Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526052
label
Propeller Club of the United States Convention and American Merchant Marine Conference, Honolulu, HI, October 11, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526052
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Propeller Club of the United States Convention and American Merchant Marine Conference, Honolulu, HI, October 11, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Ships
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526052
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-10-31
month
10
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-10-01
month
10
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a0dd98a7cf7a7ef0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "Propeller Club of the United States
Convention and American Merchant Marine Conference, Honolulu, HI, October 11, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Remarks By
At
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Propeller Club of the United
Minority Leader
States Convention/American
House of Representatives
Merchant Marine Conference
Congress of the United States
Honolulu, Hawaii
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, October 11, 1967
For too many years, our country has been woefully deficient in its
shipping capability. How a nation so great and so resourceful could come
to such a predicament defies rational explanation! The reasons are many,
but, simply stated, while we as a people have been preoccupied with phony
missile gaps and genuine credibility gaps, the inadequacies of our merchant
marine have been ignored and have steadily become more critical. As a
consequence, our seapower - our power on the oceans - has diminished,
and our national interests are endangered.
Today, our merchant fleet is not only in the doldrums, it has been
sinking fast. The American flag merchant marine includes only about 900
vessels, and two thirds of these are obsolete, inefficient and noncompetitive.
Our fleet now carries less than 7. 2% of our foreign trade and com-
merce. Job opportunities for both seamen and shipyard workers have
slipped to nearly half of their post-war high.
The Russians, the Japanese, the Scandinavians, and others, are
outbuilding us and out-trading us for the cargoes of the world. This situ-
ation is not only disgraceful; it is downright dangerous. We can no longer
honestly call ourselves a first-class maritime nation!
Since the escalation of our participation in the Vietnam war three
years ago, these facts have been either purposely concealed or minimized
by an Administration mesmerized by its own self-delusion.
2
No less an oracle than the Secretary of Defense has repeatedly
prophesied that airplanes can take the place of ships in the carriage of
troops and military materiel. Vietnam has proven him grossly wrong
- 98% of our military cargoes and approximately 70% of our military
personnel have been transported to that remote corner of the world by
ships - not by air.
To cover up the absence of a constructive Administration maritime
program, it has been necessary to reactivate some 160 mothballed World
War II vessels. Many of these ships could hardly qualify for the usual
stamp of American excellence. With their deteriorated condition, unre- MIX
liable machinery and corroded equipment, it is no wonder they have fre-
quently been described as "rust buckets. 11
Now, we have come to the end of the line. Figurately speaking,
we have already scraped the bottom of our maritime barrel. There are
only a few serviceable vessels remaining in our national defense reserve
fleets. Our active fleet has been strained to the utmost in supplying
logistic support to our forces in Vietnam. And, two thirds of this fleet
plus all remaining ships in our reserve fleet are 20 or more years old
and obsolete.
Still, there is no admission of error on the part of the Secretary
of Defense or his associates. No Administration appointee at The Pentagon
has come forward with a positive, unequivocating statement that a strong,
well balanced, active, modern, efficient American flag merchant marine
is fundamental to our strength on the oceans and essential to our national
3
interests. There are those who know this, but they have been muzzled.
Meanwhile, Soviet Russia has taken the initiative by building ships
at a maddening rate. Very shortly, it is expected that the Communist
shipping fleet will be larger than ours. The U.S. and other trading na-
tions of the world could well be at their mercy - the Russians will indeed
control the sealanes to the detriment of free people everywhere.
In spite of the mounting evidences of Russia's growing maritime
strength; in spite of Congressional reports - by the House Republican
Policy Committee, by the House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Commit-
tee, by the Senate Commerce Committee and by the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee - warning of this increasing danger, the Johnson
Administration has downgraded the importance to the United States of
supremacy on the high seas. The evidences are available for all to see.
In fact, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Transportation two years
ago made this amazing statement:
11
We do not believe that our concept of the merchant marine
should necessarily be one of keeping up with the U.S.S.R. 11
In other words, through neglect and a complete lack of even mini-
mum countermeasures, the United States should permit the Russians to
gain control of the shipping lanes of the world by default. This is only
one aspect of the destructive neglect which has marked the past few
years.
Until only recently, top Navy spokesmen were severely restrained
in the extent to which they could publicly endorse the relationship of a
4
strong merchant marine, with supporting shipbuilding facilities, to Amer-
ican sea power.
Until only recently, we have had to witness the efforts of another
Cabinet officer, the Secretary of Transportation, to persuade our citi-
zenry that a merchant marine is not really important to our national
welfare and that our nation doesn't really need a shipbuilding industry
to survive. The naivete of the Transportation Secretary's understanding
of maritime and shipyard problems was in direct proportion to the
Defense Secretary's incorrect prophecies.
However, two decisive votes in the Congress of the United States
have now apparently convinced these two highly placed officials - and
presumably The White House - that a majority of the American people
do not want their ships - the lifeblood of seapower - constructed in other
countries, and that before the national campaigns of 1968 are launched,
a maritime program of significant proportions had to be initiated. After
many years and months of inertia on the part of the Administration, this
is now apparently an imperative objective.
But, to reach this point, the dedicated endeavors of many members
of the Congress have been necessary. This has been a bi-partisan proj-
ect, and I am proud of the part which my Republican colleagues have
played. Congressmen Bill Mailliard of California, the ranking minority
member of the Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee, Congressman
John Rhodes of Arizona, Chairman of our Republican Policy Committee;
Congressman Ed Reinecke of California; Congressman Tom Pelly of
5
Washington, Congressman Jack Edwards of Alabama, Senator Dirksen
of Illinois, Senator Tower of Texas, and Senator Cotton of New Hampshire
- to mention only a few - have been in the forefront in forging a climate
for a "new maritime policy" which the President of the United States
promised more than three years ago.
This overdue policy and program has only been revealed in sketchy
outline. There are not enough details to permit any kind of analysis in
depth, and we, on the Republican side of the aisle, are not yet able to
say with any certainty that the proposed approach will produce results
which will satisfy our national needs in the 1970's.
For example, these questions are typical of those that need to be
answered before a reasoned judgment can be made:
(1) Does the program, as offered by the Administration, contem-
plate a substantial increase in the carriage of our expanding trade and
commerce aboard American flag ships?
(2) If so, what percentage figure (comparable to the present 7.2%)
has been used in the formulation of this program for attainment at what
specific point in time?
(3) If so, what determinations have been made as to the numbers
and types of ships in the various categories (cargo ships, tankers, con-
tainerships, drybulk carriers and SO on) which will be required to meet
the above objective?
(4) What steps are planned to encourage American manufacturers
and American companies to ship their products aboard U.S. flag ships?
6
(5) Will this program effectively neutralize the possibility that the
Russians might control the commercial sealanes of the world through a
superiority of merchant shipping?
(6) Is the Administration genuinely sincere in proposing a nuclear
ship program, or is this merely a political ploy?
(7) What steps does the Administration contemplate by way of re-
cruiting, training and retaining manpower to build and crew the additional
ships in this program?
(8) Will a 30 to 40 ship per year program provide the degree of
stability and standardization which is necessary to enable reductions
in shipbuilding prices?
(9) Does the Administration plan to sponsor an influsion of research
and development in merchant marine areas of a magnitude comparable to
that provided the aircraft industry? If so, over what period of time?
(10) What determinations have been made to ensure that the new
ships as covered by this program will meet national defense needs in the
1970's.
I am sure you would agree that these are not unfair questions of
partisan motivation. To me, the answers should compose the building
blocks for any sensible, constructive program for rejuvenation of the
American merchant marine. Without them, it seems to me, we will have
only a superficial, helter-skelter effort of doubtful verity and debatable
promise, as in so many other Great Society programs.
This American Merchant Marine Conference can help in providing
7
input for answers to these questions, and with the variety of talents, ex- -
perience and disciplines represented in this gathering, I would anticipate
that your opinions will carry great weight in Washington - with the Demo- -
crats as well as the Republicans.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my thoughts
on the important problems now before you.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN THURSDAY AMS--
October 12, 1967
REMARKS TO BE READ ON BEHALF OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.) TO THE
PROPELLOR CLUB OF THE UNITED STATES CONVENTION AND AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE
CONFERENCE AT THE ROYAL HAWAIIAN HOTEL, HONOLULU, Oct. 11, 1967
(The Minority Leader was unable to attend because of House business.)
For too many years, our country has been woefully deficient in its shipping
capability. How a nation so great and so resourceful could come to such a
predicament defies rational explanation! The reasons are many, but, simply
stated, while we as a people have been preoccupied with phony missile gaps and
genuine credibility gaps, the inadequacies of our merchant marine have been
ignored and have steadily become more critical. As a consequence, our seapower--
our power on the oceans--has diminished, and our national interests are
endangered.
Today, our merchant fleet is not only in the doldrums, it has been sinking
fast. The American flag merchant marine includes only about 900 vessels, and
two thirds of these are obsolete, inefficient and noncompetitive.
Our fleet now carries less than 7.2% of our foreign trade and commerce.
Job opportunities for both seamen and shipyard workers have slipped to nearly
half of their post-war high.
The Russians, the Japanese, the Scandinavians, and others, are outbuilding
us and out-trading us for the cargoes of the world. This situation is not only
disgraceful; it is downright dangerous. We can no longer honestly call our-
selves a first-class maritime nation!
Since the escalation of our participation in the Vietnam war three years
ago, these facts have been either purposely concealed or minimized by an
Administration mesmerized by its own self-delusion.
No less an oracle than the Secretary of Defense has repeatedly prophesied
that airplanes can take the place of ships in the carriage of troops and mili-
tary materiel. Vietnam has proven him grossly wrong--98% of our military
cargoes and approximately 70% of our military personnel have been transported
to that remote corner of the world by ships--not by air.
To cover up the absence of a constructive Administration maritime program,
it has been necessary to reactivate some 160 mothballed World War II vessels.
(more)
-2-
Many of these ships could hardly qualify for the usual stamp of American
excellence. With their deteriorated condition, unreliable machinery and
corroded equipment, it is no wonder they have frequently been described as
"rust buckets."
Now, we have come to the end of the line. Figuratively speaking, we have
already scraped the bottom of our maritime barrel. There are only a few
serviceable vessels remaining in our national defense reserve fleets. Our
active fleet has been strained to the utmost in supplying logistic support to
our forces in Vietnam. And, two thirds of this fleet plus all remaining ships
in our reserve fleet are 20 or more years old and obsolete.
Still, there is no admission of error on the part of the Secretary of
Defense or his associates. No Administration appointee at The Pentagon has
come forward with a positive, unequivocating statement that a strong, well
balanced, active, modern, efficient American flag merchant marine is fundamental
to our strength on the oceans and essential to our national interests. There
are those who know this, but they have been muzzled.
Meanwhile, Soviet Russia has taken the initiative by building ships at
a maddening rate. Very shortly, it is expected that the Communist shipping
fleet will be larger than ours. The U.S. and other trading nations of the
world could well be at their mercy--the Russians will indeed control the sea-
lanes to the detriment of free people everywhere.
In spite of the mounting evidences of Russia's growing maritime strength;
in spite of Congressional reports--by the House Republican Policy Committee,
by the House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee, by the Senate Commerce
Committee and by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee--warning of this
increasing danger, the Johnson Administration has downgraded the importance to
the United States of supremacy on the high seas. The evidences are available
for all to see. In fact, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Transportation
two years ago made this amazing statement:
"
We do not believe that our concept of the merchant marine
should necessarily be one of keeping up with the U.S.S.R."
In other words, through neglect and a complete lack of even minimum counter-
measures, the United States should permit the Russians to gain control of the
shipping lanes of the world by default. This is only one aspect of the
destructive neglect which has marked the past few years.
(more)
-3-
Until only recently, top Navy spokesmen were severely restrained in the
extent to which they could publicly endorse the relationship of a strong
merchant marine, with supporting shipbuilding facilities, to American sea
power.
Until only recently, we have hadita A witness the efforts of another Cabinet
officer, the Secretary of Transportation, to persuade our citizenry that a
merchant marine is not really important to our national welfare and that our
nation doesn't really need a shipbuilding industry to survive. The naivete
of the Transportation Secretary's understanding of maritime and shipyard
problems was in direct proportion to the Defense Secretary's incorrect
prophecies.
However, two decisive votes in the Congress of the United States have now
apparently convinced these two highly placed officials--and presumably The
White House--that a majority of the American people do not want their ships--
the lifeblood of seapower--constructed in other countries, and that before the
national campaigns of 1968 are launched, a maritime program of significant
proportions had to be initiated. After many years and months of inertia on
the part of the Administration, this is now apparently an imperative objective.
But, to reach this point, the dedicated endeavors of many members of the
Congress have been necessary. This has been a bi-partisan project, and I am
proud of the part which my Republican colleagues have played. Congressmen
Bill Mailliard of California, the ranking minority member of the Merchant
Marine & Fisheries Committee, Congressman John Rhodes of Arizona, Chairman of
our Republican Policy Committee; Congressman Tom Pelly of Washington, Congress-
man Jack Edwards of Alabama, Congressman Ed Reinecke of California; Senator
Dirksen of Illinois, Senator Cotton of New Hampshire, and Senator Tower of Texas--
to mention only a few--have been in the forefront in forging a climate for a
"new maritime policy" which the President of the United States promised more
than three years ago.
This overdue policy and program has only been revealed in sketchy outline.
There are not enough details to permit any kind of analysis in depth, and we,
on the Republican side of the aisel, are not yet able to say with any certainty
that the proposed approach will produce results which will satisfy our national
needs in the 1970's.
(more)
-4-
For example, these questions are typical of those that need to be answered
before a reasoned judgment can be made:
(1) Does the program, as offered by the Administration, contemplate a
substantial increase in the carriage of our expanding trade and commerce aboard
American flag ships?
(2) If so, what percentage figure (comparable to the present 7.2%) has
been used in the formulation of this program for attainment at what specific
point in time?
(3) If so, what determinations have been made as to the numbers and types
of ships in the various categories (cargo ships, tankers, containerships,
drybulk carriers and so on) which will be required to meet the above objective?
(4) What steps are planned to encourage American manufacturers and
American companies to ship their products aboard U.S. flag ships?
(5) Will this program effectively neutralize the possibility that the
Russians might control the commercial sealanes of the world through a superiority
of merchant shipping?
(6) Is the Administration genuinely sincere in proposing a nuclear ship
program, or is this merely a political ploy?
(7) What steps does the Administration contemplate by way of recruiting,
training and retaining manpower to build and crew the additional ships in this
program?
(8) Will a 30 to 40 ship per year program provide the degree of stability
and standardization which is necessary to enable reductions in shipbuilding
prices?
(9) Does the Administration plan to sponsor an influsion of research and
development in merchant marine areas of a magnitude comparable to that provided
the aircraft industry? If so, over what period of time?
(10) What determinations have been made to ensure that the new ships as
covered by this program will meet national defense needs in the 1970's?
I am sure you would agree that these are not unfair questions of partisan
motivation. To me, the answers should compose the building blocks for any
sensible, constructive program for rejuvenation of the American merchant marine.
Without them, it seems to me, we will have only a superficial, helter-skelter
effort of doubtful verity and debatable promise, as in so many other Great
Society programs.
(more)
-5-
This American Merchant Marine Conference can help in providing input for
answers to these questions, and with the variety of talents, experience and
disciplines represented in this gathering, I would anticipate that your
opinions will carry great weight in Washington--with the Democrats as well
as the Republicans.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my thoughts on the
important problems now before you.
###
Bells Transp Indep Ob
at qlad and onlysM madersH aid?
NASA approps (Serrev
any
Wilw
aug
03
stewars
3 Appropr Const sid! for, # botos Asid. liduqal Supple-
) Racis son The have been
won ameldorg
mtg Interviewt S/4 outy biplars
P.O, Legelative no fig. yet
Depttalle
of seur. of longress goes Paren with received Jost
Bone 60 Peconomy pressure & having an
effectionSenste domferees in corp approp. fills.
Byrnes The & art drad for This
no fill has saen cut collucal Pat the resp
year. futh preatment regist where ibebug -onthe
89th Congress a Learly Dem Engress the Jadmin
>Go bach to 1966 crup. speches d say
5 Putrugh on getting control over fed. spending
"as Things have developed, of don't Prink we could haves
written IX We have better Fanthe record script ourselves." sure from The liberel ron
that a biltin in spending uts has more lite them an agains
can in taxes of as an anti- inflationnares
time action thinks on endorse has called alth Enga action Promis on wherell it This toes Just no Phean callfor action GOP
develland the longs Senate Reforma Refortment Police calling Kann for
Hey = Punell Mold Baker
Caderberg Rumn that Congress will adj lower larly in
apply Voize hear. Vote inform has
Non- admin has andomed for Littr
for Sen will It That Prexy wants Congress to
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN THURSDAY AMS--
October 12, 1967
REMARKS TO BE READ ON BEHALF OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.) TO THE
PROPELLOR CLUB OF THE UNITED STATES CONVENTION AND AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE
CONFERENCE AT THE ROYAL HAWAIIAN HOTEL, HONOLULU, Oct. 11, 1967
(The Minority Leader was unable to attend because of House business.)
For too many years, our country has been woefully deficient in its shipping
capability. How a nation so great and so resourceful could come to such a
predicament defies rational explanation! The reasons are many, but, simply
stated, while we as a people have been preoccupied with phony missile gaps and
genuine credibility gaps, the inadequacies of our merchant marine have been
ignored and have steadily become more critical. As a consequence, our seapower--
our power on the oceans--has diminished, and our national interests are
endangered.
Today, our merchant fleet is not only in the doldrums, it has been sinking
fast. The American flag merchant marine includes only about 900 vessels, and
two thirds of these are obsolete, inefficient and noncompetitive.
Our fleet now carries less than 7.2% of our foreign trade and commerce.
Job opportunities for both seamen and shipyard workers have slipped to nearly
half of their post-war high.
The Russians, the Japanese, the Scandinavians, and others, are outbuilding
us and out-trading us for the cargoes of the world. This situation is not only
disgraceful; it is downright dangerous. We can no longer honestly call our-
selves a first-class maritime nation!
Since the escalation of our participation in the Vietnam war three years
ago, these facts have been either purposely concealed or minimized by an
Administration mesmerized by its own self-delusion.
No less an oracle than the Secretary of Defense has repeatedly prophesied
that airplanes can take the place of ships in the carriage of troops and mili-
tary materiel. Vietnam has proven him grossly wrong--98% of our military
cargoes and approximately 70% of our military personnel have been transported
to that remote corner of the world by ships--not by air.
To cover up the absence of a constructive Administration maritime program,
it has been necessary to reactivate some 160 mothballed World War II vessels.
(more)
-2-
Many of these ships could hardly qualify for the usual stamp of American
excellence. With their deteriorated condition, unreliable machinery and
corroded equipment, it is no wonder they have frequently been described as
"rust buckets."
Now, we have come to the end of the line. Figuratively speaking, we have
already scraped the bottom of our maritime barrel. There are only a few
serviceable vessels remaining in our national defense reserve fleets. Our
active fleet has been strained to the utmost in supplying logistic support to
our forces in Vietnam. And, two thirds of this fleet plus all remaining ships
in our reserve fleet are 20 or more years old and obsolete.
Still, there is no admission of error on the part of the Secretary of
Defense or his associates. No Administration appointee at The Pentagon has
come forward with a positive, unequivocating statement that a strong, well
balanced, active, modern, efficient American flag merchant marine is fundamental
to our strength on the oceans and essential to our national interests. There
are those who know this, but they have been muzzled.
Meanwhile, Soviet Russia has taken the initiative by building ships at
a maddening rate. Very shortly, it is expected that the Communist shipping
fleet will be larger than ours. The U.S. and other trading nations of the
world could well be at their mercy--the Russians will indeed control the sea-
lanes to the detriment of free people everywhere.
In spite of the mounting evidences of Russia's growing maritime strength;
in spite of Congressional reports--by the House Republican Policy Committee,
by the House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee, by the Senate Commerce
Committee and by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee--warning of this
increasing danger, the Johnson Administration has downgraded the importance to
the United States of supremacy on the high seas. The evidences are available
for all to see. In fact, the Undersecretary of Commerce for Transportation
two years ago made this amazing statement:
"
We do not believe that our concept of the merchant marine
should necessarily be one of keeping up with the U.S.S.R."
In other words, through neglect and a complete lack of even minimum counter-
measures, the United States should permit the Russians to gain control of the
shipping lanes of the world by default. This is only one aspect of the
destructive neglect which has marked the past few years.
(more)
-3-
Until only recently, top Navy spokesmen were severely restrained in the
extent to which they could publicly endorse the relationship of a strong
merchant marine, with supporting shipbuilding facilities, to American sea
power.
Until only recently, we have had to witness the efforts of another Cabinet
officer, the Secretary of Transportation, to persuade our citizenry that a
merchant marine is not really important to our national welfare and that our
nation doesn't really need a shipbuilding industry to survive. The naivete
of the Transportation Secretary's understanding of maritime and shipyard
problems was in direct proportion to the Defense Secretary's incorrect
prophecies.
However, two decisive votes in the Congress of the United States have now
apparently convinced these two highly placed officials--and presumably The
White House--that a majority of the American people do not want their ships--
the lifeblood of seapower--constructed in other countries, and that before the
national campaigns of 1968 are launched, a maritime program of significant
proportions had to be initiated. After many years and months of inertia on
the part of the Administration, this is now apparently an imperative objective.
But, to reach this point, the dedicated endeavors of many members of the
Congress have been necessary. This has been a bi-partisan project, and I am
proud of the part which my Republican colleagues have played. Congressmen
Bill Mailliard of California, the ranking minority member of the Merchant
Marine & Fisheries Committee, Congressman John Rhodes of Arizona, Chairman of
our Republican Policy Committee; Congressman Tom Pelly of Washington, Congress-
man Jack Edwards of Alabama, Congressman Ed Reinecke of California; Senator
Dirksen of Illinois, Senator Cotton of New Hampshire, and Senator Tower of Texas--
to mention only a few--have been in the forefront in forging a climate for a
"new maritime policy" which the President of the United States promised more
than three years ago.
This overdue policy and program has only been revealed in sketchy outline.
There are not enough details to permit any kind of analysis in depth, and we,
on the Republican side of the aisel, are not yet able to say with any certainty
that the proposed approach will produce results which will satisfy our national
needs in the 1970's.
(more)
-4-
For example, these questions are typical of those that need to be answered
before a reasoned judgment can be made:
(1) Does the program, as offered by the Administration, contemplate a
substantial increase in the carriage of our expanding trade and commerce aboard
American flag ships?
(2) If so, what percentage figure (comparable to the present 7.2%) has
been used in the formulation of this program for attainment at what specific
point in time?
(3) If so, what determinations have been made as to the numbers and types
of ships in the various categories (cargo ships, tankers, containerships,
drybulk carriers and so on) which will be required to meet the above objective?
(4) What steps are planned to encourage American manufacturers and
American companies to ship their products aboard U.S. flag ships?
(5) Will this program effectively neutralize the possibility that the
Russians might control the commercial sealanes of the world through a superiority
of merchant shipping?
(6) Is the Administration genuinely sincere in proposing a nuclear ship
program, or is this merely a political ploy?
(7) What steps does the Administration contemplate by way of recruiting,
training and retaining manpower to build and crew the additional ships in this
program?
(8) Will a 30 to 40 ship per year program provide the degree of stability
and standardization which is necessary to enable reductions in shipbuilding
prices?
(9) Does the Administration plan to sponsor an influsion of research and
development in merchant marine areas of a magnitude comparable to that provided
the aircraft industry? If so, over what period of time?
(10) What determinations have been made to ensure that the new ships as
covered by this program will meet national defense needs in the 1970's?
I am sure you would agree that these are not unfair questions of partisan
motivation. To me, the answers should compose the building blocks for any
sensible, constructive program for rejuvenation of the American merchant marine.
Without them, it seems to me, we will have only a superficial, helter-skelter
effort of doubtful verity and debatable promise, as in so many other Great
Society programs.
(more)
-5-
This American Merchant Marine Conference can help in providing input for
answers to these questions, and with the variety of talents, experience and
disciplines represented in this gathering, I would anticipate that your
opinions will carry great weight in Washington--with the Democrats as well
as the Republicans.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my thoughts on the
important problems now before you.
###