The problems I have just outlined are not inflated for rhetoric's sake. We on Guam want to have the same standard of living enjoyed here on the mainland To date, we have been successful. But the threat of continued maritime strikes is not conducive to stable living conditions.

Nor does the ever-present threat of lengthy strikes serve to enhance Guam's attractiveness to mainland firms who must rely on ocean commerce to transport their goods to outlying areas. Guam is American, and we want to keep commerce with the U.S. mainland as our major economic goal. Shipping strikes, however, force us to turn for our goods, and serve to enrich the pockets of our foreign competitors, instead of our fellow Americans.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this measure be given favorable consideration by the members of the Committee before Americans who have done no wrong except to rely on U.S. shipping for their supplies suffer yet another needless financial loss.

Thank you.

Mr. JARMAN. We appreciate the statement of the Delegate from Guam. Are there any questions from the subcommittee?

Mr. HARVEY. No questions.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Kuykendall?

Mr. KUYKENDALL. It is good to have you here. I have no questions. Mr. JARMAN. We appreciate your helping make the record in this important subject.

Mr. WON PAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Now, it is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to present to you one of the best known political figures in the State of Hawaii, the mayor of the city and county of Honolulu, the Hon. Frank F. Fasi. Mr. JARMAN. We are very pleased to welcome Mayor Fasi to Washington to testify before this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK F. FASI, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mayor FASI. I am privileged and honored to have the opportunity to testify today in favor of House bill 7189 which I regard as the single most important congressional bill affecting the people of Hawaii since statehood.

I don't think we, who have come 5,000 miles to testify for 1 day and then go on back, came here with the idea of not seeing this bill passed, Mr. Chairman.

The issue is the survival of the economy of the State of Hawaii in the face of continuing shipping stoppages. I say shipping stoppages and not shipping strikes to emphasize that the problem is not the exclusive fault of either labor or management. And it is neither the prerogative of labor nor of management that we wish to deny. I, along with this congressional delegation am for open and collective bargaining. What I am against is making the economy and the people of Hawaii the hostages, the innocent victims of a stalemate in collective bargaining that forces a prolonged disablement of our shipping lifeline.

The impact of shipping stoppages on Hawaii has been and will continue to be profound and long-range in its effect. And, it cannot be over-emphasized that these shipping stoppages are not isolated incidents which can be dealt with one at a time and then forgotten.

Unless we do something now to protect the public interest during a shipping stoppage, Hawaii will receive one crippling blow after another to its economic lifeline *** the effect of which will be a long term loss of confidence in the viability of our State economy. And when we speak of the effect upon the economy we are not talking only about protecting the profits of the businessmen. We are talking about people, their jobs, their standard of living, and their entire quality of lifeall these things that are dependent upon a well-nourished economy. There is a saying that half a loaf is better than none.

But why should the people of Hawaii settle for a half-loaf economy when it is within the power of their government to insure the whole loaf through legislation such as House bill 7189?

Since World War II, our group of islands has been devastated by a series of shipping stoppages. Seven major strikes have closed down west coast and/or Hawaiian ports for a total of 594 days since 1946.

The first of these crippling strikes was a west coast shipboard union strike which started October 1946 and continued for 53 days. A similar strike starting in September 1948 continued for 96 days. Then came the devastating 177 day ILWU Hawaii dock strike from May 1 through October 25, 1949, the longest and most severe of all the strikes. which have affected Hawaii and its people.

The fourth shipping stoppage was by the Sailors Union of the Pacific and closed ports for 66 days in 1952. Ten years later, in 1962, a west coast shipboard union strike shut down ports for 27 days. During this strike, the Governor of Hawaii declared a state of emergency after 22 days of total paralysis, and President Kennedy invoked provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act to send the seamen back to work. The matter was resolved during the imposed cooling-off period.

Two serious shipping stoppages have affected Hawaii during the past 2 years. In July 1971, the ILWU struck the Pacific Maritime Association. This strike, during which President Nixon twice invoked the Taft-Hartley injunction, lasted 134 days. And only 8 months later, in October 1972, the Masters Mates and Pilots Union struck. A union of 300 members was able to tie up the whole Pacific coast merchant fleet for 41 days, cutting off supplies for some 800,000 people in Hawaii during the critical pre-Christmas shopping season.

These shipping stoppages, totaling 594 days, have not been the only strikes to affect Hawaii since World War II. There have been more than 80 shorter or less damaging strikes which have cost over a 1,000 more lost days. Altogether, nearly 4 years time has been lost through shipping stoppages affecting Hawaii since 1946.

Perhaps this figure does not sound as astonishing, as amazing, to you as it does to me. Let me, therefore, describe to you how dependent Hawaii is on surface shipping so you will understand the need for Federal legislation at the earliest possible moment.

Because of its geographical location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, over 2,000 miles from the nearest port, Hawaii can be reached only by ship or airplane unless you are a strong swimmer. Shipping is the only means of surface transportation and the only economical means of bringing in most items. The cost of air freight, up to the times the per-ton cost of surface shipping, makes this type of transportation feasible in only a relatively few situations.

For all practical purposes, Hawaii's umbilical cord to the rest of the world is surface shipping. Cut off or squeeze this lifeline and Hawaii will wither. This is a cruel, unjust and unnecessary blow to 800,000 innocent bystanders.

The State of Hawaii presently depends on average of 18 scheduled cargo vessels and 5 barges a month for almost every type of product necessary to modern living. In the opposite direction, these ships and barges carry our agricultural products to mainland markets.

In the short run we feel the lack of shipping from the west coast to Hawaii immediately. In the long run, the inability to ship and sell our products is even more damaging since our mainland customers are tempted to turn to more reliable suppliers and their business is lost to us forever.

In addition to scheduled carriers, it is true that Hawaii plays host to numerous other ships, including cruise ships, unscheduled cargo ships, petroleum carriers, military vessels and other freighters which stop in Hawaii but do not discharge cargoes. Whether these unscheduled ships are operating is of some consequence especially the petroleum carriers but in the history of west coast-Hawaii shipping stoppages, these tramp steamers have not deeply affected the economy or welfare of the State of Hawaii one way or the other.

Given this background, it is easy to understand the drastic and often disastrous effects of shipping stoppages on Hawaii. Let me restate what one of Hawaii's leading economists, Dr. Thomas Hitch, said to us about Hawaii's prolonged shipping problems:

During past maritime strikes of 2 months or longer, the effects locally have been a slowdown in construction; increase in unemployment and underemployment; declines in total personal income, retail trade and tourist arrivals; price increases and business failures.

Thus, it takes a stoppage of only 2 months before the disastrous pattern of unemployment and business failure becomes acute.

Naturally, Hawaii's business community is the first segment of the population to be hit when a shipping stoppage occurs. During the 1971-72 strike, local merchants suffered sales declines ranging from 17 to 30 percent, with the drop in profits even more marked because of extra inventory and transportation costs. Large businesses survived but many smaller ones failed because they could not afford warehouse space to stockpile goods or the increased cost of air transportation.

Every index of the economy shows the effect of these shipping stoppages. During the 1971-72 strike, a marked decrease in Hawaii's general fund tax collections indicated the damage incurred by our businessmen. In the fiscal year ending June 1971, just before the strike began, State tax revenues had increased 9 percent. During the next 5 months, during the strike and shortly afterward, tax revenues increased only 2.8 percent. This is a 6.2-percent drop in tax revenues. And the fiscal year ending June 1972 showed only a 4.4-percent increase, half the previous year's gains.

Unemployment is another economic index which reflects the impact of shipping stoppages. During the 1971-72 strike, Hawaii experienced its second worst spell of unemployment in modern history-the worst had occurred during the 177-day strike of 1949. In July 1971, the number of unemployed in the State of Hawaii was at a rate of 5 percent. By November 1971, after the strike had been in effect 100

days, more than 23,000 workers were unemployed, a rate of 6.3 percent. By February 1972 when the strike had resumed, the rate of unemployment had risen to 6.5 percent. This was the first time since 1956 that Hawaii's unemployment rate exceeded the national average. Even these alarming figures do not tell the whole story-that many people were forced to work a reduced workweek. They of course do not show up on the unemployment rolls, but their take-home pay was cut by as much as half—at a time when prices were steadily rising because of the strike.

Indeed, the effects of shipping stoppages are felt not only by our businessmen, but by every person living in Hawaii. The consumer and food price index is compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, attest to the impact of these strikes on Hawaii's consumer prices. During the months of June through October 1971, Honolulu's food prices rose 412 percent, while nationwide food prices were declining three-tenths of 1 percent during that same period due to the wage-price freeze which began in August. The average family in Hawaii was paying 72 cents for a head of lettuce and $2.28 for 10 pounds of potatoes, more than twice the mainland cost for these and other staple food items.

I cannot impress upon you strongly enough the importance which I attach to the problem. During the 100-plus day shipping stoppage I flew to San Francisco for talks with both sides in the dispute.

I presented the plight of our people both to Harry Bridges of the ILWU and to Ed Flynn of the PMA. Both these men admitted to me that the people of Hawaii were unfairly being held hostage in their dispute. Both agreed that less than a dozen ships would suffice to provide the minimum needs of Hawaii and keep our State from facing economic disaster. Less than a dozen ships, gentlemen, and a tieup of west coast docks will normally idle as many as 200 vessels in west coast ports.

I think Mr. Flynn summed up the attitude of both sides in the dispute fairly succinctly. He shrugged his shoulders and he said "It's just one of those things." Well, gentlemen, as mayor of the city and county of Honolulu, in which resides 83 percent of the entire population of the State of Hawaii, that is not a good enough answer for me or the people I serve. Our people are entitled to protection from these stoppages, and if it is humanly possible for me to do so, I aim to see that they get it.

In conclusion, gentlemen, I ask as others have done, to use your imagination for a moment. Visualize an impenetrable wall built around the city of Washington. No surface transportation entering or leaving the area, no cars, no buses, no trucks, no trains, no ships. Your only contact with the rest of the United States would be via air from the west coast.

If this happened to the city of Washington, how long would it take Congress to act? I am certain it would not take long. Not the years and years that Hawaii has waited. A general surface transportation strike would be unthinkable for a mainland city. Yet when Hawaii's shipping is cut off; that is exactly what happens here.

I say to you very bluntly, gentlemen, that when one of the 50 sovereign States of this Union can find itself isolated, virtually cut off from the rest of the world as was the city of Berlin in 1948, and the Govern

ment fails to act to provide relief, then there is something wrong with the system of government under which we all live.

We are not asking for favoritism. We ask only that the Congress of the United States recognize our unique situation and grant Hawaii the same protection to its surface transportation that other United States cities and States enjoy. We are not second-class citizens and we will not stand still while we are denied equal rights and protection under the law.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I deeply believe that the case for Federal legislation to protect Hawaii from shipping stoppages is a conclusive one. And in that light, I am compelled to call to your attention what I believe to be a serious deficiency in the bill as presently written.

In defining the term "interrupt normal shipping," the only reference is to stoppages occurring at west coast ports. There is no mention of stoppages occurring from the closing of Hawaii docks and we must therefore assume that dock tieups in Hawaii would not be covered by the provisions of this bill.

I think I am speaking for all the people of Hawaii when I say that it seems to make little sense to protect us from a bullet in the head while, at the same time, we are left as vulnerable as ever to a bullet in the heart.

Surely, if the intent of this measure is to protect our people from an interruption of normal shipping, Hawaii ports should be specifically included in the bill.

I can see no reason why a fair and equitable solution cannot be found to this problem. The shipping unions in Hawaii are responsible organizations headed by reasonable men-men who realize that shipping stoppages hurt their members and the families of their members just as much as the rest of the population.

I know that I speak for the people of the city and country of Honolulu and the State of Hawaii when I urge all of you to give favorable consideration to House bill 7189 at the earliest possible time. I say the earliest possible time because Hawaii has picked itself off the canvas twice in the past 2 years, and the present agreement between the ILWU and the PMA expires on June 30. Should another strike take place, our economy simply cannot hold up as well. It would take us years to recover from the next serious shipping stoppage.

I say to all of you, please don't let this happen to Hawaii again. Pass House bill 7189 and protect our lifeline.

I would like to add, I think the gentlemen of Congress and the Senate have got to be more pragmatic. As Congressman Kuykendall mentioned, you can argue the legalities of any bill but the fact remains. gentlemen, you have a sovereign State of the United States completely isolated every time you have a strike, something that would not be tolerated within any mainland State in the United States. To me this is rank discrimination and we are long overdue for congressional action to overcome the situation. Thank you very much.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Mayor, as I understand, H.R. 7189, it effects a strike or a lockout in a longshore or maritime industry in the State of Washington, Oregon, and California, and this legislative proposal would have no effect on a strike actually called in Hawaii; would it?