Protecting Access to American Products Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 12, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes an expedited waiver mechanism for the Jones Act's coastwise endorsement requirements when U.S.-flagged product carriers are unavailable, aiming to ensure goods can be transported efficiently.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 46, United States Code, to create a new process for temporarily waiving coastwise endorsement requirements, commonly known as the Jones Act, for product carriers. An agency head must grant a waiver if a requester demonstrates that no compliant U.S. product carrier is available for a specific good and a good faith effort was made to locate one. The bill sets deadlines for agency responses, allows for extensions, and requires congressional notification.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides a crucial safety valve for industries and consumers, preventing supply chain disruptions and higher costs when domestic shipping capacity is insufficient. It ensures that essential goods can still be transported even if a Jones Act-compliant vessel isn't immediately available, without undermining the overall intent of the law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill weakens the Jones Act by making waivers easier to obtain, potentially leading to increased use of foreign-flagged vessels and undermining the U.S. maritime industry, national security, and American jobs. They may contend that it creates a loophole that could be exploited, reducing incentives for investment in U.S.-flagged product carriers.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, making it accessible for immediate understanding of its core mechanism.
Section 2, amending 46 U.S. Code § 12112(c)
Temporary Waiver for Product Carrier Scarcity
This provision establishes a new process requiring the head of an agency to temporarily waive Jones Act coastwise endorsement requirements for a 'product carrier' if a requester demonstrates that no compliant U.S. vessel is available for a specific good and they made a good faith effort to find one. Waivers are initially for 30 days but can be extended for 15-day periods if circumstances haven't substantially changed. Agencies have 60 days to respond; if they fail to do so, the request is deemed granted for 30 days. Congress must be notified within 48 hours of both waiver requests and issuances.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is a practical solution to address real-world supply chain bottlenecks and ensure the timely delivery of goods, especially in situations where U.S.-flagged vessels are genuinely unavailable. It provides necessary flexibility without undermining the overall framework of the Jones Act.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision creates a significant loophole in the Jones Act, potentially undermining its core purpose of supporting the U.S. maritime industry. They argue it could lead to a 'death by a thousand cuts' for domestic shipping by normalizing the use of foreign vessels and reducing incentives for U.S. investment.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to maintain a strong domestic maritime industry (Jones Act) with the need for flexibility to ensure goods can be transported efficiently when domestic capacity is lacking. It also balances administrative efficiency (deemed granted clause) with congressional oversight (notification requirements).
This subsection defines 'product carrier' as a vessel constructed or adapted primarily to carry a specific good in bulk in cargo spaces, and 'head of an agency' as the head of an agency responsible for navigation or vessel inspection laws, or their delegate.
Section 2, adding 46 U.S. Code § 12112(c)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to place definitions at the end of a section to which they apply, providing clarity without interrupting the flow of operative text.
Case for: Supporters would argue these definitions provide necessary clarity and limit the scope of the waiver to specific types of vessels and goods, preventing broader or unintended application of the waiver authority.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition of 'product carrier' could be subject to varying interpretations, potentially leading to disputes over which vessels qualify, and that the delegation authority for 'head of an agency' could lead to inconsistent application across different agencies or individuals.
Estimated impact: The definitions directly control the applicability and scope of the entire waiver process, thus having a high impact on who can request and receive waivers and which goods are covered.