![]() | This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative. |
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.
Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. Maritime industry,sources. [1]
In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.
The Jones Act, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), has long been regarded as a cornerstone of U.S. maritime policy. [2] It requires that all waterborne shipping between points in the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States, at least 75% owned by American interests, and manned by American citizens. [2] Its purpose is to ensure that the nation has a sufficient merchant marine and shipbuilding base to protect the nation's defense and commercial interests. [2]
The Jones Act can be referred to as a cabotage law, probably derived from the French caboter, meaning to sail coastwise or by the capes. [3] It was named after Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington, who was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee at the time. [2] This was not the first law protecting U.S. domestic shipping, but a restatement of legislation dating back to the first session of Congress. [2] Prior to World War I, the domestic merchant fleet operated under an 1817 law, An Act Concerning the Navigation of the United States, enacted by the 14th Congress. [2]
Debates of the Jones Act occur regularly in Congress. [2] Its critics claim it does not accomplish this goal and furthermore raises shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers and manufacturers less competitive. [2] Its supporters claim it is needed to foster a domestic shipbuilding base that is vital for national security. [2] Despite economic arguments against the Jones Act, efforts to repeal it have never succeeded. [2]
The United States has had Cabotage laws since Congress imposed a duty on cargo carried on foreign ships in 1789. [4] Less than thirty years later, foreign ships were banned from domestic commerce by the Navigation Acts of 1817. [4] The concept of cabotage was extended to include passenger ships in 1886. [4] Another key aspect of the Jones Act, that ships not only be US-owned, but also US-built entered into the body of law in 1905. [4] Current laws extend the concept of cabotage to require that dredging, towing, and salvage operations in US-waters are done by US vessels. [4]
It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine, and, in so far as may not be inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, in the disposition of vessels and shipping property as hereinafter provided, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained.
— Sec. 1. Purpose and policy of United States (46 App. U.S.C. 861 (2002)), MARAD
The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. Since 2006 it has been codified as portions of 46 U.S.C. ch.551 (Coastwise Trade). At least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels' hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight. [13] This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.
The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in 1920, formerly 46 U.S.C. § 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The Act formalized the rights of seaman (see: Seaman (Admiralty Law))
It allows injured sailors to obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the
shipowner, the
captain, or fellow members of the crew. It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by
railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at
46 U.S.C.
§ 688(a), which provides:
"Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply..."
This allows U.S. seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence. These are rights not afforded by common international maritime law.
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 ( 1995), has set a benchmark for determining the status of any employee as a "Jones Act seaman." Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act. An action under the Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The seaman/Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it.
Bulk Shippers. In general, bulk shippers are more likely to be affected by the Jones Act because their commodities have a lower value per unit cost which means the transport costs are a much higher portion of the total cost to the end user. [15]
Critics note that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is protectionism. [23]
Opponents contend that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. Ship operators are given an incentive to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage. In addition, U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. Subsequently, the claim is that U.S. shipbuilders have long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships.
A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in U.S. Shipping. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity. [24]
Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet. They claim that it makes it economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations with crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.
In June 2010, Sen. John McCain said that this law restricts shipping and raises costs to consumers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam. [25] His proposed legislation to fully repeal the Jones Act of 1920, [26] co-sponsored by Senator Jim Risch, was introduced to Congress as the Open America's Water Act on June 25, 2010, with the following statement:
"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". [27] [28]
If we did not have the Jones Act, cargo preference, the MSP program and Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) programs, I can assure you that it is unlikely that ships would remain under the U.S. flag. And the U.S.-citizen mariner pool needed for the Department of Defense in times of national emergency or war would simply disappear.
U.S. Maritime Administrator, Capt. William Schubert [29]
Pro-defense Groups. The strongest argument proponents of the Jones Act have to counter high cost accusations is its strategic defense necessity - the unstated role of the merchant marine as America's "fourth arm of defense." [21]
Supporters of the Shipping Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. The act, they say, protects the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. In addition, the act is seen as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships. [24]
Some proponents make the case that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American domestic sea lanes would be like letting a foreign automaker establish a plant in the U.S. which doesn't have to pay U.S. wages, taxes, or meet national safety or environmental standards. [34]
“America needs a strong and vibrant U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine. That is why you … can continue to count on me to support the Jones Act (which also includes the Passenger Vessel Services Act) and the continued exclusion of maritime services in international trade agreements.” Barack Obama, August 28, 2008
“I can assure you that a Reagan Administration will not support legislation that would jeopardize this long-standing policy ... embodied in the Jones Act ... or the jobs dependent on it.” President Ronald Reagan, 1980
The [Jones Act trailership] SS NORTHERN LIGHTS made 25 voyages and 49 port calls [to the Iraqi war zone]. She carried 12,200 pieces of military gear totaling 81,000 short tons and covering over 2 million square feet. Those statistics clearly demonstrate the value that the U.S.-flag shipping industry brings to the Defense Transportation System.” General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, Commander in Chief, U. S. Transportation Command, 2005
The Jones Act has been supported politically by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford, among others. It is supported by American military leaders, most recently in a statement by Lt. Gen. Roger Thompson, deputy commander in chief, U.S. Transportation Command. There also are 239 co-sponsors of a pro-Jones Act Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Reduced to its essential terms, the Jones Act simply requires companies operating in the domestic commerce of the United States to comply with U.S. laws. This requirement includes corporate taxes, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Coast Guard standards, employing American citizens, etc. American ships are subject to these laws and foreign ships are not. This same fundamental principle applies to every other company doing business in the United States, from agriculture to retail.
The Shipping Act also has support from the domestic airline, trucking, and rail industries.
Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case-by-case basis. Waivers have been granted in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company. [35]
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. [36] [37]
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean are exempt from provisions of the Jones Act because so little shipping goes to those ports that requiring American cabotage would cause hardship.[ citation needed]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |month=
, |separator=
, and |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
[[Category:1936 in law]] [[Category:United States federal admiralty and maritime legislation]]
![]() | This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative. |
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261) is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports.
Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. Maritime industry,sources. [1]
In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.
The Jones Act, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), has long been regarded as a cornerstone of U.S. maritime policy. [2] It requires that all waterborne shipping between points in the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States, at least 75% owned by American interests, and manned by American citizens. [2] Its purpose is to ensure that the nation has a sufficient merchant marine and shipbuilding base to protect the nation's defense and commercial interests. [2]
The Jones Act can be referred to as a cabotage law, probably derived from the French caboter, meaning to sail coastwise or by the capes. [3] It was named after Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington, who was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee at the time. [2] This was not the first law protecting U.S. domestic shipping, but a restatement of legislation dating back to the first session of Congress. [2] Prior to World War I, the domestic merchant fleet operated under an 1817 law, An Act Concerning the Navigation of the United States, enacted by the 14th Congress. [2]
Debates of the Jones Act occur regularly in Congress. [2] Its critics claim it does not accomplish this goal and furthermore raises shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers and manufacturers less competitive. [2] Its supporters claim it is needed to foster a domestic shipbuilding base that is vital for national security. [2] Despite economic arguments against the Jones Act, efforts to repeal it have never succeeded. [2]
The United States has had Cabotage laws since Congress imposed a duty on cargo carried on foreign ships in 1789. [4] Less than thirty years later, foreign ships were banned from domestic commerce by the Navigation Acts of 1817. [4] The concept of cabotage was extended to include passenger ships in 1886. [4] Another key aspect of the Jones Act, that ships not only be US-owned, but also US-built entered into the body of law in 1905. [4] Current laws extend the concept of cabotage to require that dredging, towing, and salvage operations in US-waters are done by US vessels. [4]
It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine, and, in so far as may not be inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, in the disposition of vessels and shipping property as hereinafter provided, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained.
— Sec. 1. Purpose and policy of United States (46 App. U.S.C. 861 (2002)), MARAD
The cabotage provisions restrict the carriage of goods or passengers between United States ports to U.S. built and flagged vessels. Since 2006 it has been codified as portions of 46 U.S.C. ch.551 (Coastwise Trade). At least 75 percent of the crewmembers must be U.S. citizens. Moreover foreign repair work of U.S.-flagged vessels' hull and superstructure is limited to 10 percent foreign-built steel weight. [13] This restriction largely prevents American shipowners from refurbishing their ships at overseas shipyards.
The U.S. Congress adopted the Merchant Marine Act in 1920, formerly 46 U.S.C. § 688 and codified on October 6, 2006 as 46 U.S.C. § 30104. The Act formalized the rights of seaman (see: Seaman (Admiralty Law))
It allows injured sailors to obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the
shipowner, the
captain, or fellow members of the crew. It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by
railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at
46 U.S.C.
§ 688(a), which provides:
"Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply..."
This allows U.S. seamen to bring actions against ship owners based on claims of unseaworthiness or negligence. These are rights not afforded by common international maritime law.
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 ( 1995), has set a benchmark for determining the status of any employee as a "Jones Act seaman." Any worker who spends less than 30 percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters is presumed not to be a seaman under the Jones Act. An action under the Act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court. The seaman/Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, a right which is not afforded in maritime law absent a statute authorizing it.
Bulk Shippers. In general, bulk shippers are more likely to be affected by the Jones Act because their commodities have a lower value per unit cost which means the transport costs are a much higher portion of the total cost to the end user. [15]
Critics note that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is protectionism. [23]
Opponents contend that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered as a result. Ship operators are given an incentive to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage. In addition, U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. Subsequently, the claim is that U.S. shipbuilders have long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships.
A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in U.S. Shipping. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity. [24]
Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet. They claim that it makes it economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations with crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.
In June 2010, Sen. John McCain said that this law restricts shipping and raises costs to consumers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam. [25] His proposed legislation to fully repeal the Jones Act of 1920, [26] co-sponsored by Senator Jim Risch, was introduced to Congress as the Open America's Water Act on June 25, 2010, with the following statement:
"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". [27] [28]
If we did not have the Jones Act, cargo preference, the MSP program and Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) programs, I can assure you that it is unlikely that ships would remain under the U.S. flag. And the U.S.-citizen mariner pool needed for the Department of Defense in times of national emergency or war would simply disappear.
U.S. Maritime Administrator, Capt. William Schubert [29]
Pro-defense Groups. The strongest argument proponents of the Jones Act have to counter high cost accusations is its strategic defense necessity - the unstated role of the merchant marine as America's "fourth arm of defense." [21]
Supporters of the Shipping Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. The act, they say, protects the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. In addition, the act is seen as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships. [24]
Some proponents make the case that allowing foreign-flagged ships to engage in commerce in American domestic sea lanes would be like letting a foreign automaker establish a plant in the U.S. which doesn't have to pay U.S. wages, taxes, or meet national safety or environmental standards. [34]
“America needs a strong and vibrant U.S.-Flag Merchant Marine. That is why you … can continue to count on me to support the Jones Act (which also includes the Passenger Vessel Services Act) and the continued exclusion of maritime services in international trade agreements.” Barack Obama, August 28, 2008
“I can assure you that a Reagan Administration will not support legislation that would jeopardize this long-standing policy ... embodied in the Jones Act ... or the jobs dependent on it.” President Ronald Reagan, 1980
The [Jones Act trailership] SS NORTHERN LIGHTS made 25 voyages and 49 port calls [to the Iraqi war zone]. She carried 12,200 pieces of military gear totaling 81,000 short tons and covering over 2 million square feet. Those statistics clearly demonstrate the value that the U.S.-flag shipping industry brings to the Defense Transportation System.” General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, Commander in Chief, U. S. Transportation Command, 2005
The Jones Act has been supported politically by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford, among others. It is supported by American military leaders, most recently in a statement by Lt. Gen. Roger Thompson, deputy commander in chief, U.S. Transportation Command. There also are 239 co-sponsors of a pro-Jones Act Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Reduced to its essential terms, the Jones Act simply requires companies operating in the domestic commerce of the United States to comply with U.S. laws. This requirement includes corporate taxes, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Coast Guard standards, employing American citizens, etc. American ships are subject to these laws and foreign ships are not. This same fundamental principle applies to every other company doing business in the United States, from agriculture to retail.
The Shipping Act also has support from the domestic airline, trucking, and rail industries.
Requests for waivers of certain provisions of the act are reviewed by the United States Maritime Administration on a case-by-case basis. Waivers have been granted in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. For instance, declining oil production prompted MARAD to grant a waiver to operators of the 512-foot Chinese vessel Tai An Kou to tow an oil rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The jackup rig will be under a two-year contract to drill in Alaska's Cook Inlet Basin. The waiver to the Chinese vessel is said to be the first of its kind granted to an independent oil-and-gas company. [35]
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. [36] [37]
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean are exempt from provisions of the Jones Act because so little shipping goes to those ports that requiring American cabotage would cause hardship.[ citation needed]
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |month=
, |separator=
, and |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
[[Category:1936 in law]] [[Category:United States federal admiralty and maritime legislation]]