[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A STRONG MARITIME INDUSTRY

                                 ______


                          HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, September 19, 1995

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as events in Bosnia, the South China Sea, 
and the Persian Gulf have demonstrated time and again, it is absolutely 
critical that the United States maintain a strong Navy, Merchant 
Marine, and shipbuilding and repair industrial base.
  Since the end of World War II, which we recently commemorated, our 
Merchant Marine has fallen from over 3,000 vessels to today's 350 
vessels flying the Stars and Stripes. It has been over 60 years since 
the Merchant Marine Act was signed into law and 25 years since the 
Congress last approved a maritime promotion program.
  Similarly, American shipyards, which, in 1944 produced surface 
combatants at a rate of 1 every 2\1/2\ weeks, are now down to 6 primary 
construction yards bidding on less than 10 new vessels each year.
  These statistics are unacceptable and must be reversed. This Nation 
needs a new maritime program which will help preserve our shipbuilding 
industrial base while providing the U.S.-flag commercial shipping 
capability necessary to maintain our military and economic security.
  These sentiments were forcefully stated recently by Senator Trent 
Lott who Chairs the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant 
Marine. Senator Lott stated that,

       Without a U.S. merchant fleet and a powerful U.S. 
     shipbuilding industry, the U.S. would have to depend on 
     foreign interests for sealift and logistics support.

  In his testimony before Senator Lott's subcommittee, Gen. Robert 
Rutherford, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, stated that:

       We have not forgotten the importance of the U.S. maritime 
     industry to our overall sealift capabilities. Just as we did 
     in the Gulf War, Somalia, and most recently back to the Gulf, 
     we rely extensively on our commercial partners to support our 
     worldwide commitments.

  Today, the Congress has an opportunity to reverse the recent trends 
in our commercial shipping experiences.
  H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995, and the Senate 
counterpart, S. 1139 would initiate a 10-year program to create a 
Maritime Security Fleet which would boost national security, stimulate 
the economy and domestic shipbuildings and promote a stronger, more 
efficient U.S. flag commercial fleet.
  In a letter to the Commerce Committee, our colleagues Herb Bateman, 
Randy Cunningham, Curt Weldon and others stressed that the:

       Enactment of H.R. 1350 will preserve and create American 
     maritime jobs, generate much-needed revenues for federal 
     and state taxing authorities, improve our balance of trade 
     and ensure that our country will not become totally 
     dependent on foreign nations and foreign crews to 
     transport the supplies and equipment needed by American 
     servicemen oversees.

  With respect to domestic shipbuilding, a recent study released by the 
Maritime Administration indicated that jobs in commercial shipbuilding 
had declined some seven percent in 1994 and only one ocean-going 
commercial ship is currently on order.
  While Navy shipbuilding has been the salvation of our shipbuilding 
industrial base over the past 7 years, the number of new orders is on 
the decline and must be stabilized at an adequate number. The Congress 
must continue to provide funding for the nuclear attack submarine 
fleet, the AEGIS surface combatant fleet and the amphibious and 
auxiliary ships necessary to support our Marine and Army forces.
  Finally, the Congress can ensure the preservation of the U.S.-flag 
commercial fleet by resisting the proposal to repeal the Jones Act.
  Since 1789, the United States has maintained a preference for 
carrying domestic commerce on U.S.-built, U.S.-flag vessels. In 1920, 
the Congress enacted the Jones Act mandating that cargoes carried 
between U.S. ports would be transported on U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed 
vessels. These laws were seen as a way to promote the U.S. maritime 
industry as well as to ensure safe transportation and national defense 
considerations.
  There are those who want to repeal the Jones Act claim the law is 
protectionist in nature. And, they may be correct. But, some form of 
Federal investment to promote a U.S. flag commercial fleet can be 
justified. Unlike the ocean-going fleet, the Jones Act operators do not 
receive any subsidy from the Federal Government either for operations 
or for construction. If preferential cargo treatment is the price we 
must pay to ensure that foreign flags-of-convenience carriers, who are 
not subject to U.S. safety laws and who cannot be counted on for our 
national defense do not enter our domestic commerce, then the 
investment may well be worth it. We simply cannot allow foreign vessels 
to gain total control over our domestic waterborne trade.
  In addition, as Al Herberger, head of the Maritime Administration 
testified:

       When a U.S. shipper chooses to move cargo on a U.S.-flag 
     vessel as opposed to a foreign-flag vessel, most revenue that 
     is paid for freight remains in the U.S. economy. On the other 
     hand, freight paid to foreign flag operators, increases our 
     trade deficit because that revenue goes to foreign nationals.

  Again, as Senator Lott stated at his subcommittee's hearing:

       I want to maintain and promote a U.S.-flag fleet, built in 
     U.S. shipyards and manned by U.S. crews . . . when I go home, 
     I want to see the greatest amount possible of Mississippi 
     agricultural products . . . moving on U.S. built and flagged 
     ships.

  The Jones Act, since its inception, has provided an important service 
to the U.S. economy and the maritime industrial base. Previous attempts 
have been made to repeal this law. However, the majority in the 
Congress has always resisted these ill-conceived attempts to destroy 
the U.S.-flag commercial fleet. In fact, on July 24 the House 
reaffirmed its commitment to the principals of cargo preference 
embodied in the Jones Act when it voted 324 to 77 to permit the export 
of Alaskan North Slope oil exclusively on U.S.-flag tankers.
  Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of our history, this Nation has 
recognized that as a maritime Nation dependent on secure transport of 
ocean-borne commerce and military strength, we must remain committed to 
a strong maritime industry, led by a viable U.S.-flag merchant fleet. 
This simple fact has not changed in over 220 years and must not change 
now. The Congress must continue to support a strong Navy, a viable 
merchant marine, and an efficient shipbuilding industrial base.

                          ____________________