J. W. Gulick, Acting Maritime Administrator, Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Carl Davis, General Counsel, Maritime Administration, and William Heneghan, Budget Officer, Maritime Administration; also Lawrence E. Imhoff, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Thomas O'Brien, Office of Budget and Finance, Department of Commerce, and Pedro Vazquez, J. W. Gulick, Acting Maritime Administrator, Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; accompanied by Carl Davis, General Counsel, Maritime Administration, and William Heneghan, Budget Officer, Maritime Administration; Also Lawrence E. Imhoff, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of (Continuation)_. Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, letter to Senator Construction and operating contract provisions_ MERCHANT MARINE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1968 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 5110, New Senate Office Building, the Honorable E. L. Bartlett presiding. Senator BARTLETT. The committee will be in order. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Today we initiate hearings on S. 3016, a bill to authorize appropriations for certain maritime programs of the Department of Commerce. S. 3016 is the first bill introduced pursuant to Public Law 90-81, which requires that after December 31, 1967, "only such sums as the Congress may specifically authorize by law may be appropriated for the use of the Maritime Administration" for various categories of activity. Thus we begin a process which we hope will be of substantial benefit in our efforts to enhance the maritime strength of the United States and assure that Federal expenditures on behalf of the merchant marine are adequate for full implementation of a maritime policy committed to creating a modern and efficient U.S.-flag fleet. However, initial examination of the pending request bill indicates some lack of appreciation within the administration as to the desirability of having a modern and efficient U.S.-flag fleet. Distressing as this is, it surely is no longer a surprise. A copy of the bill and agency comments will be inserted at this point. [S. 3016, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To authorize appropriations for certain maritime programs of the Department of Commerce Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year limitation as the appropriation Act may provide for the use of the Department of Commerce, for the fiscal year 1969, as follows: (a) acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of vessels and construction-differential subsidy and cost of national defense features incident to the construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning of ships, $119,800,000; (b) payment of obligations incurred for operating-differential subsidy, $206,000,000; (c), expenses necessary for research and development activities (including reimbursement of the vessel operations revolving fund for losses resulting from expenses of experimental ship operations), $6,700,000; (d) reserve fleet expenses, $5,279,000; (e) maritime training at the Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, $5,177,000; and (f) financial assistance to State marine schools, $1,900,000. Staff member assigned to this hearing: Stanley H. Barer. Mr. OAKLEY. Yes, sir; they would be larger than those. However, preliminary designs indicate that the size of explosive that would be most frequently used in a canal excavation on Route 17, if I recall correctly, is about 200 kilotons. Bear in mind, that is only twice as much as the explosive that was used for making the Sedan crater which was in the first slide that I showed. Senator BARTLETT. That would be the largest? Mr. OAKLEY. No, sir; not the largest. That would be the most frequently used explosive in the excavation job. The largest explosive that would be used would be 10 megatons, but that would be buried underground 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Senator BARTLETT. Have there been any nuclear tests made in Idaho at all? Mr. OAKLEY. No, sir. We looked for a site there for our Schooner experiment and found one that we would prefer. However, for reasons of economy, as indicated in my testimony, we have decided to do Schooner at our Nevada Test Site. Senator BARTLETT. Let's say the decision is reached to dig a canal, in whole or in part, through the use of nuclear devices. General Noble, would there be a lot of conventional work required as a followup, mean in bulldozing? General NOBLE. There would be considerable, sir. The nuclear devices would be used to blast the main channels, but you would still need a lot of engineering work, flood-control work, entrances to the canal, exits to the canal, some "dental" work to clean up the area, and construction of necessary maintenance and operation facilities, and things of that nature. There would be a considerable amount of conventional engineering; yes, sir. But the main excavation work would be done by the nuclear devices. Senator BARTLETT. I have no further questions, and counsel says he does not. So, the committee will stand in recess. Thank you very much, Ambassador Anderson and General Noble, and all the other witnesses. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee was adjourned.) O |