The Obama administration has come under fire for not waiving the "Jones Act," and thus preventing foreign ships from taking part in the BP oil spill cleanup. What is the Jones Act and is it really slowing down the cleanup process?
The Jones Act is actually the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, sponsored by Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington. Along with ensuring workers compensation rights for sailors working on U.S. ships, the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 regulates the use of ships registered to foreign countries in U.S. domestic trade.
The Act is intended to protect the U.S. merchant marine industry by requiring that all materials, goods or merchandise transported by water between U.S. ports (cabotage) be carried only on U.S.-registered ships that are built in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed completely by U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents.
While the legal necessity of waiving the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (a.k.a. the Jones Act), remains in question, doing so is supported by the American merchant marine industry.
"The American maritime industry supports immediate action to address the unfolding environmental disaster in the Gulf," stated the U.S. Maritime Cabotage Task Force in a press statement. "There are well-established federal procedures for waiving the Jones Act to bring in foreign vessels in those situations where American vessels are not available. The American maritime industry has not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis."
While it can be argued that the Jones Act applies only to commercial shipping - not to disaster response -- media coverage has created the impression that it is blocking hundreds of foreign ships from helping with the oil spill. That however, is not the case according to U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the man in charge of the federal government's response to the disaster.
In a June 10 press conference, Adm. Allen noted that foreign ships are already helping with the cleanup. "But we are using them," he said. "We are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and other places. Anyplace that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them, and we actually have, in some cases, actually transferred the equipment down and will continue to do that."
While he stated that if required, the Coast Guard would grant Jones Act waivers, Adm. Allen noted that "Nobody's come to me with a request."
Also See:
Government Looking for Crimes in BP Oil Spill
Mad About the Oil Spill? Read This Document
How to File a BP Oil Spill Claim
Comments
Hello,
I am Angela Rickson, I always read this site something everyday because I like its components and I get many advice after read you article. I tell to my other friends about this site. I hope you will read my this comment and you will remember me. i want you always make new articles like this.
Angelaric01
This article is misleading. The White House and the Coast Guard have said publicly that foreign ships trying to help in the gulf oil spill disaster were turned away. Fifty-seven days after the spill the Coast Guard finally announced procedures for applications to receive Jones Act waivers. White House records available at whitehouse.gov and union statements have clearly indicated strong union opposition to any Jones Act waivers, though the US finally permitted such foreign ships from helping almost eight weeks after the spill.
What follows a brief comment and question here, is the definition and details of the Jones Act.
After you read what it is, maybe you can explain just how waiving the Jones Act — thereby absolving BP of their responsibility and keeping US Oil Rig Workers from being able to get their just compensation from BP — would have sped up the clean up of BP’s mess?!
The JONES ACT:
The Jones Act permits injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their employment on a vessel.
As any seaman knows, a ship can be a very dangerous place to work.
The Jones Act reflects that reality of maritime work, and a seaman’s employer may be liable for even a small breach of duty which contributes to a seaman’s injury.
This is true, even where a seaman performs dangerous work while aware of the high risks involved in the work.
In addition to compensation for injuries cause by negligence, an injured seaman may also make a claim against the vessel’s owner on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy.
An employer may also be liable for failing to provide a seaman with adequate medical care.
Jones Act litigation seeks to recover damages for both past and future economic and non-economic losses.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/workers_comp/jones_act.html
If President Obama suspended the Jones Act OUR OWN Oil Workers could be prevented from getting just compensation from BP!
He’d have been tying the hands of the families who lost loved ones and tying the hands of this nation to hold BP accountable for the damages if he waived the Jones Act.
Has the president been asked about this publically?
Sister Veronica (4): Only through the State Department, which stated, “While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future.” And that’s where it stands today.
Robert
PJV,
you need to do a little more research. You only put a link to “part” of the Jones Act, not the entire thing! Please read the below link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
The oil spill estimate has increased 100x. The line from the government is and has been that they are meeting the needs of the situation. How can the needs be the same when the estimate of the amount of oil has increased by 100x? Is it possible that the goals set for skimming are based on the vessels legally allowed to operate under the Jones Act and not based on the amount of oil?
Testing123,
In saying this I am in no way defending governmental actions or statements;
Only the ‘estimate’ has increased, not the flow of oil from this well. (original independant estimations put the flow well above the CURRENT governmental estimate, much less the original)
As to the Jones act, it merely says you have to be a US ship to opperate between US ports.
Actually the Jones Act limits the transport of “merchandise” or passengers between 2 US posts or points (i.e. OCS drill rig/platform). As such it IS permitted to use a non-US vessel to skim oil more than 3 miles from the US shore. Please go to http://www.offshoremarine.org/images/stories/OMSAJonesActrelease_4_.pdf or http://www.offshoremarine.org/Jones-Act/The-Jones-Act.html for a more detailed explanation.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/
Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?
A: No to both questions. So far, offers from six foreign countries or entities have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver. . .
. . . Some critics have charged — falsely — that Obama’s refusal to waive the Jones Act has kept foreign vessels from assisting in cleanup efforts. In a June 23 interview on “Fox & Friends,” Republican Rep. Charles Djou of Hawaii was asked by show host Gretchen Carlson about the Jones Act and why the administration was refusing foreign assistance. . .
. . . Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Republicans, have also claimed that the Jones Act, which was temporarily lifted by President Bush after Hurricane Katrina, is now standing in the way of foreign vessels bringing assistance to the United States. They are both incorrect. . .
And the Cons want to pretend that it isn’t about Obama’s race.