![AMP Slams Erroneous Report Against ‘Outdated’ Jones Act AMP Slams Erroneous Report Against ‘Outdated’ Jones Act](https://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CMC-Texas-PetroleumTanker.jpeg)
AMP Slams Erroneous Report Against ‘Outdated’ Jones Act
The American Maritime Partnership is the demanding the retraction of what it says is an faulty report launched by an infrastructure lobbying group slamming the “outdated” Jones Act as a “protectionist policy” that will increase the price of items in locations like Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
The AMP says that the report, launched by the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (Aii) and titled “The Jones Act: Protectionism v Global Trade”, is riddled with errors and lists a number of claims which can be unsupported by info.
“The publication is littered with fabrications intended to mislead policymakers and we demand a retraction of the report,” mentioned Tom Allegretti, Chairman of AMP. “It is shocking that a nonprofit organization led by former senior members of the U.S. military would produce such a factually inaccurate report and take such a myopic view of an important national security issue. They have failed to even acknowledge the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, multiple 4-star generals leading USTRANSCOM, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Transportation, national security experts in the Congress, and many others have all stressed how critical the Jones Act is to national security.”
The AMP Chairman additionally advised that the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure ought to do a greater job of checking fundamental info earlier than issuing its publications.
Proving their level, the AMP truth checked a number of of the claims made within the report supposed to mislead coverage makers and diminish the significance of the Jones Act, which requires vessels travelling between two U.S. ports be U.S. constructed, owned and operated by principally American crew. In doing so, the AMP is in search of to set the document straight by correcting the greater than a dozen factual errors introduced within the Aii report:
CLAIM: There are “about six dozen Jones Act-qualified vessels” in operation.
FACT: There are roughly 40,000 vessels within the Jones Act fleet.
CLAIM: According to the report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has estimated that the Jones Act prices the nation $656 million yearly. (web page 4)
FACT: In fact, the ITC has utterly backed away from that estimate (made in 2002) and now says it can not calculate the price of the Jones Act, if any. The ITC modified its place after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the ITC’s findings and referred to as them “uncertain,” “undeterminable,” “incomplete,” and “unverifiable.”
CLAIM: The report asserts the GAO has discovered that “the price per gallon of gasoline [in Puerto Rico] is 15 cents per gallon higher … than it would be in the absence of Jones Act requirements.” (web page 6)
FACT: Actually, the GAO discovered there was no solution to estimate a “cost” of the Jones Act, if any, as a result of it was unattainable to know which American home commerce legal guidelines could be utilized to international transport corporations if the Jones Act had been repealed. The 15 cent determine cited by Aii exists nowhere within the GAO report.
CLAIM: Aii says “foreign ships must avoid [non-contiguous states and territories] if the continental U.S. is their ultimate destination.” (web page 3)
FACT: This declare is flatly flawed. The Jones Act solely pertains to the motion of home cargo between home ports. A international ship coming from a international port might drop off international origin cargo at non-contiguous states and territories even when the continental United States is the final word vacation spot.
CLAIM: Aii experiences it prices many extra instances to crew an American ship than a international ship. (web page 1)
FACT: This argument is misleading, evaluating apples to oranges. Foreign ships are usually not required to fulfill U.S. wage requirements and pays their crews third world wages and advantages (and regularly do). (A latest New York Times story described waiters on a international cruise vessel as “paid $50 a month plus tips and no benefits.”) Of course, American transport corporations pay extra for his or her American crews simply as any American home business pays greater labor prices than their rivals in third world industries.
CLAIM: The report says the Jones Act requires international shippers to convey their items to the mainland U.S. “where products are then offloaded and reloaded onto expensive vessels to be transported to [places like Hawaii and Puerto Rico] at substantially higher cost to consumers.” (web page 1)
FACT: This declare is totally flawed. There is not any requirement beneath the Jones Act, or anyplace else, that international shippers bypass the islands and reload their cargo on mainland vessels. Foreign transport corporations can ship international origin cargo on to Hawaii and Puerto Rico they usually do frequently. In truth, almost two-thirds of the vessels calling on Puerto Rico are international.
CLAIM: Aii asserts “imported oil must be carried on a U.S. flag ship if it makes more than one stop along the U.S. coast. Consequently, it becomes cheaper to export and more expensive to import…” (web page 3)
FACT: Wrong once more. A international tanker could make as many stops within the United States to ship international cargo because it needs.
CLAIM: The report states “it is not uncommon for foreign vessels to travel between Alaska and California, making a quick stop in British Columbia… This allows a vessel that does not meet Jones Act standards to avoid a waiver and still transport goods between U.S. ports.” (web page 5)
FACT: Incorrect. Such a motion could be unlawful. It is fake that it generally happens or that the Jones Act (or some other regulation) encourages such a transfer.
CLAIM: Aii describes the Jones Act transport business as “unchallenged by competition with no incentive to innovate.” (web page 7)
FACT: The home maritime business faces intense competitors amongst itself, international transport corporations, railroads, pipelines, vehicles, and airways. The result’s a extremely modern fleet that, with 40,000 vessels and an estimated 500,000 associated jobs, is the envy of the world. The home fleet is a world chief in innovation, from the invention of the transport container—referred to as the invention that “made the boom in global trade possible”—to the latest development of the world’s first LNG-powered containerships.
CLAIM: The report quotes a “Patrick Holland” for the info that Virgin Islands was exempted from the Jones Act in 1992 and “predictably the costs of shipping goods to the Virgin Islands from the mainland is now nearly half that of shipping to Puerto Rico.” (web page 6)
FACT: The report doesn’t present any foundation for these statements, and there doesn’t look like any examine or info of any variety backing up the information. (The report doesn’t even clarify who Patrick Holland is.) The assertion that the Virgin Islands’ transport prices is half as a lot is solely not true. Also, the Virgin Islands had been exempted in 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, not 1992.
CLAIM: Aii claims that as results of the Jones Act and the dearth of competitors, “the [U.S.] cargo fleet has slowly deteriorated.” (web page 1)
FACT: The American home fleet is 40,000 vessels sturdy and is the envy of the world. Over the final a number of years, the fleet has loved a shipbuilding renaissance—essentially the most important in a era. It can also be extremely modern, e.g., creating the primary self-unloading bulk carriers and the primary LNG-powered containerships. This error most likely represents confusion by the report writers with the U.S. flag worldwide fleet, which has decreased over time for quite a lot of causes that don’t have anything to do with the Jones Act.
CLAIM: The report’s mistaken premise is that the Jones Act is a hindrance to world free commerce.
FACT: What the report seems to overlook is that the Jones Act doesn’t contain world commerce. By definition, the Jones Act is proscribed to 100% U.S. home commerce—transportation between two factors within the United States. The report recommends permitting international crews to have interaction in 100% home commerce exterior of American legal guidelines, which isn’t allowed in any U.S. business; there is no such thing as a motive it must be allowed in transport. It would definitely save prices to permit international transport crews to function in U.S. home commerce at third world wages—as it will in refining or some other U.S. business—however no Congress is more likely to permit that any time quickly.
CLAIM: The report cites as truth a 2010 University of Puerto Rico examine “which concluded that the island economy loses approximately $537 million annually as a result of the Jones Act.” (web page 6)
FACT: The report didn’t point out {that a} 2013 GAO examine—by all accounts essentially the most detailed examine of the Jones Act ever performed in Puerto Rico or anyplace else—instantly contradicted this by saying such an estimate was not doable.
CLAIM: Aii takes the novel place that “the complexity of the issue alone should encourage revision [of the Jones Act].” (web page 6)
The Jones Act shouldn’t be complicated. Life with out the Jones Act could be way more complicated, because the Lexington Institute’s Dr. Daniel Goure famous, saying “[w]ere the Jones Act not in existence, DHS would be confronted with the difficult and very costly task of monitoring, regulating, and overseeing all foreign-controlled, foreign-crewed vessels in internal U.S. waters.” That would undoubtedly be complicated.