May 24, 1976
Page 15214
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to my colleague from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to join with my colleague in support of this amendment and compliment him upon conceiving of it.
We have discussed this amendment with the managers of the bill and with the distinguished Senator from Georgia. We understand the thrust of the amendment, and we appreciate the understanding of our purposes.
Mr. President, the amendment which Senator HATHAWAY and I offered and which has been accepted and agreed to this afternoon establishes in law the close relationship between our naval forces and our merchant marine. The concept of total seapower requires that our merchant marine and naval forces, particularly in time of emergency, be familiar with each other's methods and be prepared to fully integrate their operations. This amendment would help assure such familiarity and coordination between naval and merchant fleets. The amendment recognizes this special relationship and the value of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps — NROTC — programs at State and Federal maritime academies. The amendment further directs the Secretary of the Navy and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs to work together and with the administrators of the respective maritime academies to assure that NROTC programs at maritime academies are of a nature and quality consistent with the Navy's needs.
There is a long history to the relationship between the Navy and the Maritime Administration, particularly as it relates to NROTC programs at maritime academies. A summary of that relationship has been provided to me by the Maritime Administration and I ask unanimous consent that this summary be placed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C.,
May 20, 1976.
Subject: Summary of 1972 — 1973 MarAd actions and correspondence with Navy concerning establishment of NROTC units at the State Maritime Academies.
1. During late 1972, Navy initiated meetings with MarAd to explore the possibility of increased Navy recruiting of Kings Point and State Academy students for active duty in Navy on graduation.
2. Letter dated 26 December 1972 to Secretary of Navy John W. Warner from Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs Robert J. Blackwell.
This letter gives MarAd's endorsement to formation of NROTC units.
"We have in fact encouraged the arrangements between Maine Maritime Academy and Navy which have led to the recent institution of an NROTC program at that school. We view that NROTC and U.S. Maritime Service programs at State schools as complementary to each other and a significant means for building a closer relationship between the Navy and the merchant marine."
3. Between January and April 1973, additional MarAd/Navy staff meetings occurred to develop details of Navy recruitment at Kings Point and the State Academies, and also details regarding coexistence of NROTC and U.S. Maritime Service programs at the State Academies.
4. Letter dated 11 June 1973 to Secretary of Navy John W. Warner from Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs Robert J. Blackwell.
The purpose of this letter was to indicate Maritime Administration's agreement with the details jointly negotiated by MarAd and Navy staff and to request Navy formal concurrence. Four specific agreements were detailed and enumerated. Agreement No. 3 details the relationship between "any current and future NROTC programs at the State Maritime Academies" and transfer of subsidized U.S. Maritime students to "NROTC College Student or scholarship status."
The letter concludes:
"We would appreciate your concurrence on these details. The contents of this letter will be subject to periodic mutual review."
5. By letter dated 20 July 1973, Secretary of Navy John W. Warner provided his concurrence.
6. Letter dated 28 September 1973 from Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs Robert J. Blackwell to the Honorable Joseph T. McCullen, Jr. on his recent appointment as Assistant Secretary of Navy, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
This letter to the Assistant Secretary of Navy, congratulating him on his recent appointment, reviews the several initiatives jointly entered into between Navy and MarAd in Navy Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The letter refers to the then recently reestablished Naval Reserve Merchant Marine Program; Navy recruiting for active duty at the Federal and State Academies; and establishment of NROTC programs at the State Academies.
"We have urged the establishment at the State schools of NROTC programs which could be offered to students not receiving federal subsistence allowances from the Maritime Administration. We view the NROTC and U.S. Maritime Service programs at these schools as complementary to each other and a potentially significant means for building a closer relationship between Navy and the merchant marine. What is actually involved is the redesignation of the existing Navy manned Naval Science Departments at the State schools rather than institution of a completely new installation at these schools. We supported the arrangements which resulted in successfully accomplishing this at Maine Maritime Academy and encourage your favorable action along the same lines at the State University of New York Maritime College.
7. Establishment of NROTC units at State Academies was a continuous agenda item in the entire discussion initiated by Navy, of Navy acquisition of maritime academy graduates for active duty. While the Maritime Administration recognized that the final decision to establish such units was a Navy action, the record is clear that the NROTC issue was one element in mutual agreements reached in joint Navy-MarAd discussions and viewed by Maritime Administration as part of its cooperative effort to build a closer relationship between Navy and the merchant marine.
ARTHUR W. FRIEDBERG,
Director,
Office of Maritime Manpower.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the NROTC unit at Maine Maritime Academy in Castine has been of particular concern to me, the other members of the Maine congressional delegation, and the Maritime Administration. Those particular concerns relate to plans by the Navy to disestablish the NROTC unit at Maine Maritime. We have protested that action to the Navy and have been joined in those protests by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs, Mr. Robert J. Blackwell. The concerns of Maine Maritime officials and of U.S. Maritime Administration officials are contained in the correspondence to the Secretary of the Navy which I request unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1) .
Mr. MUSKIE. Navy officials have acknowledged the special relationship between Navy operations and our merchant marine, and have agreed that consultation with maritime officials is desirable in such matters of mutual concern. This provision makes that special relationship explicit and requires that the Navy work to preserve the relationship and NROTC programs at merchant marine academies.
EXHIBIT 1
APRIL 12, 1976.
Hon. J. WILLIAM MIDDENDORF II,
Secretary of the Navy,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It has recently been brought to my attention that the Navy has decided to disestablish the NROTC units at the State University of New York and Maine Maritime Colleges. I urgently request that you reconsider this action.
Among all of the Navy's NROTC units, these are the only ones located at colleges dedicated to education in ship systems and maritime procedures directly applicable to Navy requirements.
Further, these units were established by mutual, well documented agreement between the Navy and the Maritime Administration in explicit recognition of the benefit that would accrue thereform both to the Navy and to the U.S. Merchant Marine. In this light, I find it particularly disturbing, not only that these two maritime college units should be among the first four to be disestablished, but that there was no prior discussion of the action with the Maritime Administration.
The decision to disestablish these two units would be more understandable if their elimination entailed a cost saving to the Navy. As I understand it, however, this will not bethe case, since active duty Navy personnel will continue to be present in essentially undiminished numbers to provide instruction in naval science.
In my view, the presence of the NROTC units at these two colleges provides for practical cross training and serves as valuable tangible evidence of the kind of close Navy-Merchant Marine cooperation that is so essential to the maintenance of United States sea power. It is my hope that you will reverse this action.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. BLACKWELL,
Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs.
MAINE MARITIME ACADEMY,
Castine, Maine,
April 6, 1976.
Hon. J. WILLIAM MIDDENDORF
Department of the Navy,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I was very disheartened to receive your letter of March 16th and to learn that the NROTC unit at Maine Maritime Academy has been disestablished. I urge you to reconsider this action, since it appears that the decision was made on the basis of limited or misinformation.
I have been informed by Senator Muskie's office that the Navy claims a considerable cost saving by disestablishing the NROTC unit here. This would be true at any institution other than a maritime academy but there will be little or no cost saving to the Navy here. Your letter refers to the continuance of the Department of Naval Science which for all practical purposes requires the same contingent of active duty naval personnel with or without the NROTC unit. The problem is unique to a maritime academy and regretfully not generally understood or appreciated by the Navy. Every student at the maritime academy is required to take the naval science courses and apply for a reserve commission. If the Navy is really interested in saving money and acquiring competent, sea oriented and dedicated young officers, then an excellent case can be made for establishing an NROTC unit at each of the state maritime academies in lieu of units at other colleges. Enclosed herewith is a letter to the editor which appeared in the July 1975 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings on this subject.
I can understand that the Navy would not realize the seriousness of the action in disestablishing the NROTC units at Maine Maritime Academy and the Maritime College in New York.
Traditionally we have been very specialized maritime schools and our resources have been totally directed to the one purpose of training and educating students to be officers in the Merchant Marine and Navy as required. During World War II and the Korean War, the Navy called entire graduating classes on to active duty. Approximately 10 per cent of our total graduates have chosen a naval career. My primary concern is that the Navy is not aware of how times have changed the status of the state maritime academies.
Commerce Department regulations have required us to construct extensive shoreside facilities over the past ten years. Maritime technology has necessitated the inclusion of expensive training equipment and labs in this campus development. Inflation, particularly as it relates to the operation of the training ship, has created severe financial problems for us. Finally, our Merchant Marine, which was expected to prosper under the Merchant Marine Act of 1970, has actually declined and the Maritime Administration has found it necessary to limit the number of students who can qualify for the maritime cadet subsidy at each of the academies. Unfortunately, for the economic reasons, we cannot justify the operation of the training ship and our dedication to the specialized maritime education program with the enrollment limited to the MARAD program.
Furthermore job opportunities in the merchant marine and opposition from maritime unions does not justify the graduation of merchant marine officers in excess of MARAD limitations.
However, with 15 to 20 percent of our enrollment committed to the NROTC program we can preserve these institutions.
To further substantiate my statement that the uniqueness of the maritime academy is not generally understood or appreciated by the Navy, I submit Page 51 of the Report of the Pilot Committee Meetings of the NROTC Study dated 16–18 June 1974 and 19 August 1974, which reads:
ITEM 9
MARITIME SCHOOL ACCESSIONS
Comment:
The subcommittee has no information on this question. Item was deleted from agenda, pending further study.
Action taken:
Recommend no further action at this time. I have not been able to uncover any evidence that the Navy has attempted to study the question to date.
From every point of view that the Navy-Maritime Academy relationship is studied, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Navy has failed to recognize the tremendous asset and potential represented in these programs. We have been taken for granted, but this can no longer hold for the future. There is a sense of urgency in this appeal, since we must start immediately to study alternative programs that would most likely change the entire character of the institution.
I urge you to delay the disestablishment of our NROTC unit for at least one year and to establish a study committee for a review of the Navy's interest in the state maritime academies. We are confident that an objective study will convince you of the merit in retaining NROTC units at these schools.
Sincerely,
A. RODGERS, RADM,
USMS Superintendent.
APRIL 13, 1976.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: We are writing to you concerning a matter of great importance to us: Your decision to disestablish the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC) unit at the Maine Maritime Academy.
Your March 16, 1976 letter concerning this decision, which was hand delivered to each of our offices on April 5, indicated that "... budgetary reductions affecting the Department of Defense necessitated this action. You further indicated that in order "... to develop a plan which will allow more efficient program management under guidelines established by the Department of Defense." Lastly, you assured us that your Department "... will take every action possible to minimize any adverse effect resulting from this decision."
While we greatly appreciate the offer of your Department's assistance in minimizing the impact which this decision will have on the Academy, we must object to the assumption which apparently underlay your decision; that is, that elimination of the program will result in reduced costs for the Department of the Navy.
The Department has indicated its intention to continue maintaining the Department of Naval Science at the Academy. Given this and the additional fact that the number of NROTC scholarships is set at 6000 by Federal statute, how can the Department suggest that any appreciable savings will occur by disestablishing the Maine Maritime Academy Unit? From the information we have been able to gather, your decision will only result in a reduction of much needed scholarship assistance to Maine Maritime Academy students and not in a reduction in overall NROTC program costs.
At a briefing on this matter last Friday, Admiral Mitchell of your staff acknowledged that phasing out of the program at Maine Maritime would not result in a significant program savings. Instead, he indicated that this action was necessary because (1) the Navy requires officers with certain technical training which Maine Maritime does not provide; and (2) the NROTC scholarships which are presently allocated to Maine Maritime are needed at institutions which field larger NROTC units.
If these factors, rather than the budgetary considerations noted in your March 16 letter are responsible for your decision, we would like to bring to your attention the following points:
1. The Maine Maritime Academy graduates young men and women who have been thoroughly trained in the technical skills required of naval officers. Immediately upon graduation, without further training, Academy graduates are fully capable standing watch and performing their seagoing duties. We would further emphasize that most other NROTC graduates must undergo considerable training at Navy expense before they can be used effectively. The Navy also states they require program diversification so that their officers will be versatile and well-prepared. We are disappointed to note that the Navy just does not fully understand the nature of the curriculum at a Maritime Academy. Nowhere in the country will you find greater diversification or better programs which prepare a student specifically for seagoing positions. What is the Navy thinking of when it claims the Maritime Academies do not fulfill these requirements?
2. Although the size of the Maine Maritime unit is well below 100, the maximum size of a normal unit, it has not been given a chance to grow. This is only the Academy's third year and last fall was the first time that incoming freshmen scholarship students were assigned. Nevertheless, two-thirds of the NROTC unit are freshmen and the admission indications show the same level of interest next year. In other words, all Maine Maritime needs is a fair chance to get established. Your recent decision precludes that possibility.
From a geographic point of view, your decision also seems ill-advised. If the unit at Maine Maritime is eliminated, the only institution in New England offering NROTC will be Holy Cross, an inland school. Given the fact that cost is not a consideration, we do not think that the Navy can justify leaving only one inland NROTC unit in New England, a region renown for its seagoing pursuits.
We also feel the Navy should understand the full impact that closing out NROTC will have at Maine Maritime. The Maritime Administration currently limits the number of students Maine Maritime can have in any incoming freshman class to 150. In order for the Academy to maintain 612 students, the number it must have to remain financially stable, each incoming freshman class must have at least 185 students. The extra 35 students come from the NROTC program. Without it, they will be forced to change their curriculum to the detriment of our national maritime interests.
We firmly believe that you should recognize the unique contribution which Maine Maritime Academy could make in a time of national need. As it proved during World War II and the Korean conflict, the Academy represents a ready reserve for the Navy with its facilities for emergency training programs.
We urge you to fully consider all the reasons we show for not closing the NROTC program. It is obvious to us that Maritime Academies are in a special class. Their programs and students differ from a regular university. Giving them a special category such as that enjoyed by MIT, might recognize their national responsibility and importance while serving to correct the NROTC problems which have arisen.
In light of the above arguments, Mr. Secretary, we wish to express to you our very serious misgivings concerning your recent decision and our hope that you will reverse it.
We look forward to receiving your comments concerning this important matter.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senator.
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY,
U.S. Senator.
WILLIAM S. COHEN,
Member of Congress.
DAVID F. EMERY,
Member of Congress.
Mr. STENNIS. It is my hope that the Senator from Georgia will respond.
Mr. President, may we have quiet in the Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with Senators from Maine, both Senator HATHAWAY and Senator MUSKIE. It expresses the policy of the United States. The U.S. Navy and merchant marine of the United States work closely together to promote maximum integration of total sea power forces of this Nation. I think all of us would agree with that.
Also it expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should work with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Maritime Affairs and the administrators of the several merchant marine academies to insure that the training available at these academies is consistent with Navy standards and needs.
That seems to be a perfectly reasonable expression of the sense of Congress. I am agreeable to the amendment.
I recommend the Senate agree to the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, this amendment does not make mandatory the setting up of additional units or anything of that kind, as I understand it. Is that correct?
Mr. NUNN. I will let the author of the amendment answer that question. My impression is that it does not; that it expresses the sense of Congress.
Mr. STENNIS. I address that question to the author of the amendment. I intended it for him to answer.
Mr. HATHAWAY. No. The amendment simply states that this is the policy of the United States. It does not make it mandatory to establish any additional units.
Mr. STENNIS. Is that the primary purpose of the amendment of the Senator?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator that it is. We have been told the policy of the Navy and the Maritime Administration is to cooperate in matters of mutual interest, especially in the area of training naval officers, not only in Annapolis but also in our maritime academies.
Unfortunately, the policy has not always been uniformly practiced on a consultative basis, and it is our desire to indicate the sense of the Senate that that kind of consultation and cooperation be in fact an active policy and not simply a policy that is recognized only in the breach. It is our hope that we can have that sense of the Senate expressed by the Senate.
We are not mandating anything. We just think it is useful, since both agencies participate in the production of navalofficer material, that that kind of consultation be an active policy.
I think that is the intent of the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Is that what the other Senator from the great State of Maine says is the main purpose?
Mr. HATHAWAY. That is the main purpose of the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I like the purposes of the amendment. It seems to be more of a persuasion, and the Senator from Georgia, who, as subcommittee chairman, handled our personnel matters, is agreeable to the amendment.
I have not had a chance to mention this to the Senator from South Carolina or any Senator on that side of the aisle.
Has the Senator from Maine discussed this with any Senator on the other side of the aisle?
Mr. HATHAWAY. We have not had an opportunity yet. The staff people will.
Mr. STENNIS. I say to the Senator from South Carolina that this is a sense of the Senate resolution. Does it sound all right to the Senator from South Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. All right.
I have conferred with the Senator from South Carolina and he has no objection to the amendment, so I can support the amendment.
Mr. President, we will see what we can do with it in conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friends.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.