include self-employed persons as seamen if they perform the same tasks as are performed by seamen within the meaning of the present law.

We also have reservations concerning the language of H.R. 2108, which, by extending entitlement to medical care to all persons engaged on board a vessel in its care, preservation, or navigation, seems broad enough to include even passengers and guests who may perform on board some useful service related to the care, preservation, or navigation of the vessel, though this was probably not intended by the bill's author. Here, again, amendment of the bill so as to conform to the language of S. 978-which simply extends the definition of “seamen," and the operative provision conferring entitlement to medical care, under the Public Health Service Act to self-employed seamen-would render the bill unobjectionable from the viewpoint of this Department.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely,

WILBUR J. COHEN,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. ROBERTS. Our first witness today will be our colleague, Representative Ralph J. Rivers of Alaska.

I believe, Mr. Clerk, the statements have been passed up to the members.

Mr. Rivers.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard here in behalf of S. 978, which is similar to my own bill, H.R. 2108, also under consideration by this committee, but I wish to indicate that I am supporting the Senate bill. The purpose of this legislation is to enable fishing vessel owneroperators who work aboard their vessels to receive the same medical benefits as are afforded by the Public Health Service to seamen employed on board in the care, preservation, or navigation of any vessel. As the members of this committee will recall, the need for this legislation arose in 1954 when the Surgeon General of the United States ruled in respect to medical benefits that the Public Health Service Act applies only to fishermen holding a contract of employment on a fishing vessel. The Surgeon General based his decision on the definition of the term "seamen" which is set out in the Public Health Service Enabling Act. There a "seaman" is defined as “* * * any person employed on board in the care, preservation, or navigation of any vessel **" From this definition, the Surgeon General reasoned that unless a seaman held a contract of employment, he was precluded from being a beneficiary of the Public Health Service benefits. Thus, since 1954, an owner-operator working aboard a vessel on a self-employed basis has been denied free care at Public Health Service facilities.

In Alaska alone there are more than 2,000 small fishing boatowners, most of whom-in the course of ranging hundreds of miles from home earn less than $5,000 per annum, and occasionally make no profit at all. These owner-operators are as much in need of care in Public Health Service facilities during voyages as are employees who work aboard their vessels. Thus, the very reason which led to inclusion of boat owner-operators in the benefits of the program, during all those years prior to 1954 still pertains.

As was brought out in the hearings before this committee last year, the legislation now under consideration would restore to self-employed fishermen the eligibility for care in Public Health Service facilities which they enjoyed prior to 1954.

I am pleased to note that S. 978 is supported by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the Department of the Interior, the Alaska State Legislature, and various maritime organizations and fishermen's associations.

I urge that the measure be approved.

I might state that I have kept my remarks brief because many of my colleagues who are conversant with the subject are here to testify along with specialists in this field, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Rivers.

If I recall correctly, one of the witnesses who appeared in favor of this bill was the late Clem Miller, of California, and one of the bills we considered, I believe, was introduced by him. Is that not correct? Mr. RIVERS. That is correct, and I was associated with him in hearings before this committee last year on the same legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS. It seems that the trouble arises here with an administrative ruling on section 2 (h) where the term "seamen" under that definition-and I am reading from the Public Health Service Act, as amended-includes:

any person employed on board in the care, preservation, or navigation of any vessel, or in the service, on board, of those engaged in such care, preservation, or navigation.

What the Senate bill did was to add to that subsection (h) the words "or self-employed."

I believe that is the change that the Senate made which they believe would include these owner-operators.

Mr. RIVERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. I believe that is clear enough and I appreciate your appearance.

I have no questions except to compliment you on your support of this legislation.

Any questions, gentlemen? Mr. Schenck.

Mr. SCHENCK. I just have two questions, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask our colleague, and I do so as a matter of developing information, what is the basic justification for Public Health Service facilities being available to either seamen employed or owneroperators of boats any more than any other field of commercial activity?

Mr. RIVERS. I would say to my colleague that this is historical. It is a matter of policy. Seamen lead topsy-turvy lives, and travel on voyages a long, long way from home plying the seven seas. As matter of policy and to encourage Americans to be seamen, our forefathers decided to extend Federal health benefits as one of the fringe benefits of being a seaman. Fishing vessels are also frequently taken for use in time of war to bolster our merchant marine. Seamen a long way from home without much money or credit often need to be taken care of when injured in the course of their hazardous occupation. The thing is that this whole thing has pertained to seamen for a century and a half and whether or not you wish to include fishermen, who are included right now as long as they are working as em

ployees of the skipper of the fishing boat, is another policy consideration, and whether you want to include the skippers of these small vessels who barely make a living any more than their employees do, is also a matter of policy.

I am supporting the policy as stated.

Mr. SCHENCK. I would like to say to my colleague that I did not ask the question critically but I felt that it might be very helpful to have some background information in the record because, as you have indicated, this has been a long time and perhaps many who are now considering it are not aware of that background.

Mr. RIVERS. I would say that I was not planning on making the record very complete from my own testimony. I am here primarily to express my suppport of the bill. The specialists present from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and the Public Health Service, will, I am sure, answer the gentleman's questions.

Mr. SCHENCK. I just wanted to get that in the record and I also wondered, Mr. Chairman, who might give an estimate of cost.

Mr. RIVERS. There is one in the Senate report here. It says $1,733,000 per year.

Mr. SCHENCK. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to add at this point-I would like the staff to correct me if I am wrong-I think this was probably the first piece of legislation that brought the Public Health Service within the jurisdiction of this committee. It was advocated, I believe, by President Adams. I think that is correct.

If I could find that with the help of our able staff member, I will try to insert that in the record.

Mr. ROBERTS. I might observe the Senate has a report which is available and gives quite a bit of the background.

Mr. Rogers of Florida?

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any particular questions at this time.

I will wait until we have other witnesses. I just want to say it is always good to see our distinguished colleague from Alaska here. We are always delighted to have his testimony.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to say that our chairman's wife has just gone out the door.

Mrs. Harris, we are pleased that you would come to our meeting this morning and would be glad if you cared to stay.

Mr. Nelsen?

Mr. NELSEN. I thank my colleague from Alaska for his testimony. I wondered, Ralph, if you recall any real reason why this act was changed. Prior to 1954, the owner of the vessel, as I recall, was covered.

Was there any controversy that developed that led to the change, to your recollection?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes, sir. From the history that I have read to refresh my memory, the Suregon General in 1954 interpreted the provision of the act referred to by the chairman to the effect that to be a seaman one had to be employed as such under a contract of employment, and could not qualify for the purpose of care at Federal health facilities if self-employed.

Thus the owner-operators got excluded on the Surgeon General's administrative ruling after sharing the benefits in question for 125

years or so.

Mr. NELSEN. Would the owner of the vessel that goes out for king crab be considered a fisherman?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes, he would.

Mr. NELSEN. Because I want to be sure they are covered.

Mr. RIVERS. This all applies to being away from home ports, and with respect to the fishermen that are fishing for king crab 20 miles off the coast of Kodiak, their nearest port is their home port, so I do not suppose that they would be included.

Mr. NELSEN. I am sure that you would have no objection if I referred to the king crab at Homer, Alaska. I remember being up there, Mr. Chairman, and king crab when stretched out were about that long [indicating]. They looked as if they would be tough to wrestle with. Thank you very much.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you for the honorable mention of the great king crab of Alaska.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Rivers.

Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Our next witness will be our colleague from Washington, Congressman Tollefson.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2108 and the similar House and Senate bills.

The committee heard testimony on similar bills in the last Congress and is familiar with the objectives which the chairman of the committee stated at the outset. I have mentioned these purposes in my statement. There is no reason for repeating them.

It seems a little odd to me that because of the interpretation of a mere word a category of people have been thrown out of the privileges of medical care under the Public Health Service Act.

As has already been stated, the Surgeon General apparently based his ruling upon the interpretation of the word “seaman,” and under the original act, a seaman was one who was employed in the care, preservation, or navigation of a vessel and, apparently, the Surgeon General felt that because the self-employed did not have a contract of employment he was not entitled to benefits of the act. It is that simple a thing and these bills are seeking to restore the privileges that these people had prior to 1954.

I trust that the committee will take the same kind of action it did last year and approve the bill.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate very much your appearance here.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Do you have any questions?

Without objection, your statement may be filed for the record. Mr. TOLLEFSON. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THOR C. TOLLEFSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2108 and the similar House and Senate bills which are being considered this morning. The members will recall the hearings on similar bills in the last Congress and are familiar with their objectives. They seek to restore medical and hospital care to owners, or part owners, of fishing boats who, prior to 1954, received such care in Public Health Service hospitals. This class of persons was ruled ineligible for such care by administrative action following an opinion by legal counsel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Historically, prior to this action, these people had been eligible for and received such care. The ruling of the Surgeon General deprived them of the services, and these bills seek to restore their historic privileges.

The Surgeon General based his decision on the definition of the term “seaman” which is set out in the Public Health Service Enabling Act. A seaman is there defined as "* ** any person employed on board in the care, preservation, or navigation of any vessel ***." The Surgeon General apparently reasoned that unless a seaman held a contract of employment, he was not entitled to receive Public Health Service benefits. The owner-operator of a vessel not having a contract of employment was excluded.

There are a great many small fishing boat owners whose annual income is relatively small. At the earlier hearings, it was testified that in Alaska alone there were 2,500 small boat owners whose income was less than $4,000 per year. With such small income they are as much in need of care in Public Health Service facilities as are their employees. Indeed, prior to 1954 no distinction was made as to whether persons working aboard the vessel owned or held a part interest in the vessel. These self-employed fishermen essentially fulfill th same purpose as employed seamen on the vessels, and should receive the same health benefit. They should not be excluded by a mere technical interpretation of a word.

I urge the subcommittee to act favorably on the proposal pending before it. In doing so you would only be restoring a traditional and historic right.

Mr. ROBERTS. Our next witness is our colleague from California and a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin. Mr. Van Deerlin, we will be glad to hear you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest in support of H.R. 2108, for extending medical benefits to self-employed fishermen.

This measure, if enacted, will close a serious gap in the protection of men engaged in hazardous, yet extremely important work. As the world's nutritional needs turn our attention evermore to the oceans for protein, we must strive to make fishing a desirable occupation. Medical protection and a cushion against disabling injury are vital to that end.

While at sea, owners skippering their own vessels perform the same duties as crewmen, and are exposed to the same perils. Thus they appear to come within the intended meaning of the law on public health coverage from which an administrative ruling excluded them 9 years ago.

H.R. 2108 has support of the American Tunaboat Association, representing a great southern California industry. In recent international disputes over territorial fishing rights, the various segments of