NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS JOHN M. MURPHY, N.Y., CHAIRMAN THOMAS L. ASHLEY, OHIO GLENN M. ANDERSON, CALIF. JOE WYATT, TEX. MIKE LOWRY, WASH. EARL HUTTO, FLA. EDWARD J. STACK, FLA. BRIAN DONNELLY, MASS, CHIEF OF STAFF CARL L. PERIAN CHIEF COUNSEL ERNEST J. CORRADO CHIEF CLERK FRANCES STILL MINORITY COUNSEL Honorable W. Graham Claytor Secretary of the Navy Department of the Navy Pentagon Building Washington, D.C. 20350 Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, on July 12, 1979, we introduced H.R. 4769, to revitalize maritime policy, reorganize certain Government agencies, and reform regulation of maritime affairs in the United States. This measure is a very comprehensive, and in many respects innovative, treatment of the many problems and issues affecting United States maritime capability. The bill was never intended to be a final resolution of these problems. It is intended to be a vehicle to focus these many critical merchant marine issues in a set of extensive hearings which commenced on July 19, 1979. We have now established a schedule of weekly hearings during the months of September and October on this critical merchant marine problem. As was to be expected, there has been substantial criticism with respect to some aspects of H.R. 4769. One of the major sources of this apprehension has been from the shipbuilding community, since it is alleged that there is nothing in H.R. 4769 to ameliorate the worsening situation with respect to our U.S. shipyard capability. In addition, H.R. 4769 does propose several initiatives of concern to the U.S. yards such as the provision that foreign-built ships may come back under the U.S. flag and receive subsidy. The shipbuilders regard these proposals as dangerous precedents and techniques which will lead to the further deterioration of U.S. shipyard production and capability. As mentioned previously, there will be extensive hearings in September and October on the Omnibus Maritime Bill, and we request that you direct your personal attention to this controversial shipbuilding issue. In this connection, we expect to hear from you in writing, and in your oral testimony before the Committee, as to what our objectives should be with respect to the future of our U.S. shipyards and our shipyard capability. Once you have established what our objectives should be, we would like you to indicate how best we can achieve those objectives. In other words, what we should do in H.R. 4769 in order to effectuate the objectives established for the continuation of a healthy U.S. shipbuilding industry. This will, of couse, necessitate an in-depth examination into all aspects of U.S. shipyard activity such as subsidized and non-subsidized commercial construction, ship repair work, off-shore platform construction and U.S. Navy construction. In connection with your treatment of all these elements of U.S. shipyard work, we request a thorough discussion of the national security requirements and purposes underlying our U.S. shipbuilding industry. We would like a thorough discussion and explication of the national defense purposes of an adequate U.S. shipyard mobilization base. In this connection, we would ask specifically that you not use or cite the Navy/Maritime Administration Study of the U.S. Mobilization Base for Shipbuilding, which was done in the past. We have never been satisfied that this study gave us the information and conclusions we required in such matters as the absolute number of U.S. shipyards required for national security purposes. It is our desire that this, and other past studies in this area, not be adverted to, and that a fresh examination and conclusions be undertaken and reported. In light of the urgency connected with this measure, and our desire to move this major maritime legislation as expeditiously as possible, we would impose a deadline of October 1, 1979, for your written views, and look forward to receiving your oral statements in this regard some time during the month of October, or earlier if possible. We understand the necessity of having specific, well defined requirements for a U.S. shipbuilding mobilization base. As a consequence, we are requesting your input to this key issue, and we feel that it requires your personal attention both in initiation, formulation and presentation. In light of our grave concerns in this matter, we look forward to your early contributions. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Office of the Assistant Secretary (Manpower, Reserve Affairs & Logistics) Washington, D. C. 20360 October 31, 1979 The Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Mr. McCloskey: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs Washington, D, C. 20230 This in response to your letters of October 19, 1979, to the Department of the Navy and the Department of Commerce. There was no direct interagency coordination on the recent proposal for the sale of the eight docks because no coordination was necessary in this particular case. The docks, as shown in the attachment, have a maximum deadweight lift capacity of only 3000 tons and are not large enough to be of use in the activation and repair of the commercial and naval vessels that are of primary mobilization concern. These docks are useful to the prospective purchasers because those countries have small WW II combatants such as destroyers, diesel submarines, etc. previously sold under the Foreign Military Sales Act. The need for international defense cooperation among the United States and those friendly countries to which it is allied is especially important since the effectiveness of their armed forces to act in concert to deter or defeat aggression is directly related to the operational compatibility of their defense equipment. In each case, the Chief of Naval Operations certified that the drydocks were in excess of current and future U.S. requirements for drydocks of this size. The drydocks presently in the U.S., both in public and private shipyards and held in reserve by Navy and MARAD are sufficient to meet the initial mobilization requirement. The eight docks proposed for sale were not counted in the totals referred to in the testimony before your committee because seven are currently outside the United States and the other has not been used in 3 years. The U.S. shipbuilding industry is presently suffering a lack of orders, not a lack of facilities. Giving these drydocks to private · shipbuilders as a form of subsidy would not solve that problem. We do have some docks similar to these eight on lease to U.S. shipyards which are considered sufficient to meet the mobilization requirements for small drydocks. We hope that this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Елист Ресей Everett Pyatt Attachment Samuel B. Nemirow U.S. Department of Commerce |