THERE are so many false stories being spread about what the government is not doing dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf, this story from Mother Jones and the one from McClatchy Newspapers sets the record straight on the Jones Act.
Have you heard of the Jones Act? Unless you read Newsmax and listen to a lot of right-wing radio, probably not. It's an obscure statute that's been on the books since 1920, and it requires all shipping between U.S. ports or in U.S. coastal waters to be carried in U.S.-flag ships that are owned and crewed by U.S. citizens.
So why are conservatives suddenly up in arms about it? Because, they claim, it's a labor-inspired rule that's obstructing aid to a Gulf Coast being ravaged by the BP oil spill. Why, if only President Obama would stand up to the union bosses and grant a waiver to the rule, we could get help from the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Belgians, and all the other countries that desperately want to help but are being kept away. Sarah Palin got the ball rolling on this meme a couple of weeks ago when she said, "It’s amazing to
me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn’t thought to do that yet?" It's been a right-wing talking point ever since.
This is, as it happens, entirely false. No waivers have been requested yet because so far none have been needed. The Jones Act doesn't apply to vessels like oil skimmers that would be used in coastal areas, and the world's largest skimmer, a converted Taiwanese supertanker, is in the Gulf and will begin operations soon. It doesn't apply at all more than three miles off the coast, where the spill itself is taking place. There are, it turns out, over a dozen foreign flagged ships helping out with spill operations. "To date," reports FactCheck.org, "25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others." Only one offer has been declined.
Not surprised? Me neither. But I was pleasantly suprised by this headline on a Jones Act story distributed on Wednesday by McClatchy:
That statute, established in 1920, requires that all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built and U.S.-owned ships crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Critics say that's needlessly excluded foreign-flagged vessels that could have helped.
"It's a little shocking to me that a president that has such a multinational orientation as this president didn't immediately see the benefits of waiving the Jones Act and allowing all of these resources to come in," former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said in remarks to Newsmax.com, a conservative website.
Armey and the other Republican critics are wrong. Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn't an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn't blocked anything.
"Totally not true," said Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of U.S. shipbuilders, operators and labor unions. "It is simply an urban myth that the Jones Act is the problem."
In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he'd received "no requests for Jones Act waivers" from foreign vessels or countries. "If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don't require a waiver," he said.
On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11,and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.
FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website operated by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, analyzed claims that failure to waive the Jones Act is blocking foreign-flagged vessels from assisting in the Gulf. It concluded last week that "In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts."
The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a news release June 15 that 15 foreign-flagged ships were participating in the oil spill cleanup, FactCheck.org said. "None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply," it said.
That hasn't stopped conservatives from making the act a talking point to criticize Obama. James Carafano, a foreign policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center, suggested on Fox News that labor unions are pressuring the Obama administration not to waive the act.
"They hate it when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound politicians when they do that," Carafano said. "So is this a question of we're giving in to unions and not doing everything we can or is there some kind of impediment we don't know about?"
Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts "ridiculous."
"It is offensive for anyone to suggest that American maritime labor would hinder cleanup operations in the Gulf, in any way, shape or form," Sacco said in a statement on the union's website. "Speaking with one voice, U.S maritime labor and management have said that we wouldn't try to stand in the way of using foreign-flag assistance if no qualified, viable American-flag tonnage was available."
Some Democrats and union officials say that Republicans are trying to use the Gulf spill to kill what conservatives consider a protectionist law that hurts businesses. McCain introduced a bill last week to repeal the Jones Act, noting the emergency in the Gulf. He also touted the economic benefits of doing away with the act.
"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," McCain said. "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."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said the attacks on the Jones Act smacked more of "pushing a political agenda than any genuine interest in helping Gulf coast communities with their cleanup. We are already at the mercy of foreign competitors when it comes to oil; we should not add shipping to that list," he said two weeks ago.
Have you heard of the Jones Act? Unless you read Newsmax and listen to a lot of right-wing radio, probably not. It's an obscure statute that's been on the books since 1920, and it requires all shipping between U.S. ports or in U.S. coastal waters to be carried in U.S.-flag ships that are owned and crewed by U.S. citizens.
So why are conservatives suddenly up in arms about it? Because, they claim, it's a labor-inspired rule that's obstructing aid to a Gulf Coast being ravaged by the BP oil spill. Why, if only President Obama would stand up to the union bosses and grant a waiver to the rule, we could get help from the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Belgians, and all the other countries that desperately want to help but are being kept away. Sarah Palin got the ball rolling on this meme a couple of weeks ago when she said, "It’s amazing to
me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn’t thought to do that yet?" It's been a right-wing talking point ever since.This is, as it happens, entirely false. No waivers have been requested yet because so far none have been needed. The Jones Act doesn't apply to vessels like oil skimmers that would be used in coastal areas, and the world's largest skimmer, a converted Taiwanese supertanker, is in the Gulf and will begin operations soon. It doesn't apply at all more than three miles off the coast, where the spill itself is taking place. There are, it turns out, over a dozen foreign flagged ships helping out with spill operations. "To date," reports FactCheck.org, "25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others." Only one offer has been declined.
Not surprised? Me neither. But I was pleasantly suprised by this headline on a Jones Act story distributed on Wednesday by McClatchy:
GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf helpOne of the reasons that conservatives get away with mendacious memes like this one is because the media rarely calls them out directly on it. When it came up on Meet the Press last weekend, for example, David Gregory's response was "Mm-hmm," and it was left to Rep Ed Markey (D–Mass.) to explain why the charge was baseless. So three cheers to the heroic but anonymous copy editor at McClatchy who read William Douglas's story and didn't try to fudge things. It's a false talking point, full stop, and it's nice to see someone in a mainstream organization say so plainly.
GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help
By William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — From former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to Arizona Sen. John McCain to junior members of the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of failing to do all he can to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill because he hasn't waived a U.S. maritime law called the Jones Act.That statute, established in 1920, requires that all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built and U.S.-owned ships crewed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Critics say that's needlessly excluded foreign-flagged vessels that could have helped.
"It's a little shocking to me that a president that has such a multinational orientation as this president didn't immediately see the benefits of waiving the Jones Act and allowing all of these resources to come in," former House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, said in remarks to Newsmax.com, a conservative website.
Armey and the other Republican critics are wrong. Maritime law experts, government officials and independent researchers say that the claim is false. The Jones Act isn't an impediment at all, they say, and it hasn't blocked anything.
"Totally not true," said Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of U.S. shipbuilders, operators and labor unions. "It is simply an urban myth that the Jones Act is the problem."
In a news briefing last week, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said he'd received "no requests for Jones Act waivers" from foreign vessels or countries. "If the vessels are operating outside state waters, which is three miles and beyond, they don't require a waiver," he said.
On Tuesday the State Department announced that new offers of aid would be accepted from 12 foreign countries and international organizations, but spokesman P.J. Crowley noted that booms donated by Mexico, Norway and Brazil had been in use since May 11,and that 24 foreign vessels from nine foreign countries already have been helping with the cleanup.
FactCheck.org, a nonprofit website operated by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, analyzed claims that failure to waive the Jones Act is blocking foreign-flagged vessels from assisting in the Gulf. It concluded last week that "In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts."
The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a news release June 15 that 15 foreign-flagged ships were participating in the oil spill cleanup, FactCheck.org said. "None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply," it said.
That hasn't stopped conservatives from making the act a talking point to criticize Obama. James Carafano, a foreign policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center, suggested on Fox News that labor unions are pressuring the Obama administration not to waive the act.
"They hate it when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound politicians when they do that," Carafano said. "So is this a question of we're giving in to unions and not doing everything we can or is there some kind of impediment we don't know about?"
Michael Sacco, the president of the 80,000-member Seafarers International Union, called claims of organized-labor interference in the cleanup efforts "ridiculous."
"It is offensive for anyone to suggest that American maritime labor would hinder cleanup operations in the Gulf, in any way, shape or form," Sacco said in a statement on the union's website. "Speaking with one voice, U.S maritime labor and management have said that we wouldn't try to stand in the way of using foreign-flag assistance if no qualified, viable American-flag tonnage was available."
Some Democrats and union officials say that Republicans are trying to use the Gulf spill to kill what conservatives consider a protectionist law that hurts businesses. McCain introduced a bill last week to repeal the Jones Act, noting the emergency in the Gulf. He also touted the economic benefits of doing away with the act.
"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," McCain said. "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."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, said the attacks on the Jones Act smacked more of "pushing a political agenda than any genuine interest in helping Gulf coast communities with their cleanup. We are already at the mercy of foreign competitors when it comes to oil; we should not add shipping to that list," he said two weeks ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment