THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 17, 1995 TAG: 9507150273
SECTION: BUSINESS WEEKLY PAGE: 04 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: BY HERBERT H. BATEMAN
LENGTH: Medium: 96 lines
The U.S. merchant marine is fighting for its life. Faced with the prospect of the entire U.S.-flag container fleet sailing under a foreign flag with foreign crews in less than 18 months, Congress must take action this year to preserve the industry. The reason for congressional intervention is simple: National security.
Regrettably, national security is too often tossed around Capitol Hill by elected officials and industry lobbyists seeking justification for taxpayer financing of their favorite program.
I was recently accused of taking just such liberties by The Wall Street Journal, which labeled the Maritime Security Act of 1995, of which I am the primary author, the ``Pork Barrel Act of 1995.''
Critics of the bill fail to objectively analyze it in the context of U.S. national security requirements. Throughout the Cold War, one of the weaknesses identified but never rectified within the U.S. national security apparatus was sealift - the ability of the Navy and the U.S. merchant marine to transport forces and vital military cargo into war zones.
The end of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry has not eliminated the need for sealift ships and trained crews. On the contrary, the withdrawal of most U.S. forces from overseas bases has placed a premium on our ability to project military power abroad from the continental United States, a requirement that places a considerable strain on available resources.
Additionally, some of us in Congress are reluctant to have our forces dependent upon foreign-crewed and -flagged cargo ships, which experience has taught are often unwilling to sail into troubled waters. This is in stark contrast to their American counterparts acting on behalf of their country's troops.
The role of sealift in the U.S. national security strategy cannot be overstated. An illustrative case study of sealift's importance was seen during the buildup to the Persian Gulf War.
As the United States prepared for war in the Middle East four years ago, 95 percent of all the military equipment sent to the Persian Gulf traveled by sea.
Of that, 79 percent went on American-flag vessels. Tanks, Patriot missile batteries, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition and food all were carried to the Gulf on U.S. flag ships.
Future crises are unlikely to replicate Saddam Hussein's allowing us the luxury of six uninterrupted months in which to deploy our forces and prepare for war.
That is why preserving what is left of the U.S. flag merchant fleet is so important to our national security. American-owned ships operated by American crews are fundamental to our national interest.
Ideally, the Maritime Security Act of 1995 would not be necessary. But the American people have to understand that there is no such thing as a level playing field for American-flag vessel operators in the international shipping arena.
Our ocean carriers confront competitors daily who are heavily subsidized and are free from comparable health, safety, operational and tax requirements.
In the face of such foreign competition, there is simply no way for our maritime industry to survive without the modest assistance my legislation would provide. We must either reduce our industry standards to the lowest international level, force every other nation's vessels to comply with all of our laws and pay American taxes, or provide an effective program of federal support to the U.S. merchant marine. The choice is easy.
Critics of the Maritime Security Act charge that the program is pure pork. It's not. The Maritime Security Act of 1995 reflects what the American people want Congress to do - make programs that support worthwhile national objectives work better and cost less. For the record, the proposed legislation presently being considered will cut by more than 50 percent the amount of federal operating assistance payments for military-useful U.S.-flag ships.
President Bush proposed a continuation of this program during the last year of his Administration. President Clinton, in his first year of office, recommended a more expensive program. The House last year approved a plan that was more costly than what is being recommended this year.
I want to emphasize that I do not support the status quo for the maritime industry. Programs for the merchant marine need reform, and the industry itself must become more efficient and competitive.
It is my hope that the 104th Congress will move us in this direction while at the same time ensuring now and for future generations that the economic and military security of our country will rest in our hands and not in foreign hands.
When only 4 percent of the cargo generated by the United States is carried on U.S.-flagged ships, the elimination of any and all programs to preserve the existence of a U.S.-flag merchant marine would be a reckless disregard of our vital national security interests.
Gone, too, will be skilled American merchant mariners who have served this country dutifully in war and peace. MEMO: U.S. Rep. Herbert H. Bateman of Newport News represents Virginia's First
Congressional District.
KEYWORDS: U.S. MERCHANT MARINE by CNB