Talk:Merchant Marine Act of 1920

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brendorendo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is there not a lot more to the "Jones Act" than the "sailors rights" part? - Marshman 19:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I believe a major implication of the act is that only US Flagged ships can be used as transportation between US ports. I.e. a "foreign" ship cannot be used to move passengers, or freight, between NY and Boston. Today (Sept 1, 2005) President Bush mentioned that they are in the processes of waiving it in light of Hurricane Katrina damage to US energy infrastructure. Source: personal recollection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.59.254 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 September 2005

This article really needs to be split up into two articles because there are two separate Jones Acts--one of which deals with ownership of U.S. Flag Vessels and the other of which deals with Seamen's Personal Injuries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Sullivan (talk • contribs) 05:23, 9 October 2006

Not true. It's all part of the same "Merchant Marine Act of 1920". Though there is alot to the act that should be added to the article. You can read the full text (if you are into that sort of stuff) here. [1] Pjbflynn 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

^ This is correct. Mwroark (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

74.4.244.107 (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)This article has many sentences that are really dependent clauses that often begin with the word "Although." In some cases these should be joined to the previous or following sentence (depending on the context). In some cases, the word "although" should be eliminated altogether, turning the dependent clause into a full-fledged sentence. These floating clauses often make it difficult to understand what the article is saying.Reply

So, for starters, it doesn't make sense to say that "[Subject] is commonly referred to as [subject]." Also, it is commonly referred to as the Jones Act, as the first page on a Google search shows [2]. In nearly twenty years in the maritime trades, I've never heard it referred to as anything but Jones Act. Furthermore, as Jones Act redirects here, there must be at least some mention of the relevance. Pjbflynn 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Near the end of the article, there are two inconsistent paragraphs:

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to September 19, 2005. [1][2]

Pressure exerted by 21 agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, failed to secure a waiver following Hurricane Katrina. The groups contended that farmers would be harmed without additional shipping options to transport grains and oilseeds.[6]

I believe the first one is the accurate one, but I'm not an expert, so I won't change it.

Kenmaze (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

There was something in the article about the current BP Oil Spill cleanup being affected by the Jones Act. It was deleted. I suspect that the addition that was deleted may very well have been biased, but I'm too tired to research it.

However, I think that it is worthy of mention (not a deep discussion) that the conservative press (as personified by Fox News) is calling for a waiver of the Jones Act as a tool during the clean up operations. Then link to the full article on the Oil Spill Article. That would not be a biased addition to the article.

Stick in after the mention of the oil derrick waiver.

--Fredrik Coulter (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Posted 01:39, 30 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs)

"McCain Seeks Jones Act Repeal" Joseph Bonney | Jun 25, 2010 8:56PM GMT The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

Arizona senator cites Gulf oil spill, says law hurts consumers

Sen. John McCain introduced legislation to “fully repeal” the Jones Act, which he said is preventing non-U.S.-flag vessels from helping clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Arizona Republican said the 1920 law, which restricts domestic waterborne transportation to U.S.-flag, U.S.-owned ships crewed, built and owned by Americans, “hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers.”

McCain said the law restricts shipping and raises costs to consumers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam. He cited a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission Study that suggested Jones Act repeal would cut shipping costs in those markets by 22 percent.

He criticized the Obama administration for failing to temporarily waive the Jones Act to allow foreign-flag vessels to help with the cleanup from the BP rig explosion in the Gulf.

“Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21, the State Department has acknowledged that overall, ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters,” McCain said.

The Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a lobbying group representing Jones Act carriers, shipyards and dredgers, quoted the National Incident Command as saying that “no waivers of the Jones Act … have been required, because none of the foreign vessels currently operating as part of the BP Deepwater Horizon response has required such a waiver.”

The group said the State Department reported that offers from Mexican skimmers, Norwegian skimming systems and other assets from Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, have been accepted for work in international waters beyond three miles from shore. The cabotage task force said that if foreign-flag vessels are needed for cleanup within domestic waters, it would not oppose waivers to the Jones Act.

John McCain Introduces Legislation to Repeal the Jones Act posted at 8:31 pm on June 24, 2010 by Howard Portnoy Reference: http://www.mrplc.com/kb/index.php?article=31

Obstructionist has become one of Barack Obama’s favorite epithets, one that he hurls with alacrity at any Republican who opposes his radical agenda. When it comes to the Gulf oil leak, however, the man most deserving of that pejorative label is the president himself. Earlier this week, he shut down the dredging operation off the Gulf coast that was a first step toward implementing protective sand berms that would protect the coastline from the encroaching oil.

Last week Obama’s obstructionism took the form of refusing to waive the Jones Act, which was tantamount to rejecting offers of help with the cleanup from contractors in possession of some of the world’s most state-of-the-art oil skimming equipment. The reason for Obama’s reticence? The contractors in question were foreign. Waiving the Jones Act, which would allow non-U.S.-registered vessels entrée to American waters, would jeopardize the president’s tight relationship with labor unions, who favor the Jones Act and the protections it affords their members by excluding outside competition.

Now, mindful that with each passing day the amount of oil spewed into the Gulf increases, those obstructionist Republicans have decided that if president won’t do his job, they will do it for him. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), backed by several other senators, has introduced legislation to repeal the antiquated law, not just for time being but once and for all.

The bill, titled the Open America’s Waters Act, notes that the Jones Act hinders free trade and raises both shipping costs and the concomitant cost of goods passed on to the American consumer. In its most immediate form, of course, the law would expedite efforts to clean the badly polluted waters of the Gulf and speed up their restoration.

The Jones Act absolutely is irrelevant to the BP oil spill: USA Today: "GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help". That's a newspaper article, not an editorial, nor a non-reliable statement by a Republican senator (John McCain).

As to whether this belongs in the article, if it does, it belongs in the form of a couple paragraphs that claims were made and publicized (see, for example, http://mediamatters.org/research/201006150033 ) and are in fact untrue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bogus Complaint the Open America's Water Act? U.S. Senate Website U.S. Senator John McCain Arizona

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

“Today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

“This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact – maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

“The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers – particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ‘Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.’”

“This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21st, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

“The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel – just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina – to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

“Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.”

Reference: SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT June 25, 2010

View Bill

Reference: Open America’s Waters Act Bill

EAS10264 S.L.C. 111TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. ll To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on llllllllll A BILL To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open America’s 5 Waters Act’’. 6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF JONES ACT LIMITATIONS ON COAST7 WISE TRADE. 8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12112(a) of title 46, 9 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 2 EAS10264 S.L.C. 1 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A coastwise endorsement may be 2 issued for a vessel that qualifies under the laws of the 3 United States to engage in the coastwise trade.’’. 4 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commandant of 6 the United States Coast Guard shall issue regulations to 7 implement the amendment made by subsection (a). Such 8 regulations shall require that a vessel permitted to en9 gaged in the coastwise trade meets all appropriate safety 10 and security requirements. 11 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 12 (1) TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION STAND13 ARDS.—Section 3703a(c)(1)(C) of title 46, United 14 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Coast Guard 15 and is qualified for documentation as a wrecked ves16 sel under section 12112 of this title.’’ and inserting 17 ‘‘Coast Guard.’’. 18 (2) LIQUIFIED GAS TANKERS.—Section 12120 19 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by strik20 ing ‘‘United States,’’ and all that follows and insert21 ing ‘‘United States.’’. 22 (3) SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS.—Section 23 12121(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amend24 ed by striking ‘‘12112,’’. 3 EAS10264 S.L.C. 1 (4) LOSS OF COASTWISE TRADE PRIVILEGES.— 2 Section 12132 of title 46, United States Code, is re3 pealed. 4 (5) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections 5 for chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, is 6 amended by striking the item relating to section 7 12132.

--Seablade (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Coast Guard is claiming that the Jones Act applies only within the three-mile limit and therefore not to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[3] But I've looked through the entire act and no phrase equivalent to "three-mile limit" (or any other number of miles) appears. This would seem to be the operative section. It specifies "waters of the United States," not any particular number of miles. Note that according to this section, the Coast Guard cannot grant a waiver, not even in an emergency, unless the foreign country allows U.S. ships to operate in its waters. I doubt there were rules for skimmers in the 1920 version of the act, so this provision would seem to be a later addition. Kauffner (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a reliable source that says that the Coast Guard interpretation is incorrect, then feel free to include that information. But personal research, and conclusions, is something that Wikipedia editors are not to use in actually editing articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The act wanted to protect american shipowners, shipyards and other transport companies from international competition. The result is that coastwise traffic is trucked instead of shipped by sea. The US has no internationally operating merchant fleet (unless on charter by the government, which has to use expensive US-vessels if one is available) and has to rely on the MSLC for strategic transports. American commercial shipyards are practically not existing.

The US should get their legislation in line with international standards. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

i was told yesterday by a former merchant officer, that he now finds himself in the navy as a result of some provision of this act. if i recall correctly, the jimmy cagney character in 'mr. roberts' was in similar circumstances.

in any event i see no mention of such a provision in the article. an oversight? did i miss it? or was this guy blowing smoke?Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are several uncited or dead-link cited statements in the Criticism and Support sections. The sentence in the intro section that starts "As global trade increased..." is also uncited and feels a little heavy-handed. I'm going to tag the sections for citations, and if there's no updating, I'll clean them up in a couple weeks. Ipsherman (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why the insistence on reinserting this? Obviously it's easy to find politicians' comments supporting any protectionist measure - usually economically-illiterate soundbites about "support our industries ... create jobs" &c. - but it doesn't belong in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on adding it? This content poses a serious neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello...? Why is this awful content still in the article? bobrayner (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a protectionist political platform. If anybody can think of a good reason to restore any of that content, please say so... bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on reinserting this stuff? bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello...? Why is this awful content still in the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on adding it? This content poses a serious neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bobrayner, The view presented by editors when I came upon this article was a very negative and less than objective view of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. It is a U.S. law. Why insist on a criticism section without a section citing support. Apparently your idea of objective editing is to delete content that disagrees with your point of view. Your issue relating to unreliable sources is bogus. Who would be more qualified relating to facts about the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 than those that deal with it on a daily basis. The American Maritime Partnership represents a great many United States companies in the maritime industry that are familiar with all facets of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Both Criticism and Support may be subjective on some level. Certainly those that are familiar with the law and those affected by the law are entitled to present the facts in proper perspective. If you were concerned about the integrity of the article why did you allow the criticism section to remain while you constantly delete the support section. If there is room for criticism there must be room for support. The perspective may differ from yours but it is a valid perspective and the sources are reliable. CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 21:50 January 30,2014 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The criticism section is not a criticism at all. The article has nothing on the cost to consumers and increased shipping costs, increased cost of gasoline, disadvantages of protectionism, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjedgar (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because the alleged cost to consumers is not established, see GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-260 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohm monster (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

One of the primary, if not the primary, reason for the Jones Act is national security, yet, this aspect is not discussed. Overall the article is not balanced, but, adding a section about benefits to national security would make this article more accurate and balanced. See below for references regarding the national security benefits of the Jones Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:7:./temp/~c113iL5jJf:e1969403:(section 3503) http://www.marinelink.com/news/maritime-invest-china401119.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohm monster (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article might benefit from the following: [1] in the introduction, checking or revising the citation of the Act itself. Ref 2 cites 46. U.S.C. § 50101 et seq., but I don't see in Chapter 501 the anti-cabotage rules. Those rules are central to the Jones Act subject (and controversies). Q: revise the reference in the introduction? [2] Same as above for this article's section on Cabotage, and the main article of the same name. Isaclee (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC) edit byIsaclee (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Jones Act restrictions can be circumvented by making a stop in a foreign country between two US ports, e.g., Anchorage–Vancouver–Seattle."

This is incorrect, although there are loopholes this is not one of them, at least not this broadly. In 1893, Congress inserted into the coastwise trade statutes the language restricting foreign vessels from transporting goods “via any foreign port.” Act of Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 117, 27 Stat. 455 (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 55102(b) (2006)).

This was an attempt to close a loophole created by a pending Ninth Circuit decision, which ultimately held that a shipment of goods from New York to California by way of Belgium was outside the scope of the coastwise trade laws then in force. See United States v. 250 Kegs of Nails, 61 F. 410, 413 (9th Cir. 1894).

Mwroark (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm seeing a good deal of disagreement online about how this act applies to foreign-flagged ships arriving in Puerto Rico and was wondering if anyone could provide clarity on this issue.

According to an article in the NY Times today^[1] "Under the law, any foreign registry vessel that enters Puerto Rico must pay punitive tariffs, fees and taxes, which are passed on to the Puerto Rican consumer. The foreign vessel has one other option: It can reroute to Jacksonville, Fla., where all the goods will be transferred to an American vessel, then shipped to Puerto Rico where — again — all the rerouting costs are passed through to the consumer."

That is, the implication is that only Jones-act-eligible ships can move cargo to Puerto Rico without paying additional fees -- fees greater than they would incur shipping directly to the mainland US.

However, what I've read about the act is that it covers only the movement of products between US ports; in fact I've read that Puerto Rico almost exclusively uses Venezuelan oil because they don't have to use Jones-Act-eligible boats to move it.

Does anyone have special insight into this issue?

Secretlyironic (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did you read that Venezulan oil is free from jones-act eligible shipping to puerto rico? I have not seen that anywhere.Pannam1 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it is very important to note that the US VI is excluded from the Jones Act. I have added that exemption to this page. However it has been deleted? --Pannam1 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Merge from: Coastwise_shipping_lawsPannam1 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Obvious content fork. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seamens Rights. I believe my contribution and link is a suitable resource because it clearly states facts about the Statute of Limitations and who qualifies under the Jones Act.

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There's more to selecting a reference than "I wrote it" and "I think it's on topic." Arllaw (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)'Reply

It's not that "I think". This article didn't have anything about Statute of limitations before and who qualifies. How does my reference not apply when it clearly relates to the Merchant Marine Act and helps people identify who qualifies and when their claim is viable? Please explain.

The article has a quality reference about the SOL. To be clear, you are associated with the site, correct? And that is why you are trying to promote it, correct? Arllaw (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect, a family member is a seaman who was hurt. Had to do research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdank713 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is incorrect? Are you claiming that a family member created the site, and that you're merely promoting it for the family member? Are you claiming that you created the site on behalf of a family member? Why are you and/or this family member using the site as a lead promotion site for lawyers? Arllaw (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have a link to the British Navigation Acts, but no article about the earlier US Navigation Acts. There should be an article and a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article seems to be increasingly skewed toward opinion, and away from neutrality. The article could use considerable clean-up. Arllaw (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply