We mentioned that America's trading partners routinely target the Jones Act. It isn't only during trade negotiations, however, that the Jones Act becomes an issue. After the BP disaster, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in April of 2010, waivers under the Jones Act were sought so that foreign made equipment - oil skimmers, for example - could be used in the effort to contain the damage.
Today, there are some who believe the Jones Act is getting in the way of America's ability to make the most of its new-found strength as a global energy giant.
Mark Perry of the University of Michigan is one of those. You can find a summary of his position in his op-ed for the Detroit News "
Want Energy Independence? Waive the Jones Act." (Having recently taken the famous passenger train
The Empire Builder from Portland, Oregon, to Chicago, we know he is right about the back-up in the railroads from the oil trains. We'll leave any further judgment on Professor Perry's thesis for another time.")
But what about the Jones Act in today's trade agreements?
TPP. Our understanding, which could well be wrong, is that the Jones Act is not an issue in the TPP negotiations. There, it seems, the U.S. was able to keep it off the table.
T-TIP. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may be a different story. A while ago, the German newspaper
Die Zeit reportedly published a draft text of an EU T-TIP position that is aimed right at the Jones Act. We found this bootleg EU language in the March 21 issue of
West Coast Sailors:
"each Party shall grant to ships flying the flag of the other Party or operated by service suppliers of the other Party treatment no less favorable than that accorded to its own ships, with regard to, inter alia, access to ports, the use of infrastructure and services of ports, and the use of maritime auxiliary services, as well as related fees and charges, customs facilities and the assignment of berths and facilities for loading and unloading."
We cannot vouch for the authenticity of that language, but we would be surprised indeed if the EU is not attempting in some fashion to obtain the market opportunities in the U.S. that the Jones Act currently denies them.
We will finish this entry where we started, in Louisiana or more specifically with Louisiana's Congressional delegation and the people they represent. Senator Landrieu talked about the Jones Act and Mr. Bollinger talked about his company, Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. Neither of them talked about the two things together - at least not in the materials referenced here. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of an imagination to see a connection.
After listening to Mr. Bollinger's ad for Senator Landrieu, which is very well done, we visited the Bollinger Shipyard's website. It's impressive. The company and its 3,000 employees make an array of ships, from tugboats, to patrol boats for the Coast Guard and the Navy, to liftboats for mineral exploration. We had seen pictures of liftboats before and had always assumed they were permanent platforms. They are not. They are boats that can lift themselves out of the water.
Do Louisiana boat builders like Bollinger Shipyard need the protection of the Jones Act to continue? We don't know, but let's assume they do. And let's assume further that having companies making those kinds of vessels in the United States is indeed a good thing. That still leaves the question: Does the Jones Act today do more than it needs to do? Without losing the tangible benefits of the Jones Act to successful U.S. boat builders, is there a compromise out there that would allow specified foreign vessels to operate in U.S. waters and with less hassle? In short can the Jones Act be part of the great win-win result that both the U.S. and the EU hope to see from T-TIP?
To be continued ...
