On page 6 you say in reaching its decision on matters crucial to safety, the subcommittee should consider a brazen campaign which been in progress during the last 15 years to undermine and dey the international sea safety radio network. What are the other ances beyond this one that you made a point on today? Ir. STRICHARTZ. They are carried in the appendixes starting on e 20 going to page 23. We have the SS Benevolence and the other ances. They are set forth in some detail. Ir. HULL. It seems strange to me that our great shipping indus-incidentally, I come from the Midwest and the largest body of er I am adjacent to is the Missouri River-it would seem strange he that our great steamship companies would be opposed to safety ors. Ir. STRICHARTZ. The great steamship companies as of now have not à opposed to safety, except for this one company, Luchenbach, ch was an unsafe operating outfit and lost many ships. We find it he companies that disregard safety in other areas that want to ch this radio safety system. Ir. HULL. Are you talking about foreign ships? Ir. STRICHARTZ. I am talking about some American companies. ran into this problem in 1952, 1953. At pages 20 to 23 of our ement we discuss it in some detail. Ir. HULL. I notice you mentioned several times it would be loss of radio operator. Do they have just one radio operator on ships. ply the seas? Ir. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; they one radio officer who stands an 8r watch. They have an automatic alarm which responds to a signal is actuated by vessels in distress. The radio officer maintains the pment, repairs it when it is out, stands his watch, and obtains for ship all these services and provides the communications in distress n it really matters. [r. HULL. Would the difference be in the cost of operating a vessel paring the two together, radiotelephone and radiotelegraph. r. STRICHARTZ. I would say there would be no personnel difference this company since this company is obligated by its collective baring agreements to maintain a radio officer. r. HULL. This would not mean an economy measure for them? r. STRICHARTZ. I think they harbor the notion that they are going et away with it. But I don't think they will. For one thing, the es are not about to pick up this work. They feel they are doing e pretty important work, and they are. We are not about to give , sir. r. HULL. How much money would be away with it? involved if they were to r. STRICHARTZ. The annual wages of a ship radio officer run cally something like $700 a month, which runs in the neighborhood 9,000 a year. The cost of feeding him and insuring him and every g. r. HULL. That would really be miniscule in the overall cost of rating the vessel. r. STRICHARTZ. It may be miniscule but they would like this. r. HULL. You think they would like to get rid of each few hundred ars? Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; they do unfortunately. Mr. HULL. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Did you have something else now, Mr. Strichartz? Mr. STRICHARTZ. The only comment I want to make is that here you will have a passenger vessel which the wording of the bill does no cover but tomorrow a company might come in, it could very well e Matson, I don't know who it is, for a similar piece of legislation and you might find yourself besieged with this kind of request for legisl tion every time the FCC turned somebody down. Mr. Moss. On that point, I think the record should be very clear. it is true that the FCC in its refusal made its findings-I haven't the opinion or order before me-and further stated that there were policy considerations here which should be considered by the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. The FCC has said in every situation and in the Matson case, the Tennant case, Olsen case, and all the others, for the FCC to permit radiotelephone in lieu of radiotelegraph where the voyage circumstances do not make the carriage of this equipment and living up this requirement unreasonable and unnecessary, for the FCC to grant this exemption would be tantamount to an administrative reversal of the intent of Congress as embodied in the law. Mr. Moss. As I recall one order said that the policy considerations should be considered by the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. I don't think it is stated that way, sir. They said if we do it, we would be usurping Mr. Moss. You make that point because we frequently in this committee have requests from licensees of the Commission for consideration of changes affecting policies which the Commission feels properly are the prerogative and responsibility of the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. That is true. Mr. Moss. We had a hearing on clear channel broadcasting, and we have had quite a number of others that indicate the Commission feels that the Congress should speak out on such matters. T Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. As I say, it is not as though the FCC T says this is something that needs changing and the Congress ought to do it. Mr. Moss. I think the record should reflect what the FCC said because, as I recall in the first series of these hearings, the FCC order was made a part of the record of these hearings. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. This is the FCC memorandum, opinion. and order refusing the reconsideration. Mr. Moss. That has been made a part of the record of these hearings Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. The FCC is explicit: "Such a finding applied on a general basis would be tantamount to an administrative reversal by the Commission of the legislative judgment expressed in title III, part II, in the absence of exceptional circumstances radiotelegraphy is the preferred and required mode of maritime safety communications, for vessels of over 1,600 gross tons." This is the language they use in all of these decisions. You will find that in our legislative history which we have amended. Mr. Moss. There are other comments by the Commission, however, that I recall. I don't know whether it is a letter to us or the testimony of the Chairman. It is in the record, though. There is in effect an dication by the Commission that this is a matter of policy which ould be considered by the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Congressman Moss, we feel that Congress should ways be open on every subject and should make its decision carefully d deliberately on all the evidence. Mr. Moss. That is the point I was getting at. The requests of this pe to the Congress are not unusual. In my 12 years here I have countered many of them. The Congress should impartially and jectively undertake an evaluation of the merits of the requests. his in no sense constitutes anything unusual in the type of business e Congress is called upon to consider. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; I agree with you. It would be our hope, ough, that in arriving at these communications the safety of life of ur people would be given some considerable weight. Mr. Moss. I express the sincerity of my colleagues that we do not ove without trying to give consideration and very careful consideraon to those factors. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Strichartz and Mr. Haddock. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Pessel. Mr. PESSEL. I am sure the committee wants all the facts in the ecord-at least both side of all of the facts so-called. We would like › have permission to submit for the record a short statement within e next 10 days in answer to some of the questions that have been rought up. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The Chair was going to make this statement. Without objection, the record will be kept open for 10 days to reeive such information and data as any of the parties desire to submit ; f course, subject to the usual rules and regulations as to inclusion in he record. It will be submitted and the Chair will submit it to the anking minority member and unless there is objection it will be ncluded in the record. Otherwise, the parties will be informed. That period will be 10 days. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The subcommittee will stand adjourned subect to further call of the Chair. (The following material was received for the record:) Re H.R. 8508. AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION, DEAR CHAIRMAN HARRIS: In the interest of full disclosure of all the facts hat relate to H.R. 8508, which is of special interest to the Matson Navigation Co., I am asking that the enclosed antitrust complaint against Hawaii's Big Four and Matson be included in the record of this bill, and that the Subcomnittee on Communications and Power of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee give careful consideration to its startling revelations. Hawaii's Big Four, as the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department calls them, are charged with acquiring control of Matson Navigation Co. and usng that control to maintain a monopoly of shipping, between Hawaii and the mainland, of sugar, pineapple, and general cargoes. The Justice Department complaint (civil No. 2235, filed January 20, 1964) defines Hawaii's Big Four as: Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd.; Castle & Cooke, Inc.; C. Brewer & Co. Inc.; and American Factors, Ltd., and details its octopuslike Operation. Through scores of subsidiaries, the Big Four-Matson monopoly run wholesale and retail trade, seafood canning, two of Hawaii's largest trucking rms, sell machinery and equipment, are in the lumber business, manufacture Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; they do unfortunately. Mr. HULL. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Did you have something else now, M Strichartz? Mr. STRICHARTZ. The only comment I want to make is that here yer will have a passenger vessel which the wording of the bill does 1 cover but tomorrow a company might come in, it could very well b Matson, I don't know who it is, for a similar piece of legislation at: you might find yourself besieged with this kind of request for legisis tion every time the FCC turned somebody down. Mr. Moss. On that point, I think the record should be very clear. it is true that the FCC in its refusal made its findings-I haven't opinion or order before me-and further stated that there were polic considerations here which should be considered by the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. The FCC has said in every situation and in tar Matson case, the Tennant case, Olsen case, and all the others, for tiz FCC to permit radiotelephone in lieu of radiotelegraph where the voyage circumstances do not make the carriage of this equipment ar living up this requirement unreasonable and unnecessary, for the FCC to grant this exemption would be tantamount to an administrative reversal of the intent of Congress as embodied in the law. Mr. Moss. As I recall one order said that the policy considerations should be considered by the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. I don't think it is stated that way, sir. They sa if we do it, we would be usurping Mr. Moss. You make that point because we frequently in this com mittee have requests from licensees of the Commission for consideration of changes affecting policies which the Commission feels properly are the prerogative and responsibility of the Congress. Mr. STRICHARTZ. That is true. Mr. Moss. We had a hearing on clear channel broadcasting, and we have had quite a number of others that indicate the Commission fees that the Congress should speak out on such matters. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. As I say, it is not as though the FCC says this is something that needs changing and the Congress ought to do it. Mr. Moss. I think the record should reflect what the FCC said be cause, as I recall in the first series of these hearings, the FCC order was made a part of the record of these hearings. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. This is the FCC memorandum, opinion. and order refusing the reconsideration. Mr. Moss. That has been made a part of the record of these hearings. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir. The FCC is explicit: "Such a finding applied on a general basis would be tantamount to an administrative reversal by the Commission of the legislative judgment expressed in title III, part II, in the ab sence of exceptional circumstances radiotelegraphy is the preferred and required mode of maritime safety communications, for vessels of over 1,600 gross tons." This is the language they use in all of these decisions. You will find that in our legislative history which we have amended. Mr. Moss. There are other comments by the Commission, however. that I recall. I don't know whether it is a letter to us or the testimony of the Chairman. It is in the record, though. There is in effect an ication by the Commission that this is a matter of policy which uld be considered by the Congress. Ir. STRICHARTZ. Congressman Moss, we feel that Congress should ays be open on every subject and should make its decision carefully deliberately on all the evidence. Ir. Moss. That is the point I was getting at. The requests of this e to the Congress are not unusual. In my 12 years here I have ountered many of them. The Congress should impartially and ectively undertake an evaluation of the merits of the requests. is in no sense constitutes anything unusual in the type of business Congress is called upon to consider. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; I agree with you. It would be our hope, ugh, that in arriving at these communications the safety of life of - people would be given some considerable weight. Mr. Moss. I express the sincerity of my colleagues that we do not ve without trying to give consideration and very careful consideran to those factors. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Strichartz and Mr. Haddock. Mr. PESSEL. I am sure the committee wants all the facts in the cord—at least both side of all of the facts so-called. We would like have permission to submit for the record a short statement within e next 10 days in answer to some of the questions that have been ought up. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The Chair was going to make this statement. Without objection, the record will be kept open for 10 days to reve such information and data as any of the parties desire to submit ; course, subject to the usual rules and regulations as to inclusion in e record. It will be submitted and the Chair will submit it to the nking minority member and unless there is objection it will be cluded in the record. Otherwise, the parties will be informed. nat period will be 10 days. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The subcommittee will stand adjourned subet to further call of the Chair. (The following material was received for the record :) H.R. 8508. AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION, DEAR CHAIRMAN HARRIS: In the interest of full disclosure of all the facts at relate to H.R. 8508, which is of special interest to the Matson Navigation ., I am asking that the enclosed antitrust complaint against Hawaii's Big our and Matson be included in the record of this bill, and that the Subcomttee on Communications and Power of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce mmittee give careful consideration to its startling revelations. Hawaii's Big Four, as the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department lls them, are charged with acquiring control of Matson Navigation Co. and usg that control to maintain a monopoly of shipping, between Hawaii and the ainland, of sugar, pineapple, and general cargoes. The Justice Department complaint (civil No. 2235, filed January 20, 1964) fines Hawaii's Big Four as: Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd.; Castle & Cooke, Inc.; Brewer & Co. Inc.; and American Factors, Ltd., and details its octopuslike eration. Through scores of subsidiaries, the Big Four-Matson monopoly run holesale and retail trade, seafood canning, two of Hawaii's largest trucking ms, sell machinery and equipment, are in the lumber business, manufacture |