[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S2214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Waiving the Jones Act

  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, the Jones Act is a law that we have had 
for over a hundred years, enacted by Congress, and it simply says that 
cargo moving between two points in the United States should move on an 
American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed ship. It supports 
American workers, American shipyards, and American national security.
  The Presiding Officer represents the State of Alabama. Mobile has 
some very good shipyards; Louisiana, some tremendous shipyards. But 
they are scattered around our Nation. It could be in Florida, 
Mississippi, Washington State--I am sure California--Maine.
  And the places that build those things that go into the ships, into 
the boats, could be maritime manufacturing in Illinois, software in San 
Diego.
  This supports American industry.
  In my State, Louisiana ports, shipyards, energy producers, and 
maritime workers are a large portion of the State's economy. I could 
list you the towns: Houma, Lockport. Thousands of people in Louisiana 
depend on this industry for jobs that actually support the families.
  Now, companies employ Louisiana's skilled workers, and they build 
vessels for the oil industry, for NOAA, for the Marines, for portions 
of ships that go to the Navy. And why do we have this workforce and 
these companies that can build these boats? Because of the Jones Act.
  When we waive the Jones Act, like the administration just did and now 
is doing for another 90 days, we are saying that foreign-built vessels 
by foreign workers with foreign components--not from San Diego or 
Illinois or Mobile or Lockport or Houma but someplace else--can put 
together a vessel that moves goods between one point of the United 
States and another.
  Now, the rationale for waiving the Jones Act was that we need to 
lower energy prices for California, and when gasoline and diesel go 
from the gulf coast to California, we are going to magically decrease 
the price paid at the pump in Los Angeles.
  But although waiving the Jones Act can export our jobs to China and 
to Korea and to India, when you waive the Jones Act, it does not, by 
any--any--significant amount, lower the prices at the pump in 
California. Why? California pays $6 a gallon for gasoline because they 
have shut down refineries. They will not allow them to be expanded. 
They require a special mix of gasoline.
  You could never get a pipeline built from Louisiana to California. It 
would never have been permitted under the Obama or Biden 
administrations.
  They have taxes upon taxes, deliberately trying to make gasoline more 
expensive in California, in order to encourage people to buy electric 
vehicles.
  So that is on top of the fact that, because of the hostility in Iran, 
the international price of oil is much higher.
  Put it all together. The high prices of the oil, regulations, lack of 
refineries in California, no pipeline--that is the reason they are 
paying over $6 a gallon for gasoline.
  To do something cosmetic like waive the Jones Act, to say that you 
are doing something, actually is more of an excuse to waive the Jones 
Act than it is to actually lower the price of gasoline in California.
  And while you are doing this kind of philosophical ``we don't like 
the Jones Act,'' it hurts Louisiana workers. It costs Louisiana jobs, 
and jobs in Mobile, jobs in Illinois, jobs in San Diego. I could keep 
going down the list. It hurts the American worker for a kind of ``it 
ain't going to happen'' decrease of gasoline prices in California.
  I will point out that the administration is making a big push to 
restore shipbuilding to the United States. Now, there is a difference 
between a boat and a ship. A boat is something below a certain size, 
but it can be really big, and a ship is like what the Navy uses. If you 
want more shipbuilding in the United States, you don't start doing that 
by hurting boatbuilding in the United States because the same workers 
who build boats build ships, the same technology that supports building 
boats supports building ships, and in some cases, components of that 
bigger Navy ship are built in a boatyard.
  So in our policy of trying to support the American worker, we are 
actually trying to do things that are important to national security; 
that support our ability to make a Navy--a blue-water Navy--using 
American workers and not having to buy an aircraft carrier from Korea 
with all the kind of ``Are we sure we are getting what we want to 
get?''
  My concern is that the original rationale for the waiver just doesn't 
make sense to me; it is just not logical. But now it has been extended. 
So it tells me that there is something motivating that waiver beyond 
the imagination that it is going to significantly lower gas prices in 
California. It is somebody who doesn't like the Jones Act, who doesn't 
like the support that Congress deliberately gave to the workers in our 
boatyards, the people who are building the engines in Illinois that go 
into those boats or in any of the other places that are scattered 
around the country, in our heartland or on the coastline, that support 
our workers. Somebody philosophically doesn't like it, and they are 
using this as an excuse in order to kill the Jones Act.
  Well, Louisiana cannot afford for this to happen and neither should 
the country. Once waivers become routine, companies stop investing, 
workers leave the industry, and America becomes more dependent on 
foreign operators, and it becomes less prosperous for our Nation's 
workers.
  I agree with the administration in that we should be doing everything 
we can to lower gas prices--oh, my gosh; families back home are feeling 
the price at the pump--but let's focus on solutions that work, that 
provide real relief and protect an industry that Louisiana, the gulf 
coast, and many in our country rely on.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.