Page images
PDF
EPUB

dangers much quicker than the ordinary man who was inducted into the armed forces.

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a long way from a veterans' bill. As I understand the bill, it gives certain limited basic benefits to wartime service personnel in the merchant marine. I am certain that the committee has read the hearings that were conducted here in the Seventy-ninth Congress and is familiar with all the arguments which have been brought out. But an analysis of the bill will show that it is limited principally to hospitalization, death and disability benefits, and educational benefits. That, of course, is a far cry from veterans' status or veterans' benefits. I do not think it can be logically argued that these benefits should not be extended to the members of the merchant marine, particularly, Mr. Chairman, the educational benefits. During the war I had the privilege of serving in the Navy and with the Marine Commission in the maritime service. We trained several hundred thousands of men for the merchant marine. Many of these men, as a matter of fact, toward the end I would say the majority of them, were youngsters just turned 16 years of age. They were not even eligible for the draft. They were 2 years ahead of the draft. They went in and served, many of them coming back with the same disabilities as the men who had served in the armed forces. In addition to that, their educations were interrupted at a very early time in life.

It seems to me the height of folly for the Congress of the United States to deny these men educational benefits. Certainly from the standpoint of the advancement of our country there is a necessity for an intelligent citizenry. Among these 200,000 men―or probably much less than that because I think 200,000 is about the over-all forceI would say maybe 100,000 men would have the opportunity of becoming educated, qualified, competent American citizens.

On hospitalization benefits, the members of the merchant marine already are entitled to hospitalization to a limited extent. All this bill does, in my opinion after analyzing it, is to extend those benefits and to recognize the fact that a man who suffered a disability, while serving during the war on a merchant ship, should be entitled to. Government care and treatment in Government hospitals for the balance of his life or disability which was sustained as a result of war service.

I am not going to take any further time of the committee. The question of pay, of course, definitely will be raised. But there are charts and tables in your hearings which are pretty conclusive on that matter. I believe if you will approach that from any fair-minded point of view and analyze a serviceman's pay plus the benefits he was granted—and properly so-by a grateful Government, insurance, death and disability benefits, hospitalization, travel allowance, terminal leave, and all the other benefits which are too numerous to mention, income tax preference, free postage I am just thinking out loud-and compare that to the seaman who was considered as a civilian and who drew pay only while he was aboard ship, which was usually about 10 months in the year and who paid the withholding tax, and who had not only shore privileges or benefits for dependents that the members of the armed forces had, I believe in many cases his pay situation compares unfavorably with the members of the armed forces.

When you go into the real question of veterans' benefits I am quite certain it is an unfavorable comparison. I had a talk once with General Bradley. He said that they had calculated that if they could pay each veteran of the armed forces the flat sum of approximately $15.000-$15,000 to each man- and upon the payment of that amount of money be finished with Government responsibility, that actually the Government, according to their figures, would save money. So I think on the pay proposition a fair analysis of it will show a disproportion actually does not exist.

There is one other point, I would like to make before concluding. We have fought two wars within the past 25 years. At the inception of both wars one of the real problems facing our Nation was necessity of providing for an adequate merchant marine. You members of the Merchant Marine Committee know how inadequate our merchant marine was at the beginning of this war and how pitifully inadequate it was at the beginning of the First World War, and how little effort was made during the time elapsing between the First World War and the Second World War, to maintain an adequate merchant marine in this country. It was only upon enactment of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 that the Congress recognized the national security of the United States was inescapably tied in with a fleet which was capable of carrying the commerce of this country.

I come from a seaport city. Our very lifeblood depends upon ships that come in and go out from all the ports of the world. We are a commerce-minded community. We are an old seaport city. We feel this type of legislature will help build the morale of the members of the merchant marine. It is awfully difficult to tell a youngster 16 or 17 years of age who served for maybe 3 or 4 years in submarine-infested waters and who saw his shipmates lost and wounded and injured that he actually did not serve in the war. Certainly he comes back with pretty poor opinion of the American concept of service in the merchan marine.

I feel that to establish the morale of those men is vital to the com tinued success of the American merchant marine, and I believe this legislature will go a long way in doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Any questions, gentlemen?

Mr. POTTS. Mr. Boggs, do you consider that this will finish, so to speak, paraphrasing General Bradley's language, the requests for aid of the Government?

Mr. BOGGS. I think it probably will, sir, so far as the merchan marine is concerned. I won't go into the armed forces situation. Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Boggs, you stated you thought the pay of the merchant seaman would be possibly less than that of the Navy. you any figures to substantiate that?

Hav

Mr. BOGGS. Yes. If you will look at pages 260 and 261 of the hear ings before this committee, part 1, October 18 and 19, 1945, you will se charts on that.

I think on page 101 there is something further on that. In any event the record is replete with those figures, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Boggs. We appreciate your coming here to testify.

Now, gentlemen, we have a quorum of the whole committee present. There are two bills with which Subcommittee No. 1 recommended unanimously to the whole committee on Thursday last. We must take these opportunities with the full committee present to get them out. I know they meet with the approval of the chairman.

Therefore I shall turn the gavel over to Mr. Potts and recess this subcommittee meeting for 5 minutes or more in order that the full committee may act upon these two bills we considered on Friday. We will recess for approximately 5 minutes.

(Recess taken.)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The subcommittee will come to order again. Gentlemen, this subcommittee meeting will recess at 11:30. At that time we will take up these two bills I mentioned in executive session. If you gentlemen do not wish to remain for all of this hearing we would like to have enough of you back at 11:30 to have a quorum to act upon the other bill. It was deemed better after discussion, to take up these matters in executive session rather than in open meeting since they have already been heard.

Are there other Members of Congress who wish to be heard on H. R. 476?

(No response.)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Does any member of the committee wish to be heard?

(No response.)

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The next witness is Mr. McCandless, assistant to the Maritime Commission.

STATEMENT OF JAMES V. MCCANDLESS, ASSISTANT TO THE

MARITIME COMMISSION

Mr. MCCANDLESS. At this time, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we would like merely to offer ourselves as available for any questions that the committee may wish to ask and to reserve the privilege of filing a report in the near future when the presently constituted Maritime Commission may have an opportunity to review the bill. It so happens that the constitution of the Commission at the present time is entirely different from what it was when H. R. 2348 was previously considered.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. One may say the same, Mr. McCandless. about the committee.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I see a few familiar faces.

Mr. LATHAM. You mean the Commission is not taking a position on this bill at all?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I am sure they will take a very definite position on it. But until such time as it can be thoroughly considered, I am sure they would rather we not make any statement for the Commission itself.

Mr. BONNER. At present the committee has not filed a report on the bill.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. That is right. We wish to do so in the near future.

Mr. BONNER. Have you received a request?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. We received a request which I believe came to us on the 10th or 11th.

Mr. WEICHEL. You are speaking in behalf of the Commission. Do you expect to review the bill and make a statement paragraph by paragraph of the discussion?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes. We will be delighted to furnish a complete report on the bill.

Mr. WEICHEL. Paragraph by paragraph?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. WEICHEL. Not just an over-all story or speech? I mean we want to be able to examine it and know what we are expected to do and not be expected to do. That is what I mean.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. May I say for your information that I realize this meeting has been called very early in the game. It is so called because of the fact that our chairman, Mr. Fred Bradley, and Judge Bland made definite promises it would be called almost immediately after the convening of the present session. That is the reason we are meeting before all the data is prepared. I believe the meetings will be considerably extended while this data is being prepared.

Does anyone of the members desire to question Mr. McCandless while he is on the stand?

Mr. KEOGH. Any question you would be asked today would be your personal opinion? You would not be reflecting the opinion of the Commission?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. That is right, Mr. Keogh.

Mr. BONNER. It would be difficult to consider the testimony of other witnesses before knowing what the position of the Maritime Commission would be with respect to this bill, Mr. Chairman. That would be my personal feeling.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I do not believe we will be able to go very far before we get the report of the Maritime Commission. Mr. BONNER. The present witness could not express a view of the Maritime Commission, as Mr. Keogh has developed. What good will his testimony be?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. We have other representatives who may have some definite testimony, like the Social Security, and all that. We can hear them if they are ready, at least up until 11:30.

Mr. POTTS. Do you have any idea when the report might be forthcoming or when the Commission will have studied it sufficiently to enable them to come to a conclusion or a position on this legislature? Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think it would be at an early date, Mr. Potts. Mr. POTTS. Would you say 3 weeks, a month, 6 weeks? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. POTTS. What time within that period?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. It may be much shorter than a month. We will try to get it in at the earliest possible time.

Mr. POTTS. I have in mind that is a major consideration in determining subsequent hearings on this bill. If we can have a pretty good idea of what time we can expect a report from the Maritime Commission it will enable the chairman to fix dates for subsequent meetings.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I should say 3 weeks to a month at the very outside, if not before.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to move now that we recess until such time as the Maritime Commission has prepared this report so that we will all be familiar with the information previous to any action we may take on the bill before us.

Mr. LATHAM. I don't see any reason why we could not hear any of the other gentlemen who have come some distance to speak here today.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I hear no second to the motion.

Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second the motion. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Motion has been made and seconded. Mr. WEICHTEL. I would like to amend it if I may, and state I would' like to adjourn this hearing until the call of the Chair. At any time he sees fit we may go ahead.

Mr. BROPHY. I will accept the amendment.

Mr. LATHAM. Could you tell the committee who is here to speak this morning in addition to the gentleman who is now before us, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The amendment has not been seconded. Is there any second to this motion to adjourn subject to the call of the Chair?

Mr. WEICHEL. I might say this: Take those who are here if there is anything you can hear today up until the time you will consider these matters in executive session.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The motion was made and secondedMr. KEOGH. May I make a suggestion to table the motion until we reach 11:30 and then decide what we will do with these hearings? Mr. BRADLEY of California. Is that agreeable?

Mr. WEICHEL. Yes.

Mr. BROPHY. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The motion will be disregarded. We will not table it because it was not seconded.

Do you wish to ask any questions of the witness?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. McCandless, are you familiar with H. R. 2346 and also this new H. R. 476?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. So you can tell us if they are identical or what changes there are?

Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes. H. R. 2346 was a very inclusive bill. It included all of the provisions that are in 476 together with loan provisions and some other items. This bill, during the consideration by the committee after the hearings, was shortened to delete a number of the provisions of H. R. 2346 and leave it with the hospital and disability benefits, education, reemployment rights which now apparently are no longer necessary in this bill because they were covered by Public Laws 660 and 692 of the last Congress, and the compensation provision and the hospital benefits under the Public Health Service. The provisions presently in the bill extend slightly the Public Health Service available to merchant seamen. They presently are covered so long as they remain a part of the merchant marine and do not engage or abandon the merchant marine for a period of 90 days. This bill will mainly provide hospitalization for latent injuries or disabilities which do not manifest themselves for a substantial length of time. The other main purposes of the bill, besides the

« PreviousContinue »