need for careful control over the next ten years of the Federal support of maritime academy programs. However, as indicated in the following section there are other possibilities for the surplus capacity indicated by these projections.

A possible exception to any expansion of State schools is the Great Lakes, where a new Michigan Maritime Academy has recently begun to operate. Deck officers on the Lakes must meet special pilotage requirements for Lakes service which are not provided by the other academies. Officer training efforts by the industry have apparently not succeeded in covering all shortages. Two points should be made in this connection however: 1) there have been no ship sailing delays on the Lakes because of officer shortages; and 2) there are no special conditions on the Lakes affecting engineer officers. Officers sailing on the oceans should, assuming adequate familiarity with the plant, be able to work on the Lakes.

There is some evidence of a lack of refresher training for deck officers who need additional instruction and practice in use of new navigational and electronic aids in order to continue to perform effectively. To some extent this is provided by the union training courses. Most of the courses now available are limited to safety, licensing upgrading, and specialized training. The continuous professional development for experienced, licensed personnel on a regular basis has received little attention. It is possible also that the State schools could provide additional training of this type.

EXPANSION OF MARITIME TRAINING TO RELATED FIELDS

There are several possibilities for employment of trained merchant marine officers which should be taken into consideration in connection with the indicated surplus of supply over demand in the next decade. It has already been pointed out that it might be to the benefit of both the active fleet and the related shoreside shipping industry if there were a more rapid turnover of men from sea to shoregoing jobs after their initial five year service has been completed.

The direct interest of the Maritime Administration in maritime industry manpower supply is restricted to seafaring, longshore, and shipyard labor. Insofar as training responsibilities go, these have in the past been confined to training for active merchant marine officers, with emergency responsibilities for training of unlicensed seafarers and shipyard workers. Under the President's new maritime program, the Maritime Administration will have some responsibility, in conjunction with the Department of Labor, for providing training for minority groups and the hard core unemployed in the expanded shipbuilding effort.

The training given by the State maritime academies can be useful also to men who later enter the related fields of shipping, marine insurance, cargo handling, shipbuilding, and other forms of transportation. It is becoming increasingly important that ships' officers have an understanding of intermodal transportation the interrelationships of shipping with other modes of transportation that form the whole complex of trade facilitation. There are many business courses that could be provided that would be helpful to ships' officers in their active seafaring life and that would be of additional value to them in later life in industry ashore.

As suggested in the previous section, there is a need for graduate training, for continued professional development of merchant marine officers desiring to continue their education that is now being met only at minimum levels. This is an area in which the State academies could be particularly helpful to their graduates.

The U.S. shipbuilding industry urgently requires talented executive personnel, trained in a variety of marine-related managerial and technological disciplines. There is a nationwide shortage of naval architects. The ratio of planning personnel to production personnel in our shipyards is significantly lower than ratios in similar high capital cost industries.

The need for marine research and development is acute in an industry which has lagged behind others in its application of new technology. We support continuing postgraduate technical refresher and education programs for active merchant marine officers. While we consider an accredited degree particularly desirable in light of the sophisticated ships now being built, such a degree should not be required for merchant marine officers.

In all these fields the maritime academies could have a significant role to play. We believe that they should not be limited solely to supplying the merchant marine.

An even greater potential exists in the field of oceanography. The present legislative mandates, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 for Kings Point, the Maritime Academy Act of 1958 for the State schools, limit these programs to merchant marine officer training. All of these academies have, however, a basic, deep orientation to the ocean which undoubtedly makes them especially valuable institutions in what is becoming a major national effort to develop the nation's

ocean resources.

In teaching meteorology, for instance, they are already involved in a discipline which in its broader ranges impinges on many aspects of ocean science and technology.

Extraction of magnesium, oil, and natural gas from beneath the sea has already grown tremendously in the past decade, but there are many more mineral and chemical riches to be extracted from the ocean as new methods and techniques are developed to make them commercially feasible. One projection2 estimates that by 1979 over $28 billion dollars will be spent in the underwater market, over 90% of it by the private sector. This indicates a tremendous growth in the demand for men trained in marine subjects and techniques.

One of the problems connected with an expansion of maritime training to encompass these additional related fields is the need for coordination of effort to avoid wasteful duplication and to provide guidance in meeting the needs that are expected to exist. The Maritime Administration is the government agency having an expertise in maritime training, and as such seems particularly suited to coordinate these broader areas of marine-oriented training.

We suggest the expansion of the Maritime Training Advisory Board, already in existence for direction of the training programs, and including representatives of labor, industry, interested government agencies, the training schools, and the academic community. This group should not only study the need for and the possibilities existing for expanding maritime training into related fields, but should provide coordination and guidance as to the types of training, including introduction of new subjects as required by new technological developments, the quantity and quality of training, and the sources of funding required. It could also serve to guide expansion plans to meet emergency requirements.

While national priorities preclude any recommendation for expanded Federal funding of training programs at this time, we believe that the expansion of training programs into related fields would serve to broaden the base of the maritime academies' support. Industries which benefit from the trained manpower provided should be willing to contribute to the training program.

EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS

In our planning for manpower needs in emergencies, we use the shipping capability requirements developed by the Department of Defense, together with estimates of shipping requirements of the domestic wartime economy as developed by other government agencies.

Primary reliance in case of a total conventional war would be placed on the ability of the active work force existing at that time to absorb an increase in work demand to operate a major portion of whatever reserve fleet may then be available for service. A total conventional war would be accompanied by emergency authority and manpower controls permitting continued use of the active work force through normal vacation periods and other time off taken by men during normal periods. Use of vacation time and lower manning levels per ship (within Coast Guard manning requirements) would enable the active work force to absorb up to a twenty percent increase in demand. The feasibility of this procedure was demonstrated during the Vietnam operations.

Secondary reliance would be placed on upgrade training, designed to move men from the lower levels of the work force where the supply would be greater into higher skills, including officer levels, where any shortage can be expected to occur first. Upgrade training can produce results in 30 days for unlicensed skilled ratings, and in 60-90 days for new officers from the date these programs are instituted. The facilities of the union schools would be used to a great extent for such a program. The needs for additional men in certain ratings which developed during the Vietnam emergency were met mainly by upgrade training in most of the union schools which are now going institutions. These schools have courses varying from 90 days to 2 years, and can provide needed flexibility for any future emergency.

2 "A Survey of Maritime Trends and Their Effect on the Calhoon MEBA Training School," Diebold Group Inc., July 1969, p. 64.

The maritime academies responded to the Vietnam emergency to the limits of their capability by providing for early graduation in the two years of the most serious shortages. Short of a major emergency, which would lead to a complete change in curriculum, the flexibility of response of the academies is restricted by their three and four year course requirements.

The third step, if a major shipbuilding program should be instituted similar to that in World War II, would be the establishment of government-operated training programs and major acceleration of courses at the Federal and State maritime academies. The lead time of a major shipbuilding program would enable these changes and additions to be made in sufficient time. provided emergency authority and funds were available.

The creation of a Merchant Marine Reserve is hampered by restrictions of authority and funds. Nevertheless, we believe that consideration should be given to the possibility of establishing a voluntary reserve of men recently in active service who have gone into related shoreside maritime industries. It should be possible for the academies and union training schools to offer short refresher courses free or at nominal cost through which such men could keep their skills up to date. The value of such training to men working in maritime related fields should be sufficient to win their cooperation and that of their employers in providing time for the one or two week courses on an annual or biannual basis. The National Defense Executive Reserve provides a corps of business leaders knowledgeable in their fields who spend a few days each year in briefing sessions, and are available for exercises or for non-war emergencies. A similar type of standby body of trained seamen could provide the ready reserve of officers that might be needed immediately in a war emergency to give the necessary time to train additional officers.

Even in wartime the merchant marine has retained its position as civilian employment, and no reserve training inducements such as are offered to the members of the armed forces have been approved for merchant seamen. A peace-time surplus that could create underemployment and disruption of the employment market should not be supported by Federal funds. In view of the projected surpluses indicated under present training plans, we believe it is necessary to restrict Federal funding to the level of indicated need, to encourage a broadening of the fields for which maritime schools may train men, to place greater emphasis on quality of training for the whole maritime industry, and to encourage a voluntary reserve corps of former active seamen now in maritime related fields to meet emergency needs.

The Maritime Administration will continue to concentrate its efforts on providing the best possible training at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy for officers for U.S. merchant ships. The Academy should serve as a national laboratory of what marine-oriented training should be. We should explore the possible use of the Academy to provide additional marine research and development capability, to participate in industry efforts to develop improved management techniques, and to investigate the potentialities for expansion into oceanographic training. The Maritime Administraton should also take the lead in coordinating all maritime training programs to provide the best and most effective methods of meeting our national requirements for well-trained merchant marine officers.

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION, SUBMITTED WITH CONGRESSMAN DOWNING'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 24, 1969

1. Is there a shortage of maritime academies in the country? Do we need more? Do we have too many now? Is the present number of maritime academies adequate?

P. 12-14, Appendixes 9-23.

2. How does the number of graduates of these schools relate to the demand? Same as No. 1.

3. Do graduates of these schools who do not stay at sea generally get into maritime-related fields?

P. 5-6, Appendixes 2 and 3.

4. How many officers which are graduates of these schools are presently sailing in the U.S. merchant marine? What is the total? How many from Kings Point? How many from each State school? How many from the Union schools? Same as No. 3.

5. What is the total number of officers in the merchant marine today? Where do they come from? Do they all have the same license? How do they go about getting a job on shipboard?

Pp. 12-13 and Appendix 11. Officers are licensed by the Coast Guard. Many hold higher licenses than those in which they are sailing. Most are hired through union hiring halls; some are hired directly by oil companies which have independent unions.

6. What is the average length of time a graduate waits at the union hall before getting on a ship?

There may be little waiting time in periods of full employment but long waits in leaner times. Other factors affecting waiting time are vacation periods, seniority rules, desire of union members to work on particular ships.

7. Are all the maritime academies filled to the capacity of their enrollment potential? Do the academies encounter any trouble in getting the students to enroll?

P. 10.

8. Has the cost of living increased together with other pertinent economic factors over the past ten years been sufficient to justify an increase from $600 to $1,000 in subsistence payments to the cadets at the maritime schools? P. 10-12, Appendixes 4-8.

9. Does the present financial status of the maritime schools indicate the necessity of increasing the $75,000 outlay to these schools?

Same as No. 8.

10. What is the projection for merchant marine jobs in the future? Will the number of jobs increase, decrease or remain about the same?

P. 12-15, Appendixes 9-23.

APPENDIX I-3

QUESTION AND ANSWER ON MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION--CONGRESSMAN JOHN M. MURPHY'S QUESTION

"The question of input into our licensed ranks of merchant marine officers is, of course, critical. May I suggest that we ask the Maritime Commission to include in its supplemental report a discussion of the interchange of officers between the Navy and the Merchant Marine. I understand it is relatively easy to transfer from the Merchant Marine to the Navy, but rather difficult to transfer a commission to the Merchant Marine from Navy. The difficulty of moving into the merchant service after naval service may be discouraging a potentially important source of qualified merchant officers that can supplement our other input sources."

P. 8 and 9.

APPENDIX I-4

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION--MR. HATHAWAY'S QUESTIONS

1. How does MARAD view the maritime industry? Is it viewed as an ocean transport service or do they view it as exploiting the whole spectrum of oceans; ie: exploiting mining, food recovery, mineral recovery?

P. 6-9, 15-16.

2. Is there any work going forth to fix the number of merchant marine personnel that would be needed in a total emergency, that would involve a total conventional war?

P. 17-18.

3. What plans if any does MARAD have for subsidy increases to the students at the State Maritime Academies?

(a) What plans has MARAD made or anticipated for the increased student enrollments at the State Academies?

P. 10-11.

4. What is MARAD's attitude toward the inclusion of Ocean Sciences in the State Academies' programs?

(a) What about a graduate program in this field?

(b) Are there any plans for MARAD Graduate Fellowships?

P. 15–17.

5. What type of Manpower concept does MARAD contemplate in view of the Administration's recent maritime program?

P. 12-14, Appendixes 9-23.

6. Does MARAD anticipate an increase or decrease in the need of licensed seagoing personnel, in the near future?

(a) What plans if any does MARAD propose for future manpower needs? Same as No. 5.

7. Should the merchant marine officer be qualified in all respects to serve sideby-side with USN officers in time of war?

P. 8-9.

APPENDIX I-5

8. Does MARAD feel that officer training should be concentrated at the Federal Academy?

P. 3, 13-18.

9. Does MARAD have any plans to provide for the expansion programs announced by the various academies, for the next several years?

P. 14.

10. Does MARAD have any position on graduate education for officers? P. 15-16.

11. Should officers receive an accredited degree?

P. 16.

12. Is any agency of the government forecasting to determine Merchant Marine manpower needs in the event of a total conventional war in which cargo volume would be comparable to that of World War II?

P. 17-18.

13. What was learned in meeting the shipping needs for the Vietnamese war as to available maritime manpower?

P. 17-18.

14. Is consideration given to the role of the state maritime colleges in providing a reserve of trained Merchant Marine Officers that would be available in the event of total manpower mobilization?

P. 18.

15. In measuring manpower needs does the Maritime Administration consider the needs of the total maritime structure that would include shoreside support and support for the new ocean industries?

P. 15-17.

APPENDIX 2

U.S. MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY, GRADUATE WORK STUDY: 1949-68

The attached twenty year work study (1949-1968) of United States Merchant Marine Academy graduates is based upon current graduate record cards on file in the alumni office at the Academy. Statistics for the most recent five year period (1964-1968) are augmented by data supplied by the Navy Bureau of Personnel and by the Merchant Vessel Personnel Documentation and Records Branch of the United States Coast Guard.

The work study shows that 94.9% of the Academy's graduates are actively employed in the maritime industry during their first five years; 89.4% in berths at sea and 5.6% in jobs within the industry ashore.

Over the full twenty year period, 61.2% of the Kings Point graduates were found to be employed in the maritime industry; 38.3% at sea and 22.9% in the industry ashore.

The graduate record cards on file also reveal that more than 250 Kings Pointers are currently sailing as either master or chief engineer. This would indicate that one out of every four ships in the American merchant marine has a Kings Point graduate as either its master or chief engineer.

CHARLES M. RENICK, Commander, USMS; Director of Alumni Affairs.