Section Front Front Page |
 |
|
Trade Unit Still Relies On Flawed Analysis Of Jones Act
| |||
|
The U.S. International Trade Commission has done it again.
In a recently released additional update of its 1991 import restraints
study, the ITC charged
anew that the 1920 Jones Act is a burden to U.S. consumers-but, once more,
it offered a
flawed analysis. The Jones Act reserves domestic waterborne cargoes for merchant vessels owned, built, documented and manned in the U.S. The law has been targeted for roll-back or repeal for more than four years, and Jones Act critics routinely cite the ITC's findings to justify such action. But, as the Maritime Cabotage Task Force noted in July, a glaring omission made the ITC update unreliable. The task force explained: "The report acknowledges the economic competitiveness of the U.S. barge industry, but continues to exclude it from its analysis because the 'inland trades would likely be competitive with a similar foreign vessel ... because a foreign vessel engaged in the inland trades would, necessarily, be required to comply with U.S. laws and regulations.'" Had the ITC considered "compliance with U.S. laws in the deep-sea trades-as it did in the inland trades- the cost differential would significantly disappear," the task force said. In the past eight years, the ITC has drawn widely disparate conclusions about the economic impact of Jones Act mandates. In its initial study, the ITC said the Jones Act cost consumers between $3.6 billion and $9.8 billion a year. Two years later, the ITC lowered the total to $3.1 billion. In 1995, the figure was put at $2.8 billion. The ITC's new finding set the cost at $1.3 billion. The Maritime Cabotage Task Force represents more than 400 sea, air, rail, and road industry and labor groups, including AMO. | |||
 | |||
|
