Resolved, That the Board direct the chairman to call to the attention of Congress the need for legislation which will provide to seamen disabled in the war effort disability benefits for the natural lives of such seamen or during the period of such disability, such benefits to be in addition to any and all benefits to which merchant seamen are at present entitled by reason of existing legisla tion and the general maritime laws.

Further resolved, That the Board instruct the chairman to call to the attention of Congress the desirability of the Federal Government providing vocational rehabilitation and rehabilitation services, including any service necessary to make such disabled seamen fit to engage in a remunerative occupation including physical restoration and physical and occupational therapy, training, allowances for support, and maintenance during training, assistance in securing employment, and other appropriate services.

Further resolved, That the Board recommend to the parties signatory, including the Maritime Commission and the War Shipping Administration, the United States Maritime Training Service and the appropriate Government agencies, that all practicable measures be taken immediately for the vocational training and employment in shore positions of the shipping industry of injured seamen who, by reason of such injury, are not qualified to return to sea.

Involving matters as technical as this, I should advise the committee that the committee is not in possession of a staff for the drafting of such legislation, except the legislative counsel of the House, which has been exceedingly engaged.

It is customary that when such measures are sent up, where the purposes sought to be accomplished are in the knowledge of the particular agencies, that a draft of the legislation should be submitted. However, in this particular case I drafted the bill H. R. 2652, which is now before the committee for consideration.

On May 12, 1943, I sent a copy of the proposed bill to Admiral Land, War Shipping Administrator, and asked for a report on the proposed legislation. Since that time I have received communications from others with reference to another bill that was introduced by me, H. R. 3262, I think. I am not sure, but I think that was a draft that was submitted by the Maritime Commission. I know it is one of a series of bills that came up from the Maritime Commission and on which some hearings were held last October.

Various communications have been received by the committee and to the extent necessary they will be incorporated in the record of the hearing.

Of course it is pretty generally understood by those present that it was impossible for me to carry on from about the first of November. Hearings were held on the bill on December 9, 1943. I do not know just how completely they cover the case, but the hearings were executive and I do not know the facts that were produced. There seems to have been some question then that the committee should clarify Public Law No. 17, which had been passed by the committee. If I understand the law correctly, the interpretation of the law is based upon the language. If I understand Public Law No. 17, it carried out the purposes of the Commission as they were presented to this committee at the time. Certainly the language was considered with the Commission or the War Shipping Administration, and every effort was made to carry out the purposes of the legislation.

There seems to be some effort here to say that the committee ought to pass now a bill saying what was the intent of that bill. The intent should be drawn from the language, and if the intent of that bill as construed by those having the execution of it will not permit of the relief that is granted, then amendments should be submitted to carry

that out. So long as I am chairman of the committee I am not going to have that on us placed upon this committee. If it is thought that the intent should be written into the law, then I can see no reason for the charge being made against the committee, when the bill as it was passed and enacted into law met with the approval of the agencies, and they are more familiar with the facts than the committee. The facts should be submitted to the committee and there should be presented language which, in the opinion of those charged with the administration of the law, will perform that which they desire.

Is there anyone here representing the Maritime War Emergency Board?

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS GOERTNER, COUNSEL, MARITIME WAR EMERGENCY BOARD

Mr. GOERTNER. Judge Bland, I act as counsel for the Board, and insofar as the Board is concerned the situation is substantially as follows: The Board is composed of Captain Macauley; Mr. John Steelman, head of the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor; and Dr. Frank Graham, a public member of the War Labor Board.

Immediately after Pearl Harbor the operators and the unions held a conference under the auspices of the Maritime Commission, particularly Admiral Land and Captain Macauley. The war brought on problems of war risk insurance and war risk compensation. There was no uniformity as between the various trades and as between the various classes of maritime labor, such as the licensed officers, the engine department, the deck department, and the stewards.

In order to achieve this uniformity, the operators and the unions got together in a so-called statement of principles which provided for the setting up of a voluntary board, and they requested the President to appoint the members of that board. The President did so.

The War Emergency Board immediately began to function under the authority of the parties to the agreement and set up various rules and decisions, stating what the compensation should be for loss of life, what the compensation should be for disability, bonuses in dangerous trading areas, and the other subjects with respect to which jurisdiction had been conferred.

When the War Shipping Administration requisitioned most of our fleet, the War Shipping Administration agreed to go along with the system that had been established between the trade-unions and the private operators, because it itself was then becoming an operator. Correlative with these developments and other developments on the operating side, Congress increased the insurance powers of the War Shipping Administration, in 523. That was approved in March 1942. You greatly extended those powers.

The CHAIRMAN. And I think we did it at the request of you people. Mr. GOERTNER. At the request of the War Shipping Administration. Then, in Public Law 17 you made further increases in those powers, particularly the right to insure the seamen against marine risks and to pick up back cases.

The CHAIRMAN. At the request of the War Shipping Administration or the Maritime Commission-it is hard for me to distinguish

between them--and in full cooperation with them and with every intent and desire on the part of this committee to write the legislation to accomplish the purpose.

Mr. GOERTNER. Yes, sir.

Shortly after the passage of Public Law 17 the problem came before the Maritime War Emergency Board of, say, perhaps some 20 or 30 cases involving permanent disability. The Board had provided insurance up to $5,000, which, in the case of total disability, it increased to $7,500, so that a man would get $100 a month for 75 months.

In some of the earlier cases this period was perhaps almost one-half expired, and the Board felt that something should be done to take care of these men who were permanently disabled. They were mostly exposure cases due to being in lifeboats in the Arctic, and they were very distressing. Although few in number, they were very distressing cases.

The CHAIRMAN. There should be something done.

Mr. GOERTNER. The Board felt this, that as a private agency, a private arbitral body, it was not justified in imposing on the operators, under the arbitration powers that had been given to it, an unlimited and indefinite obligation to take care of these men. Furthermore, as a practical matter, the War Shipping Administration would have to make the payments, and the Board felt that it might not be desirable to impose upon the Government of the United States an indefinite obligation extending through many years, even though every consideration of equity was in favor of doing it.

So the Board could discuss the matter with the War Shipping Administration as to whether or not, under their insurance powers, they felt in a position to carry out in the practical operation a decision of the Board which would impose this indefinite obligation. The War Shipping Administration felt, and I think rightly, that if we are going to take care of men for the rest of their lives, this is a matter that should be brought to Congress, and they asked the Board to disclose the situation to Congress and see what could be done by way of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the Board find that it was prepared to reach any conclusion itself as to it?

Mr. GOERTNER. The Board reached the practical conclusion that the men should be taken care of, but it did not impose this obligation on the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had this other bill since last fall, for a report as to the amendments that you want. The report has been called for and it has not reached this committee.

Mr. GOERTNER. I am speaking solely for the Board, sir. I should prefer that Mr. Radner and Mr. Ackerson speak for the War Shipping Administration.

STATEMENT OF E. A. McLAUGHLIN, ASSISTANT TO LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. None of these permanently disabled seamen that Mr. Goertner speaks about has suffered anything up to the present time. They have been absolutely taken care of in accordance with the policy. It is only after the $5,000 or $7,500 is used up, which

BENEFITS FOR MERCHANT SEAMEN

would be in 2, 3, or 4 years, that there is going to be need to take care of them. So there has been no damage to those men.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to know that.

You people know the conditions down there. You know the facts, you know each particular case and the policy that is being executed, and you should be prepared to submit suggested legislation.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We are submitting that amendment this morning, Judge Bland.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. There are some features in connection with this that rather aroused my indignation.

Mr. Goertner, have you concluded?

Mr. GOERTNER. I have concluded, sir.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The pending bill, H. R. 2652, involves approximately 20 cases which are pending before the War Shipping Administration.

(Discussion at this point was off the record.)

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. H. R. 2652, which has been before this committee, and which is referred to in this address we have to make this morning, is one bill, and then Public Law 17 is the law that H. R. 3262 amends, so we are talking about Public Law 17 also.

The CHAIRMAN. They are all interrelated?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. They are interrelated. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Then let us have distributed to the committee H. R. 3262 and, so far as we have them available, Public Law 17.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, is it the intention to merge that part of the three bills referred to into one bill in order to solve the seamen's insurance problem?

The CHAIRMAN. My answer to that is, I do not know. This gentleman is going to tell us what he wants.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. My answer is yes; to put it all in Public Law 17. Mr. WELCH. In order to accomplish that, which bill would you report.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We are talking about H. R. 2652.

Mr. WELCH. H. R. 2652 is before the committee at this time.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We are suggesting an amendment in lieu of H. R. 2652 which will be added to Public Law No. 17, rather than to have an independent bill.

The CHAIRMAN. How about H. R. 3262?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. H. R. 3262 is also an amendment to Public Law 17 which this committee has already heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it acted upon it?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. It has not been reported out as yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Then anything about it should be brought out. The hearings have been printed, and H. R. 3262 will be found on page 57 of the hearings that were held on miscellaneous bills, and in order to understand the situation it is desired to consider an amendment which will merge all of these bills into an amendment of Public, 17. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we know what we are doing. Go ahead. Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The pending bill, H. R. 2652, involves approximately 20 cases which are pending before War Shipping Administration wherein claims have been filed by or on behalf of permanently

totally disabled seamen who have lost arms or legs or an arm and leg or have suffered other permanent injuries, some in the Murmansk convoys of 1942, through freezing or shrapnel wounds, others in different enemy actions on the seas. The problem of providing adequate financial compensation for these disabled seamen arises because of the limited extent of the insurance coverage provided members of the merchant marine in the earlier days of the war. All these cases have been provided hospitalization under the rules and regulations of the Public Health Service. Question as to the continuation of insurance benefits for the injuries received, not provided in their insurance contract, in order to adequately compensate those men for their injuries in their war service, is presented for consideration of this committee in the proposed bill, H. R. 2652. Section 2 (b), Public Law 17, Seventy-eighth Congress, was intended to cover hardship cases, but these permanent disability cases arising out of war risk were not covered in that bill. It is believed that since this question is so closely interrelated to the objectives of section 2, Public Law 17, that an amendment to that act will be simple and cause less administrative difficulty than the enactment of H. R. 2652.

War Shipping Administration therefore suggests the following amendment, adding a new subsection to section 2, Public Law 17, to allow the continuation of payments of compensation to those totally disabled seamen for the duration of the disability, and the amendment proposed reads:

The CHAIRMAN. Section (c), under 2 (b) of Public, 17. I have that before me; 229 was the last section. I did not know whether you wanted 230 or not. You want to add a new subsection to section (c), to Public, 17?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That is right.

Mr. WELCH. You are reading the proposed amendment now?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. I am reading the proposed amendment now, which is in substance, Mr. Welch, exactly the same as H. R. 2652:

(c) The Administrator, War Shipping Administration, is also authorized to make adequate paymenats to a master, officer, or member of the crew of, or any persons transported on, a vessel owned by or chartered to the Maritime Commission or the War Shipping Administration or operated by, or for the account of, or at the direction or under the control of the Commission or the Administration, for permanent total or partial disability as long as such disability resulting from causes related to the war effort whether heretofore or hereafter arising exists.

The objective of the proposed legislation is one which is directly involved in the war effort and is for the protection of disabled seamen and the maintenance of the morale of the merchant marine. If an amendment in this respect is to be made to section 2 (b), Public Law 17, War Shipping Administration believes that it will be appropriate to amend Public Law 17 in other respects as herein indicated.

There is pending before this committee H. R. 3262, a bill to amend section 2 (b) of Public Law 17, Seventy-eighth Congress, relating to functions of the War Shipping Administration, and for other pur

poses.

H. R. 3262 provides that War Shipping Administration may waive recovery of any money paid on account of insurance provided for masters, officers, or members of the crew of, or individuals transported thereon, any vessel under section 2 (b) of Public Law 17 from any per