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
4525555
label
Ford Press Releases - Maritime, 1967-1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525555
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Maritime, 1967-1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Ships
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525555
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-05-31
month
5
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-05-01
month
5
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
79a21b4b229fbee5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D8, folder "Ford Press Releases - Maritime,
1967-1970" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
3 May 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE WARNS OF MAJOR CRISIS IN AMERICAN MARITIME INDUSTRY
Due to neglect, confusion and a general inability to meet the mounting problem,
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has permitted the American Maritime Industry to
drift into a major crisis.
Today, the United States has fewer privately owned seagoing merchant ships
than in 1936. The percentage of United States flagships in the world's merchant fleet
is one-half of what it was three decades ago. The percentage of American goods moving
overseas on American ships is now the lowest in modern history. The United States has
dropped to fifth among the nations in the size of our active merchant fleet and pres-
ently ranks fourteenth in shipbuilding. This national disgrace is heightened by the
fact that 70% of our ships are twenty years or older and will be due for layup within
the next five years.
More than two years have passed since the State of the Union Message in 1965
when the President promised " a new policy for our merchant marine." To date, that
promise remains unfilled. Moreover, in recent testimony, the Secretary of Transpor-
tation noted that he "would not seek (the President's) concurrence in the new program
until I could assure him that it had general support within the maritime field -------------------------
However, I must now report that we do not have the kind of agreement which will make
such a program a reality." Thus, rather than decision, we have experienced indecision.
In place of action, there has been near paralysis in federal leadership. While we are
in a continued state of decline, the other maritime nations of the world have been
building up their merchant fleets. Last year marked the third successive annual
record for world merchant shipping launched.
The seriousness of this situation is graphically reflected by comparing the
American maritime industry with that of Soviet Russia. "A 1966 Survey of Russian
Merchant Shipping" prepared by the University of Washington, discloses that:
"In 1963 the Russians constructed 115 ships while America launched 31.
Between 1959 and 1963 the American fleet increased by 20 fewer ships
than the Russians produced in the single year 1963. Moreover, the
amount of American seaborne commerce carried in American ships has de-
clined from an already low of 11 per cent in 1960 to around 7 per cent
today. The Russians, in contrast, have increased the amount of freight
carried in their own bottoms from 33 per cent in 1955 and 45 per cent
in 1962 to around 85 per cent in 1965."
(over)
There are indications that this country's sea transportation forces have been
stretched to the limit to support the massive military operations in Vietnam. In
order to meet our obligations there, a large number of old ships have been pulled out
of the mothball fleet. These vessels, from 20 to 27 years old, have had a breakdown
rate more than double the privately owned commercial fleet under charter for Vietnam
service. Although faced with these dismal statistics, the Administration now proposes
to modernize more of our aging reserve fleet while only increasing the new merchant
ship construction in American yards from 13 to 15 ships a year.
Last year, the Administration attempted to transfer the Maritime Administration
into the new Department of Transportation. Under Republican Leadership, this move was
defeated and a plan was advanced that would. establish an independent Maritime Admin-
istration. The proposed transfer would have done little more than shift the maritime
problem to a new department. There was no sense of urgency or a call for a redirection
of effort. Rather than meeting and solving the problems of the maritime industry,
they would have been swept under a bureaucratic rug.
In this session of Congress; the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is continuing
to display a dangerous disregard for the very seious problems of our maritime industry.
The present situation has been described by the Journal of Commerce as follows:
"It is one thing to attempt enticing the shipping industry into the
new Department of Transportation with vague promises of a totally
new policy. It is quite another to display by current actions a
curious indifference to the problems of merchant shipping and to
indicate - when discussing the subject at all - not what ought to be
done, but what the administration is unwilling to do or keep on doing."
In addition to its failure to develop a meaningful maritime policy, the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration has undercut, if not scrapped, the forward-looking
ship replacement program that was implemented during the Eisenhower Administration.
At that time, it was clearly apparent that unless a program of this type was carried
forward, the United States would face, in the foreseeable future, a maritime crisis
of major proportions. The Administration's abandonment of the Eisenhower program
has triggered just such a crisis. Its current indecisiveness and failure to mount
anything more than a minimal program, have escalated the crisis to a point where it is
bordering on a national catastrophe.
This Country needs and must have a modern merchant marine. We must revitalize
and modernize our shipbuilding industry if the demands of the future are to be met.
The need to develop a reasonable and defensible maritime program presents a challenge
and an opportunity. 1967 is a year of decision for the American Maritime Industry.
Unless our shipbuilding effort is increased our defense commitments throughout the
world will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival may depend upon the shipping
that should now be under construction but which the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
has scuttled.
IIIII
3 May 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE WARNS OF MAJOR CRISIS IN AMERICAN MARITIME INDUSTRY
Due to neglect, confusion and a general inability to meet the mounting problem,
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has permitted the American Maritime Industry to
drift into a major crisis.
Today, the United States has fewer privately owned seagoing merchant ships
than in 1936. The percentage of United States flagships in the world's merchant fleet
is one-half of what it was three decades ago. The percentage of American goods moving
overseas on American ships is now the lowest in modern history. The United States has
dropped to fifth among the nations in the size of our active merchant fleet and pres-
ently ranks fourteenth in shipbuilding. This national discrace is heightened by the
fact that 70% of our ships are twenty years or older and will be due for layup within
the next five years.
More than two years have passed since the State of the Union Message in 1965
when the President promised new policy for our merchant marine." To date, that
promise remains unfilled. Moreover, in recent testimony, the Secretary of Transpor-
tation noted that he "would not seek (the President's) concurrence in the new program
until I could assure him that it had general support within the maritime field
---
However, I must now report that we do not have the kind of agreement which will make
such a program a reality." Thus, rather than decision, we have experienced indecision.
In place of action, there has been near paralysis in federal leadership. While we are
in a continued state of decline, the other maritime nations of the world have been
building up their merchant fleets. Last year marked the third successive annual
record for world merchant shipping launched.
The seriousness of this situation is graphically reflected by comparing the
American maritime industry with that of Soviet Russia. "A 1966 Survey of Russian
Merchant Shipping" prepared by the University of Washington, discloses that:
In 1963 the Russians constructed 115 ships while America launched 31.
Between 1959 and 1963 the American fleet increased by 20 fewer ships
than the Russians produced in the single year 1963. Moreover, the
amount of American seaborne commerce carried in American ships has de-
clined from an already low of 11 per cent in 1960 to around 7 per cent
today. The Russians, in contrast, have increased the amount of freight
carried in their own bottoms from 33 per cent in 1955 and 45 per cent
in 1962 to around 85 per cent in 1965."
(over)
There are indications that this country's sea transportation forces have been
stretched to the limit to support the massive military operations in Vietnam. In
order to meet our obligations there, a large number of old ships have been pulled out
of the mothball fleet. These vessels, from 20 to 27 years old, have had a breakdown
rate more than double the privately owned commercial fleet under charter for Vietnam
service. Although faced with these dismal statistics, the Administration now proposes
to modernize more of our aging reserve fleet while only increasing the new merchant
ship construction in American yards from 13 to 15 ships a year.
Last year, the Administration attempted to transfer the Maritime Administration
into the new Department of Transportation. Under Republican Leadership, this move was
defeated and a plan was advanced that would establish an independent Maritime Admin-
istration. The proposed transfer would have done little more than shift the maritime
problem to a new department. There was no sense of urgency or a call for a redirection
of effort. Rather than meeting and solving the problems of the maritime industry,
they would have been swept under a bureaucratic rug.
In this session of Congress, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is continuing
to display a dangerous disregard for the very seious problems of our maritime industry.
The present situation has been described by the Journal of Commerce as follows:
"It is one thing to attempt enticing the shipping industry into the
new Department of Transportation with vague promises of a totally
new policy. It is quite another to display by current actions a
curious indifference to the problems of merchant shipping and to
indicate - when discussing the subject at all - not what ought to be
done, but what the administration is unwilling to do or keep on doing."
In addition to its failure to develop a meaningful maritime policy, the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration has undercut, if not scrapped, the forward-looking
ship replacement program that was implemented during the Eisenhower Administration.
At that time, it was clearly apparent that unless a program of this type was carried
forward, the United States would face, in the foreseeable future, a maritime crisis
of major proportions. The Administration's abandonment of the Eisenhower program
has triggered just such a crisis. Its current indecisiveness and failure to mount
anything more than a minimal program, have escalated the crisis to a point where it is
bordering on a national catastrophe.
This Country needs and must have a modern merchant marine. We must revitalize
and modernize our shipbuilding industry if the demands of the future are to be met.
The need to develop a reasonable and defensible maritime program presents a challenge
and an opportunity. 1967 is a year of decision for the American Maritime Industry.
Unless our shipbuilding effort is increased our defense commitments throughout the
world will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival may depend upon the shipping
that should now be under construction but which the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
has scuttled.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
MONDAY, MAY 22, 1967
THE AMERICAN MARITIME INDUSTRY CRISIS
NATIONAL MARITIME DAY
The President has issued a proclamation designating May 22, 1967, National
Maritime Day.
I am sure all of us endorse the sentiments of the proclamation.
Unfortunately the President's words have a hollow ring when we consider the
evident confusion and inaction on the part of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
in this field.
More than two years have passed since the President's State of the Union
Message in 1965 when he promised a new Merchant Marine policy. This past week at
the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department Seminar conducted in Washington, D. C.,
industry and labor spokesmen underscored the anxiety of both over the Adminis-
tration's non-policy in the maritime field.
While industry and many members of Congress urge the construction of 50
ships a year during the next 5 years, the Administration sponsored the construction
of 13.
Our declining merchant fleet is struggling to carry more than 90 percent of
the material supporting our Vietnam forces. The fleet has fewer privately-owned
seagoing vessels than in 1936. In fact, 70 percent of our ships are more than
20 years old and due for obsolescence layup in the next 5 years.
The portion of our foreign trade being moved by American flag vessels has
fallen to the shameful level of 7 percent.
At present we are using 35 percent of our sea lift capability to support
Vietnam. Approximately 98 percent of the materials are moved by ships. This
entails 100 percent of our NSTS fleet, 40 percent of the privately-owned fleet,
26 percent of the subsidized lines, 50 percent of the unsubsidized lines, 70 per-
cent of the general cargo capability of the Tramp fleet and 32 percent of the
National Defense reserve fleet.
Faced with another conflict, we would be forced to further curtail our
commercial shipping, with resultant inroads by foreign flag competition, or
(more)
FORD LIBRARY
-2-
permit foreign flag vessels to carry a substantial portion of our defense cargoes.
In either case, our maritime industry is the loser.
This situation is particularly painful when we recall the observation of
the Secretary of Defense a little over a year ago that our maritime resources
were adequate and that emergency situations (Vietnam) would be logistically
supported by air transport.
This past week we witnessed a paradox wherein the Administration is hailing
the Trade agreements reached at Geneva in the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations.
The agreements are designed and intended to expand the free trade of the world.
Concurrently the Administration and Secretary Boyd are doing nothing to provide
seaborne transport resources to conduct such trade.
We are on the brink of a maritime crisis of major proportion. The
Administration's abandonment of the Eisenhower maritime program has triggered
just such a crisis. Its indecision and failure to mount anything more than a
minimal program has escalated the crisis to a point bordering on a national
catastrophe.
This country must have a modern merchant marine. We must revitalize and
modernize our shipbuilding industry, re-examine the construction and operations
subsidy program, establish reasonable measures to insure an appropriate level
of cargo preference, and once and for all establish a long-term construction
and operation program that will retain a highly skilled management and labor
force vital to the welfare of the nation.
###
11 October 1967
IIIII
00000
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT FEDERAL
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION H.R. 159
The House Republican Policy Committee supports H.R. 159. This Bill would
create an independent federal Maritime Administration which would be headed by a
federal Maritime Administrator. All of the present duties of the Secretary of
Commerce under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 would be transferred and vested in
the Administrator and the 3-Member Board. In the 89th Congress and again at the
outset of the 90th Congress, the Republican Leadership and the House Republican
Policy Committee warned of a major crisis in the Maritime industry and urged that
steps be taken to correct what could become a disastrous situation. The enactment
of H.R. 159 would be an important first step in revitalizing our Maritime industry
and restoring this country to its former position among the Maritime nations.
In February 1962, the then Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral
John Sylvester, stated:
"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 require-
ments.
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."
On September 28, 1967, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations,
warned that the swift expansion of Soviet naval power poses a "challenge to our
free use of the seas (that) is here for all to see."
LIBRARY
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has not met this challenge. The
President's promise in 1965 of a "new policy for our Merchant Marine" has not been
fulfilled. There has been indecision rather than action. As a result, the percent-
(over)
age of U. S. flagships in the world's merchant fleet is one-half of what it was three
decades ago. The percentage of American goods moving overseas on American ships is
at an all-time low. In 1966, the United States put only 13 new ships into service.
The Soviets took delivery of 62 ships in the last six months of 1966 alone. Some 80%
of the Soviet fleet is less than 10 years old while nearly 70% of the United States
fleet is more than 20 years old.
Under the provisions of H.R. 159, an independent federal Maritime Admin-
istration with a Maritime Administrator at its head would be created. A Maritime
Board composed of 3 Members would be established within the Administration. The
federal Maritime Administrator would be the Chairman of the Board. All functions,
powers and duties of the Secretary of Commerce and of the offices and officers of
the Department of Commerce under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 would be transferred
to or vested in the Administrator. H.R. 159 also requires that the Maritime Board
submit to the President and to the Congress within one year after enactment, a
report surveying the condition of the Merchant Marine, evaluating the effectiveness
of existing law and making appropriate recommendations.
It is unfortunate that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is opposed to
H.R. 159. Action must be taken to reverse the downward trend of recent years. The
creation of an independent federal Maritime Administration is a logical first step.
It would break the present stalemate. It would underscore the importance of our
Maritime industry. It would place Congress on record as being in favor of a Merchant
Marine that can meet our defense commitments and once again carry the American flag
to all the world ports of trade.
Once an independent Maritime Administration is established, the Maritime
industry would cease to be a political football that is kicked from Department to
Department. Moreover, the new Maritime Administration would have an opportunity to
prepare a report which would contain long-range solutions to the many problems
besetting the Maritime industry. In its recommendations, it could propose a course
of action that would provide this country with a modern Merchant Marine and a revital-
ized and modernized shipbuilding industry.
A reasonable and forward-looking Maritime program must be developed. The
neglect, confusion and inactivity of recent years must be ended. The Republican
sponsored and supported bill, H.R. 159, was reported from Committee on August 31,
1967. It was given a rule on September 27, 1967. It should be scheduled for Floor
action without further delay.
11111
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
May 19, 1970
Second Session
Statement Number 6
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 15424,
THE ADMINISTRATION'S MARITIME PROGRAM BILL
"For reasons of security, as well as economics, the
decline of our merchant marine must be reversed. We therefore
pledge a vigorous and realistic ship replacement program to
meet the changing pattern of our foreign commerce."
Republican Platform, 1968
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the passage of H.R. 15424,
the Administration's Maritime Program Bill.
At the close of World War II, the United States' merchant fleet of 3,696
ships was the largest in the world and the pride of this Nation. In the intervening
twenty-four years, however, the U.S. flag fleet steadily decreased. The present
foreign trade fleet of but 650 ships ranks fifth in the world, and in 1974, balancing
present rates of obsolescence and construction, our fleet will dwindle to 272 ships.
In 1968, the value of U.S. exports and imports was $67 billion, one-third of
the world's trade. Yet, only 6 percent of the total tonnage of that trade was
carried by American flag ships. Understandably, with the growth of U.S. trade
dependent upon efficient and reasonably-priced ocean transportation and the security
of the Nation contingent upon the mobility of men and supplies, the American ship-
ping and shipbuilding record must be improved drastically.
Through the critical decade of the sixties, the Nation's maritime program
drifted aimlessly in a sea of governmental neglect, confusion and incompetence. The
(over)
-2-
Eisenhower shipbuilding program was scrapped and the American merchant fleet, despite
the vigorous and repeated protestations of the Congress, was virtually scuttled.
The House Republican Policy Committee, in May of 1967, recognizing the sad
plight of American shipping, called in vain for an immediate redirection and restora-
tion of our maritime effort.
In October, 1969, President Nixon, to "restore the country to a proud position
in the shipping lanes of the world," proposed a comprehensive and long-range merchant
shipbuilding program. Legislation, sponsored by all Members of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, has been introduced which incorporates the President's
proposals. H.R. 15424 calls for:
1. An increase in the level of subsidized ship construction from the present
10 ships per year, to 30 ships per year for a period of 10 years.
2. A gradual reduction in the maximum construction differential subsidy.
3. Payment of the subsidy directly to the shipyard rather than to the
ship operator.
4. Extension to shipbuilding of a multiyear procurement system.
5. An increase in the present $1 billion ceiling on mortgage and loan
insurance to $3 billion.
6. Emphasis upon construction differential subsidies to bulk carriers.
7. Creation of a commission to review the status of the American shipbuilding
industry.
8. Computation of wage subsidies on an index system for the purpose of
operating differential assistance.
9. Elimination of the operating differential subsidy recapture provisions
of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.
10. A new direct operating subsidy for bulk carriers.
11. Extension of the tax deferment system now permitted for subsidized
operators to all qualified ship operators in foreign, Great Lakes and
domestic non-contiguous trade and the fisheries.
Passage of these proposed amendments to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 will
start to revitalize our merchant marine, reverse the sharp decline of our flag fleet
and provide the immediate and substantial aid required to meet the goals of national
policy.
A comprehensive maritime program is required; H.R. 15424 provides that program.
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the passage of President Nixon's
Maritime Program Bill, H.R. 15424.