TABLE B.-Recapitulation-Transpacific westbound service, January through August 1954 (outbound from Pacific coast United States ports)

TABLE C.-Recapitulation-Transpacific westbound service, January through June 1955 (outbound from Pacific coast United States ports)

Senator MAGNUSON. Well, if there is nothing further we will discontinue these hearings to resume on another date. But I hope that the Defense Department will take a quick look at S. 2286, because I do think that that might help solve some of the problems and some of the justifiable-not necessarily complaints, but some of the justifiable statements that have caused some of this controversy.

And then we also have the question of passengers. But that does not go as deep as cargo, because our merchant marine passenger space is not as great as we would like to have it under the American flag. There is nothing shipped foreign in this case at all, is there? Supposing a fellow wanted to have an automobile sent to a part of the world where there is no American-flag line service. Mr. SMITH. It would have to go on MSTS. Mr. PERRIN. It would not go if not on MSTS. Senator MAGNUSON. Suppose there are just MSTS take that jaunt to deliver those two cars? goes there anyway.

Mr. SMITH. Available space.

two cars. Must You wait until it

Senator MAGNUSON. Thank you, Mr. Smith and you, Mr. Mayer. And thank you all for coming. The Chair wishes to apologize for not having a full hearing on this matter, but I do think the request

of the Defense Department, in view of the new statements, is a justifiable request. And I hope we can get at this matter very soon. Thank you, very much.

At this point there will be included in the record a letter from Miles D. Kennedy, director of public relations, American Legion, dated July 12, 1955, presenting a statement by Mr. Henry C. Parke, chairman of the merchant marine committee of the American Legion, in connection with the matter before this hearing. (The letter and statement are as follows:)

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

THE AMERICAN LEGION, WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS, Washington, D. C., July 12, 1955.

Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the Senate Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee, The Capitol, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Referring to the hearings now being conducted by the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in connection with the bills S. 2286 and S. 822, I enclose several copies of testimony of Mr. Henry C. Parks, chairman of the Merchant Marine Committee of The American Legion on this legislation.

I would appreciate it very much if your subcommittee would be good enough to give consideration to Mr. Parke's testimony during your deliberations on these bills and also have his statement incorporated in the record of the hearings. Thanking you for your courtesy and consideration and with kind regards, I am Sincerely yours,

MILES D. KENNEDY, Director.

STATEMENT OF HENRY C. PARKE, CHAIRMAN, MERCHANT MARINE COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the national organization of the American Legion, may I express to you our sincere thanks and appreciation for permitting us to be heard in connection with the two important legislative matters before you-S. 2286 and S. 822.

Since the bills concern themselves with similar matters, I have elected to extend my remarks to reflect full American Legion support to both bills. I trust that this treatment will not tend to minimize, in your minds, the importance which we place on them.

The American Legion's interest in the merchant marine stems from shortly after World War I. Therefore, America's merchant ships and the indispensable tasks they perform daily are not something new and momentarily fascinating to the American Legion. With the experience of two World Wars and the Korean conflict as our guide, we, as veterans, know full well the vital role played by America's merchant marine. As a result of the lessons we have learned about the American merchant marine, Legionnaires for over three decades have urged upon the Congress of the United States and Federal administrative agencies, the neces sity of adopting and administering sound, well-balanced policies, which will keep the merchant fleet strong and, in turn, bolster our national defense.

As recently as the 1954 national convention of the American Legion, our national organization reiterated its belief in the importance of an available, modern American merchant marine and recommended policies and procedures which would strengthen our "fourth arm of defense." Our position, as regards competition between Government-owned merchant ships and privately owned merchant ships, is contained in objective No. 9 of Resolution No. 499, which states "Withdraw ships operated by Government agencies from services where private ships can provide adequate ocean transportation." As you are aware, Congressional approval of the 2 bills before you will lend themselves to accomplishing this recommendation.

While I am certain you gentlemen have, in past and present hearings on merchant marine matters, been favored with literally volumes of arguments favoring a strong American merchant marine, I ask your indulgence so that I might reflect some of those reasons which we, in the American Legion, believe are important.

The American Legion is primarily interested in the ability of our merchant marine, to capably perform its assigned mission in the event of armed conflict. However, we are also cognizant of the important role American vessels play in this Nation's peacetime economy-realizing the importance of this phase in the Communists' strategy for world conquest. If we are to rely on American merchant marine vessels to transport men and material in any future conflict, it must, like civil defense and the Armed Forces, receive the continuing peacetime support of the Congress, industry, and the people.

It is unwise practice to scuttle the merchant marine, both in shipbuilding and support, in peacetime and then suddenly, in an emergency, call upon and expect a modern merchant marine to be on hand. You gentlemen, above all, realize the time and money which is consumed in a hurried shipbuilding program-a program which has been necessary to embark upon twice in the last 30-odd years because of this country's failure to make peacetime preparations. This Nation dares not allow our merchant marine to approach disuse and decay on the ground that we can trust to luck in meeting our next emergency as we did both in World Wars I and II. In this atomic age, if general war should unfortunately occur, despite our patient and intense efforts to prevent it, there will not be time to resurrect a merchant marine.

This Nation was fortunate in the last two major conflicts in having a grace period to gear our people and industry toward war. Val Peterson, Administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Administration, estimates that this so-called grace period in the next war will be 6 hours at best. He has expressed a sincere belief that, should world war III start, the United States will bear the brunt of the initial attack. Between $30 and $35 billion are being spent annually by the United States to build and maintain the greatest peacetime military establishment this country has ever known. Still, at the same time, comparatively little regard is given the American merchant marine, which in the final analysis, will be called upon to transport this war machine to battle areas should war be thrust upon us. The wartime role played by the American merchant marine was clearly demonstrated in the recent Korean conflict. Every fighting man sent to Korea was accompanied by 5 tons of supplies, and it required 64 pounds of supplies and equipment every day to keep him there. The support of that involved the sea transportation of 54 million tons of dry cargo and 22 million tons of petroleum products from and within the Korean theater. Let us never forget that in time of war our merchant marine is a bridge of ships linking our defense plants with battlefronts.

In supporting legislation which would strengthen the American merchant marine, the American Legion does not advocate full Government responsibility for the well-being of the merchant marine. Primarily, the merchant marine industry must, like other competitive businesses, plan and inaugurate an aggressive promotional campaign which will capture a fair share of American import and export shipping.

It seems the minimization of Government competition with private industry on scheduled routes is little enough consideration for such a vital defense arm as the American merchant marine.

Congress, in the past, has recognized the importance of supporting the merchant marine industry in the form of operating differential subsidies, the continuance of the Federal Maritime School, the 50-50 provision, shipbuilding assistance, etc. These, as you know, have all contributed materially to the welfare of the maritime industry. Still, statistics reveal, many American vessels are idle from lack of work. Ship construction, in turn, is off while the Reserve Feet of World War II rapidly becomes obsolete, and large numbers of American ships are being transferred abroad.

The American Legion respectfully urges that this committee give favorable consideration to the two bills before it with the belief that such action would lend added and needed support to the American merchant marine.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m. the subcommittee was adjourned.)

(A memorandum from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, dated July 18, 1955, containing answers to questions arising during the hearing of July 12, is as follows:)

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
SUPPLY AND LOGISTICS,
Washington 25, D. C., July 18, 1955.

Memorandum for Mr. Perrin.

Subject: Shipment of Household Goods and Privately Owned Automobiles Via Ocean Carriers.

The following information is furnished in response to questions you asked on July 13, 1955:

1. Question. Are there any oversea areas to which household goods may not be shipped?

Answer. No. However, household goods are not normally shipped to Korea, Saigon, and Iceland. Restrictions on the entry of household goods into oversea areas are requested by area commanders when considered necessary because of limited housing accommodations, etc., and are removed when such action is warranted by changed conditions.

2. Question. May household goods be shipped in privately owned, as well as Government, vessels?

Answer. Yes, when space in Government vessels is not available or when space which is available will not meet the needs of the requiring service (pars. 8053-1 and 2 of the Joint Travel Regulations, attached).

3. Question. Who may have their household goods shipped at Government expense and how much may be shipped for them?

Answer. A. Military:

(1) Officers; warrant officers; enlisted personnel of grades E-7, E-6, E-5, and E-4; and aviation cadets (par 8001 of the Joint Travel Regulations, attached). (2) Weight allowances are indicated on the attached extract from the doint Travel Regulations. These are net weights, and 40 percent may be added thereto for packing and crating for movement by water or land freight carriers. Also, there is a maximum net weight allowance of 11,000 pounds in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act.

B. Civilian employees (Executive Order 9805):

(1) With dependents:

(a) 7,000 pounds, if uncrated.

(b) 8,750 pounds, if crated.

(2) Without dependents:

(a) 2,500 pounds, if uncrated.
(b) 3,125 pounds, if crated.

4. Question. Who may have their automobiles shipped at Government expense, and how many automobiles may be shipped for each person?

Answer. A. Officers; warrant officers; and enlisted personnel of grades E-7, E-6, and E-5, also E-4 with more than 4 years' service. In addition, enlisted personnel of grade E-4 with less than 4 years' service and of grades E-3, E-2, and E-1 may have their automobiles shipped upon obtaining approval of the oversea commander. Automobiles which belonged to deceased personnel may also be shipped.

B. One automobile may be shipped for each person authorized such transportation. (Par. 3 of SR 55–160–21/AFR 75-59, attached, applies to the Army and the Air Force; the Navy has similar instructions in par. 29200 of BusandA Manual.)

RAYMOND LYTLE.

(Also ordered to be included in the record is a letter from Robert E. Mayer, president, Pacific American Steamship Association, with reference to his testimony at the hearing. The letter follows:)

Re S. 822 and S. 2286.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., July 13, 1955,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN. It is respectfully requested that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearings before your committee on July 12, 1955, on the above bills.

Since submission of our statement and tables attached thereto, my attention has been called to table A which divides the tabulation of vessel utilization in tw