June 15, 1976
Page 18296
UP AMENDMENT NO. 35
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) proposes unprinted amendment No. 33:
On page 2, line 12, strike "$4,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$5,200,000".
On page 2, between lines 21 and 22, add a new section as follows:
"SEC. 3. Section 6(a) of the Maritime Academy Act of 1958, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1385(a) ), is amended by striking '$600' and inserting in lieu thereof '$1200'.".
On page 2, line 22, strike "SEC. 3" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 4".
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators MUSKIE, GRIFFIN, and BUCKLEY he added as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I modify my amendment by deleting $1,200 and putting in lieu thereof $900, and by adding a comma to that, as follows:
Provided, That the additional $300 per student be used for books, uniforms, and additional compensation for sea training.
I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The modified amendment is as follows :
On page 2, line 12, strike "$4,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$4,600,000".
On page 2, between lines 21 and 22, add a new section as follows:
"SEC. 3. Section 6(a) of the Maritime Academy Act of 1958, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1385(a)), is amended by striking '$600' and inserting in lieu thereof '$900'; and by inserting in the second sentence after 'student,' the first time it appears, the following: 'except that payments in excess of $600 per student shall be used only for uniforms, books, and subsistence allowance for periods of training aboard ship,'."
On page 2, line 22, strike "Sec. 3" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 4".
Mr HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I understand that the floor manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, is in agreement with this modification, so I see no need to debate the matter further.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in accepting this amendment, we should make certain things clear.
Between the period of April 1973 and April 1975, licensed officer billets, or job slots, dropped in the maritime industry from 8,347 to 7,140. Since they are at sea for an average of 6 months a year, that averages out, on a seatime basis, to double that number of jobs, or, from 1973 to 1975, more than 2,400 jobs disappeared.
According to Coast Guard data, more than 50,000 engineer and deck officer licenses were issued for the 5-year period 1970-74. Thus, more than 50,000 men were licensed for less than 15,000 available positions.
In 1974, the Federal and State maritime academies and industry schools graduated 657 additional deck and engine officer candidates. In 1975, 585 were graduated. The president of the National Council of the Maritime Academy Alumni Associations stated in a letter to officers of the U.S. Coast Guard that no shortage of deck and engine officers exists. He indicated that there are enough licensed deck officers to meet all the future needs of industry for at least 10 years.
Data submitted to the committee by the licensed officer unions indicated that in June 1975 more than 1,400 men were listed on the marine engineers shipping list, registered for seeking employment, and more than 2,700 men were listed on the deck officers shipping lists.
In essence, we have a program that one time commenced the subsidy arrangement in order to create more officers for the maritime industry. But we have succeeded, one way or the other, and we have more officers and we have more skilled personnel in this particular discipline than are needed.
The committee has strongly resisted subsidizing a program for which no jobs exist.
My friends say that it costs more, and we have to recognize the inflation factor here. We go along with the amendment to try to help with the inflationary cost. But what really is disturbing is another set of Federal programs, and that is that they build in Maine, very successfully, under HEW and HUD grants, the maritime school, and then they have to hustle around to get students to fill up the school. So they have one Federal program that is overbuilt for an undocumented need, but that still leaves the student in his dilemma, as he goes to sea, as he has to put out his money for the uniforms and the other requirements
I think that perhaps this is a good amendment to take care of those costs temporarily, with the agreement in mind that already has been initiated by our distinguished chairman, Mr. MAGNUSON, and Mrs. SULLIVAN on the House side, for a comprehensive GAO study for the State schools on the one hand and the maritime employment opportunities on the other, so that we can see how much money each student will sustain by Federal allocations and what his opportunities are and, in finality, what the Federal need is.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would it be the Senator's intention or suggestion that we should provide some equality of opportunity as between the State schools and the union-operated school at Baltimore? He referred to that. If the GAO study showed that more Federal subsidy was going into the union-operated school, I wonder whether the Senator would be inclined to try to achieve the objective of equalizing them.
Mr. HOLLINGS.The wise thing, of course, is to look at the study and then tell what the inclination is, because what may amount to equality of opportunity in one person's mind might factually turn out a different thing. I am for equality in the sense of opportunity, but it could be an entirely different matter when you show how they are operated, what they produce and what the employment need is at the end of the line.
As I see it, the problem here is that we have a subsidy program that has outlived its usefulness and, rather than being increased, ought to be cut back. That is what we shall be trying to do when the tax bill comes up here in the next few minutes. We were the only economic power to enter World War II and we put in foreign tax credits and we put in tax deferrals from overseas and now, when we look at the result, it means that, as long as you continue to operate and take your profits and reinvest overseas and thereby create jobs overseas, you will get a tax benefit.
I do not believe that should be the Federal policy, to continue that program. That is why I am a cosponsor of an amendment to cut it out. I hope we shall look at this more objectively as the end result of determining what is a Federal need. I think that is what is at hand.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if I may be recognized
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to respond very briefly, because I think the record should be clear that the number of students who receive an allowance is determined by the Maritime Administration independently of the amount of the subsidy.
Second, I wish to point out that, whereas it seems to be very difficult to get any adjustment whatsoever in the student allowance for these six State-operated maritime schools — which have had a $600 a year per student allowance since 1958, despite the fact that since that time the cost of living has doubled and higher education expenses have increased by more than 120 percent — at the same time there is a union-operated maritime school in Baltimore where the students receive all expenses plus $200 per month. That is $200 per month as contrasted to $600 per year at the State schools. The Federal Government pays nearly 74 percent of the cost of that school through the operating subsidy program, compared with only about 20 percent subsidy at the State schools.
I am all in favor of some equality and some recognition of fairness. It seems to me that we ought to be either reducing the level of subsidy at the union-operated school in Baltimore or we ought to be moving in the direction of some increase as far as the State schools are concerned.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am most appreciative of the process of arriving at some resolution of this issue, but I would like to say a few things for the record from the perspective of one who is interested in the Maine Maritime Academy. I think the remarks made by my good friend from Michigan are very much on the point.
Also, we have had a study, an ad hoc study by the Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training in the House.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt of the text of that study be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the study was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING ON PRINCIPAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH TRAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR INITIAL LICENSING AS MERCHANT MARINE OFFICERS
I. INTRODUCTION
The Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training was appointed by the Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan, Chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, during the 93rd Congress, for the purpose of making an objective study of the principal educational institutions in this country which train individuals for initial licensing as deck and/or engineering officers aboard U.S. flag merchant vessels. The Honorable Fred B. Rooney, of Pennsylvania. agreed to serve as Chairman of the six member Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee also included the Honorable John B. Breaux of Louisiana; the Honorable Bo Ginn of Georgia; the Honorable George A. Goodling of Pennsylvania; the Honorable Edwin B. Forsythe of New Jersey; and the Honorable Don Young of Alaska.
The goal of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee was to develop a complete and succinct base of factual information regarding our Nation's leading maritime schools from which the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries could make informed and responsible decisions regarding future legislation in this area.
II. BACKGROUND
Our Nation's present system of maritime education is one which took root more than a century ago and, in response to national needs, developed into today's diverse complex of at least eight schools which offer programs to prepare individuals for initial licensing as officers of the U.S. Merchant Marine. Numerous upgrading and retraining institutions have also been established at various locations throughout the country. However, it was determined that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee should be confined to a study of the eight principal maritime schools which prepare individuals for initial licensing as officers: the United States Merchant Marine Academy; the six State Maritime Academies (California, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Texas); and the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School.
Existing law permits substantial financial participation by the Federal Government in all of these institutions.
Section 216 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, for the "instruction and preparation for service in the Merchant Marine of selected persons as officers thereof". Candidates for admission must be nominated by a United States Senator or Representative and must compete for vacancies allocated to their State in proportion to its representation in Congress.
In the case of the six State Maritime Academies, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized by the Maritime Academy Act of 1958 to: (1) Furnish a training vessel to each School and repair and maintain such vessel; (2) make an annual grant of up to $75,000 to each School, provided the School meets certain conditions specified in the Act; and (3) make annual subsistence payments to students in these Schools of up to $600 per academic year per student.
With respect to Industry Schools, section 603 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, has, since base year 1972, permitted the inclusion of company contributions to the training funds of their respective employees' unions in wage costs in the calculation of operating differential subsidy.
Thus, approximately 72 percent of the current contributions of subsidized steamship companies to the training fund which completely supports the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School are Federal dollars.
III. FINDINGS
A. Educational programs
The Ad Hoc Committee found this country's present system of maritime education and training of its future merchant ships' officers to be far from monolithic. Approaches range from the four-year college and military program offered by the Federal and most of the State Academies to the purely practical training program for engineering officers available at the Calhoon School in Baltimore. Moreover, among the State Academies, there exists a wide variety of emphases. For example, the curriculum of the Texas Maritime Academy concentrates heavily on marine sciences while those on the Academies on the East Coast are directed more toward the transportation aspects of maritime education. The following table is a general description of the types of programs presently being offered.
All of these institutions endeavor in some way to prepare an individual to function as an officer aboard a commercial vessel, and to this end, each School provides for the practical orientation of its students. Students of the Federal Academy and of the Calhoon School gain their practical experience through service aboard commercial vessels for periods of time specified by the U.S. Coast Guard. In the case of students from the Federal Academy, the required time is ten months; in the case of students from the Calhoon School, the required time is 365 days.
Students at all of the State Academies receive their practical training during cruises aboard the vessel on loan to each School from the National Defense Reserve Fleet. Six months of training aboard a training vessel meets the requirements of the Coast Guard. Two State Academies (Maine and Massachusetts) employ the so-called "sandwich principle," i.e., students go on cruises aboard the training vessel during the summers following their freshman and junior years and aboard commercial vessels during the summer following their sophomore year.
Representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard testified that they saw great merit in the latter approach.
The Ad Hoc Committee attempted to compare the effectiveness of these various methods of practical orientation, especially in relation to safety. As one indication, the Coast Guard has been requested to develop for the Committee certain information concerning the training backgrounds of individuals involved in serious violations of the laws and regulations which that Agency administers.
The cost effectiveness of each of these systems of training, particularly in terms of cost to the Federal Government, was also considered. Each student at the Federal Academy during his ten month sea term is reimbursed by the individual steamship company at the rate of $300.45 per month, about 70% of which is Federal subsidy money. If, in a given year, 200 students from the Federal Academy serve aboard commercial vessels, the cost to the Federal Government would be approximately $420,000 plus the amortized cost of the additional construction features included on all vessels built with construction differential subsidy. Vessels in this category are required to have accommodations for at least two students. The Maritime Administration has estimated that the aggregate cost to the Federal Government of these additional construction features on vessels built within the last ten years to be $1,150,016. This expenditure must, of course, be spread over the life of the vessels which is currently averaging 25 years.
Students of the Calhoon School, during their 365 day sea term, are reimbursed at the rate of $200 per month, about 70 percent of which is Federal subsidy. Thus, if during a given year, 100 students from this School serve aboard subsidized vessels, the cost to the Federal Government would be $168,000.
The training ships on loan to the State Academies from the National Defense Reserve Fleet are maintained and repaired at the expense of the Federal Government, in accordance with applicable Federal standards. (These standards include no manning or other personnel requirements for the operation of the vessel.) The cost of operating each ship is borne by the individual State School. The following table contains a brief description of these vessels as well as a statement of their cost to the Federal Government during each of the last four fiscal years.
B. Students
1. Enrollment. — The Ad Hoc Committee found no general pattern in the recent enrollment histories of these Schools. For example, since 1969, enrollment levels at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, the State University of New York Maritime College, and the California and Maine Maritime Academies have remained fairly stable. During this same period, enrollment levels at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy have increased substantially, while enrollments at the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School and at the Texas Maritime Academy have decreased.
Prior to, and even after 1969, enrollment levels at several of these Schools were influenced by the Vietnam conflict. However rather than undertaking a detailed examination of all these variations, the Ad Hoc Committee chose instead to focus on present enrollment levels at these Schools measured against their enrollment capacities. The following is a summary of its findings.
To place this information in context, the Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce was invited to testify before the Ad Hoc Committee concerning the future numerical requirements of the U.S. flag merchant fleet for licensed officers during the next decade. The testimony of the Maritime Administration was based on a study which that Agency recently completed. The general conclusion of the MarAd Study was that, at current levels of production of new deck and engine officers, including their commitment to seafaring careers, a shortage of deck and engine officers will probably occur by the end of the 1970's. Although a number of variable assumptions could alter this conclusion, the Study recommended that:
a. Initial increases in new supply to meet an expected shortage should be encouraged to come from industry schools since they have a more flexible response time than other sources.
b. A positive motivational program aimed at increasing the retention of graduates in seafaring careers should be instituted in the Federal and State Academies. Further research should be undertaken to determine the causes of attrition among new graduates and in the work force as a whole.
c. Current Federal support ceilings intended to limit enrollment at State Academies should be reviewed in relation to their impact on longterm supply.
d. Since the results of this study are highly sensitive to future Government and industry actions and since short term fluctuations in both supply and demand can alter the timing of any shortage, in-depth review should continue and a detailed study report again made in 1976.
2. Quality.—To precisely determine and compare the quality of students enrolled in these Schools would have required a research effort beyond the capabilities of the Ad Hoc Committee.
It is recognized that scholastic ability and performance may be measured and influenced by a myriad of factors — both objective and subjective. But the following information was gathered regarding the average verbal and mathematics scores of students entering those schools which require the Scholastic Aptitude Tests of the College Entrance Examination Board. Such tests are not required of students entering the Great Lakes Maritime Academy or the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School.
A recent cross sampling of one-third of all 1974 high school graduates (about two-thirds of whom were going directly to college) who took the SAT reflects average scores of 444 on the verbal portion and 480 on the mathematics portion. Moreover, available evidence indicates that the SAT scores of students entering both the Federal Academy and the State University of New York Maritime College (no comparisons were drawn from other schools) during the last ten years have been declining at least the rate of national averages.
3. Attrition.— In its questionnaire, the Ad Hoc Committee queried each School concerning its rate of attrition during each of the last five years. The information submitted was not entirely meaningful since the standards used by the respondents were at variance, i.e., some Schools calculated attrition in relation to total student enrollment rather than in a given class from entrance to graduation. Therefore, a subsequent question was addressed to each School concerning the number of students who entered its 1974 graduating class at its inception, measured against the number of students who graduated in 1974.
Based on data contained in the Digest of Educational Statistics and on an independent study by the American Council on Education, average rates of attrition in American colleges range between 48 and 52 percent. However, among students who do attrite, a substantial portion complete their studies at a later time.
4. Financial.— The Ad Hoc Committee found significant differences in the manner in which the education of students in these various schools is financed. Students at both the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point and the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School attend completely free of charge and, in addition, receive medical care and travel expenses. Kings Point students are also allowed $575 each year for uniforms and books and during the ten month sea term are reimbursed at the rate of approximately $300 each month. Students at the Calhoon School receive $200 each month of the three year program. (During the 365 days sea term the student receives $200 per month from the steamship company. During the two years of classroom attendance the student receives $200 per month directly from the Calhoon School.)
The average cost to the student to attend one of the State Academies is approximately $2,100 per year, in addition to the costs of uniforms and books which are also defrayed by the student.
However, most students in the six State Academies are eligible to receive an annual subsistence allowance of $600 from the Maritime Administration. The Ad Hoc Committee found that in Academic Year 1973-1974, 1,704 students — of 1,850 eligible students — received such grants. The 146 eligible students who did not receive subsistence allowances were enrolled at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
Representatives of a number of the State Maritime Academies which the Ad Hoc Committee visited took issue with the manner in which the Maritime Administration has exercised its authority under the Maritime Academy Act of 1958. The Ad Hoc Committee made detailed inquiries of the Maritime Administration regarding this subject.
The Maritime Administration explained that, due to reduced demand for licensed officers after the Vietnam conflict, it found it necessary in Fiscal Year 1972 to establish subsidy quotas or ceilings for freshmen classes as point of entry at each State Academy based on the School's pre-Vietnam or 1965 level of enrollment. Listed below are the freshmen subsidy quotas allocated to each Academy in each of the last three fiscal years.
[Table omitted]
The Ad Hoc Committee requested the Maritime Administration to explain why the so-called "1965 level of enrollment rule" was never published in the regulations promulgated by the Maritime Administration under the maritime Academy Act of 1958. No satisfactory explanation was received.
It was brought to the attention of the Ad Hoc Committee that during the last academic year the Maritime Administration undertook a program of redistribution of unused freshmen subsidy allowances from State Academies with freshmen enrollments below the 1965 level to schools with enrollments above the 1965 level. This resulted in the reallocation of 127 out of 136 unused freshmen subsidies available during Fiscal Year 1974. The State University of New York Maritime College had 197 unused freshmen subsidies. Ninety-eight of these were redistributed to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, and nine to the California Maritime Academy. Of the 20 unused freshmen subsidies from the Maine Maritime Academy, 15 were reallocated to Massachusetts, three to Texas, and two to California.
The Maritime Administration advised the Ad Hoc Committee that it is its intention to continue the redistribution of unused freshmen subsidies in Fiscal Year 1975.
5. Graduates.— The cyclical nature of the maritime industry has given rise to a basic dilemma in the field of maritime education and training. If the Federal Government directly supports the education of an individual, it would appear that some type of active duty service obligation should be imposed on the student subsequent to graduation. On the other hand, the imposition of an active duty service obligation presumes the availability of a job. It has not been possible to guarantee such a job in the past. The present service obligation of graduates of the Federal and State Maritime Academies is a Commission in the United States Naval Reserve. This commission may be fulfilled by a graduate by:
a. Sailing on his license for at least six months each year for three consecutive years immediately following acceptance of the commission; or
b. Sailing on his license for a least four months each year for four consecutive years immediately following acceptance of the commission; or
c. Applying for and, if accepted, serving on active duty aboard a Navy ship for at least 30 days each year for a period of three consecutive years immediately following acceptance of the commission; or
d. Applying for and, if accepted, serving on full time active duty Naval service for three consecutive years. If not accepted for active duty, one of the first three options must be satisfied.
Outside of this category of individuals, there is no merchant marine reserve pool of officers who would be subject to recall in the event of a national emergency. This subject was explored further with representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard during their appearance before the Ad Hoc Committee.
The Ad Hoc Committee gathered the following information regarding the employment records of graduates of these schools during each of the last three years.
Under present Coast Guard regulations, an individual who becomes licensed or either a deck or engineering officer may renew his license every five years. The Coast Guard offered the following testimony regarding this subject:
"From the information available to the Coast Guard, such as examination results, the present system of maritime education appears to adequately provide the young officer with the basic knowledge necessary to safely perform the duties as Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer. After acquiring this basic knowledge, however, there is little formal training available from which he can draw additional professional knowledge. It is towards this goal, that the Coast Guard recently signed an agreement with the Maritime Administration pooling resources, both financial and personnel, for retraining efforts of professional marines. This agreement does not intend to open new training facilities, but rather to encourage those Academies already in existence to expand their operation to provide for subsequent training of professional mariners, especially in those critical skill areas previously mentioned, i.e., radar, firefighting, damage control, tanker operational safety, etc."
C. Faculty
The Department of Commerce has promulgated qualifications and salary standards for faculty members at the Federal Academy. No similar Federal standards exist for faculty members at the other Schools. The Ad Hoc Committee addressed a number of questions to each School regarding its faculty. The following table is a summary of the responses to these questions.
[Table omitted]
D. Financial
One of the most important areas of the Ad Hoc Committee's study of these Schools pertained to their respective financial structures. Consideration was given to both the capital investment of each School in its campus facility and to each School's source of financial support during each of the last three fiscal years.
1. Campus facilities.— The following table is a brief description of the physical plants of these institutions. It should be noted that the facilities of the schools were constructed at different times, under different circumstances, and in different areas of the Country. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a truly comparative presentation. The table must be read in conjunction with all applicable footnotes, particularly Footnote 1.
[Table and footnotes omitted]
Written inquiry was made of appropriate Government Agencies concerning the Federal contributions, if any, to the construction of facilities on each campus during each of the last ten years. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) advised the Ad Hoc Committee of grants of assistance to the Marine Maritime Academy and to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
a. In 1968, the Maine Maritime Academy applied to HUD for Federal assistance for the construction of a dormitory to house 836 students. The Academy received $1,095,000 in direct Federal loans, and construction of the dormitory was completed in 1972.
b. In 1970, the Maine Maritime Academy applied to HUD for Federal funds for a dormitory to house 165 students. The application was approved for an annual debt service grant of $15,700 supporting a private market loan of $475,000. Construction of this structure was completed in 1973.
c. In 1971, the Maine Maritime Academy applied to HUD for Federal assistance to construct a dormitory to house 120 students. The application was approved for an annual debt service grant of $15,002 to support a private market loan of $577,000. Construction was scheduled to be completed in 1974.
d. In 1969, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy applied to HUD for a direct Federal loan of $500,000 to construct a dormitory to house 280 students. An annual debt service grant of $8,532 to support the original construction cost of $500,000 was awarded. The building was completed in 1972.
e. In 1973, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy applied to HUD for a debt service grant to support a private market loan of $2,000,000 for the construction of a dormitory to house 272 students. The application was returned to the applicant unfunded.
2. Sources of financial support.— The following summary of each School's sources of financial support during each of the last three fiscal years was constructed from the financial statements submitted by each School; the responses of each School to numerous oral and written questions from the Ad Hoc Committee; and from information received from other Agencies of the Federal Government. After this summary is included a more detailed analysis of each School to support and explain the information contained in Table 10.
It was not possible to construct a more detailed analysis of the Calhoon MEBA Engineering School. The School informed the Ad Hoc Committee that "We do not have separate audits for this School. All audits are for the entire MEBA training fund."
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the information developed during the course of its work, the Ad Hoc Committee concluded that:
A. Although a trained cadre of licensed merchant marine officers is necessary to the national defense and essential economic needs of the United States, the cyclical nature of the maritime industry requires the imposition of quantitative controls on the flow of licensed officers into the maritime labor market. Basic principles of fairness demand that such quantitative controls be developed through a sound system of prospective planning. This type of planning has been seriously lacking in the past. It is therefore, recommended that the Maritime Administration be directed to hold a meeting each year of representatives of all maritime schools which train individuals for initial licensing as officers for the purpose of establishing Federal support levels by discussing and relating incoming enrollment levels of these institutions to the future numerical requirements of the U.S. flag merchant fleet for licensed officers. Results of this meeting should be reported to the Congress at least 30 days prior to the transmittal of the Maritime Administration's request for the authorization of funds for the next fiscal year for maritime education and training.
B. The Maritime Administration's Supply and Demand Study has projected a shortage of licensed officers by the end of this decade. In light of the myriad of variable conditions on which this projection is based, there is not sufficient evidence at this time to warrant the extension of additional Federal incentives to existing maritime schools to expand their enrollments. Therefore, it is recommended that there be no increase at this time in the enrollment level at the Federal Academy beyond that projected in the Maritime Administration's Study, nor in the annual $75,000 grant from the Maritime Administration to each State Academy.
C. Acute shortages of licensed officers during periods of peak demand in the past — notably during war time — would indicate the desirability of maintaining a flexible source of supply of such personnel. Industry Schools have a particularly well-suited capability to perform this function. In this connection, it is noted that the Maritime Administration's Study has concluded that near term emergency needs of the U.S. flag merchant fleet for licensed officers can best be met by industry Schools.
D. Today's high technology vessels require the skills of individuals of superior ability. While it is necessary to establish ceilings on the number of officers, it is also imperative to attract sufficiently qualified students into our Nation's Maritime Schools. In furtherance of this objective, it is, therefore, recommended that the annual subsistence allowance from the Maritime Administration to students at the State Maritime academies be increased from $600 to $1,200, and that admissions standards to the Federal Academy be held to standards at least has high as those which were in effect in 1964.
E. Information concerning the identity and whereabouts of all individuals in this country who would be capable of serving as Merchant Marine officers is presently inadequate. Therefore, the Coast Guard should be directed to develop, and present to the Congress within one year, a comprehensive plan for the creation of a Merchant Marine Reserve pool of officers who would be available for recall in the event of a national emergency.
F. There is a clear need for greater integration and cooperation among all of our Nation's Maritime Schools. The Federal Academy should assume a leadership role inthis effort. In this connection, it is recommended that limited numbers of students from State and industry Schools (perhaps one from each School each year) be permitted to participate in research projects at the National Maritime Research Center in the same manner in which students at the Federal Academy presently participate in such projects.
G. In view of the Federal Government's substantial investment in the training vessels on loan to each State Academy and interest in the safety of the students who use these vessels, it is recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard give further consideration to the promulgation of standards concerning the manning of these vessels during training cruises.
H. Under existing law and licensing procedures, it is possible for an individual to periodically renew his officer's license without demonstrated knowledge of or training in advanced maritime technology. The testimony of the Coast Guard has indicated the existence of serious problems in the area of retraining, particularly in certain critical skills such as collision avoidance radar and firefighting, The recent joint effort undertaken by the Maritime Administration and the Coast Guard on this subject is endorsed. Progress of these efforts should be reported to the Committee within six months.
I. The need to retain individuals in seagoing careers for longer periods of time has been a perennial problem among this Country 's maritime manpower. The Ad Hoc Committee has requested the Coast Guard to develop additional information regarding retention rates of graduates of the Federal Academy, the State Maritime Academies, and industry Schools. Depending upon these findings, further consideration of this problem may be warranted.
J. Finally, any legislation necessary to implement the foregoing recommendations should be given early consideration by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous consent that a "Dear Colleague" letter, distributed by myself and my colleague from Maine and Senator GRIFFIN, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
JUNE 15, 1976.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: We are writing to request your support for an amendment to the Maritime Administration Authorization Bill to increase to $1,200 per year the subsistence allowance to cadets at state maritime academies. The highly trained manpower provided to our merchant marine from these institutions comprises a vital element in the sea power of the United States which we cannot afford to neglect.
The state academy cadet stipend was originally authorized in 1958 at $600.00 per year to encourage the entrance of qualified students into the challenging and rigorous career of merchant marine officers. The need for highly qualified and highly trained personnel has increased during the 18 years since the stipend was authorized and the cost of living has climbed dramatically but the annual stipend has been held constant because of uncertainties as to the quantitative demand for merchant marine officers. Control over the numbers of graduates from maritime academies is now assured through a quota program instituted by the Maritime Administration in 1972. It is now crucial that the quality of these officer trainees be assured by increasing the subsistence allowance offered to cadets willing to enter the difficult profession to a realistic level reflecting current educational costs.
The amount of the stipend provided under this amendment is identical to that provided cadets at military academies and to ROTC scholarship students and is consistent with the recommendation of Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training submitted to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in 1975.
"Today's high technology vessels require the skills of individuals of superior ability. While it is necessary to establish ceilings on the number of officers, it is imperative to attract sufficiently qualified students into our Nation's Maritime schools. In furtherance of this objective, it is therefore recommended that the annual subsistence allowance from the Maritime Administration to students at the State Maritime academies be increased from $600 to $1,200, and that admissions at the Federal Academy be held to standards at least as high as those which were in effect in 1964."
The Senate reaffirmed the role of the merchant marine and these maritime academies in our total sea power forces during consideration of the military procurement authorization bill. We have been personally assured by Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower Joseph T. McCuller, of his support for upgrading these programs and the Maritime Administration's long standing commitment is a matter of record. This amendment implements this policy in a manner which will assure the continued flow of qualified personnel into these schools and into our merchant marine.
We welcome your interest and support for this measure. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Case (x45344) or Betty Boynton (x49236).
Sincerely.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, ROBERT P. GRIFFIN.
Mr. MUSKIE. Without repeating the point made already by Senator GRIFFIN and Senator HATHAWAY, I make this point: With respect to the skills that are developed by our educational system, they are cyclical across the board. Following the Russian Sputnik in the fifties,we had a great surge, suddenly, in students going to get science degrees in order to serve the new space age. That surge has gone up and down. We have not cut back our student aid programs in response to the change in the need for skills outside shipping. There is no way of gearing student aid programs to a precise measure of the number we may need in any particular category in any particular year. The student aid program continues.
We are told by the Maritime Administration that the demand for maritime officers will increase in the late 1970's, but that, in any case, as Senator GRIFFIN has pointed out, the number of academy graduates is controlled not by the size of the stipend but by the number of cadet stipends available. So control is available.
The ad hoc committee in the House suggests that we begin to move in the direction of controlling the numbers to meet our requirements; but in the meantime, Mr. President, students are being asked to subsist on a stipend set at $600 in 1958. In the current congressional budget, Mr. President, the Committee on the Budget allowed and Congress approved allowances for inflation since last year, across the board, as part of the current services cost. Yet this one program not only is not given any increase to reflect 1 year's inflation; it has not been given any increase to reflect 18 years' inflation. We are somehow regarded as unreasonable when we ask for this modest increase in the stipend.
The students who are now in these academies are not responsible for the cyclical rise and fall in demand for career officers. They are in school. They are attracted there, because it is national policy and State policy that these States encourage these kinds of careers for young people. I do not see any justice in putting the squeeze on them — on them — for the problem that my good friend from South Carolina has described. We have a need for these schools and the students at these schools are entitled to equity comparable to that that we give other students in ROTC programs or in military academies. Concerns about the appropriate number of graduates to meet the needs of our merchant fleet should not diminish our willingness to adequately support those students actively engaged in the program.
There is a long tradition, going back many years, Mr. President, in support of this kind of special education in a nation whose whole traditions are oriented to the sea and careers at sea. My State has a great shipbuilding and sea going orientation going back 300 years, when the first ship built on this continent was built on the shores of Maine. So I think we ought not to ignore it.
In any case, what we are asking for is equity for the students. I argue that they are entitled to something more than the $600 stipend that was established 18 years ago, in 1958.
May I add this final point about whether or not these officers are needed? The placement records for the Maine Maritime Academy indicate that the vast majority of Maine academy graduates enter the maritime profession or related occupations. Only a small minority enter fields not related to the maritime industry. That has been its record since the school was established in 1941. I do not know as much in detail about other schools, but there clearly has been demand for these students who go to the Maine Maritime Academy who want to pursue the sea in the tradition of their forefathers, going back 300 years, and the Government has said they have a right to do it. What I am saying now is that they are entitled to a little bit of relief for what inflation has done to that $600 stipend of 18 years ago.
I appreciate the willingness of my good friend from South Carolina to accommodate himself in part, at least, to this just situation.
I yield to my good friend from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I was going to add that in 1975 the percentage of graduates of the various State maritime academies who went directly into maritime-related jobs was as follows: Texas, 100 percent of the graduates went into those jobs; New York, 76 percent; the Great Lakes Academy, 87 percent; Massachusetts, 75 percent; Maine, 87 percent; California, 91 percent. So the fact that these graduates are, in large numbers, going into maritime jobs indicates that there are jobs, particularly for these graduates.
Mr. MUSKIE This happens year after year. I do not know about the 50,000 that Senator HOLLINGS has referred to. I think that number needs some analysis. People may be retaining their licenses without any serious intention of filling the roles that are filled by these new young graduates. I have no judgment on that. But when we have a record that 75 to 80 percent of new graduates are finding jobs and going into the maritime field and filling a national need I think those are impressive statistics.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me for a question in regard to the GAO study, will this investigation of the labor market job availability for maritime school graduates, as noted in your outline of the GAO study, be not only what it is when they make the study but the projection so that we will know in the future? They might say as of 1976 the projection is 20 percent greater or whatever it might be or 20 percent less rather than the number of graduates. Maybe the long range projection which we would be very much interested in should be included in this GAO study even though it might be speculative. It certainly would be helpful for our purposes here.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished friend from Maine. We will join in a letter and send it to the GAO setting out the record we have made here to make certain it is covered. All right?
Mr. HATHAWAY. Fine. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just to clarify a point, the Maritime Administration determines the number who receive these payments, not how many attend these particular schools, just as they attend VMI or The Citadel, wherever they want military rather than maritime training.
When we get to the poverty angle, and my friend, the senior Senator from Maine, used the expression in a recent article "righteous indignation." I always commend him on it. But here we are not being stingy and denying a need. We are not arguing maritime education; we are arguing numbers. We have far more than we need.
What does the alumni association say? The president of this group, the National Council of the Maritime Academies Alumni Association, stated that no shortage of deck and engineer officers exist, and stated:
There are enough licensed deck officers to meet all future needs of the industry for at least 10 years.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Do they, therefore, propose to close all of these training schools?
Mr. HOLLINGS. This was not a proposal but just trying to get out the facts. I am not trying to run for a touchdown in the other direction, I am just trying to clarify this particular picture with respect to the subsidy, and what it does.
Then, one further point, may I say, with respect to the maritime and allied employment. I looked at a recent article in the Merchant Marine Academy magazine, which is located at Kings Point, and there a gentleman announced that he was going to law school. I remember serving on that particular Board of Visitors and saying there ought to be a requirement, Mr. President, that those who graduate and receive a total subsidy for the training at Kings Point ought to have a commitment, as they do at West Point or Annapolis, for at least 4 years.
In essence, the reason I made that point was that from my experience we were training them for service aboard foreign flag vessels. That is where they are going. We are furnishing them an academy education for foreign flag vessels and not American flag vessels. So the whole subject needs to be examined.
We have agreed to the amendment, and the leadership is ready to move on this. We will be glad to accept the amendment by a voice vote. Is that all right?
Mr. HATHAWAY. Yes. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before debate is closed?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I wanted to know whether the figures he was using on licensed deck officers from the National Council mean the ones who are available.They may have received their licenses several years ago and be working in some other jobs by now.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No. We want to follow what the Senator said that they are loyal. The Senator just made his big point that they are loyal, 87 percent here, 60 some percent; everybody says they are loyal to the U.S. Merchant Marine. When I gave the Senator his own figures back he says they are going to leave. Is the Senator saying they are going to be loyal and stick or leave?
Mr. HATHAWAY. The Senator is talking about figures that are now available someplace. They may be working in some other jobs.
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. I hope they will be, otherwise they will be on food stamps, because we have got too few jobs for too many graduates. That is my original point, too few jobs for too many graduates.
If they do not go somewhere else they will be on food stamps.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I am just making a point that all of these licensed people may not realistically be available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HASKELL). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open for further amendment. If there is no further amendment, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill (H.R. 11481), as amended, pass?
The bill (H.R. 11481), as amended, was passed.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make such clerical corrections as are necessary in the engrossment of the Senate amendments to H.R. 11481.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.