Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "Seafarers International Union of
North America Convention, Washington, DC, June 21, 1967" of the Ford Congressional
Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Distribution: Total, 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, June 21, 1967
REMARKS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.)
BEFORE THE CONVENTION OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
STATLER-HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1967
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHEN A "GREAT MARITIME SOCIETY?"
The American poet, Edwin Arlington Robinson, once wrote:
"An ocean is forever asking questions
And writing them aloud along the shore."
We in the Congress have been asking: When a "great maritime society?"
I am sure this question is uppermost in the minds of the delegates to this
convention of the Seafarers International Union of North America.
While other nations are experiencing a maritime renaissance, we in the
United States are handicapped by an Administration which either does not care or
does not appreciate the value of national seapower. Because of this Administration's
attitude, we face what the eminent Naval historian, Admiral Mahan, referred to as
"the rude awakening of those who have abandoned their share of the common birth-
right of all people--the sea."
I am greatly disturbed by this trend, especially as it affects the American
maritime industry--shipping and shipbuilding--and our fishing industry.
In his State of the Union message of January 1965, President Johnson
categorically stated that he would recommend a new policy for our merchant
marine." Today, two-and-a-half years later, we are still awaiting this "new"
policy in the Congress of the United States.
Meanwhile, our shipping and shipbuilding posture is declining at an ever-
accelerating rate despite this Nation's demonstrated need for a strong and viable
maritime industry.
The condition of the American maritime industry today is a shocking disgrace.
That this should come to pass in this great nation is incredible, especially in
the light of repeated warnings.
More than five years ago--in February 1962--the then Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Logistics), Vice Admiral John Sylvester, observed:
"The strategic importance of ocean transportation in wartime
dictates that the United States must have under its control sufficient
active merchant type shipping to promptly meet our emergency sealift
requirements.
" The slow rate of progress made in the replacement of aging
vessels has left us with a largely obsolescent Merchant Marine.
Orderly shipbuilding programs and replacement programs should be
instituted without further delay.
"*** Of utmost significance is that the interests of the United
States are global, and emergencies may well arise wherein our
interests would not be identical with those of our European Allies."
(more)
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Events in Cuba, Viet Nam and only recently in Nigeria and the Middle East
testify to the validity of Admiral Sylvester's admonition.
Many international crises have shown that this country must have sufficient
shipping capability to go it alone.
The demands in Southeast Asia have made it necessary for us to maintain
one of the longest supply lines in history. It is a supply line which is being
maintained in part by air but largely by sea.
All of the bulk petroleum requirements, 98% of the supplies, and two out of
three American fighting men have been transported to Viet Nam by ship.
To accomplish this, it has been necessary to reactivate about 170 ships of
World War II vintage from our National Defense Reserve Fleet at an average
reactivation cost of about $1/2 million per ship. This average cost is almost
four times that required for the reactivation of similar ships during the Korean
crisis of 1950--53 and dramatically underscores the increasing age of our merchant
fleet.
In recent weeks, Eastern Nigeria broke off from the rest of the Nigerian
Federation. The United States Embassy immediately made preparations for the air
evacuation of 700 Americans located there, only to be frustrated when the local
government rejected an airlift and shut down its airports. Alternative arrange-
ments then were made for evacuation by sea, which was to be carried out with
ships of American-subsidized operators in the area. Nigerian airports subsequently
were opened to facilitate an airlift. But the incident nevertheless pointed up
the need for adequate sealift capability.
Ships were the principal means used to evacuate American citizens from Arab
countries during the recent Middle East crisis. The importance of ships will no
doubt be underscored again as the effects of the Suez Canal closing are felt.
The Navy's military sea transportation service has chartered approximately 35
tankers to meet military needs for petroleum in Viet Nam and elsewhere in the
event Mideast oil continues to be denied us.
May I remind you of what occurred during the Suez crisis of 1956--57. Ship
rates skyrocketed. The price of tankers, for example, shot up to more than 200%
over base rates. Rates for shipping coal almost doubled. It was only because
of reserve shipping capacity in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that we were
able to maintain any semblance of control over freight rates.
It has been estimated, for example, that this reserve shipping capability
resulted in savings of $21/2 to $3 billion during the Korean crisis and $500 million
(more)
-3-
during the Suez crisis of 1956.
More than ten years have passed since that crisis, and the ships of the
National Defense Reserve Fleet have deteriorated.
Even if we did have the ships available, we would be limited by lack of
trained maritime manpower.
The cold facts are that today we lack both the ships and manpower to respond
adequately to a continuing international crisis.
As the effects of the recent Suez Canal closing are felt, these deficiencies
will become more and more apparent. We will find ourselves increasingly at the
mercy of rising costs involved in using foreign-flag shipping.
We also face the prospect of having our vital supply lines dependent upon
unrealiable alien crews which, on some occasions in the past, have refused to
transport our military cargoes to Viet Nam.
Last week, when the House considered the Department of Defense appropriation
bill, it was of interest to me to note the following in the Committee report:
"The Committee is not convinced that the Navy is placing
sufficient emphasis on the use of larger tankers in view of the
very considerable potential savings involved."
Perhaps one of the reasons for this lack of emphasis in the use of "supertankers"
is the fact that it is in this area that the American Merchant Marine is most
deficient.
Among the major maritime nations, the United States has one of the oldest
tanker fleets. As a matter of fact, we, Argentina and Spain have the distinction
of having the greatest concentration of very old tankers. Almost 65% of our tankers
were built before 1956 and almost 50% were built during World War II. When you
consider the fact that the United States accounts for more than 35% of the world's
oil consumption, it is apparent that something must be wrong with the way we pro-
vide for the transportation of this most important commodity.
There are many lessons to be learned from the recent Middle East crisis.
Of importance to us assembled here today, the Middle East crisis sharply
emphasizes the need for a strong, efficient American Merchant Marine, capable of
handling our worldwide military logistics need.
If this need is not recognized by the Administration, we face the distinct
possibility of being driven off the seas by the middle 1970's.
I am therefore terribly disturbed by the present Administration's head-in-the-
sand attitude toward this problem. This Administration is like the man who goes
into a restaurant without any money, and figures on paying for his meal with the
(more)
-4-
pearl he hopes to find in the oysters he plans to order. No matter how many
oysters the problem-shuckers in this Administration shuck, I doubt whether the
pearl they hope for will be forthcoming without adequate federal assistance and
a reawakening of our sense of maritime values.
It is a sad commentary on the present Administration that they wanted to
bury the Maritime Administration in the new Department of Transportation.
Republicans fought this move because history shows the American Merchant Marine
has suffered whenever maritime affairs have been delegated to a government depart-
ment or agency not directly concerned with the well-being of the merchant fleet.
What I have said about the plight of our merchant marine applies equally to
our shipbuilding and fishing industries.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry has slipped to 16th place among the nations
building merchant ships. Our fishing industry, because of outmoded and under-
equipped vessels, simply cannot compete in the same league with the Russians and
Japanese.
Fortunately, the Congress is not unmindful of these problems. We recognize
the need for a rebirth and revitalizing of the maritime and fishing industries.
Republicans took the lead last year in removing the Maritime Administration
from the Department of Transportation bill. We hope ultimately to establish an
independent Federal Maritime Administration.
Republicans now are taking the lead to force the Administration to buy
American in its purchase of Navy and Coast Guard vessels. It was Rep. John Byrnes,
Republican of Wisconsin, who tacked onto the 1968 Defense Appropriations Bill an
amendment which says none of the funds may be used to construct a Naval vessel
in a foreign yard. It was Rep. Frank Bow, Republican of Ohio, who recently pushed
through an amendment laying down the same rule for Coast Guard vessels. And I'm
happy to report that the Senate has left the Bow amendment alone, and so it goes
in that form to the President.
I know this isn't enough. Requiring that Naval vessels be built in U.S.
shipyards is not the whole answer to what ails the American maritime industry.
Only by building an adequate number of merchant ships in American yards can this
Nation be assured of having the yards and skilled labor needed to meet any emergency.
It is estimated that for every worker directly employed in our shipyards, the
jobs of three to five workers in outside industries are sustained. So it pays to
build American as well as to buy American. In fact, every one of the 50 states
benefits in terms of providing the materials, equipment and services that go into
American-built ships.
(more)
-5-
We've all heard the arguments about high costs. I personally believe American
shipyard owners are interested in reducing costs--and more contracts to build
merchant vessels would increase that interest.
There are limits to what Congress alone can do to breathe new life into the
maritime industry.
What we need is an Administration which will promote the revitalization of the
American Merchant Marine and the United States fisheries--not one that adamantly
opposes every move to revive our maritime glory.
It was a Republican President who said: "Congress should give prompt
attention to the restoration of our Merchant Marine, once the pride of the seas
in all the great ocean highways of commerce. To my mind, few more important
subjects so imperatively demand its intelligent consideration. The question
is one that appeals both to our business necessities and the patriotic aspirations
of a great people."
The question raised by that Republican President is not being asked by the
White House today. So I take it upon myself to ask it--for you and others.
"When a Great Maritime Society?"
###
REMARKS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.)
BEFORE THE CONVENTION OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
STATLER-HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1967
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHEN A "GREAT MARITIME SOCIETY?"
The American poet, Edwin Arlington Robinson, once wrote:
"An ocean is forever asking questions
And writing them aloud along the shore."
We in the Congress have been asking: When a "great maritime society?"
I am sure this question is uppermost in the minds of the delegates to this
convention of the Seafarers International Union of North America.
While other nations are experiencing a maritime renaissance, we in the
United States are handicapped by an Administration which either does not care or
does not appreciate the value of national seapower. Because of this Administration's
attitude, we face what the eminent Naval historian, Admiral Mahan, referred to as
"the rude awakening of those who have abandoned their share of the common birth-
right of all people--the sea."
I am greatly disturbed by this trend, especially as it affects the American
maritime industry--shipping and shipbuilding--and our fishing industry.
In his State of the Union message of January 1965, President Johnson
categorically stated that he would "...recommend...a new policy for our merchant
marine." Today, two-and-a-half years later, we are still awaiting this "new"
policy in the Congress of the United States.
Meanwhile, our shipping and shipbuilding posture is declining at an ever-
accelerating rate despite this Nation's demonstrated need for a strong and viable
maritime industry.
The condition of the American maritime industry today is a shocking disgrace.
That this should come to pass in this great nation is incredible, especially in
the light of repeated warnings.
More than five years ago--in February 1962--the then Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Logistics), Vice Admiral John Sylvester, observed:
"The strategic importance of ocean transportation in wartime
dictates that the United States must have under its control sufficient
active merchant type shipping to promptly meet our emergency sealift
requirements.
"*** The slow rate of progress made in the replacement of aging
vessels has left us with a largely obsolescent Merchant Marine.
Orderly shipbuilding programs and replacement programs should be
instituted without further delay.
"*** Of utmost significance is that the interests of the United
States are global, and emergencies may well arise wherein our
FORD
interests would not be identical with those of our European Allies."
GERALD (more) LIBRARY
-2-
Events in Cuba, Viet Nam and only recently in Nigeria and the Middle East
testify to the validity of Admiral Sylvester's admonition.
Many international crises have shown that this country must have sufficient
shipping capability to go it alone.
The demands in Southeast Asia have made it necessary for us to maintain
one of the longest supply lines in history. It is a supply line which is being
maintained in part by air but largely by sea.
All of the bulk petroleum requirements, 98% of the supplies, and two out of
three American fighting men have been transported to Viet Nam by ship.
To accomplish this, it has been necessary to reactivate about 170 ships of
World War II vintage from our National Defense Reserve Fleet at an average
reactivation cost of about $1/2 million per ship. This average cost is almost
four times that required for the reactivation of similar ships during the Korean
crisis of 1950--53 and dramatically underscores the increasing age of our merchant
fleet.
In recent weeks, Eastern Nigeria broke off from the rest of the Nigerian
Federation. The United States Embassy immediately made preparations for the air
evacuation of 700 Americans located there, only to be frustrated when the local
government rejected an airlift and shut down its airports. Alternative arrange-
ments then were made for evacuation by sea, which was to be carried out with
ships of American-subsidized operators in the area. Nigerian airports subsequently
were opened to facilitate an airlift. But the incident nevertheless pointed up
the need for adequate sealift capability.
Ships were the principal means used to evacuate American citizens from Arab
countries during the recent Middle East crisis. The importance of ships will no
doubt be underscored again as the effects of the Suez Canal closing are felt.
The Navy's military sea transportation service has chartered approximately 35
tankers to meet military needs for petroleum in Viet Nam and elsewhere in the
event Mideast oil continues to be denied us.
May I remind you of what occurred during the Suez crisis of 1956--57. Ship
rates skyrocketed. The price of tankers, for example, shot up to more than 200%
over base rates. Rates for shipping coal almost doubled. It was only because
of reserve shipping capacity in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that we were
able to maintain any semblance of control over freight rates.
It has been estimated, for example, that this reserve shipping capability
resulted in savings of $2½ to $3 billion during the Korean crisis and $500 million
(more)
-3-
during the Suez crisis of 1956.
More than ten years have passed since that crisis, and the ships of the
National Defense Reserve Fleet have deteriorated.
Even if we did have the ships available, we would be limited by lack of
trained maritime manpower.
The cold facts are that today we lack both the ships and manpower to respond
adequately to a continuing international crisis.
As the effects of the recent Suez Canal closing are felt, these deficiencies
will become more and more apparent. We will find ourselves increasingly at the
mercy of rising costs involved in using foreign-flag shipping.
We also face the prospect of having our vital supply lines dependent upon
unrealiable alien crews which, on some occasions in the past, have refused to
transport our military cargoes to Viet Nam.
Last week, when the House considered the Department of Defense appropriation
bill, it was of interest to me to note the following in the Committee report:
"The Committee is not convinced that the Navy is placing
sufficient emphasis on the use of larger tankers in view of the
very considerable potential savings involved."
Perhaps one of the reasons for this lack of emphasis in the use of "supertankers"
is the fact that it is in this area that the American Merchant Marine is most
deficient.
Among the major maritime nations, the United States has one of the oldest
tanker fleets. As a matter of fact, we, Argentina and Spain have the distinction
of having the greatest concentration of very old tankers. Almost 65% of our tankers
were built before 1956 and almost 50% were built during World War II. When you
consider the fact that the United States accounts for more than 35% of the world's
oil consumption, it is apparent that something must be wrong with the way we pro-
vide for the transportation of this most important commodity.
There are many lessons to be learned from the recent Middle East crisis.
Of importance to us assembled here today, the Middle East crisis sharply
emphasizes the need for a strong, efficient American Merchant Marine, capable of
handling our worldwide military logistics need.
If this need is not recognized by the Administration, we face the distinct
possibility of being driven off the seas by the middle 1970's.
I am therefore terribly disturbed by the present Administration's head-in-the-
sand attitude toward this problem. This Administration is like the man who goes
into a restaurant without any money, and figures on paying for his meal with the
(more)
-4-
pearl he hopes to find in the oysters he plans to order. No matter how many
oysters the problem-shuckers in this Administration shuck, I doubt whether the
pearl they hope for will be forthcoming without adequate federal assistance and
a reawakening of our sense of maritime values.
It is a sad commentary on the present Administration that they wanted to
bury the Maritime Administration in the new Department of Transportation.
Republicans fought this move because history shows the American Merchant Marine
has suffered whenever maritime affairs have been delegated to a government depart-
ment or agency not directly concerned with the well-being of the merchant fleet.
What I have said about the plight of our merchant marine applies equally to
our shipbuilding and fishing industries.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry has slipped to 16th place among the nations
building merchant ships. Our fishing industry, because of outmoded and under-
equipped vessels, simply cannot compete in the same league with the Russians and
Japanese.
Fortunately, the Congress is not unmindful of these problems. We recognize
the need for a rebirth and revitalizing of the maritime and fishing industries.
Republicans took the lead last year in removing the Maritime Administration
from the Department of Transportation bill. We hope ultimately to establish an
independent Federal Maritime Administration.
Republicans now are taking the lead to force the Administration to buy
American in its purchase of Navy and Coast Guard vessels. It was Rep. John Byrnes,
Republican of Wisconsin, who tacked onto the 1968 Defense Appropriations Bill an
amendment which says none of the funds may be used to construct a Naval vessel
in a foreign yard. It was Rep. Frank Bow, Republican of Ohio, who recently pushed
through an amendment laying down the same rule for Coast Guard vessels. And I'm
happy to report that the Senate has left the Bow amendment alone, and so it goes
in that form to the President.
I know this isn't enough. Requiring that Naval vessels be built in U.S.
shipyards is not the whole answer to what ails the American maritime industry.
Only by building an adequate number of merchant ships in American yards can this
Nation be assured of having the yards and skilled labor needed to meet any emergency.
It is estimated that for every worker directly employed in our shipyards, the
jobs of three to five workers in outside industries are sustained. So it pays to
build American as well as to buy American. In fact, every one of the 50 states
benefits in terms of providing the materials, equipment and services that go into
American-built ships.
(more)
-5-
We've all heard the arguments about high costs. I personally believe American
shipyard owners are interested in reducing costs--and more contracts to build
merchant vessels would increase that interest.
There are limits to what Congress alone can do to breathe new life into the
maritime industry.
What we need is an Administration which will promote the revitalization of the
American Merchant Marine and the United States fisheries--not one that adamantly
opposes every move to revive our maritime glory.
It was a Republican President who said: "Congress should give prompt
attention to the restoration of our Merchant Marine, once the pride of the seas
in all the great ocean highways of commerce. To my mind, few more important
subjects so imperatively demand its intelligent consideration. The question
is one that appeals both to our business necessities and the patriotic aspirations
of a great people."
The question raised by that Republican President is not being asked by the
White House today. So I take it upon myself to ask it--for you and others.
"When a Great Maritime Society?"
#
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- be713bf05cd3b9b6
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 4526043
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "4526043",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Seafarers International Union of North America Convention, Washington, DC, June 21, 1967",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Ships"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "4526043",
"label": "Seafarers International Union of North America Convention, Washington, DC, June 21, 1967",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "4526043",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Seafarers International Union of North America Convention, Washington, DC, June 21, 1967",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Ships"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526043",
"naId": 4526043,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-06-30",
"month": 6,
"year": 1967
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-06-01",
"month": 6,
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526043.pdf",
"mediaId": "be713bf05cd3b9b6",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D22, folder \"Seafarers International Union of\nNorth America Convention, Washington, DC, June 21, 1967\" of the Ford Congressional\nPapers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDistribution: Total, 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, June 21, 1967\nREMARKS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.)\nBEFORE THE CONVENTION OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA\nSTATLER-HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1967\nTHE UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHEN A \"GREAT MARITIME SOCIETY?\"\nThe American poet, Edwin Arlington Robinson, once wrote:\n\"An ocean is forever asking questions\nAnd writing them aloud along the shore.\"\nWe in the Congress have been asking: When a \"great maritime society?\"\nI am sure this question is uppermost in the minds of the delegates to this\nconvention of the Seafarers International Union of North America.\nWhile other nations are experiencing a maritime renaissance, we in the\nUnited States are handicapped by an Administration which either does not care or\ndoes not appreciate the value of national seapower. Because of this Administration's\nattitude, we face what the eminent Naval historian, Admiral Mahan, referred to as\n\"the rude awakening of those who have abandoned their share of the common birth-\nright of all people--the sea.\"\nI am greatly disturbed by this trend, especially as it affects the American\nmaritime industry--shipping and shipbuilding--and our fishing industry.\nIn his State of the Union message of January 1965, President Johnson\ncategorically stated that he would recommend a new policy for our merchant\nmarine.\" Today, two-and-a-half years later, we are still awaiting this \"new\"\npolicy in the Congress of the United States.\nMeanwhile, our shipping and shipbuilding posture is declining at an ever-\naccelerating rate despite this Nation's demonstrated need for a strong and viable\nmaritime industry.\nThe condition of the American maritime industry today is a shocking disgrace.\nThat this should come to pass in this great nation is incredible, especially in\nthe light of repeated warnings.\nMore than five years ago--in February 1962--the then Deputy Chief of Naval\nOperations (Logistics), Vice Admiral John Sylvester, observed:\n\"The strategic importance of ocean transportation in wartime\ndictates that the United States must have under its control sufficient\nactive merchant type shipping to promptly meet our emergency sealift\nrequirements.\n\" The slow rate of progress made in the replacement of aging\nvessels has left us with a largely obsolescent Merchant Marine.\nOrderly shipbuilding programs and replacement programs should be\ninstituted without further delay.\n\"*** Of utmost significance is that the interests of the United\nStates are global, and emergencies may well arise wherein our\ninterests would not be identical with those of our European Allies.\"\n(more)\nDigitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n-2-\nEvents in Cuba, Viet Nam and only recently in Nigeria and the Middle East\ntestify to the validity of Admiral Sylvester's admonition.\nMany international crises have shown that this country must have sufficient\nshipping capability to go it alone.\nThe demands in Southeast Asia have made it necessary for us to maintain\none of the longest supply lines in history. It is a supply line which is being\nmaintained in part by air but largely by sea.\nAll of the bulk petroleum requirements, 98% of the supplies, and two out of\nthree American fighting men have been transported to Viet Nam by ship.\nTo accomplish this, it has been necessary to reactivate about 170 ships of\nWorld War II vintage from our National Defense Reserve Fleet at an average\nreactivation cost of about $1/2 million per ship. This average cost is almost\nfour times that required for the reactivation of similar ships during the Korean\ncrisis of 1950--53 and dramatically underscores the increasing age of our merchant\nfleet.\nIn recent weeks, Eastern Nigeria broke off from the rest of the Nigerian\nFederation. The United States Embassy immediately made preparations for the air\nevacuation of 700 Americans located there, only to be frustrated when the local\ngovernment rejected an airlift and shut down its airports. Alternative arrange-\nments then were made for evacuation by sea, which was to be carried out with\nships of American-subsidized operators in the area. Nigerian airports subsequently\nwere opened to facilitate an airlift. But the incident nevertheless pointed up\nthe need for adequate sealift capability.\nShips were the principal means used to evacuate American citizens from Arab\ncountries during the recent Middle East crisis. The importance of ships will no\ndoubt be underscored again as the effects of the Suez Canal closing are felt.\nThe Navy's military sea transportation service has chartered approximately 35\ntankers to meet military needs for petroleum in Viet Nam and elsewhere in the\nevent Mideast oil continues to be denied us.\nMay I remind you of what occurred during the Suez crisis of 1956--57. Ship\nrates skyrocketed. The price of tankers, for example, shot up to more than 200%\nover base rates. Rates for shipping coal almost doubled. It was only because\nof reserve shipping capacity in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that we were\nable to maintain any semblance of control over freight rates.\nIt has been estimated, for example, that this reserve shipping capability\nresulted in savings of $21/2 to $3 billion during the Korean crisis and $500 million\n(more)\n-3-\nduring the Suez crisis of 1956.\nMore than ten years have passed since that crisis, and the ships of the\nNational Defense Reserve Fleet have deteriorated.\nEven if we did have the ships available, we would be limited by lack of\ntrained maritime manpower.\nThe cold facts are that today we lack both the ships and manpower to respond\nadequately to a continuing international crisis.\nAs the effects of the recent Suez Canal closing are felt, these deficiencies\nwill become more and more apparent. We will find ourselves increasingly at the\nmercy of rising costs involved in using foreign-flag shipping.\nWe also face the prospect of having our vital supply lines dependent upon\nunrealiable alien crews which, on some occasions in the past, have refused to\ntransport our military cargoes to Viet Nam.\nLast week, when the House considered the Department of Defense appropriation\nbill, it was of interest to me to note the following in the Committee report:\n\"The Committee is not convinced that the Navy is placing\nsufficient emphasis on the use of larger tankers in view of the\nvery considerable potential savings involved.\"\nPerhaps one of the reasons for this lack of emphasis in the use of \"supertankers\"\nis the fact that it is in this area that the American Merchant Marine is most\ndeficient.\nAmong the major maritime nations, the United States has one of the oldest\ntanker fleets. As a matter of fact, we, Argentina and Spain have the distinction\nof having the greatest concentration of very old tankers. Almost 65% of our tankers\nwere built before 1956 and almost 50% were built during World War II. When you\nconsider the fact that the United States accounts for more than 35% of the world's\noil consumption, it is apparent that something must be wrong with the way we pro-\nvide for the transportation of this most important commodity.\nThere are many lessons to be learned from the recent Middle East crisis.\nOf importance to us assembled here today, the Middle East crisis sharply\nemphasizes the need for a strong, efficient American Merchant Marine, capable of\nhandling our worldwide military logistics need.\nIf this need is not recognized by the Administration, we face the distinct\npossibility of being driven off the seas by the middle 1970's.\nI am therefore terribly disturbed by the present Administration's head-in-the-\nsand attitude toward this problem. This Administration is like the man who goes\ninto a restaurant without any money, and figures on paying for his meal with the\n(more)\n-4-\npearl he hopes to find in the oysters he plans to order. No matter how many\noysters the problem-shuckers in this Administration shuck, I doubt whether the\npearl they hope for will be forthcoming without adequate federal assistance and\na reawakening of our sense of maritime values.\nIt is a sad commentary on the present Administration that they wanted to\nbury the Maritime Administration in the new Department of Transportation.\nRepublicans fought this move because history shows the American Merchant Marine\nhas suffered whenever maritime affairs have been delegated to a government depart-\nment or agency not directly concerned with the well-being of the merchant fleet.\nWhat I have said about the plight of our merchant marine applies equally to\nour shipbuilding and fishing industries.\nThe U.S. shipbuilding industry has slipped to 16th place among the nations\nbuilding merchant ships. Our fishing industry, because of outmoded and under-\nequipped vessels, simply cannot compete in the same league with the Russians and\nJapanese.\nFortunately, the Congress is not unmindful of these problems. We recognize\nthe need for a rebirth and revitalizing of the maritime and fishing industries.\nRepublicans took the lead last year in removing the Maritime Administration\nfrom the Department of Transportation bill. We hope ultimately to establish an\nindependent Federal Maritime Administration.\nRepublicans now are taking the lead to force the Administration to buy\nAmerican in its purchase of Navy and Coast Guard vessels. It was Rep. John Byrnes,\nRepublican of Wisconsin, who tacked onto the 1968 Defense Appropriations Bill an\namendment which says none of the funds may be used to construct a Naval vessel\nin a foreign yard. It was Rep. Frank Bow, Republican of Ohio, who recently pushed\nthrough an amendment laying down the same rule for Coast Guard vessels. And I'm\nhappy to report that the Senate has left the Bow amendment alone, and so it goes\nin that form to the President.\nI know this isn't enough. Requiring that Naval vessels be built in U.S.\nshipyards is not the whole answer to what ails the American maritime industry.\nOnly by building an adequate number of merchant ships in American yards can this\nNation be assured of having the yards and skilled labor needed to meet any emergency.\nIt is estimated that for every worker directly employed in our shipyards, the\njobs of three to five workers in outside industries are sustained. So it pays to\nbuild American as well as to buy American. In fact, every one of the 50 states\nbenefits in terms of providing the materials, equipment and services that go into\nAmerican-built ships.\n(more)\n-5-\nWe've all heard the arguments about high costs. I personally believe American\nshipyard owners are interested in reducing costs--and more contracts to build\nmerchant vessels would increase that interest.\nThere are limits to what Congress alone can do to breathe new life into the\nmaritime industry.\nWhat we need is an Administration which will promote the revitalization of the\nAmerican Merchant Marine and the United States fisheries--not one that adamantly\nopposes every move to revive our maritime glory.\nIt was a Republican President who said: \"Congress should give prompt\nattention to the restoration of our Merchant Marine, once the pride of the seas\nin all the great ocean highways of commerce. To my mind, few more important\nsubjects so imperatively demand its intelligent consideration. The question\nis one that appeals both to our business necessities and the patriotic aspirations\nof a great people.\"\nThe question raised by that Republican President is not being asked by the\nWhite House today. So I take it upon myself to ask it--for you and others.\n\"When a Great Maritime Society?\"\n###\nREMARKS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.)\nBEFORE THE CONVENTION OF THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA\nSTATLER-HILTON HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1967\nTHE UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHEN A \"GREAT MARITIME SOCIETY?\"\nThe American poet, Edwin Arlington Robinson, once wrote:\n\"An ocean is forever asking questions\nAnd writing them aloud along the shore.\"\nWe in the Congress have been asking: When a \"great maritime society?\"\nI am sure this question is uppermost in the minds of the delegates to this\nconvention of the Seafarers International Union of North America.\nWhile other nations are experiencing a maritime renaissance, we in the\nUnited States are handicapped by an Administration which either does not care or\ndoes not appreciate the value of national seapower. Because of this Administration's\nattitude, we face what the eminent Naval historian, Admiral Mahan, referred to as\n\"the rude awakening of those who have abandoned their share of the common birth-\nright of all people--the sea.\"\nI am greatly disturbed by this trend, especially as it affects the American\nmaritime industry--shipping and shipbuilding--and our fishing industry.\nIn his State of the Union message of January 1965, President Johnson\ncategorically stated that he would \"...recommend...a new policy for our merchant\nmarine.\" Today, two-and-a-half years later, we are still awaiting this \"new\"\npolicy in the Congress of the United States.\nMeanwhile, our shipping and shipbuilding posture is declining at an ever-\naccelerating rate despite this Nation's demonstrated need for a strong and viable\nmaritime industry.\nThe condition of the American maritime industry today is a shocking disgrace.\nThat this should come to pass in this great nation is incredible, especially in\nthe light of repeated warnings.\nMore than five years ago--in February 1962--the then Deputy Chief of Naval\nOperations (Logistics), Vice Admiral John Sylvester, observed:\n\"The strategic importance of ocean transportation in wartime\ndictates that the United States must have under its control sufficient\nactive merchant type shipping to promptly meet our emergency sealift\nrequirements.\n\"*** The slow rate of progress made in the replacement of aging\nvessels has left us with a largely obsolescent Merchant Marine.\nOrderly shipbuilding programs and replacement programs should be\ninstituted without further delay.\n\"*** Of utmost significance is that the interests of the United\nStates are global, and emergencies may well arise wherein our\nFORD\ninterests would not be identical with those of our European Allies.\"\nGERALD (more) LIBRARY\n-2-\nEvents in Cuba, Viet Nam and only recently in Nigeria and the Middle East\ntestify to the validity of Admiral Sylvester's admonition.\nMany international crises have shown that this country must have sufficient\nshipping capability to go it alone.\nThe demands in Southeast Asia have made it necessary for us to maintain\none of the longest supply lines in history. It is a supply line which is being\nmaintained in part by air but largely by sea.\nAll of the bulk petroleum requirements, 98% of the supplies, and two out of\nthree American fighting men have been transported to Viet Nam by ship.\nTo accomplish this, it has been necessary to reactivate about 170 ships of\nWorld War II vintage from our National Defense Reserve Fleet at an average\nreactivation cost of about $1/2 million per ship. This average cost is almost\nfour times that required for the reactivation of similar ships during the Korean\ncrisis of 1950--53 and dramatically underscores the increasing age of our merchant\nfleet.\nIn recent weeks, Eastern Nigeria broke off from the rest of the Nigerian\nFederation. The United States Embassy immediately made preparations for the air\nevacuation of 700 Americans located there, only to be frustrated when the local\ngovernment rejected an airlift and shut down its airports. Alternative arrange-\nments then were made for evacuation by sea, which was to be carried out with\nships of American-subsidized operators in the area. Nigerian airports subsequently\nwere opened to facilitate an airlift. But the incident nevertheless pointed up\nthe need for adequate sealift capability.\nShips were the principal means used to evacuate American citizens from Arab\ncountries during the recent Middle East crisis. The importance of ships will no\ndoubt be underscored again as the effects of the Suez Canal closing are felt.\nThe Navy's military sea transportation service has chartered approximately 35\ntankers to meet military needs for petroleum in Viet Nam and elsewhere in the\nevent Mideast oil continues to be denied us.\nMay I remind you of what occurred during the Suez crisis of 1956--57. Ship\nrates skyrocketed. The price of tankers, for example, shot up to more than 200%\nover base rates. Rates for shipping coal almost doubled. It was only because\nof reserve shipping capacity in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that we were\nable to maintain any semblance of control over freight rates.\nIt has been estimated, for example, that this reserve shipping capability\nresulted in savings of $2½ to $3 billion during the Korean crisis and $500 million\n(more)\n-3-\nduring the Suez crisis of 1956.\nMore than ten years have passed since that crisis, and the ships of the\nNational Defense Reserve Fleet have deteriorated.\nEven if we did have the ships available, we would be limited by lack of\ntrained maritime manpower.\nThe cold facts are that today we lack both the ships and manpower to respond\nadequately to a continuing international crisis.\nAs the effects of the recent Suez Canal closing are felt, these deficiencies\nwill become more and more apparent. We will find ourselves increasingly at the\nmercy of rising costs involved in using foreign-flag shipping.\nWe also face the prospect of having our vital supply lines dependent upon\nunrealiable alien crews which, on some occasions in the past, have refused to\ntransport our military cargoes to Viet Nam.\nLast week, when the House considered the Department of Defense appropriation\nbill, it was of interest to me to note the following in the Committee report:\n\"The Committee is not convinced that the Navy is placing\nsufficient emphasis on the use of larger tankers in view of the\nvery considerable potential savings involved.\"\nPerhaps one of the reasons for this lack of emphasis in the use of \"supertankers\"\nis the fact that it is in this area that the American Merchant Marine is most\ndeficient.\nAmong the major maritime nations, the United States has one of the oldest\ntanker fleets. As a matter of fact, we, Argentina and Spain have the distinction\nof having the greatest concentration of very old tankers. Almost 65% of our tankers\nwere built before 1956 and almost 50% were built during World War II. When you\nconsider the fact that the United States accounts for more than 35% of the world's\noil consumption, it is apparent that something must be wrong with the way we pro-\nvide for the transportation of this most important commodity.\nThere are many lessons to be learned from the recent Middle East crisis.\nOf importance to us assembled here today, the Middle East crisis sharply\nemphasizes the need for a strong, efficient American Merchant Marine, capable of\nhandling our worldwide military logistics need.\nIf this need is not recognized by the Administration, we face the distinct\npossibility of being driven off the seas by the middle 1970's.\nI am therefore terribly disturbed by the present Administration's head-in-the-\nsand attitude toward this problem. This Administration is like the man who goes\ninto a restaurant without any money, and figures on paying for his meal with the\n(more)\n-4-\npearl he hopes to find in the oysters he plans to order. No matter how many\noysters the problem-shuckers in this Administration shuck, I doubt whether the\npearl they hope for will be forthcoming without adequate federal assistance and\na reawakening of our sense of maritime values.\nIt is a sad commentary on the present Administration that they wanted to\nbury the Maritime Administration in the new Department of Transportation.\nRepublicans fought this move because history shows the American Merchant Marine\nhas suffered whenever maritime affairs have been delegated to a government depart-\nment or agency not directly concerned with the well-being of the merchant fleet.\nWhat I have said about the plight of our merchant marine applies equally to\nour shipbuilding and fishing industries.\nThe U.S. shipbuilding industry has slipped to 16th place among the nations\nbuilding merchant ships. Our fishing industry, because of outmoded and under-\nequipped vessels, simply cannot compete in the same league with the Russians and\nJapanese.\nFortunately, the Congress is not unmindful of these problems. We recognize\nthe need for a rebirth and revitalizing of the maritime and fishing industries.\nRepublicans took the lead last year in removing the Maritime Administration\nfrom the Department of Transportation bill. We hope ultimately to establish an\nindependent Federal Maritime Administration.\nRepublicans now are taking the lead to force the Administration to buy\nAmerican in its purchase of Navy and Coast Guard vessels. It was Rep. John Byrnes,\nRepublican of Wisconsin, who tacked onto the 1968 Defense Appropriations Bill an\namendment which says none of the funds may be used to construct a Naval vessel\nin a foreign yard. It was Rep. Frank Bow, Republican of Ohio, who recently pushed\nthrough an amendment laying down the same rule for Coast Guard vessels. And I'm\nhappy to report that the Senate has left the Bow amendment alone, and so it goes\nin that form to the President.\nI know this isn't enough. Requiring that Naval vessels be built in U.S.\nshipyards is not the whole answer to what ails the American maritime industry.\nOnly by building an adequate number of merchant ships in American yards can this\nNation be assured of having the yards and skilled labor needed to meet any emergency.\nIt is estimated that for every worker directly employed in our shipyards, the\njobs of three to five workers in outside industries are sustained. So it pays to\nbuild American as well as to buy American. In fact, every one of the 50 states\nbenefits in terms of providing the materials, equipment and services that go into\nAmerican-built ships.\n(more)\n-5-\nWe've all heard the arguments about high costs. I personally believe American\nshipyard owners are interested in reducing costs--and more contracts to build\nmerchant vessels would increase that interest.\nThere are limits to what Congress alone can do to breathe new life into the\nmaritime industry.\nWhat we need is an Administration which will promote the revitalization of the\nAmerican Merchant Marine and the United States fisheries--not one that adamantly\nopposes every move to revive our maritime glory.\nIt was a Republican President who said: \"Congress should give prompt\nattention to the restoration of our Merchant Marine, once the pride of the seas\nin all the great ocean highways of commerce. To my mind, few more important\nsubjects so imperatively demand its intelligent consideration. The question\nis one that appeals both to our business necessities and the patriotic aspirations\nof a great people.\"\nThe question raised by that Republican President is not being asked by the\nWhite House today. So I take it upon myself to ask it--for you and others.\n\"When a Great Maritime Society?\"\n#"
}