October 24, 2025 • 24 mins
Senate hearings meet Arctic geopolitics. This week’s episode breaks down how U.S. maritime nominees outlined plans to rebuild industrial strength and restore competitiveness—while Russia and China formalized their Northern Sea Route partnership, raising questions about access, influence, and the future of global chokepoints.
Expanded Description:
In this episode of By Land and By Sea, Lauren unpacks two developments shaping the future of maritime policy and global trade.
⚓ On Capitol Hill: The Senate Commerce Committee vetted nominees for the Federal Maritime Commission (Robert Harvey and Laura DiBella) and the Maritime Administration (Stephen Carmel). Carmel highlighted that it’s not just about ships—it’s about cargo. Harvey emphasized the impact of enforcement actions and even explained his Great Lakes ties, while DiBella focused on fairness and transparency in detention and demurrage practices and across the supply chain ecosystem.
🔹 And another thing... Chairman Ted Cruz called for a maritime strategy centered on removing regulatory barriers, modernizing ports, and attracting private capital—signaling bipartisan recognition that maritime competitiveness is national security.
❄️ Meanwhile, in the Arctic: Russia and China signed a deal to co-develop the Northern Sea Route—the same corridor the FMC flagged as a potential chokepoint. Perhaps the risk isn’t just ice; it might also be access. As these nations coordinate on policy, infrastructure, and fees, the FMC’s chokepoint investigation becomes even more relevant to ensuring global cargo flow remains open and fair.
🎓 Just-in-Time Learning™ Spotlight:
If all of this has you wondering—“Wait… which agency deals with what?”—you’re not alone.
Check out my less than 30-minute course 👉 “FMC vs MARAD: Who Does What in Maritime Washington” at TheMaritimeProfessor.com
.
It’s plain language, practical.
🎧 Episode: “FMC Nominees & the Arctic Watch: The Future of Maritime Policy and Chokepoints”
👉 Listen now: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast
#maritime #shipping #FMC #MARAD #supplychain #maritimepolicy #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor #NorthernSeaRoute #industrialbase #chokepoints
🎙️ Thanks for tuning in to By Land and By Sea powered by The Maritime Professor®! If you enjoyed today’s episode, be sure to subscribe ⭐ and leave a review 📝 - it really helps others find the show.
📚 Want to go deeper? Check out our live webinars, on-demand e-courses, and our Just-in-Time Learning™ sessions -- short, plain-language lessons (30 minutes or less) built for supply chain pros who need quick clarity.
🚢 Looking for something tailored? We also provide custom corporate trainings designed to meet your team’s needs.
⚓ Learn more and explore past episodes at: www.TheMaritimeProfessor.com/podcast
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:01):
Ready to go.
You're listening to By Land andBy Sea, powered by the Maritime
Professor.
Are shaping maritime headlinesthis week.
(00:21):
One flowing through Washingtonand one cutting across the
Arctic ice.
In DC, senators vetted threemaritime nominees who could
shape how the U.S.
rebuilds its maritime strength.
And thousands of miles away, inthe northern region, Russia and
China are finalizing a pact toco-develop the Northern Sea
(00:42):
route.
Sounds familiar, it should.
The very corridor the FMC hasalready flagged as one to watch.
Both stories ask the samequestion.
Can America strengthen itsmaritime muscle while keeping
the world's trade lanes open andfair, or at least watching them?
Hi, welcome back to Byland andby Sea, an attorney breaking
down the weekend supply chain,presented by me, the Maritime
(01:03):
Professor.
I'm Lauren Beegan, former FMCInternational Affairs Attorney
and founder of the MaritimeProfessor and Squall Strategies.
By Land and By Sea is your go-toresource for navigating the
regulatory side of global oceanshipping.
And me, I'm your favoritemaritime attorney.
As always, the guidance servicegeneral and for educational
purposes only, it should not beconsidered legal advice.
(01:24):
There's no attorney clientprivilege created by this video
or this podcast.
This is plain language maritimecreated so that anybody, not
just lawyers or insiders, canunderstand what's really
happening out there.
Now let's dive in because as youknow, ocean shipping moves the
world.
All right.
Well, the first story, let's getright into it.
This week, the Senate CommerceCommittee, chaired by Senator
(01:45):
Ted Cruz, held a hearing thatcould set the tone for the next
phase of U.S.
maritime policy.
And you know we're watching it.
We have been watching all ofthis unfold.
So Ted Cruz opened with a cleartheme.
We need a maritime strategyfocused on removing regulatory
barriers.
Now, look, I love that for tworeasons.
One, we need a maritimestrategy.
(02:06):
We've been saying this.
If you were to go back and lookat every recommendation series
from MIT Snack, the MaritimeTransportation System National
Advisory Committee, you willsee, at least for the past 10
years, at least, maybe longer,they've been calling for an
actual maritime strategy.
And for Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz,to open up this hearing with, we
need a maritime strategy.
I mean, that was that wasfantastic.
(02:28):
And then focused on removingregulatory barriers, we just got
to get there, right?
We just got to get moving on themaritime side.
So he's saying we got to focuson the maritime strategy,
removing these regulatorybarriers so ports, shipyards,
and carriers can actuallycompete.
And that's the part that Ireally want to see, the
competition part.
We can't just prop it up.
We have to have it becompetitive.
And he said it straight: streamline regulation, increase (02:48):
undefined
port productivity, shore up themerchant marine, and ensure the
free flow of commerce.
Easier said than done, but Ilove that the intention is out
there.
And that tone carried throughthe hearing, which it kind of
felt less like introductions ofnew nominees and more like an
audit of America's maritimepulse.
And certainly maybe even edgingon the side of like a
(03:10):
brainstorming session, similarto one that USTR had taken when
they were doing their section301 and they had the whole
industry come together.
Here we had three, well, we hadfour nominees, but three
maritime nominees, two FMC, onemayorad, coming together and
asked, being asked very specificquestions on how they plan to
move us forward as a maritimenation.
(03:31):
First up, first to speak withStephen Carmel.
He's nominated to head mayoradafter decades with Mayor's Land
Limited, and he didn't sugarcoatit.
And I really liked his approach.
I had followed him a little biton some of the media outlets
that I've seen him appear on,and he's given a couple of
remarks, but actually hearinghim just not slice and dice it
(03:52):
and come to the table with justsuch a clear vision of where we
go with Maread, I was reallyimpressed.
I thought he did a great job.
Sang Yi, the current actingmaritime administrator, has been
doing a fantastic job in thatrole.
And so honestly, I was kind ofthinking, all right, Steve's
gonna have to bring it.
Steve Carmel's gonna have tobring it in my mind if I think
(04:12):
that he is going to do a goodjob or a better job than Sang.
And I don't know if he'll do abetter job, but he will at least
do just as fantastic of a job.
I feel it in my heart.
I think he will.
I've I'm excited for him.
I think that this is great andhe has a very clear vision.
But like I said, he is alongtime Marisline Limited
executive.
He he is he's which means he'sbeen in the U.S.
(04:35):
maritime system.
So Marisline Limited is the U.S.
branch of the otherwise globalcompany of Mares.
So Marisline Limited, he wasalso a U.S.
Merchant Marine Academygraduate, so King's Pointer.
His testimony echoed what he'sbeen saying publicly for years.
The U.S.
has become a naval power withoutbecoming a maritime power.
And he told senators bluntly, wedo not carry our own commerce,
(04:59):
meaning we don't carry our owncargo.
He said, we do not carry our owncommerce for ships and
international trade.
We can't build them at all.
A strong maritime sector isn'tnostalgia, it's strategy.
What a great sentence.
Oh my goodness.
I loved it.
I thought that he was right on.
So Carmel also supports theShips for America Act.
He said that very plainly.
(05:20):
And what the Ships Act, we'vetalked about it a little bit,
but it seeks to rebuild domesticshipbuilding capacity and
generate cargo preference forU.S.
flag carriers.
He linked that to PresidentTrump's April Executive Order on
Maritime Dominance and theproposed maritime security trust
fund, one that he brought up afew times, emphasizing that it's
not just about ships, it's aboutcargo.
(05:41):
And I love that he said thatbecause I have been feeling so
much that all we're talkingabout is ships, and all we're
talking about is military ships.
And we can't only talk aboutmilitary ships, we have to talk
about commercial ships, and wehave to talk about the cargo
that goes on them.
And I'm so happy that he saidthat.
It's not just about the ships,it's about the cargo.
(06:02):
So without demand generation, hewarned shipyards and mariner
pipelines alike will continue toerode without demand generation.
Haven't I been saying this?
I mean, if you can't tell, I amjazzed about Steve Carmel taking
this role.
I love that focus on thecommercial side.
We can't just keep doing whatwe've always done and expect a
different result.
We have to focus on the cargo.
We have to be just ascompetitive in the ocean
(06:24):
shipment of goods.
Now, when Senator Moreno askedwhere the U.S.
ranks as a maritime nation, hesaid, top 10, top five, where do
you think we are?
Carmel replied, and almost alittle bit like I hate to say
it, but he said, I'm not evensure we're on the scale.
And I mean it's true, right?
Right now, current today, how werank as a maritime nation.
(06:47):
We can get back there, buttoday, which means he
understands the severity.
He reminded everyone thatAmerica won World War II because
it could build fast and atscale.
And that industrial capacity,Carmel says, has since rotted.
He said every time we've neededto ramp up production for a war,
we did.
But then that boom and bust, welet it collapse again.
(07:10):
Now we said Carmel's focus ondemand generation, not just
fleet funding, not just buildingships, shows his commercial
instincts.
As he put it, it's hard toattract people into the industry
if the ship or job they signedon to isn't there a year later.
Now that's a clear signal.
Rebuild confidence first, cargowill follow.
But also, I love that he's sofocused on cargo.
(07:32):
He clearly and strongly backsthe Ships for America Act and a
maritime security trust fund,both designed to redesign and
revive shipbuilding throughcargo preference and predictable
demand.
And like I said, I just keepsaying it.
He did such a good job aboutmentioning that we need the
market-driven demand.
We need to be competitive withcargo.
He also echoed Cruz's portmodernization message, basically
(07:54):
saying, use tech to enhancelabor, not replace it, but we
have to enhance our ports.
Now, the next nominee up wasLaura Dabella.
Laura is known very well acrossFlorida's maritime scene.
She was the former port directorat Ferdinandina.
She was the past head of theFlorida Harbor Pilots
Association.
Now, to go from both a port tothe Pilots Association means
(08:16):
that she's been in the gritty,she's been in the maritime
industry.
She has been there, she has beenpart of the actual boots on the
dock, right?
But then she also rose to be thestate's first female Secretary
of Commerce.
She emphasized in her remarksoversight and transparency
within the FMC's limited butcritical mandate, particularly
when dealing with the dozen orso carriers that now handle
(08:38):
nearly all U.S.
cargo.
But her takeaway was certainlythe carriers make the market,
but the FMC can ensure goodoversight and fair treatment of
shippers.
And that aligns exactly with themission of the FMC, right?
It's for the benefit of the U.S.
importer, exporter, andconsumer.
And they really regulate andmonitor the fair and efficient
movement of goods.
She kept saying that, the fairand efficient movement of goods.
(09:01):
She's to efficiency, pointingout that demerge and detention
enforcement shouldn't justpunish, it should reveal why
cargo is delayed.
And I think that that's animportant distinction and
something that the FMC needs tounderstand what's happening in
the ecosystem.
And she even used the wordecosystem.
I believe Bob Harvey did aswell.
They need to understand theecosystem to understand where
(09:24):
those guardrails should beapplied.
And I applaud the FMC for yearsand years and years, and
probably attributed to thecurrent FMC Commissioner Rebecca
Dye.
We did an interview with her, Ibelieve it was last season.
Go back and listen to that.
But I credit Commissioner Dyewith helping to make sure that
the FMC doesn't go above andbeyond or mission creep into
other areas.
(09:44):
She has been such a strong voicefor a guardrails approach to the
FMC.
And I think that that'sfantastic.
And I love that Laura now iscoming in with not only an
economic understanding from herF from her Florida experience,
but also a larger pictureunderstanding of the maritime
industry from the ports and thepilots perspective, from that
(10:04):
kind of operational perspective.
There's a critical distinction.
Enforcement is one thing,diagnosis is another, and that's
something that the FMC can leaninto with better data.
And I think that that'ssomething that the FMC will lean
into.
Then came Bob Harvey, RobertHarvey, a former Navy Jack and
securities attorney with deeproots in the Midwest, which I
(10:24):
mean, if you know me, actually,we we do have quite a few new
listeners.
If you don't know, and if you'rewatching my video, I have a
little Michigan back there.
I am from Michigan originally.
So look, nothing gets my heartpumping like talking about the
Great Lakes.
So look, I love that he's gotthis Midwest background.
He said plainly, nothing gets anindustry member's attention like
(10:47):
an enforcement action.
He's worked, he said, on theother side.
And so he understands the useand perhaps restraint of
enforcement actions, but they doget the attention of the
industry and they can be usedeffectively.
Basically, to say he likes theauthorities, or it seemed to say
(11:08):
that he likes the authorities ofthe FMC and he can use them or
would use them potentially instrategic ways that maintain
fairness.
They're not for overuse, right?
It's that guardrails approach.
But it's his economicdevelopment background.
So he led Florida's OpportunityFund and the Development Finance
Corporation, and he suggestedhe'll bring a financial
(11:30):
innovation angle to the FMC.
He talked a lot abouttechnological investment and how
he's already been part of thoseconversations.
He talked about using privatecapital and technology
investment to modernize portsand streamline perhaps last mile
delivery, showing a cleanunderstanding of innovation can
and should coexist.
(11:50):
And when the conversation turnedto the Great Lakes shipping,
like I said, Harvey spoke fromexperience and he said, growing
up in the Midwest, I thinkspecifically it was Illinois,
and watchingde-industrialization hollow out
maritime jobs, his quote wasthere's no way to restore
maritime dominance withoutrestoring industrial dominance.
Now, that line to me kind oflinked everything together: the
(12:10):
enforcement, the efficiency, thereal rebuilding of the base that
makes any of it all possible.
Now, this hearing seemed tofocus a lot on reconstruction of
confidence, of industry, and ofpolicy, right?
So Carmel reframe maritime asnational security, which we have
been talking about basicallysince forever one, but also the
(12:31):
executive order of April 9th,where it plainly said restoring
maritime dominance.
And also the signal when MikeWaltz of the Kelly Waltz, that
now is the SHIPS Act, when whatwhen Mike Waltz was elevated up
to national security advisor,that was part of the signal that
maritime security under theTrump administration is national
(12:51):
security.
And that was something thatCarmel really reaffirmed.
Laura De Bella put efficiencyand transparency at the center
of shipper protection, afantastic thing.
Efficiency and transparency bothare so critical to an effective
and efficient ecosystem ofsupply chain.
And Bob Harvey tied competitionpolicy back to America's
manufacturing backbone andreally showed such a great
(13:15):
understanding of, I mean, he'san attorney, right?
So I would hope that he wouldunderstand the regulations well.
And he did.
And I think that he showed areally great understanding of
when to effectively use and whento have effective restraint for
that guardrail approach.
All three of these nominees arefantastic as far as I'm
concerned.
And if they're all confirmed,and it seems like they probably
(13:36):
will be, we're likely to seehopefully FMC, maybe not more
aligned, but perhaps worktogether.
So choke point monitoring on oneside, domestic modernization on
the other, but making sure thatthat maritime dominance, that
that return to maritimedominance is one that is all
agency-wide.
If you deal with anythingmaritime, that it feels like
(13:57):
everybody's on board with it.
Now, if Congress picks up Cruz'scall for a barrier removal
maritime strategy, I think we'reprobably going to see more
hearings on shipyard reform,Jones Act modernization, and
port automation funding.
And I don't think we're going tosee the red tape.
I think we're just going to seeopportunities for long-term
development of programs,perhaps, where funding
opportunities can come in andhopefully grant development.
(14:21):
Internationally, look, I thinkwe're about to talk about it,
the Northern Sea route.
I think that we are going to seethere's there's some things that
I want to talk about forgeopolitical influence here.
Now, if you're sitting herethinking, wait, remind me,
what's the difference betweenthe FMC and Marad again?
Don't worry, I created a just intime learning course for this.
(14:43):
Go check out my course, FMC vs.
Marad, who does what in Maritimeat the W at the excuse me, at
the Maritimeprofessor.com.
It's less than 30 minutes, plainlanguage, no government acronyms
left unxplained.
And yes, I even settled theage-old debate of who is better.
No, I'm just kidding.
(15:04):
It's just plain language, who'sthe FMC, who's Mayrad.
Look, you get just a quick anddirty what you need to know
about the difference.
All right.
Now the segment number two thatI want to bring up, the Northern
Sea route.
Now, why am I bringing it upwhile we also have a nominees?
Well, one for one thing, I justkind of grab bag on different
stories, but for two, I think itrelates to the FMC, and you'll
(15:27):
see why.
While the U.S.
was talking about rebuilding itsmaritime muscle here, Russia and
China were potentially expandingtheirs, is what I'm seeing.
They've now signed an agreementto jointly develop the Northern
Sea route, the Arctic passagealong Russia's coast that
connects that connects Asia toEurope.
Now, under this pact, Russia andChina will reportedly coordinate
(15:49):
on Arctic infrastructure,icebreaker fleets, and
logistics.
And there's already some promiseof Costco shipping of China
expected to increase transitunder joint management.
There's been some reports ofshorter distances and effective
transit routes through thisarea.
Now they're calling it thetransport artery of the 21st
century.
But here's where I want you, andI'm not saying too much about
(16:11):
this because we still have tosee what it looks like.
But for the US, this route wascalled out by FMC's ongoing
maritime choke pointsinvestigation.
It was flagged as one that couldevolve into a policy-driven
bottleneck.
Now, the commission's chokepoint and inquiry isn't just
about narrow straights like Suezor Panama Canal.
(16:33):
They're watching for policyleverage, right?
That's what they're trying tofigure out because they're
looking at unfair orunreasonable practices out there
in the world, and they have thatauthority under the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act, which issomething given to them by
Congress, and Section 19 of theMerchant Marine Act of 1920.
Both of those deal with foreignunfair or unreasonable practices
(16:56):
and give the FMC to takecorrective action, which could
be a million dollars per voyage,could be turning away of flagged
fleets, could be a whole host ofthings.
Wouldn't that be wild if we wereto get to a position where
because of this northern searoute, Russia, China work
together?
I don't even want to say it.
We could, the FMC couldpotentially turn away all
(17:19):
Chinese flagged vessels if theyfound, now it's not just for
geopolitical reasons, but ifthey found unfair or
unreasonable activity happeningby a country.
Now it doesn't have to be thenorthern sea route of China.
It's obviously the northern searoute of Russia.
But if China is found to be partof that and the FMC finds that
(17:40):
it is unfair or unreasonable,under this maritime choke point
investigation, there might beanother lever here to pull on
the thousand cuts to China thatthe US seems to be taking,
because we've already talkedabout Panama as one of those
thousand cuts for leverage,right?
And I think right now we are inthe USTR port fees world, right?
(18:00):
October 14th is when it allbegan.
We saw the mirror, I talkedabout this last week.
We saw the mirror response outof China, not escalation mirror,
which to me signals some thingsthat they were not escalating
it, that perhaps they're notinterested in the war or the
trade spat.
They just had to say face.
They had to be exactly mirrored.
(18:21):
But now, I don't know if theyeven, I'm sure they probably
thought of this, but thisNorthern Sea route, it now adds
China into one of these routeswhere the FMC, one of the
corrective actions that'sexactly listed, is turning away
of flag vessels.
Now, if China has flagged andthey're found, like I said, to
be unfair or unreasonable.
This investigation, maritimechoke points, just got a whole
(18:45):
lot more interesting.
But look, the net the NorthernSea route, Russia already
controls passage through and itpermits and mandatory through
permits and mandatory icebreakerescorts.
And that's kind of why it wasidentified as one of these
maritime choke points to watch.
Now add China, both its capital,its vessels, its its presence,
(19:09):
its maritime dominance, reallyright now, suddenly the rules of
the Arctic access become abilateral policy decision.
Not necessarily, it could stillbe, but not necessarily, right?
This is what we want to watch.
Open market conditions.
Look, the Northern Sea route isnot blocked yet.
It's not blocked.
It seems to be something thatcontinues to move vessels.
(19:31):
However, that's why it's on themaritime choke points, because
they want to know more aboutwhat are some of those permits
and mandatory icebreakerescorts.
Are they fair?
Are they facilitating the freeand efficient movement of goods?
This partnership is a little bitproblematic because it could
formalize the potential for moreselective access.
And that's why the FMC is rightto keep it on the radar.
(19:52):
And I think probably worthy oflooking into this new I look, I
think it's worthy of just takinga good look at, right?
That's what I'm trying to say.
I think that the FMC, throughits maritime choke points, as it
will do with all the identifiedseven choke points that they
that it mentioned, but thenperhaps any others out there,
(20:13):
look, I think they just need totake a look at this.
And I think that there could be,as shippers that are listening
to this podcast, I think thatthere's some potential for if
you if your vessels that you'relooking at potentially are going
through this area, if you areshipping on Chinese vessels, I
think these are all things to bevery aware of.
(20:34):
And they play into a largergeopolitics discussion.
However, I'm focused on themaritime side of things, so I
don't want to go too far intothe geopolitics again, but like
I said, maritime choke pointsjust got more interesting at the
FMC.
So what I'm watching, right?
Governance is the new geography.
Physical choke points arepredictable, regulatory ones
aren't.
Russia-China coordinationpotentially equals leverage.
(20:56):
They might be testing whatinfluence through infrastructure
really looks like.
We've seen it a couple differentareas.
Perhaps we're seeing it here.
And the FMC's foresight on thisone matters.
It was one of the few U.S.
agencies studying these issuesand continuing to study them
before they erupt into crisis.
Now, what I'm watching is howRussia sets next season's access
and icebreaker fees, right?
We are heading into the winterand whether any of these Costco
(21:21):
investments or Chineseinvestments, or if there are
getting investments or justpolitical discussions, are
getting any preferentialtreatment.
And I think that's the fairnesspiece that the FMC will partly
look at.
So what ties Washington hearingsand Arctic routes together?
Capacity, right?
The US is trying to rebuild it.
Russia and China are at least inthis one area, could be seen as
(21:41):
squeezing it.
That's the concern.
That's the that's what we needto watch for.
And Cruz's call for removingregulatory barriers, Carmel's
warning about a decayedindustrial base and Harvey's
Great Lakes,deindustrialization, realism all
converge on a single truth.
You can't have maritimedominance without industrial
capacity.
And I think that this issomething that we continue to
talk about.
I always bring up this F-150 ofa traditional vessel versus a
(22:05):
cyber truck of a cool new modelof a vessel.
I think that that will help drawsome of that industrial capacity
or certainly the industrialworkforce back because all of a
sudden we go from perhaps a verylow number of workers who are
interested in being in theindustrial side of things to now
they can tell their friends, doyou know if I'm working on that
new ship?
Do you know?
Um, yeah, I get to go and I getto work on that.
(22:28):
That's that's part of what we'rebuilding at that place, right?
If there's some excitementthere.
And certainly I think there'salso excitement for the F-150s
because look, we're we're Ibuilt that ship that our US
cargo is now moving on, right?
There's gotta be that pride.
And I think there is inherentlyin the industry, anyways, right?
We are a very this is a passionindustry.
Maritime is a passion industry,and I think we are all
(22:50):
passionate and we all want to beand continue to be excited.
There's just more excitementhere.
We gotta, we gotta get morepeople excited about doing this
and proud to share what they'redoing.
Look, this is one of those rareweeks when all parts of the
maritime conversation, policy,industry, and security, all come
together.
The question is can we keep thealignment long enough to act?
(23:12):
Can we continue to build onthis?
We have a few weeks until wehave the maritime action plan
due.
November 5th is the date.
We'll see if it comes out thatday.
I think OMB, it has to gothrough an OMB Office of
Management and Budget Review,which usually slows things down.
But we'll see.
We'll see where it is.
November 5th is the date thatthe executive order gave.
So we'll see.
(23:32):
I'm gonna keep watching it all.
Don't you worry, and I'll keepreporting it out here on Byland
and By Sea.
You keep it tuned in here.
If you like this episode, besure to follow, subscribe, and
leave a review.
Want to go deeper or bring thiskind of insight to your team,
visit the maritimeprofessor.comfor corporate trainings,
tailored briefings, andon-demand webinars, all designed
to make maritime regulationspractical and easy to
understand.
(23:52):
And if you need to know, justneed to know what the difference
between the Federal MaritimeCommission and the Maritime
Administration are, FMC vs.
Mared, go check out my just intime learning,
maritimeprofessor.com.
And if your organization needslegal or strategic help
navigating ocean shippingregulations, head over to School
Strategies.
That's where I help clientsengage with all things across
the global supply chain,particularly as it relates to
(24:14):
the maritime federal regulationsin DC.
As always, this podcast is foreducational purposes only and
should not be considered legaladvice.
So until next time, I'm LaurenBeegan, the Maritime Professor,
and you've just listened to ByLand and By C.
See you next time.
Ready to go.
You're listening to By Land andBy Sea, powered by the Maritime
Professor.
Are shaping maritime headlinesthis week.
(00:21):
One flowing through Washingtonand one cutting across the
Arctic ice.
In DC, senators vetted threemaritime nominees who could
shape how the U.S.
rebuilds its maritime strength.
And thousands of miles away, inthe northern region, Russia and
China are finalizing a pact toco-develop the Northern Sea
(00:42):
route.
Sounds familiar, it should.
The very corridor the FMC hasalready flagged as one to watch.
Both stories ask the samequestion.
Can America strengthen itsmaritime muscle while keeping
the world's trade lanes open andfair, or at least watching them?
Hi, welcome back to Byland andby Sea, an attorney breaking
down the weekend supply chain,presented by me, the Maritime
(01:03):
Professor.
I'm Lauren Beegan, former FMCInternational Affairs Attorney
and founder of the MaritimeProfessor and Squall Strategies.
By Land and By Sea is your go-toresource for navigating the
regulatory side of global oceanshipping.
And me, I'm your favoritemaritime attorney.
As always, the guidance servicegeneral and for educational
purposes only, it should not beconsidered legal advice.
(01:24):
There's no attorney clientprivilege created by this video
or this podcast.
This is plain language maritimecreated so that anybody, not
just lawyers or insiders, canunderstand what's really
happening out there.
Now let's dive in because as youknow, ocean shipping moves the
world.
All right.
Well, the first story, let's getright into it.
This week, the Senate CommerceCommittee, chaired by Senator
(01:45):
Ted Cruz, held a hearing thatcould set the tone for the next
phase of U.S.
maritime policy.
And you know we're watching it.
We have been watching all ofthis unfold.
So Ted Cruz opened with a cleartheme.
We need a maritime strategyfocused on removing regulatory
barriers.
Now, look, I love that for tworeasons.
One, we need a maritimestrategy.
(02:06):
We've been saying this.
If you were to go back and lookat every recommendation series
from MIT Snack, the MaritimeTransportation System National
Advisory Committee, you willsee, at least for the past 10
years, at least, maybe longer,they've been calling for an
actual maritime strategy.
And for Ted Cruz, Senator Cruz,to open up this hearing with, we
need a maritime strategy.
I mean, that was that wasfantastic.
(02:28):
And then focused on removingregulatory barriers, we just got
to get there, right?
We just got to get moving on themaritime side.
So he's saying we got to focuson the maritime strategy,
removing these regulatorybarriers so ports, shipyards,
and carriers can actuallycompete.
And that's the part that Ireally want to see, the
competition part.
We can't just prop it up.
We have to have it becompetitive.
And he said it straight: streamline regulation, increase (02:48):
undefined
port productivity, shore up themerchant marine, and ensure the
free flow of commerce.
Easier said than done, but Ilove that the intention is out
there.
And that tone carried throughthe hearing, which it kind of
felt less like introductions ofnew nominees and more like an
audit of America's maritimepulse.
And certainly maybe even edgingon the side of like a
(03:10):
brainstorming session, similarto one that USTR had taken when
they were doing their section301 and they had the whole
industry come together.
Here we had three, well, we hadfour nominees, but three
maritime nominees, two FMC, onemayorad, coming together and
asked, being asked very specificquestions on how they plan to
move us forward as a maritimenation.
(03:31):
First up, first to speak withStephen Carmel.
He's nominated to head mayoradafter decades with Mayor's Land
Limited, and he didn't sugarcoatit.
And I really liked his approach.
I had followed him a little biton some of the media outlets
that I've seen him appear on,and he's given a couple of
remarks, but actually hearinghim just not slice and dice it
(03:52):
and come to the table with justsuch a clear vision of where we
go with Maread, I was reallyimpressed.
I thought he did a great job.
Sang Yi, the current actingmaritime administrator, has been
doing a fantastic job in thatrole.
And so honestly, I was kind ofthinking, all right, Steve's
gonna have to bring it.
Steve Carmel's gonna have tobring it in my mind if I think
(04:12):
that he is going to do a goodjob or a better job than Sang.
And I don't know if he'll do abetter job, but he will at least
do just as fantastic of a job.
I feel it in my heart.
I think he will.
I've I'm excited for him.
I think that this is great andhe has a very clear vision.
But like I said, he is alongtime Marisline Limited
executive.
He he is he's which means he'sbeen in the U.S.
(04:35):
maritime system.
So Marisline Limited is the U.S.
branch of the otherwise globalcompany of Mares.
So Marisline Limited, he wasalso a U.S.
Merchant Marine Academygraduate, so King's Pointer.
His testimony echoed what he'sbeen saying publicly for years.
The U.S.
has become a naval power withoutbecoming a maritime power.
And he told senators bluntly, wedo not carry our own commerce,
(04:59):
meaning we don't carry our owncargo.
He said, we do not carry our owncommerce for ships and
international trade.
We can't build them at all.
A strong maritime sector isn'tnostalgia, it's strategy.
What a great sentence.
Oh my goodness.
I loved it.
I thought that he was right on.
So Carmel also supports theShips for America Act.
He said that very plainly.
(05:20):
And what the Ships Act, we'vetalked about it a little bit,
but it seeks to rebuild domesticshipbuilding capacity and
generate cargo preference forU.S.
flag carriers.
He linked that to PresidentTrump's April Executive Order on
Maritime Dominance and theproposed maritime security trust
fund, one that he brought up afew times, emphasizing that it's
not just about ships, it's aboutcargo.
(05:41):
And I love that he said thatbecause I have been feeling so
much that all we're talkingabout is ships, and all we're
talking about is military ships.
And we can't only talk aboutmilitary ships, we have to talk
about commercial ships, and wehave to talk about the cargo
that goes on them.
And I'm so happy that he saidthat.
It's not just about the ships,it's about the cargo.
(06:02):
So without demand generation, hewarned shipyards and mariner
pipelines alike will continue toerode without demand generation.
Haven't I been saying this?
I mean, if you can't tell, I amjazzed about Steve Carmel taking
this role.
I love that focus on thecommercial side.
We can't just keep doing whatwe've always done and expect a
different result.
We have to focus on the cargo.
We have to be just ascompetitive in the ocean
(06:24):
shipment of goods.
Now, when Senator Moreno askedwhere the U.S.
ranks as a maritime nation, hesaid, top 10, top five, where do
you think we are?
Carmel replied, and almost alittle bit like I hate to say
it, but he said, I'm not evensure we're on the scale.
And I mean it's true, right?
Right now, current today, how werank as a maritime nation.
(06:47):
We can get back there, buttoday, which means he
understands the severity.
He reminded everyone thatAmerica won World War II because
it could build fast and atscale.
And that industrial capacity,Carmel says, has since rotted.
He said every time we've neededto ramp up production for a war,
we did.
But then that boom and bust, welet it collapse again.
(07:10):
Now we said Carmel's focus ondemand generation, not just
fleet funding, not just buildingships, shows his commercial
instincts.
As he put it, it's hard toattract people into the industry
if the ship or job they signedon to isn't there a year later.
Now that's a clear signal.
Rebuild confidence first, cargowill follow.
But also, I love that he's sofocused on cargo.
(07:32):
He clearly and strongly backsthe Ships for America Act and a
maritime security trust fund,both designed to redesign and
revive shipbuilding throughcargo preference and predictable
demand.
And like I said, I just keepsaying it.
He did such a good job aboutmentioning that we need the
market-driven demand.
We need to be competitive withcargo.
He also echoed Cruz's portmodernization message, basically
(07:54):
saying, use tech to enhancelabor, not replace it, but we
have to enhance our ports.
Now, the next nominee up wasLaura Dabella.
Laura is known very well acrossFlorida's maritime scene.
She was the former port directorat Ferdinandina.
She was the past head of theFlorida Harbor Pilots
Association.
Now, to go from both a port tothe Pilots Association means
(08:16):
that she's been in the gritty,she's been in the maritime
industry.
She has been there, she has beenpart of the actual boots on the
dock, right?
But then she also rose to be thestate's first female Secretary
of Commerce.
She emphasized in her remarksoversight and transparency
within the FMC's limited butcritical mandate, particularly
when dealing with the dozen orso carriers that now handle
(08:38):
nearly all U.S.
cargo.
But her takeaway was certainlythe carriers make the market,
but the FMC can ensure goodoversight and fair treatment of
shippers.
And that aligns exactly with themission of the FMC, right?
It's for the benefit of the U.S.
importer, exporter, andconsumer.
And they really regulate andmonitor the fair and efficient
movement of goods.
She kept saying that, the fairand efficient movement of goods.
(09:01):
She's to efficiency, pointingout that demerge and detention
enforcement shouldn't justpunish, it should reveal why
cargo is delayed.
And I think that that's animportant distinction and
something that the FMC needs tounderstand what's happening in
the ecosystem.
And she even used the wordecosystem.
I believe Bob Harvey did aswell.
They need to understand theecosystem to understand where
(09:24):
those guardrails should beapplied.
And I applaud the FMC for yearsand years and years, and
probably attributed to thecurrent FMC Commissioner Rebecca
Dye.
We did an interview with her, Ibelieve it was last season.
Go back and listen to that.
But I credit Commissioner Dyewith helping to make sure that
the FMC doesn't go above andbeyond or mission creep into
other areas.
(09:44):
She has been such a strong voicefor a guardrails approach to the
FMC.
And I think that that'sfantastic.
And I love that Laura now iscoming in with not only an
economic understanding from herF from her Florida experience,
but also a larger pictureunderstanding of the maritime
industry from the ports and thepilots perspective, from that
(10:04):
kind of operational perspective.
There's a critical distinction.
Enforcement is one thing,diagnosis is another, and that's
something that the FMC can leaninto with better data.
And I think that that'ssomething that the FMC will lean
into.
Then came Bob Harvey, RobertHarvey, a former Navy Jack and
securities attorney with deeproots in the Midwest, which I
(10:24):
mean, if you know me, actually,we we do have quite a few new
listeners.
If you don't know, and if you'rewatching my video, I have a
little Michigan back there.
I am from Michigan originally.
So look, nothing gets my heartpumping like talking about the
Great Lakes.
So look, I love that he's gotthis Midwest background.
He said plainly, nothing gets anindustry member's attention like
(10:47):
an enforcement action.
He's worked, he said, on theother side.
And so he understands the useand perhaps restraint of
enforcement actions, but they doget the attention of the
industry and they can be usedeffectively.
Basically, to say he likes theauthorities, or it seemed to say
(11:08):
that he likes the authorities ofthe FMC and he can use them or
would use them potentially instrategic ways that maintain
fairness.
They're not for overuse, right?
It's that guardrails approach.
But it's his economicdevelopment background.
So he led Florida's OpportunityFund and the Development Finance
Corporation, and he suggestedhe'll bring a financial
(11:30):
innovation angle to the FMC.
He talked a lot abouttechnological investment and how
he's already been part of thoseconversations.
He talked about using privatecapital and technology
investment to modernize portsand streamline perhaps last mile
delivery, showing a cleanunderstanding of innovation can
and should coexist.
(11:50):
And when the conversation turnedto the Great Lakes shipping,
like I said, Harvey spoke fromexperience and he said, growing
up in the Midwest, I thinkspecifically it was Illinois,
and watchingde-industrialization hollow out
maritime jobs, his quote wasthere's no way to restore
maritime dominance withoutrestoring industrial dominance.
Now, that line to me kind oflinked everything together: the
(12:10):
enforcement, the efficiency, thereal rebuilding of the base that
makes any of it all possible.
Now, this hearing seemed tofocus a lot on reconstruction of
confidence, of industry, and ofpolicy, right?
So Carmel reframe maritime asnational security, which we have
been talking about basicallysince forever one, but also the
(12:31):
executive order of April 9th,where it plainly said restoring
maritime dominance.
And also the signal when MikeWaltz of the Kelly Waltz, that
now is the SHIPS Act, when whatwhen Mike Waltz was elevated up
to national security advisor,that was part of the signal that
maritime security under theTrump administration is national
(12:51):
security.
And that was something thatCarmel really reaffirmed.
Laura De Bella put efficiencyand transparency at the center
of shipper protection, afantastic thing.
Efficiency and transparency bothare so critical to an effective
and efficient ecosystem ofsupply chain.
And Bob Harvey tied competitionpolicy back to America's
manufacturing backbone andreally showed such a great
(13:15):
understanding of, I mean, he'san attorney, right?
So I would hope that he wouldunderstand the regulations well.
And he did.
And I think that he showed areally great understanding of
when to effectively use and whento have effective restraint for
that guardrail approach.
All three of these nominees arefantastic as far as I'm
concerned.
And if they're all confirmed,and it seems like they probably
(13:36):
will be, we're likely to seehopefully FMC, maybe not more
aligned, but perhaps worktogether.
So choke point monitoring on oneside, domestic modernization on
the other, but making sure thatthat maritime dominance, that
that return to maritimedominance is one that is all
agency-wide.
If you deal with anythingmaritime, that it feels like
(13:57):
everybody's on board with it.
Now, if Congress picks up Cruz'scall for a barrier removal
maritime strategy, I think we'reprobably going to see more
hearings on shipyard reform,Jones Act modernization, and
port automation funding.
And I don't think we're going tosee the red tape.
I think we're just going to seeopportunities for long-term
development of programs,perhaps, where funding
opportunities can come in andhopefully grant development.
(14:21):
Internationally, look, I thinkwe're about to talk about it,
the Northern Sea route.
I think that we are going to seethere's there's some things that
I want to talk about forgeopolitical influence here.
Now, if you're sitting herethinking, wait, remind me,
what's the difference betweenthe FMC and Marad again?
Don't worry, I created a just intime learning course for this.
(14:43):
Go check out my course, FMC vs.
Marad, who does what in Maritimeat the W at the excuse me, at
the Maritimeprofessor.com.
It's less than 30 minutes, plainlanguage, no government acronyms
left unxplained.
And yes, I even settled theage-old debate of who is better.
No, I'm just kidding.
(15:04):
It's just plain language, who'sthe FMC, who's Mayrad.
Look, you get just a quick anddirty what you need to know
about the difference.
All right.
Now the segment number two thatI want to bring up, the Northern
Sea route.
Now, why am I bringing it upwhile we also have a nominees?
Well, one for one thing, I justkind of grab bag on different
stories, but for two, I think itrelates to the FMC, and you'll
(15:27):
see why.
While the U.S.
was talking about rebuilding itsmaritime muscle here, Russia and
China were potentially expandingtheirs, is what I'm seeing.
They've now signed an agreementto jointly develop the Northern
Sea route, the Arctic passagealong Russia's coast that
connects that connects Asia toEurope.
Now, under this pact, Russia andChina will reportedly coordinate
(15:49):
on Arctic infrastructure,icebreaker fleets, and
logistics.
And there's already some promiseof Costco shipping of China
expected to increase transitunder joint management.
There's been some reports ofshorter distances and effective
transit routes through thisarea.
Now they're calling it thetransport artery of the 21st
century.
But here's where I want you, andI'm not saying too much about
(16:11):
this because we still have tosee what it looks like.
But for the US, this route wascalled out by FMC's ongoing
maritime choke pointsinvestigation.
It was flagged as one that couldevolve into a policy-driven
bottleneck.
Now, the commission's chokepoint and inquiry isn't just
about narrow straights like Suezor Panama Canal.
(16:33):
They're watching for policyleverage, right?
That's what they're trying tofigure out because they're
looking at unfair orunreasonable practices out there
in the world, and they have thatauthority under the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act, which issomething given to them by
Congress, and Section 19 of theMerchant Marine Act of 1920.
Both of those deal with foreignunfair or unreasonable practices
(16:56):
and give the FMC to takecorrective action, which could
be a million dollars per voyage,could be turning away of flagged
fleets, could be a whole host ofthings.
Wouldn't that be wild if we wereto get to a position where
because of this northern searoute, Russia, China work
together?
I don't even want to say it.
We could, the FMC couldpotentially turn away all
(17:19):
Chinese flagged vessels if theyfound, now it's not just for
geopolitical reasons, but ifthey found unfair or
unreasonable activity happeningby a country.
Now it doesn't have to be thenorthern sea route of China.
It's obviously the northern searoute of Russia.
But if China is found to be partof that and the FMC finds that
(17:40):
it is unfair or unreasonable,under this maritime choke point
investigation, there might beanother lever here to pull on
the thousand cuts to China thatthe US seems to be taking,
because we've already talkedabout Panama as one of those
thousand cuts for leverage,right?
And I think right now we are inthe USTR port fees world, right?
(18:00):
October 14th is when it allbegan.
We saw the mirror, I talkedabout this last week.
We saw the mirror response outof China, not escalation mirror,
which to me signals some thingsthat they were not escalating
it, that perhaps they're notinterested in the war or the
trade spat.
They just had to say face.
They had to be exactly mirrored.
(18:21):
But now, I don't know if theyeven, I'm sure they probably
thought of this, but thisNorthern Sea route, it now adds
China into one of these routeswhere the FMC, one of the
corrective actions that'sexactly listed, is turning away
of flag vessels.
Now, if China has flagged andthey're found, like I said, to
be unfair or unreasonable.
This investigation, maritimechoke points, just got a whole
(18:45):
lot more interesting.
But look, the net the NorthernSea route, Russia already
controls passage through and itpermits and mandatory through
permits and mandatory icebreakerescorts.
And that's kind of why it wasidentified as one of these
maritime choke points to watch.
Now add China, both its capital,its vessels, its its presence,
(19:09):
its maritime dominance, reallyright now, suddenly the rules of
the Arctic access become abilateral policy decision.
Not necessarily, it could stillbe, but not necessarily, right?
This is what we want to watch.
Open market conditions.
Look, the Northern Sea route isnot blocked yet.
It's not blocked.
It seems to be something thatcontinues to move vessels.
(19:31):
However, that's why it's on themaritime choke points, because
they want to know more aboutwhat are some of those permits
and mandatory icebreakerescorts.
Are they fair?
Are they facilitating the freeand efficient movement of goods?
This partnership is a little bitproblematic because it could
formalize the potential for moreselective access.
And that's why the FMC is rightto keep it on the radar.
(19:52):
And I think probably worthy oflooking into this new I look, I
think it's worthy of just takinga good look at, right?
That's what I'm trying to say.
I think that the FMC, throughits maritime choke points, as it
will do with all the identifiedseven choke points that they
that it mentioned, but thenperhaps any others out there,
(20:13):
look, I think they just need totake a look at this.
And I think that there could be,as shippers that are listening
to this podcast, I think thatthere's some potential for if
you if your vessels that you'relooking at potentially are going
through this area, if you areshipping on Chinese vessels, I
think these are all things to bevery aware of.
(20:34):
And they play into a largergeopolitics discussion.
However, I'm focused on themaritime side of things, so I
don't want to go too far intothe geopolitics again, but like
I said, maritime choke pointsjust got more interesting at the
FMC.
So what I'm watching, right?
Governance is the new geography.
Physical choke points arepredictable, regulatory ones
aren't.
Russia-China coordinationpotentially equals leverage.
(20:56):
They might be testing whatinfluence through infrastructure
really looks like.
We've seen it a couple differentareas.
Perhaps we're seeing it here.
And the FMC's foresight on thisone matters.
It was one of the few U.S.
agencies studying these issuesand continuing to study them
before they erupt into crisis.
Now, what I'm watching is howRussia sets next season's access
and icebreaker fees, right?
We are heading into the winterand whether any of these Costco
(21:21):
investments or Chineseinvestments, or if there are
getting investments or justpolitical discussions, are
getting any preferentialtreatment.
And I think that's the fairnesspiece that the FMC will partly
look at.
So what ties Washington hearingsand Arctic routes together?
Capacity, right?
The US is trying to rebuild it.
Russia and China are at least inthis one area, could be seen as
(21:41):
squeezing it.
That's the concern.
That's the that's what we needto watch for.
And Cruz's call for removingregulatory barriers, Carmel's
warning about a decayedindustrial base and Harvey's
Great Lakes,deindustrialization, realism all
converge on a single truth.
You can't have maritimedominance without industrial
capacity.
And I think that this issomething that we continue to
talk about.
I always bring up this F-150 ofa traditional vessel versus a
(22:05):
cyber truck of a cool new modelof a vessel.
I think that that will help drawsome of that industrial capacity
or certainly the industrialworkforce back because all of a
sudden we go from perhaps a verylow number of workers who are
interested in being in theindustrial side of things to now
they can tell their friends, doyou know if I'm working on that
new ship?
Do you know?
Um, yeah, I get to go and I getto work on that.
(22:28):
That's that's part of what we'rebuilding at that place, right?
If there's some excitementthere.
And certainly I think there'salso excitement for the F-150s
because look, we're we're Ibuilt that ship that our US
cargo is now moving on, right?
There's gotta be that pride.
And I think there is inherentlyin the industry, anyways, right?
We are a very this is a passionindustry.
Maritime is a passion industry,and I think we are all
(22:50):
passionate and we all want to beand continue to be excited.
There's just more excitementhere.
We gotta, we gotta get morepeople excited about doing this
and proud to share what they'redoing.
Look, this is one of those rareweeks when all parts of the
maritime conversation, policy,industry, and security, all come
together.
The question is can we keep thealignment long enough to act?
(23:12):
Can we continue to build onthis?
We have a few weeks until wehave the maritime action plan
due.
November 5th is the date.
We'll see if it comes out thatday.
I think OMB, it has to gothrough an OMB Office of
Management and Budget Review,which usually slows things down.
But we'll see.
We'll see where it is.
November 5th is the date thatthe executive order gave.
So we'll see.
(23:32):
I'm gonna keep watching it all.
Don't you worry, and I'll keepreporting it out here on Byland
and By Sea.
You keep it tuned in here.
If you like this episode, besure to follow, subscribe, and
leave a review.
Want to go deeper or bring thiskind of insight to your team,
visit the maritimeprofessor.comfor corporate trainings,
tailored briefings, andon-demand webinars, all designed
to make maritime regulationspractical and easy to
understand.
(23:52):
And if you need to know, justneed to know what the difference
between the Federal MaritimeCommission and the Maritime
Administration are, FMC vs.
Mared, go check out my just intime learning,
maritimeprofessor.com.
And if your organization needslegal or strategic help
navigating ocean shippingregulations, head over to School
Strategies.
That's where I help clientsengage with all things across
the global supply chain,particularly as it relates to
(24:14):
the maritime federal regulationsin DC.
As always, this podcast is foreducational purposes only and
should not be considered legaladvice.
So until next time, I'm LaurenBeegan, the Maritime Professor,
and you've just listened to ByLand and By C.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.