ing at Kings Point. This is an increase, interestingly enough, from 1960 to where the cost was $3,611. Senator BARTLETT. The dread blight of inflation has struck there, then, too. Mr. GULICK. It certainly has. The figures of $5,000 and $3,000 which I cited, Mr. Chairman, are the costs per year rather than the total cost to graduates, as I stated. Senator BARTLETT. Does the Maritime Administration give these boys any spending money? Mr. GULICK. We do not, sir. We supply them only with a uniform and textbook allowance. They, however, during their sea year, earn a seagoing salary. I believe the latest figure is somewhere around $155 a month. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Imhoff, for being here. We probably will have no more questions to put to you. (Mr. Imhoff withdrew from the room.) Let us turn to the State marine schools. You said there are five. The State, I assume, from what you said, builds the physical plant. Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. In each case the State schools are a part of the normal educational system of the State, maintained by State funds, and normal tuition costs as in the case of other colleges, supplemented by amounts contributed by the United States under the State Academy Training Act. Senator BARTLETT. What proportion, if you know, of the yearly expenses are borne by the U.S. Government for each cadet? What percentage? I suppose it would differ from State to State? Mr. GULICK. I do not have the percentage. I have some figures. For the year 1967, in the California State Academy, the students paid $198,270. The State contributed a little over half a million dollars, $592,684. There were also miscellaneous receipts and certain school funds of $6,020. The total Federal funds were $281,293. The total operating costs for 1967 for the California Academy was $1,078,267, which would be a contribution by the Federal Government of a little in excess of 25 percent. Senator BARTLETT. Thank you. In the aggregate, how many students do these five schools graduate every year now? Mr. GULICK. The average is a little in excess of 400 students. Senator BARTLETT. What are the total needs of the merchant marine for officers annually? Mr. GULICK. The input of the State academies and the Federal Academy at Kings Point give us an input of approximately 600 officers per year. With our present level of shipping plus the ability of certain unlicensed seamen to come up through the hawsepipe and acquire their licenses on the basis of experience and their own training availabilities, we feel that the input now is sufficient. This does not take into consideration the fact that the average age in the maritime seagoing side of the industry is rather high and, undoubtedly, there will have to be a greater input in the event of any expansion of the American merchant marine." Senator BARTLETT. How are boys appointed to Kings Point? Mr. GULICK. The Federal Academy Act authorizes nominations by Members of Congress on the basis of population in the individual States. Once nominated, the boys are examined physically, given a competitive scholastic examination, and their records are reviewed to determine their aptitude to the American merchant marine. On the basis of these criteria, a priority listing is established, and the young men are offered appointments on the basis of their standing. In many instances, the applicant would have in addition filed for admission to other Federal academies or to other colleges. Not all who are offered appointments take them. This means that we then go down the list in order of attained rank to determine who gets the next appointment. Senator BARTLETT. Typically, are there more applicants than openings? Mr. GULICK. Quite so. Yes, sir. Senator BARTLETT. I would say it is a perfectly dreadful situation if the formula for appointment is based upon the population of a State. That leaves Alaska somewhat lagging in comparison with California and New York, for example. Mr. GULICK. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that in some States-say, in the middle part of the country which has no great knowledge or concern with the merchant marine-it is quite customary for the Members of Congress to have some nominations left over. And in those instances, it is also quite customary to take care of boys from other States who cannot get in under their own State quota. Senator BARTLETT. I read your message clearly. As much as anyone else-and more, I suspect, than most-I dislike making comparisons in any field between the United States and the Soviet Union. But nevertheless, like most people do, I am going to come to that right now. What nations rank in respect to the size of their fleets by way of tonnage and by way of being modern? Mr. GULICK. As of February 23, Mr. Chairman, dealing with oceangoing vessels of 1,000 gross tons and over, but pinned to last June 30 in point of time, the rank in order of deadweight tonnage gave first place to Liberian ships with a total of 1,423, Norway second place with 1,371, the United Kingdom third with more ships, but less deadweight the number of ships was 1,928. Fourth place was the United States if the Government-owned fleet is included. Senator BARTLETT. Fifth, you said? Mr. GULICK. Fourth place. Without the Government-owned fleet, the United States ranks fifth, behind Japan which would then move up to fourth. U.S.S.R. rates seventh today with 1,362 ships; interestingly enough, 4.4 percent of the total world deadweight tonnage. Comparing the United States and the Soviet merchant fleets, the United States has as of last June 30 a total deadweight tonnage of 26,492,000 as opposed to the U.S.S.R. 10,369,000. Obviously, this 26 million for the United States includes both the privately owned and Government-owned fleet. If you take out the Government fleet, the United States has a private tonnage of 14,990,000 as opposed to the Soviets' 10 million. In terms of percentage of the world total fleet, on a deadweight basis, the United States has 11.1 percent of the total; the Soviets 4.4. Eliminating the Government-owned fleet side, the United States has 6.3 as opposed to the Soviets' 4.4. In terms of number of ships over 9,000 deadweight tons, which is getting up pretty close to the smallest ship in our category, the old standard Liberty type, the United States would have 1,783 ships as opposed to the Russians' 389, which is an indication to us that the Russian shipbuilding activity and the number of ships in their fleet as of June 30 last year was aimed at a smaller size ship than those we normally construct and bring into our fleet. Senator BARTLETT. That includes our Government-owned fleet? Mr. GULICK. The number includes the Government-owned fleet; yes, sir. The private fleet would be around 887 as opposed to the Soviets' 389. Senator BARTLETT. Well, we have all read that the Soviet Union intends to become one of the leading, if not the leading, maritime powers in the world. Is it stepping up noticeably insofar as you know its shipbuilding operations at home and abroad and its ship operations? Mr. GULICK. Our indication is that the Soviet is definitely expanding its fleet. But our information also is that it is not expanding at a rate which would make it overtake the United States, say, in the next 5 or 6 years. We believe that while the Soviets have a very active program of ship construction, they are not at the moment in a position where they will catch up with the United States and, as has been said, drive us out of business on the high seas. We are not concerned, Mr. Chairman, in my agency primarily with an effort to get into a race with the Soviets. We are far more interested in building up our fleet even with smaller numbers to do a better job in the competitive world markets, to haul a greater percentage of our trade. And if we get the kind of competitive ships we think our industry should have, we think we can hold our own with the Soviets and with all the rest of the world. Mr. BARER. Mr. Gulick, as I recall, 1 year ago, Lloyds Register of Shipping listed the United States as 16th in the level of merchant shipbuilding. Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. Mr. BARER. Do you know how we are rated today as to level of shipbuilding? Mr. GULICK. The last figure I have is as of June 30, 1967. And in that, we were 14th. Mr. BARER. Do you know what level the Soviet Union is? Mr. GULICK. The U.S.S.R. was third with the number of ships under construction in the Soviet Union at that time. This was for the Soviet 131 as opposed to the 45 building at that time in the United States. Mr. BARER. Does the Soviet figure include vessels being constructed for the use of the Soviet Union outside of the Soviet shipbuilding yards? I understand they construct some in Norway and some other places. Mr. GULICK. They do. This figure does not include the ships constructed for the Soviet Government outside of Soviet Russia. Mr. BARER. The ranking of the Soviet Union as third in shipbuilding excludes, then, those ships that the Soviet Union is having built in foreign yards. Do you have any idea of what they would rank if those ships were brought into the competition or, to put it another way, approximately what percentage of their shipbuilding do they allocate to foreign construction? Mr. GULICK. The Soviet, as of June 30, 1967, had a total of ships under construction or on order of 144. Mr. BARER. What was the comparable figure for the United States? Mr. GULICK. The United States had 45. Counting my figure of a little bit ago of 131 under construction in the Soviet Union, this means that the Soviets were ordering 313 ships from other countries. Mr. BARER. It would be accurate to say, then, would it not, that the Soviet Union is presently building ships and I use that term to include those that they are ordering outside their own shipyards—at a rate just about 10 times that of the United States? Mr. GULICK. Yes. Yes. Now, whether all of these ships are the types that would be competitive with ours, I understand a good number of these are for their own domestic or their own area transportation systems where we, of course, do not go. I cannot say at the moment. We feel that rather than to get into a race with them, we should be devoting our energies to the building of the kind of fleet the United States requires for its purposes. Senator BARTLETT. Well, we have to admit that Russia is on the march. Mr. GULICK. They are, indeed, Mr. Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. And they must have a very modern fleet in comparison with ours. Would you agree with that? Mr. GULICK. The ships which they are building for high seas world transport in our understanding are highly capable ships. I would agree. Senator BARTLETT. And, of course, we are referring to a nation that used to be considered rather landlocked, although it was not literally at any time, of course. Mr. Hughes had certain comments to make concerning the 1936 act. Would you care to advise us of your views regarding this? Mr. GULICK. Mr. Chairman, I think the simplest and most factual answer I could give is that as I understand my operation in my particular segment of the Government, as long as the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 is on the books, it expresses the will, not only of the Congress, but of the people of the United States. And it is our duty to administer that act so as to insure the accomplishment of its objectives. I have the feeling that Mr. Hughes was largely of the same opinion and was saying, and I have to agree with this, that in a time of tight money and many other demands, we are often not able to do as much as we would like to accomplish. Senator BARTLETT. When you were giving us the relative figures for different countries, you included the U.S. reserve fleet. But from what you previously told us, I take it that we just have to cast that out entirely regarding tonnage except for that which may be available after the Southeast Asia adventure is concluded. So as of now, this is of no importance whatsoever. Mr. GULICK. This poses a problem in several areas, too, Mr. Chairman. If we eliminate the reserve fleet from any consideration of the size of the American merchant marine, then it is quite possible that we raise problems of our membership on various world bodies dealing with the regulation of various shipping activities, ranging from safety to the various economic sides. Senator BARTLETT. Our liner fleet is a subsidized part of our fleet with respect to construction and with respect to operation, is it not? Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. Senator BARTLETT. Now, how do you rate our liner fleet in compari- Mr. GULICK. I was looking, Mr. Chairman, to see if I had a break- Senator BARTLETT. Well, this is simply amazing. It is true that you Mr. GULICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would, with your permission, like to give an answer from my Senator BARTLETT. Is there any other nation in the world that sub- Mr. GULICK. To my knowledge, there is no other nation that does cost. Senator BARTLETT. Some do it indirectly? Mr. GULICK. My understanding is, and we have had some studies in Senator BARTLETT. Well, that was the answer I thought you would In my opinion, this program ought to be expended. That is, how- Senator BARTLETT. Well, I think we can conclude on that note. Senator BARTLETT. If the Senate committee decides to go along with Thank you. Mr. GULICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BARTLETT. The hearing is adjourned, subject to the call of (Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the hearing adjourned.) C |