PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 13, 2021
Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act
This bill revises coastwise laws, commonly known as the Jones Act, that govern domestic transportation of merchandise or passengers by vessels. The Jones Act requires that vessels transporting merchandise or passengers between Puerto Rico and other U.S. ports be built in the United States, be at least 75% owned by U.S. citizens, and be mostly crewed by U.S. citizens.
The bill exempts carriage on a route in noncontiguous trade from Jones Act requirements unless (1) at least three owners or operators of certain coastwise vessels regularly operate such a vessel on the route, (2) each of such owners or operators transports at least 20% of the volume of goods on that route, and (3) none of such owners or operators are under common ownership.
People & committees
Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E37-38)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.298 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.298 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.298 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.298 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.