Feds Allow Single Foreign Ship To Deliver Fuel to Hurricane-Ravaged Puerto Rico
It’s only one vessel, but the U.S. domestic shipping cartel, protected by the awful Jones Act, is screaming about it.

On Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced that the federal government would approve a "temporary and targeted" waiver of the Jones Act to allow a single foreign ship laden with diesel oil to dock there.
As Florida is getting battered by Hurricane Ian, Puerto Rico is still reeling from the effects of Hurricane Fiona. Ten days after that hurricane's passage, hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans are still without power.
Complicating Puerto Rico's ability to recover is the Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. This deliberately protectionist federal law requires that any ships that transport goods between U.S. ports be American-made from an American-owned company and crewed by Americans. There are fewer than 100 such ships. It shields American domestic maritime shippers from foreign competition. By its very nature, it also drives up the prices of goods in far-flung parts of America like Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii. It also makes a crisis situation like a natural disaster worse because it limits who is legally permitted to assist these areas.
And so, a BP ship full of fuel to supply the country with power could not legally dock in Puerto Rico because it had already previously stopped in a Texas port. Many public officials and even some members of Congress had been asking DHS to provide blanket waivers allowing foreign ships to assist in resupplying the country. But as Reason noted on Tuesday, the Jones Act was recently amended to actually make it even harder for the federal government to give blanket permission for foreign ships to travel from port to port, even in a time of great crisis. DHS had to analyze the situation and determine that Jones Act–approved vessels were not sufficient to meet current needs and provide limited targeted waivers for specific ships.
That's what happened Wednesday. "In response to urgent and immediate needs of the Puerto Rican people in the aftermath of Hurricane Fiona, I have approved a temporary and targeted Jones Act waiver to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico have sufficient diesel to run generators needed for electricity and the functioning of critical facilities as they recover from Hurricane Fiona," Mayorkas announced.
He then insisted that the Jones Act is "vital to maintaining the strength of the American shipbuilding and maritime industries," the company line in the Biden administration, which implies that it's apparently government policy to drive up prices of goods for American consumers in order to benefit a much smaller number of people in the maritime industry. It's anti-competitive cronyism, plain and simple.
Remarkably, the maritime industry loudly resisted even this single ship getting a waiver. The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) put out a press release Wednesday claiming to "debunk" the need for a waiver and that Puerto Rico's shipping needs were being met, despite the governor of Puerto Rico begging the federal government to provide waivers.
The release contains this remarkable and completely shameless quote from AMP President Ku'uhaku Park that is worthy of some fisking: "This stunt by a foreign oil company showing up unannounced in Puerto Rico while on its way overseas hoping to sell its fuel at a premium to Puerto Ricans in need, and thereby triggering a public and political rush to judgment, is bad precedent, a circumvention of U.S. law, and should never be tolerated. American Maritime is dedicated to Puerto Rico and while foreign oil traders seek to line their pockets at the expense of the Puerto Rican people, we will always be committed to our fellow citizens, including our own employees and their families, in Puerto Rico."
So, according to AMP, there is no shipping crisis in Puerto Rico that justifies Jones Act waivers. The release is full of quotes insisting that goods from Jones Act ships are getting to Puerto Rico just fine and that supply chain problems are happening due to land transportation issues. While there's no doubt that there are all sorts of supply chain logistics problems in responding to the hurricane, AMP's insistence that there isn't a shipping problem is contradicted by Park's own words, claiming that this foreign company is attempting to "sell its fuel at a premium to Puerto Ricans in need." He amazingly goes on to complain about the foreign oil traders who "seek to line their pockets at the expense of the Puerto Rican people" by, you know, selling them fuel they need to turn their lights back on.
How is this at the expense of the Puerto Rican people? It's complete gibberish attempting to deflect attention away from the cruelty of the anti-competitive practices that financially benefit Park (who is an executive at American shipping company Matson). This ship can't be "taking advantage" of Puerto Ricans unless there is a shortage of available fuel that would drive up prices. And if that's the case, then AMP's insistence that the island is already getting shipped what it needs is not accurate.
This concept that certain companies should be able to control whether their competition is allowed to operate is reminiscent of the loathsome, anti-competitive "Certificate of Need" license regulations that plague the health care industry and drive up prices.
Eric Boehm and others have critiqued these laws here at Reason. Certificate of Need programs put government-mandated limits on health services and equipment by essentially giving health industry incumbents the power to prevent competitors from expanding what they provide. In Virginia, the state's Certificate of Public Need law was used to stop a hospital in Salem from building specialized neonatal care facilities that just so happen to be offered by a nearby hospital in Roanoke. Despite support by the citizens of Salem, the state balked due to objections by representatives of the nearby hospital. Officials decided that the care unit simply wasn't "needed" and rejected the license. What the people of Salem wanted and what the marketplace could support was irrelevant to the decision.
And, of course, it gave the other hospital a local monopoly on certain health services, just as the Jones Act gives a small number of shipping firms a monopoly on domestic shipping between U.S. ports. Park is telling the government and the people to ignore market signals, ignore what people in Puerto Rico say they need, and trust him and his buddies to decide whether the island truly needs other ships to come.
It's like if Pizza Hut had the legal power to decide what companies can deliver food to your house. Perhaps instead of being allowed to enjoy Kung Pao chicken in the comfort of your home, Pizza Hut would decide that what you really "need" is more pizza.
Mayorkas was right to give the ship a waiver. The Jones Act is a plague on the marketplace that really needs to be purged.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Solution: independence.
Fuel? Shouldn't the Puerto Ricans be utilizing wind power?
Indeed. Then they would welcome hurricanes for all the wind power they generate.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-06) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Why does Reason support cheap, foreign labor replacing American jobs? Merchant marines make decent money. Allow foreigners to steal those jobs and like any other occupation overrun by foreigners the pay will drop dramatically. May as well say goodbye to our merchant marine fleet. Talk about national security. It's worse than letting illegal immigrants steal jobs in the city. Fucking Reason. Always against America.
Poor sarc. Broken beyond repair.
Because everyone would benefit from cheaper stuff if the market set wages, and people who wanted to earn more would train for more highly paid careers?
Build your own Puerto Rican shipping cartel. No, seriously. There is literally nothing stopping you. There's probably a pile of money sitting around here somewhere waiting to be thrown at you for all the diversity hires.
Seriously Reason, just like ENB and Roe v. Wade, you haven't taken a cursory glance at what would actually happen if the Jones Act were repealed have you?
https://magazines.marinelink.com/nwm/MaritimeReporter/202009/#page/16
As an akshual libertarian I don't give a ship who owns it.
80% of the *world's* *maritime* coastline is subject to some form of cabotage law. How much of it do you own? Even as a libertarian, you should be able to grasp the coast/port owner regulating their property as they see fit.
Except the government doesn't own the coast or the ports.
*sigh*
Jesus fucking christ! Did TDS eradicate is/ought from the collective consciousness? Is that *your* authoritative opinion or the people that actually own 80% of the world's coastlines? My guess is some portion of the 80% significantly different from 0 appreciates not having pirates operating out of their back yard.
Pirates disappeared as society grew wealthier. Why do you think pirates infest poor coasts in spite of rich country warship patrols?
Why do you think pirates infest poor coasts in spite of rich country warship patrols?
Pablo Escobar could probably paint a more complete picture than I can but, because it's much faster, cheaper, and easier to regulate the ports than it is to sail around the ocean looking for pirates. Especially when the ports don't want to be involved with legally-unenforceable blood trade.
Holy shit you people are retarded.
I mean, Holy Fuck, imagine promising that the repeal of the Jones Act would fix cabotage in PR and Guam only to discover that it meant you had to shake out the citizenship of every ship building company's shareholders before the ship would be allowed in and, even then, the port would/could (still) be obligated to tax goods foreign goods on those ships more than domestic goods.
O/T - Well that worked out well.
First Openly Transgender Army Officer Indicted for Trying to Give Soldiers’ Medical Info to Russia
Holy shit what a fucking train wreck to larger narratives too:
"here, have a hipaa violation. leave my transgender officer spouse out of it."
"The Same FBI That Catches Johns Hopkins Anesthesiologist Selling Secrets To Russians Still Being Outsmarted By Trump"
Also, the spouse was knowingly involved, just, apparently not to the same, insane "I pledge my allegiance to Vladimir Putin." degree.
my scenario was a hopeful purchase of his exclusion lol.
also I can't believe someone didn't cover this up @Flowers By Irene how can the feds let such a historic hire fail?
Transgender, transcountry, transcitizen, what's the difference?
How about removing the sugar tariffs so we can get real pop again?
Dr. Pepper made with real sugar is twice as amazing as the stuff with corn syrup.
Funny – Reason reports on something which goes against the most basic of libertarian ideas and most of the posters here prefer the strictly-regulated market status quo, almost as if they hold positions based on who the parties are rather than the principles involved.
Wrong.
Unfortunately, many of the posters are not libertarians.
Indeed - they're "us v them" right-wingers.
TL,DR: Acknowledging or pointing out Gell-Mann Effect does not make one anti-libertarian, quite arguably, the opposite.
The acknowledgement of the state of the chessboard, the rules of chess, the skill of the players, or even the opposition to any given move or tactic should not be construed with opposition to the goal of winning.
See above, just as with Roe v. Wade, repealing the Jones Act doesn't automatically repeal all US maritime trade regulation back to before the second bill passed by the First Congress (which regulated who owned ships in American ports). Moreover, Reason has repeatedly demonstrated a level of ignorance about the issue that borders on "Now which way can we move this pointy guy?" Overtly and explicitly calling for the US to adopt more EU-like cabotage rules when, if parallels were drawn literally, accurately, or in any way sensible would mean that someone from NV couldn't deliver to more than 3 locations within CA every 7 days.
It's not about a blanket repeal, it's about coming up with something that is better than the current and indefensible state of affairs
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-02] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/