The creation of the Maritime Security Trust Fund, akin to the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds, provides a dedicated and sustainable financial backbone for our maritime infrastructure. This fund will support a multitude of critical programs—from the revitalization of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies to the expansion of the Tanker Security Fleet and the establishment of a Strategic Commercial Fleet.
If you want to read the full Act, read to the end of the article, there’s a link to it there. But if you can’t be bothered to read the whole article, you probably are not inclined to read a 350 page Senate bill.
2 Likes
I would guess most people barely read anything when signing a quarter/half million dollar contract when buying their home or 10Q’s/10K’s that their retirement accounts are tied up in. Safe to say it will only be 1%'ers who read the whole 344 pages of this bill. I probably won’t either but I’ve downloaded it & started skimming through it already. gCaptain’s editorial board endorses it & apparently gCaptain CEO help create it. Since I probably won’t read the whole thing I’ll go with the opinions of “experts” I trust & will send emails to my Congressman/Senator when appropriate.
Here’s the link to the bill.
Skimming it - love this part - great for US sailors -
In order to increase the fleet rapidly, carriers may also submit a bid to bring a foreignbuilt vessel into the fleet and reflag it. This vessel may serve as an “interim vessel,”
meaning it remains in the fleet only until it can be replaced by a U.S.-built vessel, or it
may serve in the fleet under a full-term operating agreement. However, foreign-built
vessels other than “interim vessels” shall not be allowed to enter the fleet after fiscal
year 2029.
1 Like
Only love this part if it requires a FIRM order to build the replacement vessel in a US yard as an integral part of the waiver.
While I agree with you on this, it seems a little disingenuous coming from you based on your record of posts here being more pro-Cato Institute than pro-US labor.
I would opine that the real reason you love it is because it would be the first successful softening of the Jones Act and hope it leads to more sliding down that slippery slope.
2 Likes
How about they work on getting the mariners they already have the proper paperwork so they can actually go to work in a timely manner? No? Ok cool.
9 Likes
Yes, my JA issue has always been the US build requirement. Which at least IMO has been single biggest reason behind the decline of US flagged shipping.
I want more bottoms, for more US sailors. Again IMO the real strategic weakness is lack of qualified sailors in time of emergency- not steel.
And, in general, I always feel slippery slope arguments are fallacious. It’s in many cases the argument you make when you don’t have any other better one.
6 Likes
Several countries have cabotage laws for domestic shipping, but no other maritime nations have a “build national” law, nor rules and regulations that absolutely require ships to be built at local shipyards, even for domestic trade.
Even the 3 leading shipbuilding nations; China, South Korea and Japan imports foreign built ship, new or second hand.
If the reason for the “US-built” requirement is national security, why does it only apply for domestic trade?
Most vessels used in US domestic trade has no military usage and most US-flag ships in international trade is NOT US built.
If the purpose is to have sufficient qualified US mariners to crew ships in the reserve fleet in case of war, wouldn’t it be better to have MORE US-flagged ships in international trade that would be both military useful, operational and manned by qualified Americans, regardless of where they are built?
US shipyards are only building a few commercial ships of a type and size that is militarily useful very year (In 2022 U.S. shipyards collectively built 5 ships)
Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12534
PS> Even those are mostly of foreign design, equipped with foreign machinery and major equipment, built at mostly foreign owned US shipyards.
6 Likes
I’m not speaking “in general”, I’m referring specifically to the issue of weakening the Jones Act.
If the US build requirement for ocean going sized ships was removed, then US shipyards of that capacity would go out of business immediately.
Once that happens, the whole purpose of the Jones Act is moot. At that point, people like you will say ‘well, if we don’t have the ability to build our own ships, then why do we need all this high priced/first world labor on the ships?’
‘No problem’ you say… ‘We’ll just have Korea and (3rd world country of choice) build and man our ships. I’m sure China will allow Korea to still build and export sea lift ships to the US once the shooting starts.’
THAT’S my argument. Let’s hear yours about how increasing next quarter’s profit is more important than maintaining the ability to build ocean going ships domestically.
3 Likes
In order to give the domestic yards work during times of peace.
Yes it would. Due to high costs of first world labor, this won’t happen without an incentive program. This is the purpose of the MSP and TSP programs.
That’s correct. It is instructive to look at the other western countries that have gone down this path of gutting their domestic shipbuilding capacity and what it led to with respect to their domestic sea going jobs and merchant marine as a whole. They are completely dependant upon external sources for any sealift needs.
Not relevant to the US as those nations (as you point out) have robust ability to build domestically if those outside sources are cut off.
Examples of what you’re referring to please. Jones Act tankers, container ships, and con-ro vessels would ABSOLUTELY be militarily useful in time of war.
Which is enough to keep them in business, which is the point. Without the Jones Act, they would build zero per year because there would be no such thing as a US shipyard (of that size).
3 Likes
Absolutely disgusting that Konrad is so far up Cato’s ass that he endorses this weakening of the Jones Act, but that’s our reality.
2 Likes
Back to what’s in this law, I could actually support this ‘interim ship’ provision AS LONG AS it is coupled with a firm, binding, cash on the table contract to build the replacement vessel in a US yard. It serves to get the ball rolling for the next new US built hull.
Personally, I’d like to see that the interim vessel is actually owned (not chartered) by the company applying for the waiver. This would require some buy in by that owner. The govt could then have a option to buy the interim vessel (after newbuild delivery) for placement in the reserve fleet.
Double benefit: work for US yards and renew our ancient reserve fleet.
4 Likes
This was my biggest criticism so far of the bill. It seems like a leaves a big loophole for companies like ARC or Sealift to continue to flag in shitty foreign built hulls at the end of their life and run them into the ground. If there’s a way to force their hand and have them build US hulls I am all for it.
This is a great idea that I’m sure most people haven’t thought about. If there’s no financial responsibility to build a US hull within a couple years then it opens the door for a lot of foreign owners to make a lot of money with out any chance of loss and get out. Even a few JA compliant ships working now are foreign ownered (quietly).
1 Like
Couple of points- I have no idea how anyone can support the current US build requirement, that has been in effect for ever, and by any objective measure has been a miserable failure. Something has to change.
Secondly, I have zero issues with direct us government support us yards. If shipbuilding is a strategic asset, than make that case to the public, fund it directly
3 Likes
Which ones?
False. The objective measure of its success is the fact that without it, the number of large US shipyards would = 0. With it, the number of large US shipyards is > 0. Which is the whole point of the domestic build portion of the JA.
Now… Can it be improved? Are there better ways of accomplishing the goals of the JA? Sure, I’m open to that discussion (see above).
I just ask that you please drop the charade that you give a shit about any of the factors involved here other than what’s good for whatever business it is you represent; ESPECIALLY trying to say you’re ‘pro mariner/maritime labor’. It’s as transparent and ridiculous as it is insulting.
“Encourage and incentivize military recruiters to recommend the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration to potential recruits who do not qualify for military service in the Armed Forces”
Hahaha who the hell put this line in the law! So MARAD is going to have a bunch of idiot workers who can’t even make it into the military?
The law looked a little promising but yikes idk. I’ll have to read the whole thing.
2 Likes
The more and more I read this law there’s more things I read that I absolutely hate. It might hurt the people within the industry than help.
For example they want to permanently reduce the seatime for AB unlimited from 3 years to 18 months!
But no seatime May be needed at all because you can substitute it if you graduate from a “nautical school program approved by the secretary”!
What the hell is the point of being an Ordinary Seaman if they are going just give everyone the Able- body seaman endorsment?
There’s no changes to the engine side endorsement of things where there is a bigger shortage of mariners?
How about allowing certified diesel mechanics/ heavy machinery techs an easy pathway to become a Designated Duty Engineer or at the least a QMED??
The reduction of training and seatime for qualification is ridiculous. Pretty soon all you’ll need for master unlimited is a two day safe boater course at your local library!
1 Like
There’s even a section talking about a study to see if there’s a need for more state maritime academies in states that don’t currently have an Academy!?!?
WTF.
First no not at all and there should be a reduction in the academies cough cough get rid of kings point and use the money saved for an expansion of the MSP and TSP programs. If you need more capacity the state academies can fill the void or other state academies because apparently according to the bill there might be some interest in building new ones in states that don’t have them.
This bill seems to focus on building the fleet before we start reducing job requirements and pumping out even more maritime grads.
1 Like
Ummm… Have you ever sailed with the SIU? This is already the norm, no new law necessary.
4 Likes