June 21, 2010
By Robert B. Bluey
Today the Obama administration faces a different set of challenges with the Gulf oil spill cleanup.
But unlike his predecessor, President Obama has declined to suspend the law, even temporarily.
Obama's decision has turned into a public relations headache for an administration already reeling from its oversight of the oil spill. European allies, longtime opponents of the Jones Act, have asserted they were turned away when making offers of assistance. The State Department acknowledges it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.
Some critics have suggested that Obama is protecting the pocketbooks of his union allies by keeping foreign vessels at bay. But several Jones Act experts told me that makes little sense because unions have minimal influence in the Gulf. Foreign competition, therefore, would do little to hurt their bottom line.
In addition, the Seafarers International Union, while supporters of the Jones Act, maintained good relations with the Bush administration. In 2000, the union donated $3,544 to candidate George W. Bush and nothing to Democrat Al Gore. Bush benefited with a $2,000 donation in 2004, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) received nothing. The union didn’t donate any money to candidate Obama in 2008.
So why won't the Obama administration simply issue a blanket waiver, just as the Bush administration did in 2005? It would end the controversy and quiet a growing chorus of critics.
The administration defends its stance by citing a well-established waiver process for foreign vessels. In short, a request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection prompts an inquiry to the Maritime Administration, which leads to a search of the U.S. fleet. If an American ship can provide the same services, the request is denied. Otherwise, the foreign vessel gets a waiver.
That process differs from a blanket waiver -- the tactic used by then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2005 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Bush administration justified the move by citing a need to transport oil and gasoline in the Gulf region.
Jones Act expert Charlie Papavizas said the 2005 Katrina waiver, which lasted from Sept. 1 to Sept. 19, was used primarily to move cargo between ports, but it didn't result in any new foreign ships in the region. "Twenty days is not enough time to reposition and do anything useful," he said.Mark Ruge, who works with the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, was even blunter: "After the fact, if you look at Katrina and ask, ‘What was the advantage to the United States of America by blanket waiving the Jones Act?’ The answer is nothing came of that -- nothing that couldn't have been accomplished with the usual process. It was just one more thing you could say you did."
The Obama administration's critics think otherwise and show no signs of relenting.
Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) pressed the president on the Jones Act during a recent face-to-face meeting. LeMieux said the action would signal America's allies that their help is wanted. Given the dire situation in the Gulf, what's the harm?
Two other members from Florida, Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and John Mica (R), said their state is suffering while skimmers sit idle. At a hearing on Thursday, Brown held up of vessels in Mexico and Norway, asking, "What is the process for the state to take advantage of skimmers from other countries?"
Mica trained his criticism on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to mobilize the entire American fleet. "U.S.-flag vessels have the capacity to bolster the current oil skimming and removal taking place in the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen oil products wash up on the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida while vessels, which could have been pressed into service, sit idle. This is unacceptable."
With the spill cleanup reaching its 63rd day, is it too late for a Jones Act waiver to have an impact? LeMiuex believes there's still time for foreign vessels to help near the coast, given the uncertainty about how long the cleanup will last. He's disappointed it has taken the administration so long to act.
This, of course, is the primary criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the spill. While the president says he "will not settle for inaction," his failure to waive the Jones Act -- even if for the sole purpose of sending a message to our allies -- suggests he's not doing everything he can.
Robert B. Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in FOXNews
Rule of Law Initiative of the Leadership for America Campaign
Robert B. Bluey
Director, Digital Media, and Director, Center for Media and Public Policy
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973