Former Secretary Norman Mineta provided a service in making his 2007 speech on the maritime sector (excerpts found starting here). Since he went to the trouble, let’s use his suggestions as a starting point for an overdue discussion on rethinking and recharging US maritime policy.
Secretary Mineta called for moving maritime related functions of other agencies to the Maritime Administration and renaming the agency according to the “Federal [ ] Administration” template used for the other modes. There are 18 or so departments and agencies with program interest in marine transportation including USDA, NOAA, EPA and the Navy. Reason enough to create an interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS). Perhaps some functions could be consolidated in USDOT. Others not so easily. The navigation portion of the USACE civil works program, one that often is mentioned as a prospect, may not transfer well. Not that the status quo is worth maintaining. The excruciatingly-slow project evaluation and preparation process has ports pulling out their metaphorical hair. But it’s not simply a Corps of Engineers process failing but one that Congress abets by being very unreliable in implementing the key stages of project authorization and funding. The channel program is ripe for change. But it is not a given that USDOT is the best place for it. For that matter, program consolidation can cause problems as much as fix others.
The former Secretary suggests that MARAD must shift its focus to the condition of the nation’s ports and away from its long attention to “ships and crews.” Actually that shift started during the Clinton Administration under Secretary Federico Pena. He gave attention to port issues (including the dredging process) and MARAD has done all it can to grow its portfolio in this direction. The agency has functioned as project manager for federally funded port projects in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and elsewhere. (Mostly with DOD money.) The 111th Congress authorized MARAD to manage such “port infrastructure projects”as money is made available.
I disagree with Mr. Mineta that there is too much focus on ships. As long as there is a US flag requirement (see Jones Act), a diminishing shipyard industry and capability, and a US merchant fleet that is a shadow of its former self someone should pay it attention. Clearly current law and policy isn’t getting the job done. For that matter, I can’t recall a modern administration of either party that has cared much about cargo moving on US flag vessels. (No, I won’t go back as far as Roosevelt.)
The suggestion also is made to rename the US Merchant Marine Academy and “give it our time and attention.” Reports issued during the Bush and Obama administrations, including one called “Red Sky in the Morning,” made clear that oversight and investment had been lacking at King’s Point. So a turnaround effort continues today with Kings Point being . But let’s face it. Why bother making it a top notch maritime academy if the effort isn’t being made to grow the anemic maritime sector? It would be nice if the young men and women who want a career in the merchant marine can actually find good paying jobs there.
Secretary Mineta suggested that if “ports and waterways funding is always being relegated to parts of the surface transportation bill, or the defense bill, they will remain second-class subjects…” He is saying that the sector needs, in effect, a SEA-21 much as there were TEA-21 and AIR-21—the highway and aviation authorization bills of the 1990s. A dedicated maritime bill to advance maritime policy and related projects. I think a maritime bill is in order, especially for addressing failings of current policy and the paucity of programs tuned to today. But as long as Washington continues to think in terms of modal stovepipes the marine stovepipe will remain offshore and remote from the “surface” modes, system development and corridor planning where intermodal policy, transportation solutions, and major projects tend to be reserved for road and rail.
Marine transportation related provisions belong in an intermodal, multimodal surface–wet and dry surface, if you will–transportation bill.
More on this subject to come. Comments welcome. Pbea