Trump Administration review of national maritime strategy delayed

Maritime News
1

from the gang who can’t find their own ass with either hand comes this lovely development…

Trump administration review of national maritime strategy delayed

By Pamela Glass on December 6, 2018

Four years after the Maritime Administration had promised to develop a national strategy to pump up the maritime industry, the proposal remains stuck in the Washington, D.C., bureaucracy, with no rescue in sight.

The initiative began with much anticipation in 2014 with a series of “listening sessions” in Washington and elsewhere that gathered a variety of views from different maritime sectors. Topics included mariner shortages, lagging port and intermodal freight infrastructure and the decline of the U.S. merchant fleet.

Marad was tasked with drafting a strategy to address these and other challenges facing the merchant marine, and Congress required that it be completed by 2015. That deadline was missed, Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, and the new administration wanted to do its own review of the strategy. Congress extended the deadline to submit the document to Congress to February 2020.

In the meantime, no timeline has been released for the strategy’s completion, and Marad has not made any recommendations to increase U.S.-flag vessels’ competitiveness or to ensure the long-term viability of the U.S.-flag fleet and U.S. citizen mariners, according to a study released in August by the General Accountability Office (GAO).

GAO said that without the strategy, decision-makers lack crucial information needed to make policies to address the industry’s complex problems. GAO also recommended that a timeline be submitted to Congress.

“Marad is conscious of the time it has taken to develop the strategy since Congress directed that it be done in 2014,” Mark H. Buzby, Marad administrator, told a hearing last week before the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

He explained that it was put together under the Obama administration but was “withdrawn by the current administration so they could have an opportunity to review, revise and align the strategy” with the administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy.

“Marad has not stood idle during this interim period,” Buzby assured lawmakers. “We are using the extension as an opportunity to further collaborate with stakeholders to refine goals and produce an effective National Maritime Strategy.”

Lawmakers were not happy with the delays, and put the blame squarely on the Office of Management and the Budget, which prepares the president’s budget and reviews effectiveness of federal policies and programs.

“This report is hung up at OMB with (OMB director) Mike Mulvaney. We won’t get it out until we put heavy pressure on them,” said John Garamendi, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

The GAO report said that although federal support for commercial sealift helps meet national defense requirements, rising operating costs and declining volumes of government cargo volumes have made it hard for U.S.-flag commercial ships to compete internationally. As a result, the number of ships and associated jobs available to U.S. mariners continues to drop. The study also noted a shortage of qualified volunteer mariners to crew government-owned reserve ships in the event of a national emergency or war.

Buzby said a key issue for Marad is “simultaneously coordinating access to shipping services to meet commercial demands, with potentially overlapping DOD sealift requirements and other national emergency needs that involve this limited fleet of U.S.-flag vessels.”

A key to improving the fleet is to get more cargo on ships. “It comes down to cargo,” said Buzby, a retired Navy rear admiral and graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. “We are looking at things we can do to get new government and commercial cargo.”

But policy solutions will be hard to develop without the input of a national maritime strategy, the GAO said.

FOUR FUCKING YEARS AND NOT ONE FUCKING THING! PEARL HARBOR TO VJ DAY WAS LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AND IN THAT TIME THE USA BUILT SHIPYARDS, MARITIME TRAINING INSTITUTIONS, FACTORIES TO BUILD MARINE EQUIPMENT AND IN THE END ALSO MANAGED TO BUILD OVER FIVE THOUSAND SHIPS AND THEN SEND THEM TO EVERY CORNER OF THE PLANET SUPPORTING THE US MILITARY!

the level of outrage I feel is beyond words to describe

4 Likes
2

I’m not defending the performance of MARAD on this long awaited strategy but this quote right here sums it up. Government cargo has been drying up at an alarming rate and without it there will be further reductions in fleet size. Your mentioning of the boom time during WW2 is great but the fact is that there was a need to build a fleet of that size. That need was war. I don’t want more war but I do want more ships under the US flag. How do we make that happen? 4 years and counting since announcing they’d work out a strategy is evidence enough for me that there will not be one forthcoming from these fat cats in Washington.

2 Likes
3

and yet you go to FBO.gov and search for MSC voyage charters and lo and behold, plenty of them soliciting for foreign flagged vessels. There is plenty of cargo out there but ever since the DoD started to violate Federal Statute and use foreign ships to move US military cargoes, our fleet has taken it right up the ass. The problem is that nobody in Washingtoon wants to spend the money it takes. Doesn’t matter the party in power, it is the cheap assed sons of bitches who are letting our Merchant Marine die a miserable death which I have been forced to witness now for damned near forty years!

5 Likes
4

to wit

Solicitation Number:

N32205-19-R-3352

Notice Type:

Solicitation

Synopsis:

Added: Nov 16, 2018 4:20 pm

  1. Action Code: Pre-solicitation
  2. Date: 16 November 2018
  3. Year: Fiscal Year 2019
  4. Contracting Office Zip Code: 23511
  5. Classification Code: V- Transportation, Travel, & Relocation services
  6. Contracting Office Address: 471 East C St., Bldg. 64, Naval Station Norfolk,
    Norfolk, VA 23511
  7. Subject: 21-day Dry Cargo Time Charter
  8. Proposed Solicitation Number: N32205-19-R-3352
  9. Closing Response Date: 27 November 2018
  10. Contact Point or Contracting Officer: Robbin Jefferson; robbin.jefferson@navy.mil, 757-443-5886
  11. Contract Award and Solicitation Number: TBD
  12. Contract Award Dollar Amount: TBD
  13. Contract Line Item Number : TBD
  14. Contract Award Date: TBD
  15. Contractor: TBD
  16. Description: This requirement is for a U.S. or foreign flag, Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) or combination Roll-On/Roll-Off, Lift-On/Lift-Off (RO/RO-LO/LO), self-sustaining vessel(s) (either one vessel or multiple vessels - multiple awards) capable of carrying a portion of 459,832 square feet of military cargo (wheeled and tracked vehicles and breakbulk) described below. Vessel(s) must be capable of maintaining 15 knots while laden.
  17. The place/range of delivery is Charleston, SC (USA) and place/range of redelivery is Antwerp, Belgium. The layday commences and cancels 05 January 2019 for a single vessel or the first of a multiple ship solution; commences and cancels 08 January 2019 for the second vessel of a multiple ship solution, and commences and cancels 11 January 2019 for the third of a multiple ship solution. The charter period will be about 21 days.
  18. Set-aside Status: N/A. The decision to release this solicitation as “Unrestricted” is based on responses received from a recent market survey for this service. All responsible sources may submit a bid, proposal, or quotation which shall be considered by the agency.

SO WHY THE FUCK IS THE DoD WILLING TO USE A FOREIGN SHIP TO CARRY THESE VEHICLES WHEN THERE ARE DOZENS OF RRF SHIPS SITTING RIGHT THERE WHERE THE CARGO IS? TO SAY THEY CAN’T USE GOVERNMENT ASSETS TO CARRY THIS CARGO IN PEACETIME IS PATENT BULLSHIT! WHY GIVE AWAY THE WORK WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE SHIPS RIGHT IN ITS OWN INVENTORY AND PLENTY OF US SEAMEN BEGGING TO GO?

3 Likes
5

Come on people…this one is HUGE and deserves a serious blasting of how the Federal Government’s lack of initiative is literally killing the US merchant fleet! Maybe they don’t say anything to us, but you know someone at MarAd is tracking what is being said here. Probably still won’t get any traction at MarAd or anywhere else in Washingtoon but voices still need to be raised in OUTRAGE!

anyway, I ran across this piece from the McClatchy News Service released back in May of this year. Nothing in it the majority of us here don’t already know but nice that this debacle is at least getting a tiny amount of press. It is worth the read

6

MARAD is not even a blip on the public’s radar. MARAD is a corrupt outfit from the bottom of the swamp. There are not enough merchant mariners around to make a dent in Congress or MARAD’s self dealing rulings. This is a lost battle. You have to have money to bribe the congress to effect change in MARAD and mariners simply cannot provide enough bribe money.

7

The only significant lobbies are the defense contractors, shipyards, the oil patch, and the academies. Also, the American citizen shipowners and operators with foreign flag fleets. Some of the academy alumni have a little influence.

We have lost a lot of formerly powerful lobbies. In the 70’s MEBA had the second largest lobby. At that time the NRA was the biggest lobby. I don’t think that any of the maritime unions have much of a lobby now. The steel and coal industries had big lobbies. As well as the auto manufactures back when things were being made in America with American steel. I do not think the few remaining American shipowners (except the OMASA and the AWO) have much of a lobby.

The Mississippi River and its customers (agribusiness and farmers) still have a big lobby. That’s why money is being appropriated for locks, dams, and dredging in the inland rivers.

Is there anything that might be done by mariners? Yes, but . . . It would take time and some grassroots organization. The academies need to teach who government really works and the importance of civic enegagememt and public service.

Mariners could make small individual donations to candidates. Donate to all of them. Mariners could volunteer to work on local, state, and Congressional campaigns.

Mariners could run for city council, port authorities, commissions, boards of trustees, state legislature, and Congress.

It would take a decade, and some unrelated alliances, but mariners could acquire a voice.

Also, the maritime unions need to be consolidated. Currently, the maritime unions are too small and fragmented to be an effective unified voice. They are also viewed as too corrupt to be credible. If the unions were consolidated into one officer’s union, and one unlicensed union, and they were cleaned up, they could acquire an effective voice.

1 Like
8

Is the request for tender posted just because they are obliged to do it and will use the US ships anyway?

Another side of the argument is that if they’re spending tax payers money then they should find the most economical way of shipping the goods, which will probably be Foreign Flag.

9

It surely would be foreign flag. Just curious…what is your profession @Rule_Britannia? Let’s see if we can find someone from a foreign country that will do your job for cheaper. I look forward to your “oh, oh, oh…but that’s different” reply.

10

You’ll not get one of those replies from me. I was just pointing out how government spending works in the UK and asking if it was the same there?
We’re all seeing a race to the bottom and it’s pish. Unless you are one of the Top Four on a ship or have found a niche - cruise ships, dredging, until recently DP and offshore, then I think it’s curtains for Western European or North American seafarers. And as another post says further down - there’s not much as Mariners we can do about it.

1 Like
11

Actually, US law requires that government cargo and a percentage of government funded cargos (such as foreign aid) must carried on US Flag ships. It’s 8nderstood that US ships cost more. There are some loopholes , and they seem to be growing.

1 Like
12

I think the requirement to issue open tenders for foreign companies to bid is a EU/EEA rule.
It may soon not apply in the UK any more. It probably doesn’t apply in the US. (??)

13

We can live in hope! Not long now…

2 Likes
14

you got that right

If you hang around here long enough though you’ll get to hear our resident globalist and minister of Chinese propaganda as he explains how it’s actually a good thing for us in 1st world that 3rd world nations take our jobs and way of life with it. Anything less than full acceptance of this principle makes you racist, xenophobic, and displaying the “bad kind” of nationalism.

15

so can we get back to the topic here which is we have had a succession of many administrations (and congresses) who have not done one single GODDAMNED thing to prop up the US merchant marine since the MSP was enacted in the later half of the 90’s (two decades ago) and while that did manage to slow the hemorrhaging of the US flagged fleet for a time, 20 years on it is proving to be just not enough. There are plenty of programs and policies that could be put into place which would help but most require financial support from the government or forcing some very big businesses to pay more to use those demon US ships and mariners. So far every administration and congress refuses to either spend the money or to enact laws which would make the use of US flagged ships mandatory (such as reserving a percentage of crude or LNG exports go on US ships) and thus we settle farther and farther until the last of the buoyancy keeping the fleet afloat all is lost and down she’ll go into the depths never to be seen again.

16

The US deepsea fleet has become far too small. It has lost critical mass. It has nowhere to go but down.

The US doesn’t have a maritime policy or any goals. That is the first thing that is needed. Do we want the US to have a merchant fleet? If so, what should it look like. How are we going to achieve that.

Since foreign going ships can be foreign built, we are not at any disadvantage there. All modern ships have basically the same fuel costs, so no disadvantage there.

The crew cost of US ships is at least 10 times higher than foreign ships, but so what. The crew cost per container, or per barrel of oil, or per MBTU of gas, is next to nothing. When ships were small and crew costs were a significant portion of total transport costs, the US has at a huge disadvantage. But today, with a much smaller number of massive ships, the difference in crew cost is no big deal.

So what is the problem? How can we solve that problem?

1 Like
17

I don’t think it’s 10x… My landlord is a 2M on a Japanese flag bulk carrier and he makes about 5k/month whereas on my tanker the 2M makes maybe 22k/month? So let’s just say 5x.

I don’t think the charterers look at cost per unit cargo. They just look at dayrates. The tanker I’m on gets, say, 65k per day charter rate whereas a similar sized FOC ship might bring 20k/day. That’s over 3x the cost so it ain’t gonna happen unless there’s regulations requiring it to happen.

18

More likely just the opposite. They already have a foreign flag carrier in mind.

19

New ITF minimum wage for an AB is $617 a month. US ABs should be making about $6,000 to $9000 a month. Some make more.

US Seamen come with significant additional costs: Medicare tax, social security tax, unemployment tax, Union retirement contribution, 401K match, health insurance, etc, etc. These costs add probably about 35% to total cost of employing a US Seaman.

20

When setting government policy, day rates don’t matter. What matters is how much additional the policy will cost the US economy.

If a container from China holds 1000 pairs of shoes that sell for $50 a pair at Walmart, the shoes cost $50 per pair.

If the cost of transportation from China on ships crewed by super low wage third world villagers is 5% of retail cost, that means $2.50 of the retail cost is transportation. If transporting those shoes on a US flag containership raises transportation costs to 5.5%, that would raise to retail price of shoes about 25 cents to $50.25 a pair. If 25% of the shoes had to come on US flag ships, then the average cost of that pair of shoes at Walmart would be $50.07.

Therefore, from a government policy point of view, is having a US merchant marine worth the increased transport costs to the US economy that would add .5% to the average retail cost of goods, or about 7 cents to the average retail cost of a pair of a $50 pair of shoes.

Of course, it’s a lot more complicated than that, but that is the basic concept.