“Your editorial "Trump Halts the Blockade of U.S. Ports" (May 6) almost got me excited about the potential of scrapping the 1920 Jones Act -- a "rusted-out hulk of a law" -- and developing "a maritime policy rooted in 21st-century realities," to quote the Cato Institute's Colin Grabow.
The law's goal of promoting national self-sufficiency in shipbuilding has been met with fleet shrinkage. It maintains a protectionist framework that harms businesses and consumers.
Regarding national security, the Defense Department relies heavily on global supply chains, buying weapons and components from foreign suppliers. Why not ships?
The temporary waiver is helping U.S. oil supply by allowing foreign vessels to deliver crude oil to domestic refiners. Under the Jones Act, it can be cheaper to ship crude oil from the Gulf Coast on a foreign flagged carrier, refine it in Europe and then ship the finished product to the U.S. East Coast. Talk about inefficiency. Think of what a total repeal would do for the price of oil and other commodities. If a law needs to be temporarily suspended every time there's a global crisis or major storm, perhaps the law is the problem.
I had the pleasure of working with the late Sen. John McCain, a staunch opponent of the Jones Act, on his quest for repeal. He couldn't overcome the opposition, including the powerful maritime unions, and called himself the patron saint of lost causes. That's why I almost got excited about permanent repeal -- the deck is stacked against us. But please run the editorial again in future editions; hurricane season is nearing.
Charlie Drevna
McLean, Va.
---
Your editorial is right that America faces real energy and supply-chain pressures as a result of the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. But waiving the Jones Act is the wrong response.
Washington warns of China's maritime dominance, yet the administration has opened domestic shipping routes to Chinese competition.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office last year concluded that China's unfair practices in shipbuilding and maritime logistics threaten American interests. Reuters reported that China's share of global shipbuilding has risen from about 5% in 2000 to over 50% today, while the U.S. share has fallen below 1%.
The Jones Act was designed to preserve a domestic maritime industrial base and a pool of American mariners available during war or national emergencies. Even many critics of the law concede that maritime capacity is tied to national security.
Supporters of the waiver argue it could reduce costs for fuel and other commodities. But the price effects are likely limited and temporary.
The law allows for specific voyage-based waivers when Jones Act vessels aren't available, but broad waivers that weaken domestic shipping while China expands its maritime dominance move the country in the wrong direction.
Garrett Rice
President, Master Boat Builders
Coden, Ala.” [1]
1. Is It Time to Abandon Ship on the Jones Act? Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 14 May 2026: A14.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą