That should be in the parenthesis and followed by a parenthesis. To further carry out Mr. Curran's observation with respect to the use of the discharge certificate as a means of maintaining the record of a seaman's applications for benefits the National Maritime Union recommends that beginning with the word "notwithstanding" in line 22, page 51, and ending with the word "documents" at line 8, page 52, be deleted. It completes that paragraph.

Before concluding, I would like to make one observation with respect to a statement made by one of the previous witnesses, Mr. J. J. Collins, while the testimony is fresh in our minds. It refers to the fear that Mr. Collins had that members of some unions, presumably the unions which Mr. Collins is counsel to, might be forced and obliged to go to registration halls and submit to the coercive tactics of employees of the trade unions, such as agents and delegates who might be delegated by the Board to enforce its acts. That there is no basis for such a fear is borne out by the fact that on page 9, subsection (n) of section 1, the term "registration office" is defined as follows: The term "registration office means a registration facility operated by the board."

Now, the Board would not employ a union official to do its work. It is operated by that agency, and if, for instance, in the administration of it it may be helpful and economical to ask a bookkeeper in the union to assist it with a schedule of employment, it would be free gratis, and in the interest of facilitating the administration of it and in the interest of economy that might be done, and there seems to be no reason why Mr. Collins should fear that members of his union would be forced or coerced into submitting to the coercive practices of any other union representatives. The Board operates those agencies, and no other person, and I have studied this bill quite carefully. I do not recall anywhere in the bill a mention of the words, "company union," that use of the term, "company union." Of course, if it should be used, and Mr. Collins fears that it is a term that should not be used, why, then, of course, there is no serious objection to deleting it.

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes; it is in there on page 18.

Mr. STANDARD. On page 18?

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes; it just happened to catch my eye. It is in section 3 under (c) down there and says, "As a condition of being employed he would be required to join a company union."

Mr. STANDARD. This page seems to have escaped notice on my part. Perhaps we did not believe it was important if "company union" has been used.

Mr. BRADLEY. It is used there.

Mr. STANDARD. In the decisions of the circuit courts and in some decisions of the Labor Board the words "company union" and "dominated union" are used interchangeably, and if those words are offensive to Mr. Collins, of course, there would be no objection to having them deleted. I did not recall seeing it, and I am glad you brought it to my attention, Mr. Bradley. That is all I have to say. I shall be glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of the witness? Congressman Beiter.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Beiter.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALFRED F. BEITER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. BEITER. Mr. Chairman, my attention was called to H. R. 5446 yesterday by a group of men representing employees on boats on the Great Lakes, and they were concerned about the amendment suggested by Mr. Standard a moment ago, that portion of section 1 (b) in which the words "exclusive of commerce exclusively on rivers, inland lakes, and the Great Lakes, or within a port," occur. If that were eliminated I do not believe there would be any objection coming from the seamen employed on the Great Lakes at the present time. As the bill is drafted now there seems to be just a question or doubt as to whether or not the seamen employed on the Great Lakes would be entitled to the benefits under this act, and, of course, we are very much concerned about it. We would like to have the seamen on the Great Lakes included in it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that the statement was made by Mr. Latimer initially that as the bill is drawn they would not be included; is not that right, Mr. Latimer?

Mr. LATIMER. That is correct. There are provisions in sections 13 and 14 which would have the effect of at least extending their coverage including employment on the Great Lakes and on the inland waterways and in the harbors.

Mr. BEITER. Would that require additional legislation in order to have the States set that up so as to cover them?

Mr. LATIMER. Yes; it would require additional legislation to extend the coverage, but the penalties for not extending the coverage would be so great that the States would virtually be compelled to enact additional legislation.

Mr. BEITER. However, that would require some additional time and in some States the legislatures do not meet for another year or 2 years, and they certainly would not call a special session of the State legislature to conform with this.

Mr. LATIMER. That is true.

Mr. BEITER. So that if the amendment suggested by Mr. Standard was carried out those words could be eliminated.

Mr. LATIMER. If those words were eliminated, the States would be compelled to include them within the coverage.

Mr. BRADLEY. You do not mean to tell me, Mr. Latimer, that the Federal Government passes laws and tells the States to comply with them? What has happened to States rights?

Mr. LATIMER. There has to be a standard added to the existing standard setting down specifications for State laws so that coverage would be extended to include maritime workers.

The CHAIRMAN. My only purpose in interjecting at that time was to clarify your understanding as to whether they were in or out.

Mr. BEITER. That is right. If the seamen on the Great Lakes are included, I won't raise any objection to the bill; I will support it. but if they are excluded I would like to see the bill amended so that they can be included, because I do not think they should be discriminated against. They should be accorded the same privileges as the seamen that operate on the salt waters, and I hope in your discussions here that that will be brought out, and, if necessary, you will amend the bill so as to include seamen on the Great Lakes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. BEITER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

Mr. BRADLEY. One more question. Mr. Latimer, my attention has been called to the fact that on page 4 the bill provides:

and exclusive of vessels engaged in the catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating. or farming of any kind of fish, shell fish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other acquatic forms of animal or vegetable life.

Then on page 58 we include the fishing industry. I take it that is under the same provision you just suggested to force the States to include it.

Mr. LATIMER. That is an amendment to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. That is subchapter (c), chapter 9, of the Internal Revenue Code, which is the Unemployment Tax Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wolf.

STATEMENT OF AUGUST A. WOLF, GRAND PRESIDENT, TUG FIREMEN, LINEMEN, AND OILERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appearing here as grand president of the Tug Firemen, Linemen, Oilers, and Watertenders Association on the Great Lakes, affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association and the American Federation of Labor, representing about 2,000 men employed on tugboats and other craft from Albany, Duluth, and Chicago.

Our organization favors this bill presently under consideration providing for unemployment insurance for maritime workers if it is certain that this covers all seamen who are employed on the Great Lakes. We contend, and we think rightly, so that the maritime workers employed in this country are subject to the same hazards and perils of unemployment regardless of whether they are employed on the Great Lakes or any navigable waters.

Our people have the same family obligations and the same desire to provide for job security and a sufficiently protective annual income to permit us to enjoy the same benefits in life as our Government desires to give all workers through unemployment insurance.

It must be realized that the seamen on the Great Lakes must pay all the tax burdens in this country and are not exempted because of employment on the Great Lakes. Ninety percent of the people with whom we have contracts have agreed on the passage of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Mr. Hogan.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL J. HOGAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, appearing in behalf of the National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association in support of H. R. 5446, a bill to establish a system of unemployment insurance for the maritime industry, and other purposes, we approve this piece of legislation because the maritime workers in our American merchant marine, and otherwise, are not provided for by any unemployment insurance, and we feel that this bill is a move in the right direction

to help the unemployed maritime workers, both of the licensed personnel and the unlicensed personnel.

Trusting that your committee will give favorable consideration to this bill and use every effort to secure its passage, I am very truly yours.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Mr. Nixon? Is Mr. Nixon here? I am trying to get along with morning as much as I can with the proponents of the bill, and we will hear members of the industries later. Is Mr. Owens here?

Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Owens.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. OWENS, SECRETARY-TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is John R. Owens, secretary-treasurer of the International Longshoremen's Association, with offices at 265 West Fourteenth Street, New York City.

We have among our membership many crafts. It includes tugboat men, dredge engineers, and harbor workers. It is my opinion that this bill should be written at the outset so that these workers are covered. There should not be a question of having to turn to some other section that seems to contradict the first section. This matter has been in conference for 4 or 5 years. I attended about 3 or 5 years ago a meeting of the Social Security Board. The same point was put forth there about covering these workers through State legislation. That makes it very hard to administer because as you break down these groups you are going to get men from New York, Wisconsin, and other States, and they will have to go to some legislature to get a law passed. It does not seem feasible. It seems that this committee should do the job and cover all the people that should be covered.

In New York State we have certain port men who do not qualify through the interpretations of certain Government agencies as seamen. That has been brought about through various court decisions under the Longshoremen's Compensation Act. Men on scows, and the like of that are not termed as seamen, but they should be covered under the provisions of this act. New York State is now paying certain of those men, and certain other men that do the same type of work are in court over the procedure. So, it might very well happen that these men will wind up not covered in any place, and I think that they should be covered, and the whole job should be done at once. We favor the bill if that is done.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? If not, stand aside. Is Mr. Ziegler here?

Mr. OWENS. No, sir; Mr. Ziegler will not be here until this after

noon.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burns? Mr. McCarthy?

Mr. OWENS. These gentlemen thought they were not going to be called this morning and stepped out. They will be back after recess. The CHAIRMAN. We will try to hear them at that time. Is Captain McHugh, secretary of the Atlantic Fishermen's Union here?

Captain MCHUGH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Captain McHugh, how much time do you want? Captain MCHUGH. I do not think I would take very long.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like you to give some idea of the time because it is 10 minutes to 1 now.

Captain MCHUGH. About 10 or 15 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a little too long. Is there a 5-minute witness here; is there any witness here who can testify in 5 minutes? Mr. BOULANGER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BOULANGER, SECRETARY-TREASURER, BUFFALO TUG FIREMEN AND LINEMEN, BUFFALO, N. Y.

Mr. BOULANGER. Just a few minutes. Mr. Chairman, I concur completely in the statement made by our grand president, Mr. Wolf, and wish to have these few remarks of a local character.

I have personally discussed this proposed bill with all of our members in Buffalo and they are of the opinion that legislation of this type is overdue because of the fact they believe they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other person, regardless of whether they work on the Great Lakes or any other body of water.

If this bill does not cover seamen on the Great Lakes, it will be in the nature of class discrimination against a certain type of maritime workers who are willing to accept as good American citizens the provisions of the Selective Service Act so that our country may be safeguarded.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? If not, stand aside. I believe Miss Kahn had a telegram or something that she wanted to submit to the committee. Do you want to make a statement with it? Miss KAHN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. There was a telegram presented in the following language:

Hon. SCHUYLER O). BLAND,

NEW YORK, September 29, 1941.

Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

Washington, D. C.

Marine seamen are in the first line of our country's defense, but our contributions toward the building of our country have received very little recognition. We have been denied the benefits of unemployment insurance enjoyed by 90 percent of marine workers. Therefore, we, the undersigned seamen, members of the National Maritime Union of America, urgently request immediate passage H. R. 5446 unemployment insurance bill for seamen which will extend to us democratic rights which we have heretofore been denied.

Miss KAHN. I will take your word for how many people it is signed by.

Mr. CURRAN. I would like to say that there are approximately 5,000 seamen who have affixed their names to that telegram who are all desirous of unemployment insurance, and there are many thousands which the limited amount of time prevented from getting in on it. They are all out at sea.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand there are approximately 5,000 names signed to this telegram.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.