonus on that? Mr. BUTLER. One hundred twenty-five dollars. Mr. MALONEY. A flat payment of $125. There was no graduated scale arrangement. Mr. BUTLER. That is correct, sir. One payment was made, even though a series of attacks in the same port might occur. Mr. MALONY. The regular port bonuses were eliminated, and as I understand it, this attack bonus took the place of it? Mr. BUTLER. That is correct. At that time certain areas were established of extreme or intense danger in which certain bonuses known as the area bonus was payable. That was a daily rate of $5. not contingent upon the vessel or crew being subjected to enemy attacks. Mr. MALONEY. In addition to the voyage bonuses? Mr. BUTLER. Yes. Mr. LATHAM. In general, what was the scope of the areas? It was Mr. BUTLER. Very limited areas around the north European land areas where the fighting was taking place and the area around the Philippine Islands. Mr. LATHAM. Close in? Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY. I believe, Mr. Butler, that this subject is very well treated in the letters printed on pages 131 to 141 of last year's hearings, one of which you have there now? Mr. BUTLER. That is correct, sir. May I say that these surveys of the bonus and insurance plans and the progress and development of the system in accordance with the progress and development and change in the type of enemy action which was to be encountered and experienced by merchant vessels formed the subject of these exhaustive discussions by the Maritime War Emergency Board of its system. Mr. BRADLEY. I would like to have included in the record here the letters commencing in the middle of page 131 of last year's hearings and extending up to the middle of 142. I think they present a very good factual analysis of the whole picture. Is that agreeable? (The committee on the question was unanimous in its approval.) (The above-mentioned letters appear in hearings before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 79th Cong. 1st sess., on H. R. 2346, H. R. 2180, H. R. 2449, and H. R. 3500, pt. 1, October 18 and 19, 1945, Government Printing Office designation 78434, as follows:) Hon. S. O. BLAND, MARITIME WAR EMERGENCY BOARD, Washington (25), D. C., October 16, 1945. Chairman, Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR JUDGE BLAND: The Maritime War Emergency Board desires to communicate to your committee its views on death and disability benefits for merchant seamen which we understand will be considered by your committee in its hearings on H. R. 2346 scheduled for October 18, 1945. This Board, members of which were appointed by the President, was created in December 1941 by an agreement between steamship operators and representatives of the maritime labor unions. It was vested with exclusive jurisdiction over questions relating to war-risk compensation and war-risk insurance for crew members of American-flag vessels. In discharging its responsibilities with respect to war-risk insurance, the Board has prescribed the terms of war-risk life insurance and war-risk disability protection for merchant seamen. It has constantly consulted with authoritative sources of confidential and authentic information and with the operators and the unions and has revised the terms of its war-risk life insurance and war-risk disability protection requirements in accordance with the information obtained and after careful consideration of all risks to which American merchant seamen have been exposed since the entrance of the United States into the war. Every effort has been made to afford to these seamen and to their dependents full and comprehensive protection against the dangers to be expected in the wartime operation of the American merchant marine. In developing the existing war-risk insurance plan, the Board has reached the limit of its authority and jurisdiction. While it has provided coverage against death and disability resulting from recognized risks of war and has extended the insurance coverage to certain perils which, under wartime conditions, were considered to be so intimately related to war causes as to be within the scope of the Board's jurisdiction, there remains a large field of operating and industrial risks during the war years against which there is no legal or contractual protection. The Board recognizes its inability to to provide benefits for loss of life or disability in cases where direct causative relationship to the operations of war does not exist but where, because of war conditions, it is impossible unqualifiedly to characterize the casualty as a normal peacetime occurrence. Without commenting upon the administrative provisions of the bill, the Maritime War Emergency Board recommends that the Congress give favorable consideration to providing benefits to merchant seamen who may qualify under the |