- The Jones Act mandates that any goods shipped by water between two points in the United States must be transported on a U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-operated vessel.
- The Jones Act fleet is unable to provide the sealift or icebreaking capability needed by the U.S. Armed Forces.
- According to the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Jones Act significantly increases domestic maritime shipping prices, increasing costs for businesses and consumers.
- Repealing the Jones Act would reduce the cost of transporting energy by water because foreign-flagged ships could transport oil for an estimated one-third of the cost of U.S.-flagged ships.
- Repealing the outdated, protectionist Jones Act would promote competition, strengthen the economy, and benefit American consumers.
Source: Brian Slattery Policy Analyst, Defence and Security Studies
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy
See full report HERE
UPDATE April 2016
Kirk Moore comments on Jones Act
In Jones Act battle, it’s national security vs. free trade – See more here
Think tank analyst says Jones Act boosts inland security
- By Ashley Herriman
A recent item from Virginia public-policy think tank the Lexington Institute defends the Jones Act as a critical piece of the United States homeland security infrastructure.
The article, written by defense analyst Daniel Gouré, Ph.D., points to the Jones Act’s “most obvious [objective] to support a robust U.S. shipbuilding industry and merchant marine” by restricting a significant amount of traffic between U.S. ports to vessels built in the U.S. owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed largely by U.S. citizens.
Gouré, pointing to major coastal U.S. cities with ports that provide access to the extensive U.S. river system, refers to the act’s role in homeland security as “less well-appreciated but ever more important.”
As the effort to secure U.S. seaports and foreign cargoes is great to begin with, Gouré says that “it makes no sense to add to the burden facing domestic security agencies by allowing foreign-owned ships operated by foreign crews to move freely throughout America’s inland lakes, rivers and waterways.”
The crux of Gouré’s argument is about reducing risk, and he writes that the act provides a self-policing mechanism “that reduces the requirement for law enforcement and homeland security organizations to expend time and effort to ensure that these vessels and crews are safe to traverse U.S. waters.”
In its mission statement, the Lexington Institute lists the organization’s goal as “to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy.” National security and defense get a special mention: “By promoting America’s ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.”
A 2010 article (subscription) written by Ken Silverstein and published in Harper’s Bazaar questioned the Lexington Institute’s objectivity, pointing to the group’s ties to defense contractors.