Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jones Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connecticut hearing on H.J. 9 spotlights disagreement over Jones Act’s costs and benefits
Summary
Sponsors urged the Commerce Committee to pass a resolution asking Congress to amend the Jones Act, arguing it raises fuel and energy costs for Connecticut and Puerto Rico. Industry and labor representatives testified both for and against the resolution, citing competing economic studies and national-security concerns.
Representative Luis Rosario asked the Commerce Committee to adopt House Joint Resolution 9 asking Congress to amend the Jones Act, saying the federal law raises energy costs and constrains Connecticut’s economy.
“I come before you today as a sponsor of h j 9, calling for action to amend the Jones Act, the federal law that continues to drive up energy costs and stifle economic growth in Connecticut and Puerto Rico,” Rosario told the committee during public testimony.
Rosario and other supporters, including Senator Fazio, said the Jones Act increases the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and other fuels and restricts the supply of vessels able to move domestic energy. “If Congress amends the Jones Act to allow exemptions for LNG shipments, we can lower energy prices and provide much needed relief for both Connecticut residents and the people of Puerto Rico,” Rosario said. Senator Fazio added that Connecticut’s high energy costs make it harder for residents and businesses, and argued a waiver or amendment could lower prices and support local manufacturing.
Opponents testified that the Jones Act protects U.S. maritime jobs and national economic security. Kyle Burleson of the American Waterways Operators told the committee, “I appreciate the opportunity to oppose house resolution 9, which would weaken the Jones Act, and in doing so, weaken national economic security as well as harm Puerto Rico.” Burleson said the domestic maritime sector already contributes about $1.7 billion annually to Connecticut’s economy and supports more than 6,500 jobs in the state; he said Puerto Rico also benefits from U.S. maritime investment and a dedicated Jones Act fleet.
A pair of witnesses from nonpartisan think tanks disputed each other’s cost estimates. Chris Hansford of the Cato Institute and Colin Gravo of Cato’s trade center testified that the Jones Act makes domestic waterborne transport expensive, citing studies that place a multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar to billion‑dollar welfare cost on Puerto Rico. Gravo summarized the statute during his remarks: “The Jones Act, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, restricts water transportation between US points to vessels that are US flagged, US built, at least 75% US owned, and US crewed.” He added that U.S. commercial shipbuilding is small and costly compared with allied shipyards, which he said raises domestic shipping prices.
Committee members asked witnesses about the trade‑offs between sustaining a U.S. commercial shipbuilding and maritime workforce and the economic costs borne by fuel‑dependent regions and territories. Several members urged the committee to collect written analyses from both sides; the American Waterways Operators agreed to submit written testimony and additional evidence.
No formal committee vote on H.J. 9 was recorded at the public hearing. Members said they would review the testimony and written submissions before taking any formal committee action.
Ending note: Committee members signaled they will request additional documentation from both supporters and opponents — including federal cost studies and state estimates — before deciding whether to advance any resolution.
