Mr. DOWNING. I have to invoke the 5-minute rule. Although these questions are interesting and significant, due to time constraints I would like you to reserve the balance of your time.

Mr. SARBANES. Fine.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. McCloskey?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, under title I of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 you testified that the Merchant ships that are subsidized have to be referred to the Navy for approval of their plans, correct?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Yet, since 1970, it appears that almost half of the vessels that have been constructed with subsidy are not suitable for transfer to the Navy in time of war; is that correct?

Mr. WHEELER. Perhaps generally correct, sir, if you are talking about OBO's and a lot of the crude carriers.

In essence, I think what you are stating is true, yes.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, 55 have been constructed, 32 are suitable for defense needs.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. But there is an inherent conflict, is there not, in the construction of the subsidized ships between the desire to make our maritime fleet economically competitive, and the Navy's responsibility under the law to make them suitable for auxiliary purposes? It is a conflict that has to be resolved each time plans are submitted to you.

Mr. CARL. That is correct.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Who resolves that conflict in the administration? Mr. CARL. That is a joint effort in the Defense Department, per se, and the Maritime Administration.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Is the Office of Management and Budget in on the act?

Mr. CARL. In some cases, yes.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Is this committee advised of the nature of these controversies on a ship-by-ship basis?

Mr. CARL. Not that I know of officially.

Mr. WHEELER. I am not sure what you mean by "controversy." Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, I understood the answer to the earlier question to be that there is an inherent controversy between the maritime goal of having of having an economically competitive merchant fleet and the Navy's responsibilities under title I of the 1936 act, that these ships be suitable for auxiliaries. I understand that not all of them

are.

Mr. CARL. I guess if you do not mind, sir, the word "conflict" kind of bothers me a little bit. Viewpoint, yes, or even goals, yes.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. To the extent that any ship is built with a subsidy that is not available as a naval auxiliary, we are violating the law, are we not?

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir; section 501 (b) of the Merchant Marine Act states that the ship has to be either suitable for speedy and economical conversion to a naval or military auxiliary or otherwise suitable for use by the U.S. Government in time of war or national emergency.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. But you have to make that decision.

Mr. WHEELER. Yes; the Secretary of the Navy does make that decision.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. On a ship-by-ship basis?

Mr. WHEELER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, of the 55 ships, 32 are suitable for auxiliary purposes, and 23 are useful for the United States in time of war. Mr. WHEELER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. And the Secretary has to certify to that?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes; he does.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Could you submit for the record, then, in the case of the 55 ships built thus far, the Secretary of the Navy's certification? Mr. WHEELER. Be happy to.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. May I ask permission for that, Mr. Chairman? This may be too voluminous to be put into the record, but we could have it for our files.

Mr. DOWNING. Is that a voluminous undertaking?

Mr. WHEELER. It could be as many as 55 letters. These are individual certifications; one letter, however, might cover several ships of the same type. We will be happy to do it for you.

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps we could make a summary of that.

Mr. DOWNING. If you would do that, the committee would be appreciative, and without objection, that will be made part of the record at this point.

[Information to be supplied follows:]

LIST OF VESSELS CERTIFIED, FEATURES FOR PARTICULAR Vessels, and

CERTIFYING LETTERS

Attachment "A" provides a listing of vessels certified by the Secretary of the Navy as suitable for use by the United States Government in time of war or national emergency in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act. The listing includes all vessels certified since 1970 but does not indicate that all these ships were eventually built.

Attachment "B" indicates the National Defense Features that the Department of the Navy suggested for particular type vessels that became eligible for construction subsidies as a result of amendment to the Merchant Marine Act in 1970. These features will make such vessels suitable for use by the United States Government in time of war or national emergency.

Attachment "C" is a sample of typical certifying letters from the Secretary of the Navy to the Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce.

VESSELS CERTIFIED SINCE 1970 AS SUITABLE FOR USE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY

"VESSELS CERTIFIED SINCE 1970 AS SUITABLE FOR USE BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR OR NATIONAL

XX

LNG tanker

National defense features

1. Increase minimum speed-16 kn..

2. Provide limited fueling at sea and highline trans- X fer capability.

3. Install pumps and piping for transport and X simultaneous discharge of 2 to 4 refined products.

4. Coat tanks..

5. Install shock resistant materials to the exclu- X
sion of grey cast iron in equipments and
systems which affect survivability.

6. Provide clear deck space arrangement....
7. Provide for loading and unloading of mixed
military vehicles.

8. Install cargo lashing fittings for securing mili-
tary vehicles.

9. Install sideport and portable ramp. Install openings for side ports, ramps, and interior doors for passage of military vehicles.

10. Increase ventilation system..

11. Provide means to permit lifting of helicopters from lower decks.

12. Provide a 70-ton-lift capability.

13. Increase shaft horsepower.

14. Increase generating capacity.

15. Increase distilling capacity..

16. Increase pumping capacity.

17. Install structure for future installation of gantry

cranes.

18. Provide contingency working plans and specifications to make ship self-sufficient in container cargo handling.

19. Install "tee" fitting for future addition of additional electric generator.

20. Prepare a ship loading characteristic pamphlet.. 21. Install pumps and piping for transport and discharge of diesel fuel marine.

1 Lighter aboard ship.

2 Oil-bulk-ore.

Liquified natural gas.

MARAD DES LG9-S-107a.

Hon. ROBERT J. BLACKWELL,

Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs,
U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BLACKWELL: The plans and specifications forwarded with Maritime Administration letter of May 8, 1974, regarding the new 42,790 DWT tanker, MA Design T6-MT-117a, proposed to be built for Interstate Oil Transport, have been examined by the Department of the Navy.

In accordance with Section 501 (b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, the plans and specifications are approved and it is considered that the ship is useful to the United States Government in time of war or national emergency.

To enhance the suitability of the ship for wartime use it is suggested that the following features be accomplished:

a. Increase speed from 14.6 knots to 16.0 knots.

b. Provision for limited alongside and astern fueling at sea and highline transfer capability in accordance with Military Sealift Command standards.

c. Provision for the use of shock resistant materials, to the general exclusion of gray cast iron, in equipment and systems which affect the survival capability of the proposed ships.

d. Piping and deck fittings arranged to provide maximum clear deck space for lifts of opportunity.

It is requested that trial tests be performed for all installations determined to be national defense features.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

R. A. CARL,

Special Assistant, Transportation.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS,
Washington, D.C., March 13, 1972.

Hon. ANDREW E. GIBSON,

Assistant Secretary for Maritime Affairs,
U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GIBSON: The preliminary plans and specifications forwarded with Maritime Administration letter of December 13, 1971, regarding the proposed construction of four new vessels of the roll-on/roll-off type, MA Design C7-S-95a, proposed to be built for States Steamship Company, have been examined by the Department of the Navy.

In accordance with Section 501 (b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, the plans and specifications are approved, and it is certified that the proposed ships are suitable for the use of the United States Government in time of war or national emergency.

The following features are suggested for incorporation in the design to enhance the suitability of the proposed ships for wartime use. These features could be certified as national defense features provided they are determined fo be in excess of commercial requirements:

a. Design structures, decks, and ramps to prmit loading and unloading of mixed cargoes of military wheeled and tracked vehicles on all roll-on/roll-off decks. b. Provide cargo lashing fittings on the roll-on/roll-off decks and ramps suitable for securing military vehicles.

c. Provide one sideport on port side, including one portable ramp suitable for use at port and starboard sideports. Provide openings for sideports, ramps, and interior doors suitable for the passage of military vehicles.

d. Design ventilation system in order to permit the loading and unloading of military vehicles on all roll-on/roll-off decks, increasing electric generating capacity as appropriate.

e. Provide means to permit lifting helicopters from "C" deck to “A” (Upper) deck.

f. Provide a 70-ton lift capability between hatches 1 and 2.

g. Provide for the use of more shock resistant materials, to the general exclusion of gray cast iron, in equipments and systems which affect the survival capability of the proposed ships.

The basic roll-on/roll-off configuration of these ships, enhanced by the proposed design features, would make them particularly responsive to military transportation needs in a contingency situation.

Sincerely yours,

R. A. CARL, Special Assistant (Transp.).

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Doctor, on page 10 of your testimony, you refer to the fact that the suitability of these vessels for direct military support purposes and with respect to the adequacy and need for U.S. fleet vessels for carriage of strategic and commercial materials, is a matter of national civil preparedness need.

You say the DOD role is that of several claimant agencies for the product. Which are the other agencies that participate in these claims? Mr. CARL. The Department of Agriculture, General Services Administration, Department of Commerce are three agencies that would certainly require capability.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. What about the old Office of Emergency Preparedness?

Mr. CARL. We discussed that a little earlier, Mr. Congressman. That would probably be the controlling organization put back into use at the time of emergency. Its duties now rest with other agencies.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Which agencies do they rest with as concerns this particular problem of ships available?

Mr. CARL. As to the ships available, I do not know.