Why Is The Jones Act Important To The Maritime Industry
As part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Jones Act lays out specific rules and regulations for the American maritime industry. Section 27 deals with cabotage which are rules that requires vessels used to transport goods between States and territories that are part of the United States be carried on vessels that are United Sates flagged, built in the United States, and operated and owned by Americans. It also discusses rules for incineration of waste from the United States at sea. Furthermore, section 27a of the Jones Act also includes vessels used in transporting people. Any vessel (cruise ship mostly) that carries people from one State to another or a United Sates territory must also follow the rules outlined in section 27 (Text
…show more content…
of Jones Act, n.d.). There have been many arguments for and against the Jones Act over the last 100 years. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the Jones Act as it stands in the 21st century and show reason it needs amended In its inception, the Jones Act was used to improve the maritime industry and assist in war efforts.
By ensuring America was training its own American crews, building American made ships, and ensuring all American fair trade and labor laws were followed, the maritime industry was very successful (Merchant Marine Act of 1920, n.d., para. 14). The amount of Liberty and Victory ships built to support the war was astonishing. The crews were all American and the nations interest was at the forefront. Over the years and through multiple other wars, the Jones Act has enable American owned, built, and operated vessels to move equipment to the war zone. The Jones Act has received support from many Presidents including; “Presidents Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and further all the way back to Woodrow Wilson who originally signed it into law in 1920” (Merchant Marine Act of 1920, n.d., para. 19). Because of the national security provisions of the Jones Act, multiple high ranking military officials have and continue to support the Jones Act (ibid). One of the most important parts of the Jones Act is keeping foreign flagged vessels out of our domestic waters. Just like in the aviation community, America need not let its guard down and allow foreign crewed vessels the opportunity to move within its borders. Many may believe it is far-fetched, but the chance for a foreign vessel sailing our internal waterways and creating a blockade or destroying bridges is of utmost important to national security (Giberga and Thompson, 2015, p.
502). The other side of the table sits those that wish to repeal the Jones Act. One of the reasons to repeal the Act is the fact that over the years the United States maritime industry has fallen off track in leading the world in ship building. The fleet is much older then those of other countries. “The average age for U.S. ships in 2016 was 33 years old, while foreign-flagged ships averaged 13 years” (Grennes, 2017, p. 2). At that age, ships are starting to show wear and tear. Because of the cost of new American made ships, companies continue to run these old ships until they can no longer move. This causes many concerns for safety. One example is the sinking of El Faro in 2015. The vessel was over 40 years old. “Coast Guard records show the ship had mechanical problems dating back several years, including a failed boiler and a fuel leak, … engine failure, water seeping into rooms during heavy rain and problems lowering the lifeboats” (Mouawad, 2015, para 16). These issues alone should halt a vessel from sailing. Also, the cost to operate these ageing vessels is overly expensive. “In a 2007 study conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission, it was estimated that the daily operating expenses for a U.S. tanker were $27,900, while the daily expenses for a foreign-flagged tanker were $16,600, a difference of over $10,000 per day” (Gius, 2013, p.1059). By being able to buy new foreign made vessels these expenses would not be so high. Another suggested reason to repeal the Jones Act is the extra requirements it causes on environmental cleanups. Although the BP oil spill in 2010 did not fully require a Jones Act waiver, it did bring to the attention of many the need to ensure quick action should a spill occur within 3 miles of coastline as outlined in the Jones Act. The BP oil spill required a quick and ready response team of skimmers to assist in the cleanup. The U.S. did not have enough U.S. flagged skimmers to even dent the cleanup process. It took the help of multiple countries to ensure a successful cleanup (The Maritime Executive, n.d., para 2). Lastly, another reason to repeal or amend the Jones Act is the pain it causes on the States not directly land connected to the rest of the United States for example, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. In Hawaii, the cost of living is outrageous. There are times when a simple gallon of milk has cost over $7 a gallon. Although funny, Hawaii has been forced to make cows fly because it is cheaper to move cattle by air then to ship via vessel (Braun, 2017). Sugar was once a main crop for Hawaii to move to the mainland, but due to high shipping costs the last sugar plantation was forced to close in 2016. Other issues surrounding States surrounded by water are the effects of natural disasters. The Jones Act prohibits relief efforts from foreign vessels that pickup relief supplies from the mainland enroute to Hawaii or Puerto Rico. The last couple of hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico required Presidential approval to waiver the Jones Act in order for them to get much needed relief. Another issue in Puerto Rico is rising fuel prices. A political candidate wishing to repeal the Jones Act said that Puerto Rico is victim to over $1 billion in overpayment of fuel prices due to the Jones Act (Beason, Connor, Milonas, and Ruge, 2015, p. 25). In conclusion, it seems as thought the cons far outweigh the pros of the Jones Act, but full repeal may not be the best answer. The need to ensure America’s internal waterway is safe from harm remains important. If the Jones Act were repealed, then a swarm of foreign countries and businesses would line our inland waterways. The United States does not need this problem as there is a significant race to overtake America as a superpower. Our foreign adversaries could quickly take advantage of a full repeal and put into play mechanisms to limit or stop our use of our inland waterways. Being able to call on American crews in time of need is still a critical issue. A full repeal would limit the availability of American mariners to find work at the same standard they had with the full Jones Act. An amendment could create a government agency that employees a certain number of American mariners in case of war. These mariners would continue to work with the same benefits currently set. Another option is amending the requirement to have American built ships but keep in place the requirement to fill the crew with Americans. Allowing the purchase of foreign built ships would create a much safer workplace. An amendment for the States not connected to the rest of America and coastal States should allow for the movement of goods by foreign flagged ships. This amendment would still prohibit the movement of goods inward into the United States, but allow movement for example from California to Hawaii, Puerto Rico to Florida, or even Texas to Virginia. There are multiple challenges to the current Jones Act but this could be fixed with amendments that allow for safer ships, a stable workforce, continued safety for our inland waterways, and a possible lower cost of living for Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. The only way to find out is to start trying the amendments. It can only get better from there.
of Jones Act, n.d.). There have been many arguments for and against the Jones Act over the last 100 years. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of the Jones Act as it stands in the 21st century and show reason it needs amended In its inception, the Jones Act was used to improve the maritime industry and assist in war efforts.
By ensuring America was training its own American crews, building American made ships, and ensuring all American fair trade and labor laws were followed, the maritime industry was very successful (Merchant Marine Act of 1920, n.d., para. 14). The amount of Liberty and Victory ships built to support the war was astonishing. The crews were all American and the nations interest was at the forefront. Over the years and through multiple other wars, the Jones Act has enable American owned, built, and operated vessels to move equipment to the war zone. The Jones Act has received support from many Presidents including; “Presidents Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and further all the way back to Woodrow Wilson who originally signed it into law in 1920” (Merchant Marine Act of 1920, n.d., para. 19). Because of the national security provisions of the Jones Act, multiple high ranking military officials have and continue to support the Jones Act (ibid). One of the most important parts of the Jones Act is keeping foreign flagged vessels out of our domestic waters. Just like in the aviation community, America need not let its guard down and allow foreign crewed vessels the opportunity to move within its borders. Many may believe it is far-fetched, but the chance for a foreign vessel sailing our internal waterways and creating a blockade or destroying bridges is of utmost important to national security (Giberga and Thompson, 2015, p.
502). The other side of the table sits those that wish to repeal the Jones Act. One of the reasons to repeal the Act is the fact that over the years the United States maritime industry has fallen off track in leading the world in ship building. The fleet is much older then those of other countries. “The average age for U.S. ships in 2016 was 33 years old, while foreign-flagged ships averaged 13 years” (Grennes, 2017, p. 2). At that age, ships are starting to show wear and tear. Because of the cost of new American made ships, companies continue to run these old ships until they can no longer move. This causes many concerns for safety. One example is the sinking of El Faro in 2015. The vessel was over 40 years old. “Coast Guard records show the ship had mechanical problems dating back several years, including a failed boiler and a fuel leak, … engine failure, water seeping into rooms during heavy rain and problems lowering the lifeboats” (Mouawad, 2015, para 16). These issues alone should halt a vessel from sailing. Also, the cost to operate these ageing vessels is overly expensive. “In a 2007 study conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission, it was estimated that the daily operating expenses for a U.S. tanker were $27,900, while the daily expenses for a foreign-flagged tanker were $16,600, a difference of over $10,000 per day” (Gius, 2013, p.1059). By being able to buy new foreign made vessels these expenses would not be so high. Another suggested reason to repeal the Jones Act is the extra requirements it causes on environmental cleanups. Although the BP oil spill in 2010 did not fully require a Jones Act waiver, it did bring to the attention of many the need to ensure quick action should a spill occur within 3 miles of coastline as outlined in the Jones Act. The BP oil spill required a quick and ready response team of skimmers to assist in the cleanup. The U.S. did not have enough U.S. flagged skimmers to even dent the cleanup process. It took the help of multiple countries to ensure a successful cleanup (The Maritime Executive, n.d., para 2). Lastly, another reason to repeal or amend the Jones Act is the pain it causes on the States not directly land connected to the rest of the United States for example, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. In Hawaii, the cost of living is outrageous. There are times when a simple gallon of milk has cost over $7 a gallon. Although funny, Hawaii has been forced to make cows fly because it is cheaper to move cattle by air then to ship via vessel (Braun, 2017). Sugar was once a main crop for Hawaii to move to the mainland, but due to high shipping costs the last sugar plantation was forced to close in 2016. Other issues surrounding States surrounded by water are the effects of natural disasters. The Jones Act prohibits relief efforts from foreign vessels that pickup relief supplies from the mainland enroute to Hawaii or Puerto Rico. The last couple of hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico required Presidential approval to waiver the Jones Act in order for them to get much needed relief. Another issue in Puerto Rico is rising fuel prices. A political candidate wishing to repeal the Jones Act said that Puerto Rico is victim to over $1 billion in overpayment of fuel prices due to the Jones Act (Beason, Connor, Milonas, and Ruge, 2015, p. 25). In conclusion, it seems as thought the cons far outweigh the pros of the Jones Act, but full repeal may not be the best answer. The need to ensure America’s internal waterway is safe from harm remains important. If the Jones Act were repealed, then a swarm of foreign countries and businesses would line our inland waterways. The United States does not need this problem as there is a significant race to overtake America as a superpower. Our foreign adversaries could quickly take advantage of a full repeal and put into play mechanisms to limit or stop our use of our inland waterways. Being able to call on American crews in time of need is still a critical issue. A full repeal would limit the availability of American mariners to find work at the same standard they had with the full Jones Act. An amendment could create a government agency that employees a certain number of American mariners in case of war. These mariners would continue to work with the same benefits currently set. Another option is amending the requirement to have American built ships but keep in place the requirement to fill the crew with Americans. Allowing the purchase of foreign built ships would create a much safer workplace. An amendment for the States not connected to the rest of America and coastal States should allow for the movement of goods by foreign flagged ships. This amendment would still prohibit the movement of goods inward into the United States, but allow movement for example from California to Hawaii, Puerto Rico to Florida, or even Texas to Virginia. There are multiple challenges to the current Jones Act but this could be fixed with amendments that allow for safer ships, a stable workforce, continued safety for our inland waterways, and a possible lower cost of living for Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. The only way to find out is to start trying the amendments. It can only get better from there.