(The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M. PELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to again appear before your subcommittee in support of my bill, H.R. 3338, as well as related or similar bills under consideration, which would provide medical care for certain persons engaged on board vessels, who are engaged in the care, preservation, or navigation of such vessels. The Senate has already passed a bill, S. 978, which is almost identical to my bill, and which I understand is also being considered at this time. Inasmuch as the Senate-passed version, S. 978, carries the recommendations of various interested Government agencies, including an enthusiastic endorsement from the Department of the Interior, I would hope that this subcommittee would accept the Senate version, in the interest of expediting enactment of this sorely overdue legislation. In this connection, it will be recalled that I testified before this committee in August of 1962 in support of a similar bill. Unfortunately, time ran out on this legislation in the 87th Congress, and I sincerely hope that it will not meet a similar misfortune in the 88th Congress. As you know, the purpose of the legislation is to restore the historic health benefits to those seamen who had them taken away by Executive order in 1954. Specifically, the legislation would extend hospital, medical, and dental benefits to persons who are on board fishing and other small vessels which are registered, enrolled, and licensed under the maritime laws of the United States. Certain seamen were eliminated from these benefits due to their reclassification as owners or part owners under the Executive order of 1954. It is conceded that under existing law, the executive ruling is certainly in order and it would require specific legislation to rectify it. This Executive order denies owner-masters of fishing vessels the use of Government maritime care and facilities, reserving this service solely to seamen employed aboard ship-this in spite of the fact that such fishing vessel owners perform the same duties, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 201 (h). Mr. Chairman, there is little that can be added to the exhaustive testimony relative to this legislation which was submitted to this subcommittee last year. Consequently, I shall sum up by reaffirming my strong support of H.R. 3338, or any similar legislation to accomplish the same purpose, and reemphasize my previous recommendation that in the interest of time, the Senate-passed bill, S. 978, be reported out by this subcommittee. In conclusion I wish to thank the subcommittee for allowing me to present my views at this time. Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, I think you may remember that Mr. Wedin was back here and appeared before the committee last year. Mr. ROBERTS. We are happy to have you again here, sir. Mr. PELLY. He is very well thought of in our community on the west coast. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. WEDIN, SECRETARY, COMMITTEE FOR RESTORATION OF MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR SELFEMPLOYED SEAMEN Mr. WEDIN. Mr. Chairman, I know your committee is a busy one and I know there is no particular reason in going through the statement of last year, but I think it is important to note the fact that the representation which we have here today, as far as the Pacific coast and, as a matter of fact the Nation, on this particular legislation is quite extensive. It is very seldom on fishery legislation that we have this unanimity of thinking. This applies not only to the people who would be covered by this bill but also, for example, to the crewmen, the Alaska Fishermen's Union here, who perhaps would not benefit, and many other groups who now enjoy this facility and who see no reason why the captain of the vessel who serves in exactly the same manner as the crewmen, or very much so the same at least, is denied this since the administrative ruling. I would like to say something very briefly about the kind of conditions we have out in the North Pacific right now. We are inclined to feel that as far as our vessels are concerned, we are competing with the Russians; we are competing with the Japa nese. We feel that we are entitled to whatever sort of support possible to try to compete properly with them. The Japanese and Russians, as you know, are certainly covered from the standpoint of hospitals, from the standpoint of subsidy, and all sorts of things, and we have to go out and try to do the same things that they do and make a living at it. In another sense, our people are in the business and are required to make a profit. For example, the king crab fishery up north is limited by conservation measures placed upon it by the United States. We are not able to use the same kind of gear which might be more efficient in the taking of the fish of the North Pacific and certainly in this manner we are limited. We feel that the American fishing industry is an important one, not only from the standpoint of producing food, but also from the standpoint of defense, and I think that if the Coast Guard were testifying here today, they would certainly go along with the statement that we are perhaps the first line of defense at least as far as the waters are concerned in the North Pacific-and I think perhaps this may be true throughout the United States, throughout the perimeters. Fishermen on small vessels comprise very often one- and two-man vessels. Here is one man who is allowed marine hospitalization, whereas the captain of the vessel, and you certainly can't say the captain is not a seaman, is denied marine hospital privileges. We are running into a thing from time to time in an industry that is sort of on the edge of bankruptcy in many cases, where there is very little desire on the part of a crewman to become a boatowner, and on the question of losing marine hospitalization-which he would if he became a boatowner, he would automatically then lose his marine hospital privileges-this might be enough to keep him from wanting to be a boatowner, and this actually happens. We have people working on vessels who have the experience necessary-and this is not the kind of a business where a farmer, for example, or a worker in a manufacturing plant can suddenly step on a boat and go out and make a living-who fall into this category. It is something that you have to learn. It takes time. A crewman here suddenly decides that he wants to become a boatowner and he weighs all of these things and the first thing you know he goes to the bank and the bank says, "No, because you are in an industry which is certainly not productive or has had a good financial return at this time." And then he takes a look at the fact that he suddenly loses his marine hospital privileges, and I think in many cases our crewmen are not going into that for that same simple reason. I have wanted to just brief my statement. I have a formal statement here for the record, and I think this is sufficient at this time, unless you have questions. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Wedin. I think your statement is fully adequate. I would like to ask just one or two questions. You mentioned the main competitors of the fishing industry. For instance, let us pick out the Japanese. What are some of the advantages which they enjoy that the selfemployed owners would not enjoy! Mr. WEDIN. Advantages, did you say? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. Mr. WEDIN. First of all, I am not only referring to hospitalization, but, of course, in our overall fishing industry problems we look at the question of markets, and certainly as far as the Japanese are concerned it is very difficult for us to compete. I think you recognize as far as the Russian fleets are concerned that up in the North Pacific today it is very difficult for us to compete. If a Russian seaman is injured, it doesn't make any difference whether he is a captain or a crewman, we certainly turn out the very finest facility we can; we fly planes out there and take care of him and return him immediately to a hospital. If one of our skippers becomes ill in the North Pacific, let's say, Adak or somewhere, I don't think we would enjoy that same courtesy and privilege. Mr. ROBERTS. Is it also true that in the case of the corporate-owner ship, the officers and crewmembers aboard that type of vessel would automatically be covered by benefits that are not enjoyed by the selfemployed operators? Mr. WEDIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is true. I personally represent some 65 trawl vessels, bottom-fish draggers, who fish off the coast of Washington and off the west coast of Vancouver Island, and in these cases if these vessels were to incorporate the captain would become an employee. Then he would perhaps be eligible under the act, but it doesn't seem quite proper to me that they should have to do this in order to become eligible for something for which they are qualified. Certainly during the last war, there is no question our people came to the front. Our vessels entered war service. I think it is fairly obvious where our fish were coming from. For example, Japan was not available at that time and we provided the fish and it just seems only fair somehow or other that consideration should be given for past service. Mr. ROBERTS. That is all I have. Mr. Rogers? Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just a question or two. As I understand it, Mr. Wedin, this change was brought about by an administrative ruling. Why is it that you cannot go back to HEW now and ask that that ruling be changed? Have you tried this? Mr. WEDIN. Mr. Rogers, if we went back and restored by administrative ruling the privilege that we enjoyed before, then we would once again be subject to another administrative ruling, and it seems like legislation is necessary to get the proper interpretation. I mean that is our feeling, that we would rather do it thas way. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What about captains who own their boats and take fishing parties out? Mr. WEDIN. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the law would apply. As I interpret it, at least, it would not apply to sports charter vessels. All we have sought to do here is not to increase the traffic in marine hospitals, but merely to restore the people that were removed by the administrative ruling, which were the captains in this particular case, the captains who also own part of the vessels. In other words, they have been discriminated against. If you were a captain of a vessel (and we have many of those in our fleet, who merely operate the vessel from their experience and ability but do not have an ownership) you would be eligible, and suddenly a man acquires an ownership in a vessel and he is no longer eligible, and this doesn't seem quite fair. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Why would you distinguish between the captain of a charter boat and the captain of some other kind of fishing boat? Mr. WEDIN. Congressman Rogers, I am not sure what sort of charter boat you are talking about, but in our country, and I am speaking about the Pacific Northwest right now, a charter boat operator is one who is operating inshore or not a great distance off the coast. He is taking people out for hire. Our trawlers are out for 10-day trips and they are out catching fish and producing food from the sea, and they are in a position, from the defense standpoint, for example certainly this would apply to the king crab fisheries way up off Adak and in areas of this kind-where they are in contact with foreign vessels. It is a good deal different. Take charter boat out of Westport, Wash., for example, and they are fine people and most of them are ex-commercial fishermen who couldn't stay in the business. I talked to one the other day in Seattle. I asked him, "Why aren't you still in the troll salmon fishing business?" He said, "I can't afford to troll and I have to take"-and I won't use the word he used-but you have to take these people out to do this sort of thing because you can't afford to stay in the trolling business. He can still fish crab, but even that has become almost uneconomical today. It is a different kind of circumstance entirely. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What is the distinguishing feature? Is it the size of the boat, or is it entirely the activity? Must it be one that goes out and stays overnight, or for a week? How do you distinguish the type of vessel that would have its employees qualified here? Mr. WEDIN. I think we go in this particular case to what we call 5ton vessels, in other words, a documented vessel, which isn't a question of size, length, or how many days they may stay out. This is what is set up in the bill, 5 ton. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Five ton? Mr. WEDIN. I believe so. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. As commercial fishing? Mr. WEDIN. Yes, sir. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Wedin. Mr. WEDIN. Thank you. Mr. ROBERTS. Your statement may be filed for the record without objection. Mr. WEDIN. Thank you. 31-833-64 (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN H. WEDIN, SECRETARY, COMMITTEE FOR RESTORATION OF MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR SELF-EMPLOYED SEAMEN My name is John Wedin, I am appearing today as secretary of the Committee for Restoration of Marine Hospital Services for Self-Employed Seamen. I also serve as legislative representative for the Fishermen's Marketing Association of Washington, a member of this specific group. Other members in support of the Senate-passed bill, S. 978, include the following: Purse Seine Vessel Owners Marketing Association, Inc., representing 225 vessel owners in the States of Washington and Alaska. Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association of California representing 145 fishing vessel owners. Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Seattle, representing 1,720 Pacific coast member vessels. Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, Petersburg, Alaska, representing 65 vessel owners. Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc., Eureka, Calif., representing 90 trawl vessel owners. Bay Fish Exchange, Seattle, representing independent troll salmon vessel owners of Washington, numbering approximately 350 boats. Association of Pacific Fisheries, Seattle, representing 33 member canning firms on the Pacific coast. Puget Sound Canners Association, representing 11 salmon canneries in the State of Washington. Fishermen's Marketing Association of Washington, Inc., representing 65 trawl vessel owners. Halibut Producers Cooperative, Seattle, Wash., representing 250 Pacific coast fishing vessel owners. American Tunaboat Association, San Diego, Calif., representing 65 fishing vessel owners. Fishermen's Marketing Association of Oregon, Inc., representing 25 fishing vessel owners. Fishermen's Cooperative Association of San Pedro, Calif., representing 85 member vessel owners. Washington Crab Producers, Inc., representing 50 member vessel owners, Westport, Wash. Washington Crab Association, representing 80 member vessels, Westport, Wash. Alaska Fishermen's Union, 2,700 members, residents in the Pacific Coast States with headquarters in Seattle, Wash. Juneau Halibut Fishermen's Association, 30 fishermen and vessel owners, Juneau, Alaska. Ronald W. DeLucien, director, Fisheries Products & Program, National Canners Association, Washington, D.C. I.L.W.U., Local 33, San Pedro, Calif., 400 members. Seine & Line Fishermen's Union, AFL-CIO, San Pedro, Calif., 400 members. California Fish Canners Association, representing 10 canneries which produce 85 percent of the Nation's tuna requirements, in addition to mackerel and other species. Butts & Pattison, La Push, Wash., individually, and representing 45 fishermen. 43 Boat Operators, Ilwaco, Wash. 18 Independent Boat Operators, Seattle, Wash. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to represent such a widespread list of organizations in behalf of the marine hospital legislation for self-employed seamen. There are, of course, many others who would willingly participate in support of this needed legislation. As we stated before the Senate Commerce Committee on April 24 of this year and in August of 1962 before this subcommittee, this is not new legislation in a sense. Rather, it is designed to correct an injustice caused by the 1954 administrative ruling by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. |