JULY 14, 1970. Joint statement of the chief executive officers of the Maritime Academies of the states of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Texas presented to the head of the special commission of the Maritime Administration meeting to consider the role of the State Academies, the appropriate level of Federal support and the continuing source of supply of ship's officers. We, the chief executive officers of the Maritime Academies of the States of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Texas view the proposals of the Maritime Administration for a cut back in Federal subsidy support for the number of midshipman officer trainees and the implied reduction in support of the operation of the State Maritime Academies beginning in the Fiscal Year 1972 with dismay and alarm. The State Maritime Academies have evolved during the past one hundred years as a prime source of qualified officers for the American Merchant Marine and as a breeding ground for a new generation of maritime-oriented leaders of the integrated transportation industry. In response to urgent appeals of the national administration for an increased, assured supply of young officers to man our ships during the years of the recent emergency in Southeast Asia, the State Academies have put forth every effort to expand their capacities, and largely at their own expense have managed to improve both curriculum and facilities to attract the type of young men who are not only capable of coping with the complex problems of modern technology in ship and cargo handling, but also have the potential to take their places among the future leaders of the marine transportation industry. We would like specifically, to direct the attention of the Maritime Administration to the following points: 1. In a period when the Federal Government is attempting to limit its expenditures, it seems to us poor economy to limit the output of the lowest cost producer of a given product in favor of other agencies, which at markedly higher cost, produce a product of no greater utility. We note that the average cost of training a student graduate at the State Maritime Academies, according to the figures published in Appendix 5 of the Maritime Administration report is $19,310, of which $4,800 represents the contribution of the federal government. This compares with a cost per student of $22.822 at the Federal Academy and a unit cost of up to $25,000 for the graduates of union-sponsored training schools. It should be obvious that the proposed change in subsidy regulations which will allow operating companies to charge their contributions to these union operated schools to differential subsidy will inevitably result in the taxpayer assuming some of the cost of these schools' operation. The remaining costs must be absorbed by the operator who is already burdened by not being competitive with foreign operators. We further note an inconsistency between the statement that the unionsponsored schools are the most susceptible of expansion and contraction in accord with the needs of the industry and the projections made by the Maritime Administration for the number of graduates of these schools over the next twenty years. Despite the fact that the report states the union-sponsored schools will probably cut back their production of officers to levels which will maintain their capacity, we note that the charts indicate no cut-back what-so-ever and in one instance the establishment of a school to increase officer production is indicated. Since the figures for graduates from the Federal Academy at Kings Point and through the "hawsepipe" also remain constant in these projections, it becomes obvious that the only source from which a reduction in trainees is to be enforced is the various State Maritime Academies. This we believe to be not only poor economics, but deliberate discrimination. Finally in this regard, we were pleased to note in the course of the meeting of June 23, 1970, in Washington, that union representatives, with one exception, supported the role and position of the State Academies. The one exception made no secret of the fact his recommendation to curtail the number of State Academy graduates was closely related to his personal advocacy of his own union-supported school and ultimately to the preservation of his personal position in his union. Unfortunately the position of various shin operators' organizations, the Independent Tanker Association, the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, MSTS and ESSA were not explored. We feel strongly that the value of these State Academies to the National interest is such that no steps should be taken to diminish or limit their potential role without full concurrence throughout interested members of the government. The fact that various branches of the government involved have not until now been able to reach such concurrence, should not be permitted to redound to the disadvantage of the State Academies. 2. The Maritime Administration proposes to limit the federal subsidy support to the number of students in the State Maritime Academies which will represent the difference between the projected number of officers admitted from other sources and the projected number of vacancies expected to exist in the industry in any given year. In all candor we submit that such a proposal is short-sighted, almost impossible of equitable administration, and contrary to the national interest. We believe sincerely that the Maritime Administration should abandon its limited view of the problem of officer supply based on the extremely parochial view of an anticipated reduction in the number of officer berths aboard existing American flag ships and should adopt a position which reflects the over-all needs of the nation and its varying maritime interests. It is obvious that our national interest is variously served by graduates of the maritime academies in a multitude of positions ashore as well as afloat. As was pointed out numerous times in the hearing of 1966 before the House Subcommittee on Maritime Education and Training, the return to the nation from the graduates of these academies is many times over the small tax supported increment to the cost of their education. Furthermore, just as in the case of federal support for the education of students in the many other courses of professional training offered in this country, there seems no rational reason to insist that only that given number be trained which is in direct relation to the number of potential openings in a particular aspect of a profession. State Maritime Academy graduates with their college degrees and their licenses can and do serve a multitude of purposes within the maritime community in such matters as ocean-going exploration, ocean research, service with the Navy, the Coast Guard in merchant marine safety, service with ESSA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and many others. The engineering officers are much sought after by shipyards, propulsion and machinery manufacturers and so on. These men contribute significantly to the well-being of the Maritime community and by their skills create jobs over the whole spectrum of the industry. It should also be noted that in the training of officers for the uniformed services of the Department of Defense, the number of officers trained is far greater than simply those who can in any given situation be utilized under "normal conditions". The Service Academies, to say nothing of the various ROTC programs, are supported at a level that provides for significant surpluses. Just as every ensign at Annapolis cannot be expected to become an admiral, so every midshipman at a maritime academy cannot be expected to become a licensed master mariner or chief engineer. The point is that they are given training so that if they have the potential they can in fact reach the top of their profession. We feel that realistic planning both for the long-term retention of merchant marine officers at sea and for a future emergency supply of available man power requires that we train the largest number of potential merchant marine officers that the system can acquire within practical limits. Insofar as the student capacity at the State Merchant Marine Academies is concerned, these limits have not been exceeded and will not be exceeded by present plans for enrollment expansion. 3. Only four years ago many of us met, in a time of crisis, to consider ways and means by which the critical shortage of available licensed maritime officers could be eliminated. A rereading of the record of the hearings highlights aspects of the manpower problem to which it appears that the Maritime Administration has yet to face up. This is that in emergency conditions of full and expanding employment in the maritime industry it is difficult to find a ready supply of licensed maritime officers. Under the extraordinary measures taken in 1967 and 1968 men were trained, but no steps were taken to assure a future ready reserve would be available when needed. Without some such measure, implementation of the current Maritime Administration proposal to reduce subsidized support of officer trainees to a one-for-one vacancy basis, will within a very short time reduce the prospective reserve officer pool to zero. While we are not in a position to refute the future projections of officer requirments for ocean going marine officers set forth in the report, we would point out that such projections do not reflect total manpower needs in the industry and are subject to many variables, not easily foreseeable. We would suggest that steps taken at this juncture to reduce the maritime officer pool might well result in our inability to man ships of the reserve fleet in a time of emergency. As an example, consider the potential problem that might arise if the U.S. were to attempt to return the ships of the "flag of convenience" fleet to direct national control. The Federal Maritime Commissioner, Mrs. Bentley, has pointed to this problem in her Survey of U.S. Maritime Prospects, delivered recently at the Naval War College. She pointed out that the "effective control" exerted over these ships amounts solely to an owner's guarantee that the ship would be made available to the U.S. in an emergency. This guarantee is in effect only a piece of paper filed in the archives of the Maritime Administration. She points out: "The question then that comes to mind is, how effective is the control of ship at sea or in a foreign port-and may never touch the United States-when the crew of that ship is composed of the nationals of other countries, who conceivably collectively or individually, might not be in sympathy with our needs in time of an emergency? Is a piece of paper in Washington sufficient to guarantee that the crew aborad ship will return it to this country? And if they do will they continue to man it for us? We submit that this problem of itself is sufficient to warrant a reexamination of the proposal to reduce maritime officer trainee levels. 4. We make no apologies for the efforts we have made in the past to improve the curriculum and broaden the education offered at the State Maritime Academies. Not only are we following the precepts established by the Federal Academy, but all evidence from other advanced maritime nations, many of which have long since surpassed this nation in the size and quality of their modern merchant fleets and advanced personnel training techniques, indicates that this is essential for continued efficient operation of modern vessels and components of the transportation industry. Efforts by individuals to prove that by so doing we are over-educating our maritime officers, are completely unsubstantiated by any statistical evidence and can best be described as an attitude based on ignorance of the facts and prejudicial to the many fine men who have, although well educated, devoted their lives and careers to the well being of the U.S. Merchant Marine. To suggest that the only dedicated maritime officers are those who have had their horizons and capabilities deliberately limited, is to deny the individual right to aspire to the highest goal of human ambition, the desire for self-fulfillment to the greatest possible capacity. Our State Maritime Academies attract young men of high quality who have significant potential for professional growth and who in periods of job shortages at sea have readily and traditionally been able to find rewarding positions ashore when they have continued to be highly productive members of society. Many of these men continue to serve in shoreside aspects of the maritime industry. We do not feel that there is any onus which accrues to the Maritime Academies for the fact that their graduates are able to find alternate employment and that they prefer to do so rather than collect unemployment compensation. Statistical evidence to support the allegation that a preponderance of maritime academy graduates leave the sea after three to five years is not convincing when unsupported by any explanatory material explaining the motivation behind such an exodus. Recent evidence in fact shows that a high percentage of graduates in periods of full employment have in fact stayed at sea, suggesting that the villain of the piece lies in the fact of declining job opportunities as in the decade from the midfifties to the mid-sixties, union seniority rules which prevent younger men from getting employment under these conditions, and last but not least, successive national administrations which have permitted a decline in U.S. water-borne foreign commerce to a disgraceful 5-6%, despite the admonition of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 in its Declaration of Policy which stated: "It is necessary for the national defense and the development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its domestic water-borne export and import foreign commerce of the United States and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign water-borne commerce at all times, (b) capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, (c) owned and operated under the United States flag by citizens of the United States insofar as may be practicable, and (d) composed of the best equipped, safest and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel. It is declared to be the policy of the United States to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine." In view of this goal, the current suggestions of the Maritime Administration reflect an essentially negative and short sighted philosophy which if carried through will rule out the future ability of the state academies and possibly of our merchant marine to respond to the challenges of new breakthroughs or emergencies which could drastically affect our national life in the decades ahead. Perhaps the cyclical effect of the maritime industry is an unavoidable phenomenon, but the projection of future shipping needs on a static basis such as that proposed by the Maritime Administration fails to take into consideration the potential increase in sea commerce that will result from such current imponderables as the Alaskan North Slope oil fields, and sea mining, to name only the most obvious. We contend that the contribution of the Federal government to the State Maritime Academies is a modest conservative investment, well spent if in fact our merchant marine will serve to meet these and such other contingencies as they arise. Short of all-out nuclear war, America will continue in our time to be the arsenal of the Free World. The maintenance of her waterborne commerce is essential to that position. To deliberately reduce the prime source of officers to man these ships as they are needed is to threaten the future sea-deployment of our ships. 5. More serious thought needs to be given to the national defense implications of the Maritime Administration proposals. As was demonstrated in the 1966 hearings, the supply of maritime officers is strictly limited and efforts to induce men who have left the sea to return, in the face of failure of the national administration to grant special emergency status to the merchant marine proved largely ineffective. We believe that justification exists for the creation of a data bank on licensed maritime personnel, which would serve to keep their records current and, given proper inducements, a ready supply of reserve officers to be established to meet future emergencies. A significant number of our graduates already serve as commissioned officers in the armed forces. While the Maritime Administration with some justice may claim that this was not the purpose for which student subsidies were paid-it should also not lose sight of the fact that many of these men, on completing their military service commitments have taken important shore side positions in the maritime industry. An important aspect of the subsidization program of our merchant fleet is the element of contribution this fleet makes to our national defense. The Maritime Administration should not close its eyes to the contribution the human element in that fleet also makes to the defense of the national interest. Thanks to the relationship between the student subsidy program and the reserve officer training program, the State Maritime Academies are a prime source of candidates for commissioning as ensigns in the USNR and in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. Any cutback in the subsidization program would inevitably result in a demand that military discipline and training be dropped from a curriculum which is primarily paid for by the indivdual student. Thus at a tme when the NROTC is being driven from all too many colleges across the land we question whether a reduction in the potential available student body at the State Maritime Academies is in the national interest. The loss of eligible students for commissions at the State Maritime Academies could not be compensated by expanding the number of union-school graduates under present conditions, nor would the union school then welcome an expansion of the student body at the Federal Academy. Also due consideration should be given to the potential value to our national defense of the five vessels maintained at readiness by the Maritime Academies. A reduction in the role of these schools will sooner or later call into question the maintenance of these ships. Their withdrawal would represent loss of a potential asset of considerable value. 6. We welcome the position of the Maritime Administration that the State Maritime Academies need to broaden their missions to include elements of the maritime interests of this country beyond the purely sea-going transportation aspects. It must be pointed out, however, that in order to do this economically there must be present a constant student body of sufficient size to support the expense of providing this broadened educational potential. The several academies have long been aware of this need and in various ways are already attempting to meet the challenge such a broadening of curriculum presents. In both the engineering and deck departments optional fields of concentration in such subjects as electrical engineering, nuclear science, meteorology, oceanography, advanced management and computer technology are being offered at present or being considered for addition to our several academic programs. The possibility of graduate programs in business administration, transportation management, and license up-grading and refresher courses are being considered. New technologies of propulsion, navigation and cargo handling are being added to the curriculum despite the technical lag in the licensing examinations. We have in no way shirked our responsibilities in these respects, but unless we can be assured of a stable student body many of these programs will prove economically impossible. Continuing support from the federal government is essential if we are to be able to serve effectively the national interest as we face up to the extremely high costs of operation of a maritime training school. The federal share in these costs has been and will continue to be only a fraction of the total cost of operation, which has been borne increasingly by state government contributions and rising student fees. The federal contribution remains the essential ingredient which assures the continuation of the program. We therefore conclude and recommend: 1. That there is no necessary or logical need at this time to limit the numbers of students being trained to become licensed officers of the merchant marine at the several State Maritime Academies, and that therefore the Maritime Administration be urged to continue its present policy of support to the student bodies of these institutions under the rules presently in force. 2. That increasing inflationary trends and the need for unique modern instructional equipment to keep the students abreast of the technological revolution in the maritime industry fully warrant an increase in the direct federal payment to the State Maritime Academies. We request the Maritime Administration to endorse favorable consideration of the Hathaway Bill now before the Sub-Committee of Maritime Education and Training of the House of Representatives Commission on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, which will restore the Federal contribution to the level originally established in the Maritime Academy Act of 1958. 3. That inflationary effects on the costs of student subsistence clearly warrant an increase in the payment to individual students as is supported by the findings of the Maritime Administration in its Administration support before the Congress an increase in individual subsidy payments to the cadets enrolled at the State Maritime Academies that will adequately compensate them for the cost of maintenance and uniforms on a ratio at least equal to that envisaged as proper federal share at the time the Maritime Academy Act was promulgated in 1958. F. T. WILLIAMSON, Rear Admiral, UNS (Ret.) Superintendent. E. A. RODGERS, Rear Admiral, USMS, Superintendent, Maine Maritime Academy. Rear Admiral, USMS, President, Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.), President, State University of New York Maritime College. JAMES D. CRAIK, Rear Admiral, USCG, (Ret.), Superintendent, Texas Maritime Academy. Hon. THOMAS N. DOWNING, BOSTON, MASS., October 21, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Maritime Education and Training, Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DOWNING: H.R. 8328-The maritime students subsidy bill which is presently before your subcommittee is extremely significant for maritime students in Massachusetts and throughout the Nation. The economy of Massachusetts has traditionally been linked to the progress of the maritime industry. A key factor in the future of this industry will be the Maritime Academy. The protection of this institution and its students from the detrimental effects of runaway inflation and increasing costs requires prompt favorable action on H.R. 8328. I respectfully urge such action by your subcommittee. Sincerely, MAURICE A. DONAHUE, President of the Massachusetts Senate. |