On July 8, I had the misfortune of being a guest on Mark Haines’ program on CNBC. Haines believes that the Jones Act, which generally prohibits foreign ships and crews from U.S. waters, had nothing to do with the government’s slowness to accept foreign help in cleaning up the oil spill. On the program, he challenged me to cite specific examples of foreign offers of help being rejected under the Jones Act. In response, I noted that Voice of America News had reported that “a Dutch offer of assistance was rejected” based partly on the Jones Act, specifically citing “Voice of America News, which is an organ of the U.S. government.” Haines insultingly responded, “Let me just get the facts on the table, and then you can make up your own.” I also noted that even “a single highly-publicized rejection of assistance can discourage a great many” other offers from even being made in the first place (meaning the Jones Act discouraged foreign assistance even if it led to few formal rejections of assistance, as others had previously noted). After calling me “Senator McCarthy,” Haines then insinuated that I was guilty of “baseless accusations,” and demanded additional examples. He then cut me off after I began to do just that, after I noted that “there’s a foreign deck barge that was rejected more recently and that was chronicled in Human Events.”
The next day, when I was no longer around, Haines, who had cut me off after I had begun describing a second example of foreign help being rejected under the Jones Act, returned to the subject, falsely claiming that when he asked me for examples, I “could only come up with one,” proving that “this guy is B.S.ing us.” (It is difficult to provide additional examples when you are being interrupted and cut off by someone who calls you “Senator McCarthy”).
More importantly, Haines said that the first example I had cited the previous day, of Dutch help being rejected because of the Jones Act, was wrong. Instead, he said the Dutch help was rejected by the EPA a day before the Obama Administration even learned of the oil spill. Haines did not mention that I had relied on a published news report from a well-respected source, Voice of America News. Instead, he implied that I had made it up. The suggestion that I made it up has now been picked up by many left-wing blogs, such as ThinkProgress, which posted a video of portions of my appearance on CNBC and Haines’ remarks the next day. (Ironically, ThinkProgress’s own video contains the very quotes found above, contradicting their claim that I made anything up; but it seems that ThinkProgress’s readers have chosen to rely on the video's title, “CNBC Anchor Slams Guest For Using False Right-Wing Talking Points,” rather than carefully listening to the video and checking the sources I cited, before reaching a conclusion).
For a foreign government to offer help in cleaning up an American oil spill before the Obama Administration even knew of it (as Haines says was the case) is strange to say the least. How is it that a foreign government thousands of miles away knew of the spill before our own leaders? Were our leaders asleep at the switch? If Haines had not been so invested in arguing the irrelevance of the Jones Act, he might have addressed that interesting issue. If Haines is right that such a foreign offer was made (and rejected) even before our own leaders were aware of the spill, then truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
[UPDATE: Haines is probably right that the Jones Act was not why the Dutch skimmers were rejected. Reader Paul Johnson below points to a story suggesting that the EPA, not the Jones Act, blocked the use of these skimmers. The story is available at www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html. This warrants corrections both to what I've written in the past, and in a separate publication in the future. Excerpts from the story are reprinted at the bottom.]
Below are the relevant portions of the published news report that I cited about the rejected Dutch help, which contradict what Haines said on July 9, and fully supported what I said in my July 8 appearance on CNBC. (The discussion of the Jones Act is highlighted in boldface).
(Granted, my TV appearance on CNBC was lackluster -- I had returned from a business trip late the preceding night; was so tired that I confused Haines with the other guest on the program at the beginning; and could have been better prepared for the appearance -- but the basis for the examples I gave was nonetheless clear enough. Press reports have often addressed the Jones Act in very general terms, saying that the Obama Administration "refused offers from Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and others, citing the 1926 Jones Act that prohibits foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters," and that because “President Barack Obama has not suspended the Jones Act,” “Many countries such as the Netherlands, which would like to help and have expertise in cleaning oil spills, can offer only limited relief,” “significantly delaying the cleanup.” I tried to be more specific than that in my TV appearance.)
One final point: Haines depicts the Jones Act as only restricting foreign ships that “carry goods moved between American ports.” The plain language of the Jones Act (46 USC 55110) says that its restriction on foreign ships and crews “applies to the transportation of valueless material or dredged material, regardless of whether it has commercial value, from a point in the United States or on the high seas within the exclusive economic zone, to another point in the United States or on the high seas within the exclusive economic zone.” It did indeed thus pose a potential barrier to foreign assistance in dredging and skimming (although the government has now belatedly authorized certain foreign skimmers pursuant to exclusions in the Act for federally-approved oil-spill response vessels, and is belatedly taking advantage of foreign aid after many weeks of footdragging and delay).
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Dutch-say-They-Could-Speed-Gulf-Oil-Recovery-with-US-Permission-96341579.html
VOICE OF AMERICA NEWS
Dutch say They Could Speed Gulf Oil Recovery with US Permission
Greg Flakus | Houston 14 June 2010
. . .
In Louisiana and other states on the Gulf of Mexico there is frustration over what many residents see as a slow response by the U.S. government to protecting coastal areas. Some critics of the Obama administration cite offers by the Netherlands in April to supply sophisticated skimmers and dredging devices, and the administration’s failure to accept the offer. The issue is as murky as the oil slick now threatening regional beaches.
A Houston-based company is now cleaning oil off surface water in the Gulf of Mexico using sweeping arms that attach to a boat and help gather large amounts of oil. These sophisticated devices were provided by a Dutch company with years of experience in such operations, but instead of using the Dutch ships and crews immediately, when The Netherlands offered help in April, the operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained.
The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.
The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.
A spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Floris Van Hovell, tells VOA his country stands ready to help in the Gulf.
‘We see the oil coming in, we see that there is Dutch capacity,” said Floris Van Hovell. “We do not want to change the rules here. We do not want to come in and tell everybody how to do it, but we do see that we have something that is very helpful. We have been saying this for a number of weeks, but the process seems to be rather slow.”
. . .
But critics say delays in accepting foreign assistance may have caused unnecessary damage to some coastal areas. They also fault BP for not having its own emergency plan and for not reaching out to foreign companies with special expertise early on.
Floris Van Hovell says Dutch dredging ships could complete the sand berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the local companies contracted for the work, if allowed to do so.
‘Basically, within the United States, as far as I have been given to understand, there is fairly limited capacity to execute this plan quickly,’ he said. ‘Of course, given the oil spill, given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands.’
U.S. policy has favored the use of American companies and employees in dealing with the oil spill, even though that may have caused delays in protecting sensitive shoreline.
www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html
AVERTIBLE CATASTROPHE, Financial Post, June 26, 2010:
. . . .
"Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. 'Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour,' Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill."
"The U.S. government responded with 'Thanks but no thanks,' remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts."
"Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico."
Read more HERE
Comments
Seems to me is the nature of TV interviews generally. Too much time is spent by the host trying to make HIMSELF the focus, and too often the guest is too entrenched in one point of view.
I watched the video, and neither side came off particularly well.
Hey, you forgot Poland!
It seems to me that your beef is with the federal government - constricted, as it is, by democratic rule-making - rather than with BP. i would hope (charitably, as seems apparent) that critique from the right would hold BP, et alii, responsible for drilling irresponsibly - running with scissors, if you will - more so than the avowedly inept federal-government for providing a Band-Aid(tm), since "government is the problem."
Just remember: D.C., for all its faults, did not cause the spill; its recent hands-off approach to guarding our well-being only allowed BP and its contractors to do so.
Hans Bader did agree with Andrew Sullivan that BP is a "serial environmental criminal," Anthony. See Hans Bader, "BP 'A Serial Environmental Criminal,'" Daily Caller, June 3, 2010, at 12:00 a.m.
Your excuses are hilarious! "I was tired. He called me names! My dog ate my examples." Blah, blah.
Admit, you came heavy with right wing talking points, and very light on substance or examples. When the host asked you to provide examples (plural) after you claimed there were rejections, you had nothing.
Now, you repair back to the friendly rightwing confines of the Examiner to cry and obfuscate.
Hans Bader, today's Rightwing Lightweight!
Kevin is right. Neither the host nor the guest came off well. Frankly, most TV "news" these days is just entertainment for mindless people who enjoy watching shouting matches and regurgitated talking points.
You have still not identified even a single example of relief offers denied as a result of the Jones Act, nor have you provided any factual support for your allegation that the Obama administration is siding with unions over the environment, which was your central claim.
Yes, there was a newspaper article that made the claim, but it appears that the article was wrong.
So I challenge you now: what actual evidence supports your central premise that the administration is favoring unions over the environment? You coulnd't provide it on television and you don't provide it here, so I conclude that you don't have any actual evidence.
A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, as Rahm Emanuel said. Obama wants the oil spill to be a catastrophe, because that will allow him to push through his cap-and-tax global warming scam.
Hans,
Do some journalistic leg work here and actually talk to the appropriate people in the Netherlands, Norway et al. and find out the truth as opposed to citing a bunch of news stories that probably used another news story as reference.
Also explain how the Jones Act specifically impacts the gulf clean up effort. No goods are being transported between American ports in the clean up so how does the Jones Act even come into play.
I am no fan of the act as protectionism is not a favored approach of mine. But attack the Jones Act on those grounds not some red herring of it causing problems in the Gulf clean up.
The Jones Act is a major job-killer for businesses that rely on coastal shipping.
People say it saves jobs, but even the studies touted by its backers show it costs well over a million dollars for each job that it artificially creates.
You are correct, Kevin, that Mr. Bader labeled BP "a serial environmental criminal." However, the column that you cite merely uses that label as a jumping-off point to argue against cap-and-trade. Instead of making a case for holding BP and its sub-contractors responsible for the harm they're trying to externalize on the American tax-payer, he rallies on an irrelevant political-point; no one has claimed that a proposed cap-and-trade system has lead to the spill in the Gulf.
Until you can point me toward some published writing that isn't a "free-market" bullet-point, i cannot take Mr. Bader's heretofore hackery seriously.
The Jones Act was only a minor impediment to cleaning up the spill. There have been only a handful of rejections under the Jones Act -- not including the only example you've described in any detail.
The Jones Act isn't a total ban on foreign ships, anyway. It may have caused some delay, but it did not ban foreign assistance (oil spill response vessels are permitted under the Jones Act if the foreign country would permit U.S. vessels, and if there aren't U.S. vessels available). Plus, it only applies to U.S. waters, not deep in the Gulf of Mexico.
Rigid application, and overly expansive interpretation, of environmental regulations have been a much bigger obstacle in cleaning up the spill. The use of the Jones Act as a right-wing talking point has needlessly obscured that. You should stop parroting it.
That article offers no citations or attributions or evidence of any kind to support point on the Jones Act. It offers no quotes from any foreign government, or from anybody in any position to invoke the Jones Act. Sources are unnamed: 'some critics', 'critics'; a chain of unattributed assertions. Nothing to support your thesis at all. It's crap, as is all that flows from it. Only a hack would offer that story as a source. Claiming it for your alibi proves you're a hack, and you got hung on a hack-hook for all to see, and this 'defense' is just confirmation.
If you choose bad sources, either you're careless or you have an agenda. The latter is no surprise, of course; there's ample evidence for it already. Real journalists recognize when their thesis is not confirmed by evidence, and stay silent. Hacks don't need news judgement; it cuts into the profits. Attack-hacks simply hope the current pattern continues and their work goes unchallenged and the money keeps a-flowin'.
Hack
There were only a tiny number of foreign aid offers rejected under the Jones Act. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
Just like a right-wing troglodyte to obsess over trifles in pursuit of ideological gain.
The two other sources cited, it should be noted, were not news reporting but op-ed pieces written by self-identified partisan critics of the Administration. I don't have any real problem with citing the VOA news, although that story provides little and, depending on how one reads it, no original reporting, and came late enough into the spill to potentially have just repeated Jones Act talking points already in the air. But with respect to the other two (both opinion pieces) as if they were reporting facts just reiterates the very echo chamber of talking points Haines was interrogating.
There are only a small number of cases where the Jones Act has even been cited as a reason for foreign aid being rejected.
Why the big deal?
Why is the right so obsessed with it -- mindless union bashing?
It's stupid, because if the government didn't have a legal reason for not accepting foreign aid (like the Jones Act), then its refusal to take the aid looks even dumber.
It's an unpersuasive argument outside the right-wing echo chamber.
What happened to his allegation of several instances of refusing help? Hans Bader still only talks about this one. Proof of sevearl more?
Bader pulled stats out of his rear, and Haines called him on it. I know Bader is shocked, but you know, that's how it's supposed to work. Now he pens this response, and still doesn't produce facts to back up his wild assumptions. Weak Tea
Hans was pwned by Haines, who showed he still has some journalistic chops and loads of integrity. And here is Hans, digging himself a deeper hole, still unable to support his argument with simple facts. Hans, the internet never forgets, you are are forever tagged as the guy who tried to put one over on the public, got caught, and then whined about how meanly you were treated.
way to dig in, dickhole.
you could really solve this by just saying your point was overblown and making some other, more sensible critique of the administration.
I don't think you made the article up. Your crime was one-sided research, because you missed this piece on June 29, which shows up when you Google "Dutch" and "EPA." I know how public policy think tank staffers do research, and your performance in this case was typical.
The Marine Log
June 29, 2010, www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2010jun00292.html
EPA, not Jones Act, blocking use of foreign skimmers
Environmental regulations resulted in many more rejections of foreign assistance than the Jones Act did.
Stop whining. There are only a small number of examples of foreign aid being blocked because of the Jones Act. And the chief example you've cited apparently wasn't one.
Now you admit that Haines was right and you were wrong about the Dutch skimmers? Than what are you complaining about?
As Steve and Jim Mathews noted, its the EPA and environmental regulations, not the Jones Act, that was a major barrier to foreign aid. There have only been a few rejections under the Jones Act, as you now seem to all but concede.
The federal government can reasonably be criticized for construing environmental regulations in an unreasonably overbroad way to block skimmers and dredgers.
But the Jones Act wasn't much of an issue. There were only a handful of rejections of foreign help because of the Jones Act. It's a red herring.
The White House can be faulted for not slicing through unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. But its failure to do so had nothing to do with any supposed pro-union bias by President Obama, and this clearly is not, as some have claimed, President Obama's Katrina.
Tom is right that environmental regulations were a bigger obstacle to cleaning up the spill than the Jones Act. But that doesn't mean the Jones Act wasn't a problem, too, at least closer to shore.
Even if the EPA let foreign ships operate, they still could not discharge stuff at U.S. ports and refineries thanks to the Jones Act to continue their work.
I am not sure the Voice of America story was wrong, as you (perhaps too prematurely) concede. It says that the Dutch skimmers were rejected "PARTLY" because of the Jones Act. That's not inconsistent with the Financial Post saying that the EPA played a role as well.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!