This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, November 12th, 2019.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Jones Act is a nearly 100-year-old law that places severe limitations on what ships may transport goods among U.S. states and

territories.

The essential argument for it is that it enhances national security.

Is that true?

Cato's Colin Graybough examines that claim in his new Cato paper

Rust Buckets how the Jones Act undermines US shipbuilding and national security.

It's available now at Cato.org.

Well, let's first remember what the Jones Act is.

It's, as you said, it's a law that's almost 100 years old, passed in 1920,

and among other things that mandated that vessels transporting goods between two points the United States have to be US flagged and registered at least 75% US crude, 75% US owned, and US built.

Now in a national security context, the Jones Act is meant to achieve three things.

The first is assuring access to ships during time of war through that U.S. flag requirement,

assure the United States access to mariners in times of war through that 75%

crew requirement, and then lastly to assure a domestic shipbuilding capability through that U.S.

build requirement.

So that's the theory behind the Jones Act, but I think the reality has been proven somewhat different.

In 1990, the Jones Act was put to the test when following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the United States the To do this at least for the equipment supplies required sea lift which is the exact thing the Jones Act was meant to ensure

Except the United States didn't have enough domestic sea lift. It didn't have enough ships

It didn't have enough mariners the The United States actually had to use 177 foreign

flagships to transport supplies and equipment. There were such a scramble for ships that the United

...