May 24, 1977
Page 16383
UP AMENDMENT NO. 312
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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY), for himself and Mr. MUSKIE, proposes an unprinted amendment No. 312.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, line 23, strike "$4,170,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$5,370,000".
On page 3, between lines 12 and 13, add a new section as follows:
"Sec. 4. 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 3. line 13, strike "Sec. 5" and insert in lieu thereof "Sec. 6".
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. MUSKIE, I am offering an amendment to the maritime authorization bill to increase the student cadet subsidy at State maritime schools from $600 to $1,200 per year. This increase is long overdue. The student cadet subsidy was originally authorized in 1958, and has remained $600 since that time. This increase would affect students who are eligible for the subsidy in the State maritime schools which are located in Maine, Michigan, California, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts.
As background, the State cadet subsidy is a subsistence allowance which is provided to students attending these State maritime academy schools to help defray the cost of uniforms, textbooks, and other expenses. The underlying basis for it is that there is a strong Federal interest in maintaining a well-trained U.S. Merchant Marine, that students attending the maritime schools do not have the same opportunity for outside summer employment as other students, because of the need to spend summer training time on board ship, and that they have special expenses such as uniforms which other students do not have to meet.
This rationale for the State school cadet subsidy is still operative today. However, the cadet subsidy has remainedat $600 since its enactment in 1958. The impact of inflation in the 10 years since that time is well known. The doubling of the subsidy is justified on the basis of inflationary increases alone.
According to the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, the consumer price index has risen 102.4 percent, resulting in a decrease in purchasing power to $296. If the purchasing power of these payments were to be made equal to their purchasing power when they first began to be made in 1958, they would have to be raised to $1,214.40 per year. Similar payments to Army and Navy ROTC cadets were raised from $600 to $1,200 per year approximately 5 years ago. After a lengthy study of maritime training institutions in the United States, the Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training which was appointed during the 93d Congress recommended that these subsistence payments to cadets at State maritime academies be increased from $600 to $1,200 per year. The Ad Hoc House Subcommittee this year also recommended the increase to $1,200 per year.
I would emphasize at this point, however, that the increase in the individual cadet subsidy itself in no way affects the number of students receiving the subsidy or entering our maritime institutions. There is presently a ceiling on the number of students in each freshman class who may receive the subsidy. This ceiling number is 673 and was set by the Maritime Administration in 1972 on the basis of the pre-Vietnam manpower needs. The subsidies themselves are not transferable from one student to another, and are paid on a monthly pro rata basis and credited to the students' school accounts to cover the necessary expenses.
The estimated cost per year of this amendment is approximately $1.2 million. Since the subsidy is nontransferable and is prorated, based upon attendance, the figure is not precisely a matter of simple mathematics. Approximately $1,200,000 is needed for the student subsidy at the $600 rate. A doubling of the basic stipend would of course double this figure per year.
A bit of history on this increase in the cadet subsidy may be instructive. In 1975, the House adopted this increase in the cadet subsidy as an amendment to the maritime authorization bill; it was later deleted in conference, because a report was due from the House Ad Hoc Committee on Maritime Education and Training. This report was subsequently printed, and recommended a doubling of the subsidy. However, a General Accounting Office report had then been requested on all of the maritime schools — Federal, State, and union.
Hence, an attempt last year to increase the subsidy was defeated on the grounds that it should be deferred pending the GAO report. On the Senate side, a modified increase to $900 per year was adopted as an amendment to the MarAd authorization bill, but was again deleted in conference pending the GAO report.
This history of the past efforts to enact the increase illustrates the problems which have occurred in discussion of the cadet stipend increase. First, the argument has been made that this increase will just provide more trained individuals than there are jobs, and result in further unemployment in the maritime industry. As pointed out above, this is just not so. The two issues are not related to one another; the number of students receiving the stipend is controlled by MarAd and is not affected by an increase in the individual amount.
Second, pending reports have been used as a reason for deferring action on the increase. Yet two reports recommending the increase have already appeared and the third report expected from the, General Accounting Office is not expected to speak to this precise issue.
I feel that it is time to recognize the fact that this increase in the cadet subsidy is a question of simple equity to the student, accounting for the increase in costs since 1958. By insuring that realistic financial support is available to these State maritime students, the quality of the education and of the students able to attend State maritime schools will be enhanced, with the long term benefit of upgrading the quality of our merchant marine forces.
Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with the manager of the bill. The amendment has already been adopted by the House of Representatives. I understand the manager of the bill is agreeable to accepting the amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Michigan also wanted to be listed as a cosponsor.
Mr. HATHAWAY. The Senator is correct. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN) be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the amendment which Senator HATHAWAY and I are offering to the Maritime Administration Authorization Act seeks to raise the subsidy given cadets attending State maritime academies from $600 per year to $1,200 per year.
The State academy cadet stipend was originally authorized in 1958 at $600 per year to encourage qualified students to take up the challenging and rigorous career of merchant marine officer. We still need to offer an incentive. In fact, as the technology of ships has become more sophisticated we need even better-trained personnel. Yet, we all know that $600 in 1977 is not the same as $600 in 1958. In fact, in real terms the $600 has declined by more than one-half through inflation. Since 1958, the Consumer Price Index has risen 102 percent, reducing the actual purchasing power from $600 to $296.
The issue is not a new one to Congress. Last year Senator HATHAWAY, Senator GRIFFIN, and I stood before you asking for an increase in the student subsidy. We offered a similar amendment and the same arguments. We reached an agreement. Unfortunately, we lost in conference. In the 95th Congress, H.R. 4963 contains a provision raising the allowance to $1,200. If our amendment is successful today, then perhaps this time we can manage to treat our maritime cadets equitably, by giving them subsidies equal to those paid to Army and Navy ROTC cadets. Those subsidies were raised from $600 to $1,200 about 5 years ago.
We do not need to get into a discussion about increasing the numbers of cadets in the maritime academies receiving subsidies. That is a red herring. There is a ceiling of 673 on the number of students in each freshman class who may receive the subsidy. That is not the issue here. The only question at hand is whether we will be able to attract top talent to do the type of skilled work required if we do not provide enough incentive.
The same reasons which led us to believe in a strong and well-trained United States Merchant Marine are as true today as they were in 1958. The highly trained manpower provided to our merchant marine from these State academies comprises a vital element in the seapower of the United States which we cannot afford to neglect.
Our traditions as a seagoing nation are long and well established. We can be justly proud of those Americans who have devoted their lives to the sea. We have taken pride in our support of the kind of special education which trains people for the rigors of sea life. We cannot turn our back on those people now. My State has a great shipbuilding and seagoing tradition which goes back 300 years. I know that the Marine Academy at Castine does an outstanding job training its 597 students. I think we cannot ignore it nor the other fine academies and their approximately 2,400 students in Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, California, and New York.
The increase in the cadet's subsidy is long overdue. Let us give those fine students some relief now.
Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague and Senator GRIFFIN as we did last year, in asking for this increase. I make the point that the present stipend was originally authorized in 1958 at $600 per year to encourage qualified students to make up the challenging and rigorous career of a merchant marine officer.
Since 1958, the consumer price index has risen 102 percent, reducing the actual purchasing power from $600 to $296.
The effect of this amendment is simply to keep the stipend in effect even with the increase in the consumer price index.
I am happy to join with my colleague.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this matter has been discussed, and I am pleased to accept the amendment submitted by my distinguished friend from Maine. It has been cleared ,with the minority members and with the majority members.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do approve this amendment. It has been discussed in the committee.
I did have an amendment that I was going to offer concerning one additional State academy, which we will defer until consideration of the authorization bill for next year.
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much for his cooperation in this regard.