Posted:
April 10, 2012
By Tom Bethel
National President
It's been nearly 20 years since the last large-scale political war over the Jones Act, which reserves all waterborne commerce between U.S. ports for merchant vessels owned, built, registered and crewed in the United States. In that prolonged struggle, the U.S. maritime community - including American Maritime Officers - squared off against a coalition of U.S. and international farm, energy, chemical, mining and manufacturing interests seeking to repeal or amend the venerable domestic shipping law.
In the end, Jones Act supporters prevailed. That the Jones Act stood intact was a testament to the strength and merit of the law itself, to the traditionally strong bipartisan support of the Jones Act in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Executive Branch, and to what U.S. maritime labor and industry can accomplish politically when they unite in defense of common interest - in this case, thousands of jobs for American merchant mariners in domestic deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters trades and billions of dollars in private capital investment in Jones Act tonnage nationwide.
Today, the Jones Act remains the law of the land (or the law of the domestic seas), but it also remains at risk. While there is no unified, well-organized or well-funded effort to force Jones Act repeal or amendment comparable to what we saw in the mid-1990s, recent events could inspire diverse interests to cobble a new coalition bent on Jones Act "reform."
The BP oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago provided a telling reminder of how vulnerable the Jones Act is to myth, ignorance and hysteria that, left unchecked, could lead to harmful amendment or outright repeal.
As we all know, the Jones Act had absolutely nothing to do with the offshore rig explosion or the consequent raging flow of crude oil from the wellhead. And, because the Jones Act applies only within three miles of the U.S. coast, the law was not a factor in the effort to contain the spill or remove the oil from the surface at the rig site some 45 or 50 miles out.
Nevertheless, public officials at the federal and local levels and media outlets charged repeatedly but inaccurately that the Jones Act had prevented foreign-owned, built, flagged and manned skimmers and other emergency response vessels from Gulf service.
BP (which was responsible for vessel procurement during the crisis), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency turned some foreign vessels away for reasons unrelated to the Jones Act, but this truth did not stop some members of Congress - including longtime Jones Act critic Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - from filing Jones Act repeal legislation at the height of the emergency. Most of these bills were withdrawn in short order, and the others - including Sen. McCain's - gained no traction.
As we all know, official investigations and Congressional testimony have since confirmed that the Jones Act did not hinder the BP spill response.
Another example of the Jones Act as an all-too-easy political target came in the summer of 2011, when the administration waived the Jones Act 48 times to allow foreign-flagged tankers to carry oil drawn down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve between U.S ports, despite the ready availability of sufficient Jones Act tonnage to haul the crude. The administration had initially approved a blanket Jones Act waiver for the SPR shipments, but withdrew this waiver the next day in response to protests from U.S. maritime labor and industry.
Under the individual waiver strategy that replaced the comprehensive waiver plan, the Department of Energy used contrived capacity calculations that cut available Jones Act tankers and tank barges out of the equation. The waivers were driven not by a shortage of Jones Act tonnage, but by insufficient administrative commitment to the letter and spirit of the domestic shipping law. Congress has since made such administrative waivers more difficult to approve for the carriage of SPR crude.
More recently, there was concern that the shutdown of two refineries in Pennsylvania would result in a shortage of gasoline and other petroleum products in the Northeast, and that there may not be enough Jones Act tankers and tank barges to carry additional supplies of these petroleum products from the Gulf coast to the region.
This fear was driven in significant part by a February 2012 Energy Information Administration report suggesting inadequate Jones Act capacity for the Gulf-Northeast trade. However, it was learned that, in an apparent "error of omission," the EIA had not considered tank barges in its fleet tally. At this writing, the EIA was revising its report to address the Jones Act fleet accurately.
Late in March, Sen. McCain sensed another opening when he introduced four amendments to an energy bill that, at the time, appeared headed for floor consideration and debate. One of the McCain amendments would have repealed the Jones Act within 90 days, and the others would have waived Jones Act requirements in specific domestic energy and passenger vessel trades. But the Senate leadership limited the number of amendments that could be taken up with the measure, and Sen. McCain's initiatives were not among those allowed. The Senate later voted not to bring the energy bill to the floor.
Meanwhile, there are continuing calls to kill the Jones Act's "build American" mandate, and governments in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam have not abandoned their demands for exemptions from Jones Act jurisdiction.
What made these developments even more troubling was the consistent silence from the Department of Transportation and its Maritime Administration, the only federal agency charged by law with promoting the privately owned and operated U.S. merchant fleet in all domestic and international trades. MARAD and DOT have in recent years been limp in defense of the fleet, and they long ago lost the confidence of U.S. seagoing unions and American merchant vessel operators.
This developing trend was enough to draw Rob Quartel, the leader of the failed Jones Act repeal movement of the 1990s, back into public view in January 2012. Quartel, a past member of the Federal Maritime Commission and a one-time Congressional candidate from Florida, told the Journal of Commerce that the U.S. maritime community appeared "bewildered by events of 2011 and fearful of those to come this year - that's exactly what they should be."
Whether Quartel expects to jump back into battle as frontman of a new Jones Act repeal coalition remains to be seen. But I do know that American Maritime Officers cannot afford to be complacent about the Jones Act, not with the many jobs our union has at stake in deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters domestic trade. I also know that AMO must never be forced from the Jones Act fight because we do not have the resources to defend our interests - I ask again that every AMO member and applicant for AMO membership join me in support of the AMO Voluntary Political Action Fund to the greatest possible extent.
As always, I welcome your comments, opinions and questions. Please feel free to call me on my cell at (202) 251-0349.
No time for complacency or political retreat on Jones Act
By Tom Bethel
National President
It's been nearly 20 years since the last large-scale political war over the Jones Act, which reserves all waterborne commerce between U.S. ports for merchant vessels owned, built, registered and crewed in the United States. In that prolonged struggle, the U.S. maritime community - including American Maritime Officers - squared off against a coalition of U.S. and international farm, energy, chemical, mining and manufacturing interests seeking to repeal or amend the venerable domestic shipping law.
In the end, Jones Act supporters prevailed. That the Jones Act stood intact was a testament to the strength and merit of the law itself, to the traditionally strong bipartisan support of the Jones Act in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Executive Branch, and to what U.S. maritime labor and industry can accomplish politically when they unite in defense of common interest - in this case, thousands of jobs for American merchant mariners in domestic deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters trades and billions of dollars in private capital investment in Jones Act tonnage nationwide.
Today, the Jones Act remains the law of the land (or the law of the domestic seas), but it also remains at risk. While there is no unified, well-organized or well-funded effort to force Jones Act repeal or amendment comparable to what we saw in the mid-1990s, recent events could inspire diverse interests to cobble a new coalition bent on Jones Act "reform."
The BP oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago provided a telling reminder of how vulnerable the Jones Act is to myth, ignorance and hysteria that, left unchecked, could lead to harmful amendment or outright repeal.
As we all know, the Jones Act had absolutely nothing to do with the offshore rig explosion or the consequent raging flow of crude oil from the wellhead. And, because the Jones Act applies only within three miles of the U.S. coast, the law was not a factor in the effort to contain the spill or remove the oil from the surface at the rig site some 45 or 50 miles out.
Nevertheless, public officials at the federal and local levels and media outlets charged repeatedly but inaccurately that the Jones Act had prevented foreign-owned, built, flagged and manned skimmers and other emergency response vessels from Gulf service.
BP (which was responsible for vessel procurement during the crisis), the U.S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency turned some foreign vessels away for reasons unrelated to the Jones Act, but this truth did not stop some members of Congress - including longtime Jones Act critic Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) - from filing Jones Act repeal legislation at the height of the emergency. Most of these bills were withdrawn in short order, and the others - including Sen. McCain's - gained no traction.
As we all know, official investigations and Congressional testimony have since confirmed that the Jones Act did not hinder the BP spill response.
Another example of the Jones Act as an all-too-easy political target came in the summer of 2011, when the administration waived the Jones Act 48 times to allow foreign-flagged tankers to carry oil drawn down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve between U.S ports, despite the ready availability of sufficient Jones Act tonnage to haul the crude. The administration had initially approved a blanket Jones Act waiver for the SPR shipments, but withdrew this waiver the next day in response to protests from U.S. maritime labor and industry.
Under the individual waiver strategy that replaced the comprehensive waiver plan, the Department of Energy used contrived capacity calculations that cut available Jones Act tankers and tank barges out of the equation. The waivers were driven not by a shortage of Jones Act tonnage, but by insufficient administrative commitment to the letter and spirit of the domestic shipping law. Congress has since made such administrative waivers more difficult to approve for the carriage of SPR crude.
More recently, there was concern that the shutdown of two refineries in Pennsylvania would result in a shortage of gasoline and other petroleum products in the Northeast, and that there may not be enough Jones Act tankers and tank barges to carry additional supplies of these petroleum products from the Gulf coast to the region.
This fear was driven in significant part by a February 2012 Energy Information Administration report suggesting inadequate Jones Act capacity for the Gulf-Northeast trade. However, it was learned that, in an apparent "error of omission," the EIA had not considered tank barges in its fleet tally. At this writing, the EIA was revising its report to address the Jones Act fleet accurately.
Late in March, Sen. McCain sensed another opening when he introduced four amendments to an energy bill that, at the time, appeared headed for floor consideration and debate. One of the McCain amendments would have repealed the Jones Act within 90 days, and the others would have waived Jones Act requirements in specific domestic energy and passenger vessel trades. But the Senate leadership limited the number of amendments that could be taken up with the measure, and Sen. McCain's initiatives were not among those allowed. The Senate later voted not to bring the energy bill to the floor.
Meanwhile, there are continuing calls to kill the Jones Act's "build American" mandate, and governments in Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam have not abandoned their demands for exemptions from Jones Act jurisdiction.
What made these developments even more troubling was the consistent silence from the Department of Transportation and its Maritime Administration, the only federal agency charged by law with promoting the privately owned and operated U.S. merchant fleet in all domestic and international trades. MARAD and DOT have in recent years been limp in defense of the fleet, and they long ago lost the confidence of U.S. seagoing unions and American merchant vessel operators.
This developing trend was enough to draw Rob Quartel, the leader of the failed Jones Act repeal movement of the 1990s, back into public view in January 2012. Quartel, a past member of the Federal Maritime Commission and a one-time Congressional candidate from Florida, told the Journal of Commerce that the U.S. maritime community appeared "bewildered by events of 2011 and fearful of those to come this year - that's exactly what they should be."
Whether Quartel expects to jump back into battle as frontman of a new Jones Act repeal coalition remains to be seen. But I do know that American Maritime Officers cannot afford to be complacent about the Jones Act, not with the many jobs our union has at stake in deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters domestic trade. I also know that AMO must never be forced from the Jones Act fight because we do not have the resources to defend our interests - I ask again that every AMO member and applicant for AMO membership join me in support of the AMO Voluntary Political Action Fund to the greatest possible extent.
As always, I welcome your comments, opinions and questions. Please feel free to call me on my cell at (202) 251-0349.