Mr. CLARK. Mr. Brand, I have been sitting here for weeks now listening to the various Government agencies warn me about retaliation, freedom of the seas, treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation, increased costs, and so forth, when the Middle East blows up. Now it has blown up. What happens? American oil companies will not give the U.S. Navy oil. Our allies will not even let us land at airfields that we built. NATO refused to give our own Mediterranean Fleet fuel during this emergency. And now the American public is reduced to fighting for gas sold at outrageous prices.

Do you not think it is time we stop kidding ourselves as to what is really going on?

Mr. BRAND. I certainly do. I think that is a rather eloquent statement and certainly I think indicates why everybody should move for this legislation with dispatch.

Mr. CLARK. I agree with you, the sooner the better.

What are your views with respect to the so-called doctrine of freedom of the seas?

Mr. BRAND. Well, freedom of the seas is really a theory. Freedom of the seas exists until somebody attempts to interfere. And generally freedom of the seas has been protected-has been maintained because there have been people who are interested in protecting it and enforcing it. But largely it is a myth in some respects.

You try to go and fish off Peruvian waters, for example, and you will see what meaning "freedom of the seas" has.

Mr. CLARK. Really freedom of the seas is for the other countries, not for this country?

Mr. BRAND. That is the way we practice it. Whenever we attempt to take any action that would be of benefit to this Nation—and I don't mean in a physical sense-people warn us about freedom of the seas. I think freedom of the seas is something we should observe multilaterally-for our benefit as well as other nations!

Mr. CLARK. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr. Pritchard?

Mr. PRITCHARD. No. If this is the end, I am wondering, as sponsor of the bill, I am strongly for it, but I am sure-have we got some more testimony coming?

Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes.

Mr. PRITCHARD. Are we going to let the oil companies have their say?

Mr. CLARK. Have their "day in court."
They have been put on notice, absolutely.

Mr. PRITCHARD. All right. I am sure they will.

Mr. CLARK. Any other questions?

I do have two questions, I would like to have you submit answers for the record:

Why do you single out the State Department as being opposed to the bill? As you know, a number of Government departments appeared in opposition to this legislation.

[The information furnished in response to the foregoing follows:]

OPPOSITION OF STATE DEPARTMENT

The State Department has, through the years, consistently opposed the development of a strong American merchant marine. This Department, on numerous occasions, has shown its willingness to barter away our interests in favor of foreign shipping interests.

In addition, the State Department has been the main U.S. negotiator at all recent international maritime meetings. In every case, the State Department has sought agreements that did not provide the greatest benefits to the U.S. maritime industry and which aided other nations in continuing to capture a majority of the U.S. trade for their own vessels.

Mr. CLARK. Also, I do not agree with your statement on the bottom of page 6, where you say: "The principal obligation of our Government is to promote the well-being of our Nation and its people." I feel my principal obligation is to protect America and our people, and I intend to do it.

Mr. Page Groten was scheduled to testify this morning, but due to the pressure of other business he was unable to appear. Mr. Groton will submit a statement for the record on these hearings.

Meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 6, 1974.]

31-5-74- -23

ENERGY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF 1974

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth Office Building, the Hon. Frank M. Clark [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. CLARK. Good morning.

The Subcommittee on Merchant Marine will please come to order. Yesterday, Mr. Herbert Brand, president of the Transportation Institute, gave a very forthright statement in support of the proposed legislation. I am sure his testimony was received with great interest by the members of the subcommittee.

This morning we continue hearings on H.R. 8193, and will hear the views of two more proponents of the bill.

Our first witness will be Mr. Albert Maskin, executive director of the American Maritime Association. Mr. Maskin will be followed by Mr. Joseph Kahn, chairman of the board of Seatrain Lines, Inc. And now, Mr. Maskin, if you will come forward, the subcommittee will be pleased to hear your views on the proposed legislation.

Mr. Maskin, if you have anyone accompanying you, please invite them to the table. Just give the names to our reporter.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED MASKIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN MARITIME ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. MASKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I would prefer to be up here alone. I do have a few of my colleagues close by that I may turn to once in a while if I need some technical assistance to answer some of the questions.

Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, I am Alfred Maskin, the executive director in Washington for the American Maritime Association, which consists of 45 companies operating 148 American-flag merchant ships, totaling 3.1 million deadweight tons, in the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States.

Of these 148 vessels, 35 are tankers totaling approximately 1.5 million deadweight tons.

I am also authorized to speak today in behalf of the Independent U.S. Tanker Owners' Committee which, in addition to the AMA tanker operators, includes a number of non-AMA owners who oper

ate American-flag tankers of approximately 700,000 dwt. Thus, the combined membership of this committee represents some 2.2 million dwt.

I am here today in support of H.R. 8193 and identical bills which would allocate to U.S.-flag ships specified percentages of our oil imports.

The train of events that the Arab attack of October 6 set in motion in the Near East has enormously affected the public significance of this bill.

Two years ago, when we appeared in support of similar legislation, it was basically to seek help in conditions of severe economic adversity, when the drying up of domestic coast wise demand and the stalemate on the Alaskan pipeline portended virtual destruction of American tanker service. It was an industry problem, although some larger ramifications were suggested, and everyone was concerned to know the extra cost of preferring American tonnage for a small percentage of oil imports.

This committee's favorable response was also chiefly based on economic grounds.

Today, very different considerations will govern your judgment of the bill.

The justification for its provisions stands now on the highest grounds of national policy, and particularly of the national defense. It is on those grounds that we now come forward to recommend its early enactment.

The facts behind the argument constitute the history of the American effort following October 13 to resupply Israel in order, in the words of the Secretary of State, to maintain the military balance in the Middle East against the flow of Russian arms to the Arab side.

According to public statements of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Defense, our resupply aircraft were refused both refueling and overflight privileges by all Mediterranean allies of the United States, specifically Spain, France, Italy, Greece, and Turkey; they were refused permission to land on, or to be refueled from, airbases constructed by the United States at a cost of many billions of dollars. Three of those countries alone, Greece, Turkey, and Spain have received over the years about $7 billion in military aid.

While our aircraft were denied overflights by our allies, and were obligated to refuel in the air and on aircraft carriers strung down the Mediterranean, it appears that Turkey permitted Russian overflights to restock their Arab clients.

In the meantime, Germany, in effect, prohibited use of its ports to transfer arms to Israel, and challenged possible troop movements out of Germany during the special alert of October 24.

According to recent press reports, German companies supplied Arab belligerents with electronic equipment said to be based on American military licenses.

Continuing to the present time, virtually all of the 12 to 15 countries that previously had sold fuel to American military units overseas have ceased to do so, expressly to avoid offending Arab oil producers: Japan and the Philippine Islands are reported to have re