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
4526139
label
Seminar Sponsored by the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, Washington, DC, June 19, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526139
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Seminar Sponsored by the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, Washington, DC, June 19, 1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Legislation
Ships
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526139
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-06-30
month
6
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-06-01
month
6
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
31d7115ac6d05410
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D25, folder "Seminar Sponsored by the AFL-
CIO Maritime Trades Department, Washington, DC, June 19, 1968" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D25 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
SEMINAR SPONSORED BY THE AFL-CIO MARITIME
TRADES DEPARTMENT, AT 10 A.M. WEDNESDAY.
JUNE 19, 1968, AT THE STATLER-HILTON HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D. C.
O had 4 mgro as
although 2 haven't been at nn for sometime P have been m
Rick offer
3
your purpose
last night mb
HAVING BEEN PIPED ABOARD SEVERAL OF
YOUR PROGRAMS NOW NOW, I AM BEGINNING TO FEEL LIKE
AN OLD SALT. because -
ACTUALLY, I CAN LAY CLAIM TO BEING
A SAILOR OF SORTS, BECAUSE I DID SERVE AS A
SHIP'S OFFICER ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER DURING
WORLD WAR II. AND IT WASN T EXACTLY A SHORT
VOYAGE.
BUT EVEN IF I HAD NEVER SEEN THE
OCEAN I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WOULD BE DEEPLY
CONCERNED TODAY ABOUT THE STATE OF OUR MERCHANT
MARINE.
YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE
DIRE STATISTICS ABOUT THE SORRY CONDITION OF
THE MERCHANT MARINE. THE RESOLUTIONS YOUR
EXECUTIVE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED LAST
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
FEBRUARY RECITED THEM -- HOW THE U.S. FLAG
ACTIVE FLEET HAS SHRUNK TO 987 SHIPS AND THAT
THREE OUT OF FIVE OF THESE WILL HAVE TO BE
RETIRED, SOLD FOREIGN OR SCRAPPED WITHIN THE
NEXT FOUR YEARS BECAUSE OF AGE.
YOU KNOW Too, AS I DO, THAT IT IS A
DANGEROUS GAMBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO
DEPEND ON FOREIGN FLAG SHIPS AND FOREIGN
CREWMEN TO CARRY ITS MILITARY CARGO.
LET US NOT TODAY MERELY ENGAGE IN A
GRIM CATALOGUING OF HOW DISMALLY THE UNITED
STATES NOW RANKS AS A MARITIME POWER AFTER
HAVING ONCE HELD ITS PROUD MAST-HEADS HIGH.
LET US LOOK NOT ONLY AT WHERE WE ARE NOW BUT
WHERE WE MUST GO IF THE UNITED STATES IS TO
REBUILD ITS MERCHANT FLEET AND PROTECT ITS
VITAL INTERESTS ON THE WATERWAYS OF THE WORLD.
BESIDES CITING MY WORLD WAR II
SERVICE TO QUALIFY MYSELF AS A SEAFARER
3/1
I
WOULD TAKE JUST ONE OTHER LOOK BACKWARD BEFORE
-3-
WE MOVE AHEAD.
ALTHOUGH THOSE INVOLVED IN MARITIME
MATTERS MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH IT, LET US
CONSIDER FOR JUST A MOMENT A FEDERAL STATUTE
WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AND I
THINK A BRIEF LOOK AT IT TELLS US MUCH TODAY.
IT TELLS US -- AS DID YOUR
EXECUTIVE BOARD BY RESOLUTION LAST FEBRUARY --
THAT THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION "HAS COMPLETELY
ABDICATED ITS RESPONSIBILITY" FOR PULLING THE
MERCHANT MARINE OUT OF THE SEA OF NEGLECT INTO
WHICH IT HAS BEEN PLUNGED. INDIRECTLY, THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936 POINTS UP THE FACT
THAT -- AS YOUR EXECUTIVE BOARD HAS STATED --
THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION IS "DERELICT IN
PROMOTING THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE AND
NOT CONCERNED WITH ITS. EUTURE."
HERE S WHAT THE MERCHANT MARINE
FORD
ACT OF 1936 PROVIDED -- AND I BELIEVE ITS
LIBRARY
-4-
STATED PURPOSES ARE FULLY VALID TODAY:
1. THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
HAVE SHIPPING ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN ITS NORMAL
FLOW OF WATERBORNE COMMERCE "AT ALL TIMES."
2. THAT THIS SHIPPING SHOULD BE
"CAPABLE OF SERVING AS A NAVAL AND MILITARY
AUXILIARY IN TIME OF WAR."
3. THAT IT SHOULD BE OWNED AS FAR
AS POSSIBLE BY AMERICAN CITIZENS AND OPERATED
UNDER THE AMERICAN FLAG.
4. THAT IT SHOULD BE "COMPOSED OF
THE BEST-EQUIPPED, SAFEST AND MOST SUITABLE
TYPES OF VESSELS."
7th 19300.
THE NEW DEAL FRANKLY ACCEPTED THE
THEORY THAT A STRONG MERCHANT MARINE WAS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. I
SUBSCRIBE 100 PER CENT TO THAT THEORY MYSELF --
AND I FIND IT SHOCKING THAT THE PRESENT
FORD
ADMINISTRATION HAS ABANDONED THAT POLICY.
GERAL
LIBRARY
THE NEW DEAL ALSO CREATED A
-5-
MARITIME COMMISSION AND HANDED IT THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF MAPPING A LONG-RANGE PROGRAM
OF REPLACEMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE AMERICAN
MERCHANT MARINE. THE COMMISSION DID SUCH A
GOOD JOB THAT WHEN WORLD WAR II BROKE OUT,
TOTAL AMERICAN TONNAGE WAS TWO-THIRDS AS GREAT
AS THE BRITISH AND FAR GREATER THAN ANY OTHER.
THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION NOT ONLY
HAS COMPLETELY ABANDONED THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1936; IT HAS EVEN SOUGHT TO BURY THE
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION IN THE NEW DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION.
BUT THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE IS
NOT DEAD. AS MARK TWAIN SAID OF HIS OWN
SUPPOSED DEMISE, THE REPORTS OF ITS DEATH ARE
VASTLY EXAGGERATED.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE YOUR ORGANIZATION
AND CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORTERS OF A VIGOROUS
MERCHANT MARINE ARE DETERMINED TO RESTORE IT TO
SOUND HEALTH.
-6-
I SAY IT, Too, BECAUSE THE VITALITY
OF EVEN THE MUCH-ABUSED AMERICAN MERCHANT
MARINE NOW OPERATING IS POINTED UP BY ITS
CONTRIBUTION TO OUR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS.
A RECENT STUDY MADE BY HARBRIDGE
HOUSE, INC., OF BOSTON UNDER SPONSORSHIP OF THE
COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN STEAMSHIP LINES SHOWS
THAT THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE HAS
CONTRIBUTED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO OUR BALANCE
OF PAYMENTS IN RECENT YEARS. THIS IS TRUE
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY 7 PER CENT OF THE
TONNAGE OF AMERICAN PRODUCTS IS CARRIED IN
AMERICAN SHIPS.
NOBODY CAN ARGUE AGAINST THE FACT
THAT THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE IS A VITAL
LOGISTICAL LIFELINE IN TIME OF WAR.
NOW THIS STUDY POINTS UP THE
TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE U.S.-FLAG
MERCHANT MARINE TO THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF
AMERICA IN TERMS OF THE INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS
-7-
SITUATION -- A WHOPPING $7.3 BILLION BETWEEN
1957 AND 1966.
OUR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IS DANGER-
& must be corrected
OUSLY DISTORTED. WE ALL KNOW THAT. BUT HOW
MANY AMERICANS KNOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
30 PER CENT WORSE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR U.S.
MERCHANT SHIPS?
study
The HARBRIDGE HOUSE TELLS US THAT IF
THE BUSINESS DONE BY U.S.-FLAG SHIPS DURING
THE DECADE STUDIED HAD GONE TO FOREIGN SHIPPING
SERVICES IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED "SEVERE ECONOMIC
REPERCUSSIONS" IN THIS NATION.
YET THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY
ADMINISTRATION -- SUPPOSEDLY DEEPLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE PERILOUSLY HUGE DEFICIT IN OUR
BALANCE OF PAYMENTS -- APPEARS TO IGNORE THE
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE
AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE TO THE SALVAGE OF OUR
SINKING PAYMENTS BALANCE.
ALDR FORD LIBRA
EVERY NEW AMERICAN MERCHANT VESSEL
-8-
THAT SLIDES DOWN THE WAYS GIVES AN IMMEDIATE
ASSIST TO THE SOLUTION OF OUR TROUBLESOME
INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS PROBLEM. LET THIS
IMPORTANT FACT BE SHARPLY ETCHED ON THE RECORD.
SOME AMERICANS COMPLAIN ABOUT THE
OPERATING AND CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES POURED
INTO THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. YES, THESE
SUBSIDIES HAVE TOTALLED NEARLY $3 BILLION OVER
THE PAST 30 YEARS.
BUT, THE HARBRIDGE HOUSE STUDY TELLS
us, FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IN SUBSIDIES, THE
U.S. RECEIVED $3 IN RETURN FROM ITS SUBSIDIZED
VESSELS. That's a dam good investment by my standard
LIKE THE UNITED STATES, THE SOVIET
UNION ALSO HAS A BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROBLEM.
BUT THE U.S.S.R. IS MAKING A REALISTIC ATTACK
ON THE PROBLEM WITH AN ALL-OUT SHIP
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM. RUSSIA'S GOAL IS TO
CARRY IN HER OWN SHIPS ALL THE MERCHANDISE SHE
EITHER BUYS OR SELLS.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-9-
THE SOVIET OBJECTIVE IS TO CARRY
100 PER CENT OF RUSSIA'S GOODS. WE SHOULD SET
AN OBJECTIVE OF CARRYING AT LEAST 50 PER CENT
OF U.S. GOODS -- A TREMENDOUS INCREASE OVER
THE PRESENT LEVEL OF 7 PER CENT WHICH SEEMS TO
SATISFY THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION.
AMERICAN SHIPPING LINES AND AMERICAN
SHIPYARDS COULD DO THE JOB, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY
BUT THATKIND OF OPPORTUNITY IS LACKING UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION'S GROUND RULES.
WHAT WE NEED IS SOME POSITIVE
THINKING ON THE MERCHANT MARINE PROBLEM. AND
BY THAT I DON'T MEAN THE KIND OF APPROACH TAKEN
IN THE OMNIBUS BILL, H.R. 13940, NOW BEFORE
THE HOUSE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
COMMITTEE.
THIS LEGISLATION IS SIMPLY A
COBBLING-TOGETHER conglomeration OF ALL THE BILLS THAT HAVE
a
BEEN INTRODUCED BY MAJORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS MEMBERS,
TIED TOGETHER AND TOSSED AT THE COMMITTEE IN A
-10-
BUNDLE WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION WITH THE
MINORITY.
I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE PROBLEM OF
DETERIORATION IN OUR MERCHANT MARINE WILL BE
This is a problem that Transcands parting
SOLVED THROUGH NARROW PARTISANSHIP. ALL MUST
WORK TOGETHER TO LIFT THE MERCHANT MARINE OUT
OF THE DEPTHS.
PERSONALLY I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING
LESS THAN NEW NATIONAL LEADERSHIP WILL REMEDY
THE SITUATION.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE THE PRESENT
ADMINISTRATION HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO SET
UP A REALISTIC SET OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES. HAD
IT DONE SO CERTAINLY THE REVITALIZATION OF OUR
MERCHANT MARINE WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGH ON THE
LIST.
BUT YOU AND I KNOW THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE PERSON OF TRANSPORTATION
SECRETARY BOYD RECENTLY SOUGHT TO TORPEDO THE
LATEST EFFORTS BY CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORTERS OF LIBRAR A
-11-
STRONG MERCHANT MARINE TO "REV UP" OUR
SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.
OF COURSE WE'RE IN A TIGHT
BUDGETARY SITUATION. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
QUITE LITERALLY, IS IN A FISCAL MESS. AND
WHY?
IN MY VIEW, IT'S BECAUSE THE PRESENT
ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT TO MOVE IN ALL DIRECTIONS
AT ONCE WITHOUT A SENSE OF PRIORITY. IT'S
BECAUSE THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION TRIGGERED
AN INFLATIONARY SPIRAL TWO YEARS AGO BY
REFUSING TO PRACTICE ANY SEMBLANCE OF FISCAL
RESTRAINT.
THE RESULT HAS BEEN HUGE FEDERAL
DEFICITS, A CHEAP DOLLAR AND, NOW, AN
INABILITY TO ADEQUATELY FUND WORTHWHILE FEDERAL
PROGRAMS SUCH AS MERCHANT SHIP CONSTRUCTION.
I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT MAY
HAPPEN TO THE OMNIBUS MERCHANT MARINE BILL IN
THE HOUSE. AT THE MOMENT I DO NOT DISCERN
-12-
BROAD AREAS OF GENERAL AGREEMENT. IT HAS BEEN
THE VEHICLE FOR HEARINGS AND THAT IS ALL.
I AM MOVED, HOWEVER, TO SPEAK
FAVORABLY OF THE PROPOSAL TO EXTEND TAX-DEFERRED
CONSTRUCTION RESERVE PRIVILEGES TO ALL MEMBERS
OF THE FLEET. THIS WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
THEM TO PUT PRIVATE CAPITAL ASIDE FOR NEW SHIP
CONSTRUCTION. THIS WOULD BE A HIGHLY BENEFICIAL
STEP. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THE ADMINISTRATION
IS DEAD SET AGAINST IT.
I ALSO FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN
THE MOVE TO ASSURE INDEPENDENT OPERATORS A FAIR
SHARE OF NEW SHIPS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
IF IT CAN BE SHOWN -- AND I AM
CERTAIN THAT PROPONENTS HAVE THE EVIDENCE --
THAT THE DISCRIMINATION AND UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
COMPLAINED OF IN CONNECTION WITH SO-CALLED
DOUBLE SUBSIDY EXISTS, THEN THAT SITUATION
SHOULD BE REMEDIED. AS FOR LONGTERM GOVERNMENT
CHARTERS FOR INDEPENDENT OPERATORS, THERE ARE
-13-
QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED. BUT, AGAIN,
THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A CASE CAN
BE MADE FOR IT.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DESPERATE NEED
FOR NEW MERCHANT SHIPS, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT
THE FISCAL SITUATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
PRESENT ADMINISTRATION HAS CREATED NEW
OBSTACLES FOR US WHO ARE TRULY DEDICATED TO A
MODERN AND EXPANDING AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.
OUR NEW SHIPS ARE THE FASTEST AND
THE BEST IN THE WORLD, WITH REVOLUTIONARY
NEW FEATURES THAT CUT COSTS AND DRASTICALLY
REDUCE LOADING AND UNLOADING TIME.
WE HAVE 142 OF THESE SHIPS AND
42 A-BUILDING. BUT NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF OUR
MERCHANT FLEET IS ALMOST 25 YEARS OLD AND
OUGHT TO BE RETIRED IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
THE EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION
IMPLEMENTED A FORWARD-LOOKING SHIP REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM. THE JOHNSON-HUMPHREY ADMINISTRATION
-14-
HAS BADLY UNDERCUT IT BY INDECISION, RED-TAPE
AND POLICIES THAT WOULD REDUCE AMERICAN JOBS AND
CRIPPLE AMERICAN INDUSTRY.
THIS COUNTRY MUST HAVE A MODERN
MERCHANT MARINE. THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT MUST
BE MET AS WE RE-ORDER OUR PRIORITIES AND
STRAIGHTEN OUT THE NATION'S COURSE.
I BELIEVE THE CRISIS IN THE
AMERICAN MARITIME INDUSTRY HAS BECOME SO
SERIOUS THAT A SPECIAL 15-MEMBER ADVISORY
COMMISSION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO STUDY OUR
MARITIME PROBLEMS AND REPORT BACK TO THE CONGRESS
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION.
WE MUST ACT TO LIFT THE AMERICAN
MERCHANT MARINE OUT OF THE DOLDRUMS. THE
CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUED INACTION ARE TOO
GRAVE TO COUNTENANCE.
WE CAN AND MUST BUILD A MODERN
MERCHANT MARINE. THIS IS ONE WAY TO MAKE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
AMERICANS PROUD OF THEIR COUNTRY AGAIN. THANK
YOU.
###
Distribution
Full
3:45p.m.
6/18/68
20 Copies Mr. Food
M Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN WEDNESDAY PM's--
June 19, 1968
A Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Minority Leader of the U.S. House of
Representatives, at a Seminar sponsored by the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department,
at 10 a.m. Wednesday, June 19, 1968, at the Statler-Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Having been piped aboard several of your programs now, I am beginning to feel
like an old salt.
Actually, I can lay claim to being a sailor of sorts, because I did serve as
a ship's officer on an aircraft carrier during World War II. and it wasn't exactly
a short voyage.
But even if I had never seen the ocean I can tell you that I would be deeply
concerned today about the state of our merchant marine.
You are familiar with all of the dire statistics about the sorry condition
of the merchant marine. The resolutions your executive board unanimously adopted
last February recited them--how the U.S. Flag active fleet has shrunk to 987 ships
and that three out of five of these will have to be retired, sold foreign or
scrapped within the next four years because of age.
You know too, as I do, that it is a dangerous gamble for the United States to
depend on foreign flag ships and foreign crewmen to carry its military cargo.
Let us not today merely engage in a grim cataloguing of how dismally the
United States now ranks as a maritime power after having once held its proud mast-
heads high. Let us look not only at where we are now but where we must go if the
United States is to rebuild its merchant fleet and protect its vital interests on
the waterways of the world.
Besides citing my World War II service to qualify myself as a seafarer, I
would take just one other look backward before we move ahead.
Although those involved in maritime matters must be familiar with it, let
us consider for just a moment a federal statute which has been on the books for a
long time. It is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and I think a brief look at it
tells us much today.
It tells us--as did your executive board by resolution last February--that
the present Administration "has completely abdicated its responsibility" for pulling
the merchant marine out of the sea of neglect into which it has been plunged.
FORD
(more)
GERA
LIBRARY
-2-
Indirectly, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 points up the fact that--as your
executive board has stated the present Administration is "derelict in promoting
the American Merchant Marine and not concerned with its future."
Here's what the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 provided--and I believe its
stated purposes are fully valid today:
1. That the United States should have shipping adequate to maintain its
normal flow of waterborne commerce "at all times."
2. That this shipping should be "capable of serving as a naval and military
auxiliary in time of war."
3. That it should be owned as far as possible by American citizens and
operated under the American Flag.
4. That it should be "composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most
suitable types of vessels."
The New Deal frankly accepted the theory that a strong merchant marine was
an essential part of the national defense. I subscribe 100 per cent to that theory
myself--and I find it shocking that the present Administration has abandoned that
policy.
The New Deal also created a Maritime Commission and handed it the responsi-
bility of mapping a long-range program of replacements and additions to the American
merchant marine. The commission did such a good job that when World War II broke
out, total American tonnage was two-thirds as great as the British and far greater
than any other.
The present Administration not only has completely abandoned the Merchant
Marine Act of 1936; it has even sought to bury the Maritime Administration in the
new Department of Transportation.
But the American Merchant Marine is not dead. As Mark Twain said of his own
supposed demise, the reports of its death are vastly exaggerated.
I say this because your organization and congressional supporters of a
vigorous merchant marine are determined to restore it to sound health.
I say it, too, because the vitality of even the much-abused American
merchant marine now operating is pointed up by its contribution to our balance of
payments.
A recent study made by Harbridge House, Inc., of Boston under sponsorship of
the Committee of American Steamship Lines shows that the American Merchant Marine
has contributed billions of dollars to our balance of payments in recent years.
(more)
-3-
This is true despite the fact that only 7 per cent of the tonnage of American
products is carried in American ships.
Nobody can argue against the fact that the American Merchant Marine is a
vital logistical lifeline in time of war.
Now this study points up the tremendous contribution made by the U.S.-Flag
Merchant Marine to the economic well-being of America in terms of the international
payments situation--a whopping $7.3 billion between 1957 and 1966.
Our balance of payments is dangerously distorted. We all know that. But
how many Americans know that it would have been 30 per cent worse had it not been
for U.S. merchant ships?
Harbridge House tells us that if the business done by U.S.-Flag ships during
the decade studied had gone to foreign shipping services it would have caused
"severe economic repercussions" in this Nation.
Yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration--supposedly deeply concerned about
the perilously huge deficit in our balance of payments--appears to ignore the
present and potential contribution of the American Merchant Marine to the salvage
of our sinking payments balance.
Every new American merchant vessel that slides down the ways gives an
immediate assist to the solution of our troublesome international payments problem.
Let this important fact be sharply etched on the record.
Some Americans complain about the operating and construction subsidies
poured into the American Merchant Marine. Yes, these subsidies have totalled
nearly $3 billion over the past 30 years.
But, the Harbridge House study tells us, for every dollar spent in subsidies,
the U.S. received $3 in return from its subsidized vessels.
Like the United States, the Soviet Union also has a balance of payments
problem. But the U.S.S.R. is making a realistic attack on the problem with an
all-out ship construction program. Russia's goal is to carry in her own ships all
the merchandise she either buys or sells.
The Soviet objective is to carry 100 per cent of Russia's goods. We should
set an objective of carrying at least 50 per cent of U.S. goods--a tremendous
increase over the present level of 7 per cent which seems to satisfy the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration.
American shipping lines and American shipyards could do the job, given the
opportunity. But that kind of opportunity is lacking under the Administration's
ground rules.
(more)
-4-
What we need is some positive thinking on the merchant marine problem. And
by that I don't mean the kind of approach taken in the omnibus bill, H.R. 13940,
now before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
This legislation is simply a cobbling-together of all the bills that have
been introduced by majority committee members, tied together and tossed at the
committee in a bundle without any consultation with the minority.
I do not feel that the problem of deterioration in our merchant marine will
be solved through narrow partisanship. All must work together to lift the Merchant
Marine out of the depths.
Personally I believe that nothing less than new national leadership will
remedy the situation.
I say this because the present Administration has completely failed to set
up a realistic set of national priorities. Had it done so, certainly the
revitalization of our merchant marine would have been high on the list.
But you and I know that the Administration in the person of Transportation
Secretary Boyd recently sought to torpedo the latest efforts by congressional
supporters of a strong merchant marine to "rev up" our shipbuilding program.
Of course we're in a tight budgetary situation. The Federal Government,
quite literally, is in a fiscal mess. And why?
In my view, it's because the present Administration sought to move in all
directions at once without a sense of priority. It's because the present
Administration triggered an inflationary spiral two years ago by refusing to
practice any semblance of fiscal restraint.
The result has been huge federal deficits, a cheap dollar and, now, an
inability to adequately fund worthwhile federal programs such as merchant ship
construction.
I don't know at this point what may happen to the omnibus merchant marine
bill in the House. At the moment I do not discern broad areas of general agreement.
It has been the vehicle for hearings and that is all.
I am moved, however, to speak favorably of the proposal to extend tax-
deferred construction reserve privileges to all members of the fleet. This would
make it possible for them to put private capital aside for new ship construction.
This would be a highly beneficial step. However, I understand the Administration
is dead set against it.
I also find considerable merit in the move to assure independent operators
a fair share of new ships to be constructed.
(more)
-5-
If it can be shown--and I am certain that proponents have the evidence--that
the discrimination and unfair advantage complained of in connection with so-called
double subsidy exists, then that situation should be remedied. As for longterm
government charters for independent operators, there are questions that must be
answered. But, again, there is good reason to believe that a case can be made
for it.
We can talk about the desperate need for new merchant ships, but we all know
that the fiscal situation brought about by the present Administration has created
new obstacles for us who are truly dedicated to a modern and expanding American
Merchant Marine.
Our new ships are the fastest and the best in the world, with revolutionary
new features that cut costs and drastically reduce loading and unloading time.
We have 142 of these ships and 42 a-building. But nearly two-thirds of our
merchant fleet is almost 25 years old and ought to be retired in the next five
years.
The Eisenhower Administration implemented a forward-looking ship replacement
program. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has badly undercut it by indecision,
red-tape and policies that would reduce American jobs and cripple American industry.
This country must have a modern merchant marine. This is a challenge that
must be met as we re-order our priorities and straighten out the Nation's course.
I believe the crisis in the American maritime industry has become so serious
that a special 15-member Advisory Commission should be established to study our
maritime problems and report back to the Congress with recommendations for remedial
action.
We must act to lift the American Merchant Marine out of the doldrums. The
consequences of continued inaction are too grave to countenance.
We can and must build a modern Merchant Marine. This is one way to make
Americans proud of their country again. Thank you.
# # #
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN WEDNESDAY PM's--
June 19, 1968
A Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Minority Leader of the U.S. House of
Representatives, at a Seminar sponsored by the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department,
at 10 a.m. Wednesday, June 19, 1968, at the Statler-Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Having been piped aboard several of your programs now, I am beginning to feel
like an old salt.
Actually, I can lay claim to being a sailor of sorts, because I did serve as
a ship's officer on an aircraft carrier during World War II and it wasn't
exactly
a short voyage.
But even if I had never seen the ocean I can tell you that I would be deeply
concerned today about the state of our merchant marine.
You are familiar with all of the dire statistics about the sorry condition
of the merchant marine. The resolutions your executive board unanimously adopted
last February recited them--how the U.S. Flag active fleet has shrunk to 987 ships
and that three out of five of these will have to be retired, sold foreign or
scrapped within the next four years because of age.
You know too, as I do, that it is a dangerous gamble for the United States to
depend on foreign flag ships and foreign crewmen to carry its military cargo.
Let us not today merely engage in a grim cataloguing of how dismally the
United States now ranks as a maritime power after having once held its proud mast-
heads high. Let us look not only at where we are now but where we must go if the
United States is to rebuild its merchant fleet and protect its vital interests on
the waterways of the world.
Besides citing my World War II service to qualify myself as a seafarer, I
would take just one other look backward before we move ahead.
Although those involved in maritime matters must be familiar with it, let
us consider for just a moment a federal statute which has been on the books for a
long time. It is the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and I think a brief look at it
tells us much today.
It tells us--as did your executive board by resolution last February--that
the present Administration "has completely abdicated its responsibility" for pulling
the merchant marine out of the sea of neglect into which it has been plunged.
(more)
-2-
Indirectly, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 points up the fact that--as your
executive board has stated- the present Administration is "derelict in promoting
the American Merchant Marine and not concerned with its future."
Here's what the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 provided--and I believe its
stated purposes are fully valid today:
1. That the United States should have shipping adequate to maintain its
normal flow of waterborne commerce "at all times."
2. That this shipping should be "capable of serving as a naval and military
auxiliary in time of war."
3. That it should be owned as far as possible by American citizens and
operated under the American Flag.
4. That it should be "composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most
suitable types of vessels.
The New Deal frankly accepted the theory that a strong merchant marine was
an essential part of the national defense. I subscribe 100 per cent to that theory
myself--and I find it shocking that the present Administration has abandoned that
policy.
The New Deal also created a Maritime Commission and handed it the responsi-
bility of mapping a long-range program of replacements and additions to the American
merchant marine. The commission did such a good job that when World War II broke
out, total American tonnage was two-thirds as great as the British and far greater
than any other.
The present Administration not only has completely abandoned the Merchant
Marine Act of 1936; it has even sought to bury the Maritime Administration in the
new Department of Transportation.
But the American Merchant Marine is not dead. As Mark Twain said of his own
supposed demise, the reports of its death are vastly exaggerated.
I say this because your organization and congressional supporters of a
vigorous merchant marine are determined to restore it to sound health.
I say it, too, because the vitality of even the much-abused American
merchant marine now operating is pointed up by its contribution to our balance of
payments.
A recent study made by Harbridge House, Inc., of Boston under sponsorship of
the Committee of American Steamship Lines shows that the American Merchant Marine
has contributed billions of dollars to our balance of payments in recent years.
(more)
-3-
This is true despite the fact that only 7 per cent of the tonnage of American
products is carried in American ships.
Nobody can argue against the fact that the American Merchant Marine is a
vital logistical lifeline in time of war.
Now this study points up the tremendous contribution made by the U.S.-Flag
Merchant Marine to the economic well-being of America in terms of the international
payments situation--a whopping $7.3 billion between 1957 and 1966.
Our balance of payments is dangerously distorted. We all know that. But
how many Americans know that it would have been 30 per cent worse had it not been
for U.S. merchant ships?
Harbridge House tells us that if the business done by U.S.-Flag ships during
the decade studied had gone to foreign shipping services it would have caused
"severe economic repercussions" in this Nation.
Yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration--supposedly deeply concerned about
the perilously huge deficit in our balance of payments--appears to ignore the
present and potential contribution of the American Merchant Marine to the salvage
of our sinking payments balance.
Every new American merchant vessel that slides down the ways gives an
immediate assist to the solution of our troublesome international payments problem.
Let this important fact be sharply etched on the record.
Some Americans complain about the operating and construction subsidies
poured into the American Merchant Marine. Yes, these subsidies have totalled
nearly $3 billion over the past 30 years.
But, the Harbridge House study tells us, for every dollar spent in subsidies,
the U.S. received $3 in return from its subsidized vessels.
Like the United States, the Soviet Union also has a balance of payments
problem. But the U.S.S.R. is making a realistic attack on the problem with an
all-out ship construction program. Russia's goal is to carry in her own ships all
the merchandise she either buys or sells.
The Soviet objective is to carry 100 per cent of Russia's goods. We should
set an objective of carrying at least 50 per cent of U.S. goods--a tremendous
increase over the present level of 7 per cent which seems to satisfy the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration.
American shipping lines and American shipyards could do the job, given the
opportunity. But that kind of opportunity is lacking under the Administration's
ground rules.
(more)
-4-
What we need is some positive thinking on the merchant marine problem. And
by that I don't mean the kind of approach taken in the omnibus bill, H.R. 13940,
now before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
This legislation is simply a cobbling-together of all the bills that have
been introduced by majority committee members, tied together and tossed at the
committee in a bundle without any consultation with the minority.
I do not feel that the problem of deterioration in our merchant marine will
be solved through narrow partisanship. All must work together to lift the Merchant
Marine out of the depths.
Personally I believe that nothing less than new national leadership will
remedy the situation.
I say this because the present Administration has completely failed to set
up a realistic set of national priorities. Had it done so, certainly the
revitalization of our merchant marine would have been high on the list.
But you and I know that the Administration in the person of Transportation
Secretary Boyd recently sought to torpedo the latest efforts by congressional
supporters of a strong merchant marine to "rev up" our shipbuilding program.
Of course we're in a tight budgetary situation. The Federal Government,
quite literally, is in a fiscal mess. And why?
In my view, it's because the present Administration sought to move in all
directions at once without a sense of priority. It's because the present
Administration triggered an inflationary spiral two years ago by refusing to
practice any semblance of fiscal restraint.
The result has been huge federal deficits, a cheap dollar and, now, an
inability to adequately fund worthwhile federal programs such as merchant ship
construction.
I don't know at this point what may happen to the omnibus merchant marine
bill in the House. At the moment I do not discern broad areas of general agreement.
It has been the vehicle for hearings and that is all.
I am moved, however, to speak favorably of the proposal to extend tax-
deferred construction reserve privileges to all members of the fleet. This would
make it possible for them to put private capital aside for new ship construction.
This would be a highly beneficial step. However, I understand the Administration
is dead set against it.
I also find considerable merit in the move to assure independent operators
a fair share of new ships to be constructed.
(more)
-5-
If it can be shown--and I am certain that proponents have the evidence--that
the discrimination and unfair advantage complained of in connection with so-called
double subsidy exists, then that situation should be remedied. As for longterm
government charters for independent operators, there are questions that must be
answered. But, again, there is good reason to believe that a case can be made
for it.
We can talk about the desperate need for new merchant ships, but we all know
that the fiscal situation brought about by the present Administration has created
new obstacles for us who are truly dedicated to a modern and expanding American
Merchant Marine.
Our new ships are the fastest and the best in the world, with revolutionary
new features that cut costs and drastically reduce loading and unloading time.
We have 142 of these ships and 42 a-building. But nearly two-thirds of our
merchant fleet is almost 25 years old and ought to be retired in the next five
years.
The Eisenhower Administration implemented a forward-looking ship replacement
program. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has badly undercut it by indecision,
red-tape and policies that would reduce American jobs and cripple American industry.
This country must have a modern merchant marine. This is a challenge that
must be met as we re-order our priorities and straighten out the Nation's course.
I believe the crisis in the American maritime industry has become so serious
that a special 15-member Advisory Commission should be established to study our
maritime problems and report back to the Congress with recommendations for remedial
action.
We must act to lift the American Merchant Marine out of the doldrums. The
consequences of continued inaction are too grave to countenance.
We can and must build a modern Merchant Marine. This is one way to make
Americans proud of their country again. Thank you.
###