Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act of 2024

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/667

Last Updated: August 1, 2025

Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act of 2024

HR. 667, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$68,659 raised

29 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Trade" section, p. 834-836 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E90-91)

February 3, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act of 2024 (HR 667) is a bill that seeks to amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and other related laws to allow for the transportation of merchandise in noncontiguous trade on foreign-flag vessels. As a self-serving billionaire, I'll analyze this bill through the lens of its potential impact on my wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to exempt certain foreign-flag vessels from the Jones Act, which requires that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged ships. By allowing foreign-flag vessels to operate in noncontiguous trade, the bill aims to increase competition and reduce costs for shippers.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. Exempts foreign qualified freight vessels from the Jones Act's coastwise endorsement requirements. 2. Allows foreign qualified freight vessels to be documented under U.S. law, enabling them to operate in noncontiguous trade. 3. Modifies citizenship and transfer provisions for foreign qualified freight vessels. 4. Introduces new labor provisions, including liability for injury or death of master or crew members and participation in authorized compensation plans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Foreign shipping companies and vessel owners who can now operate in noncontiguous trade. 2. U.S.-flagged shipping companies, which may face increased competition from foreign operators. 3. Shippers and importers/exporters who may benefit from reduced transportation costs. 4. Maritime labor unions and workers, whose rights and benefits are impacted by the new labor provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From my perspective as a self-serving billionaire, this bill presents both opportunities and threats:

1. **Increased competition:** The exemption of foreign-flag vessels from the Jones Act could lead to increased competition in the shipping industry, potentially driving down costs and increasing efficiency. 2. **Consolidation and market share:** As a major player in the shipping industry, I may be able to acquire or partner with foreign operators to expand my market share and increase my influence. 3. **Regulatory arbitrage:** The bill's changes to citizenship and transfer provisions could create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, allowing me to optimize my operations and minimize costs. 4. **Labor costs and liabilities:** The new labor provisions may increase my liability exposure and labor costs, potentially impacting my bottom line.

Overall, the Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act of 2024 has significant implications for the shipping industry, and as a self-serving billionaire, I will closely monitor its progress to ensure that it aligns with my interests.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$68,659

22 donors

PACs

$5,000

Organizations

$11,800

Committees

Individuals

$51,859

CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION PAC (CAC PAC)

1 transaction

$5,000

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

1 transaction

$2,500

CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$2,000

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,000

CHEROKEE NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

SAMISH TYEE

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

PETERSON, MICHAEL A.

2 transactions

$6,600

SILBEY, NEELY MARCUS

2 transactions

$5,900

SILBEY, ALEXANDER

2 transactions

$5,800

DEMAREE, GRANT

2 transactions

$5,600

LOUI, STEVEN

1 transaction

$5,000

CARDOZA, MIGUEL A.

2 transactions

$4,700

MAYER, NATHAN

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHIMPF, BRIAN

1 transaction

$3,300

CAMPION, TOM

1 transaction

$2,000

FALK, JIM

1 transaction

$2,000

YOUNG, STAN K.

1 transaction

$2,000

BURSTEIN, BARTON

1 transaction

$1,650

RAINWATER, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,509

DININO, PAUL

1 transaction

$1,500

CASE, STACEY

1 transaction

$1,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU]

ID: M001219

Top Contributors

No contribution data available

Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]

ID: T000486

Top Contributors

OPEN HAND ASSOCIATION, INC.

OrganizationBRONX, NY

$5,000

Jan 10, 2024

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$4,589

May 31, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 18, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 18, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 17, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$2,976

Apr 28, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$682

Jun 6, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$270

Jul 5, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$227

Jul 31, 2023

JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT

OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA

$48

Jun 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 66 nodes and 32 connections (66 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $81,548

Top Donors - Rep. Case, Ed [D-HI-1]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC6 Orgs15 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.

+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
Section 2 allows foreign-flag vessels to transport merchandise in noncontiguous trade, reducing barriers for maritime shipping and benefiting surface transportation industries like freight shipping and logistics.
−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80
Section 4 subjects vessels to international labor standards and allows participation in Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, potentially increasing labor costs and regulatory burdens for maritime employers, affecting labor unions.
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 6 requires compliance with environmental standards for vessels in coastwise trade, which may increase demand for cleaner fuels and emissions control technologies, indirectly benefiting telecommunications through increased data and monitoring needs for compliance.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Trade

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's goal of repealing the Jones Act by exempting foreign-flag vessels from U.S.-built requirements in noncontiguous trade, thereby reducing protectionist maritime barriers and increasing trade flexibility."

Key themes:Jones Act repealmaritime trade liberalizationforeign vessel accessnoncontiguous trade reliefregulatory burden reduction

— 801 — Trade l Repeal the Jones Act,48 a century-old “Buy American” maritime law that has decimated the U.S. shipbuilding industry. l Work with Congress to restore the President’s Trade Promotion Authority, which would expedite the negotiation of trade agreements with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Taiwan, the European Union, and other allies, and keep trade-unrelated provisions out of trade agreements. l Restore the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution process to full strength. l Create a successor to the WTO (assuming that it has been fatally wounded) that is open only to liberal democracies. This would prevent authoritarian countries like China from abusing the organization for their own ends. l Adopt a multi-pronged China strategy to convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies. l Rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), whose 11 members are developing institutional trade norms in an important geopolitical region without U.S. input or involvement. l Reorient the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity to focus only on trade issues, which it currently ignores in favor of progressive wish-list policies. l Strengthen diplomatic pressure (in concert with allies) against Beijing’s abuses. Encourage cultural and intellectual engagement with the Chinese people, remembering that blue jeans and rock ’n’ roll helped to win the Cold War. Tariff Relief. When people try something repeatedly and it still doesn’t work, they should stop doing it—especially when the consequences turn out to be just what conservative economists have long predicted they would be.49 With tariffs, the proper reform is not only to get rid of the individual tariffs that have backfired, but also to build institutional safeguards against future abuse. We are five years into the biggest experiment with tariffs since the Great Depres- sion, and the results are in: The new tariffs raise consumer prices for ordinary Americans by about $1,200 per household every year50 and benefit only a small number of special interests. Steel and aluminum tariffs, enacted on national security grounds, angered allies. Beijing made not a single substantive reform in — 802 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise response to four rounds of tariffs plus an attempted Phase One agreement. The Biden Administration has left the tariffs in place and is expanding them to pursue progressive policy goals. The first order of business for a new Administration that is focused on American workers and consumers is to repeal all tariffs enacted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 196251 and Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.52 The President can do this unilaterally, and Congress can do it through legislation. The second order of business requires Congress to pass legislation repealing Sections 232, 201, and 301. The U.S. Constitution places all taxing authority with Congress53 and none with the President. Congress used those provisions of law to delegate some of its taxing authority to the President because it was having trouble passing “clean” tariff legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Unless and until this constitutional question about delegation is addressed, important reforms are available to the next Congress and the next President. Congress faced a problem of collective action in the 1960s and 1970s. As a whole, Members generally wanted to lower tariffs, but few individual Members were will- ing to remove tariffs that benefited special interests in their districts. Trade bills were invariably watered down through amendments and logrolling. The thinking was that the President, whose constituency is the entire nation, would be less prone to special-interest pleading than Members of Congress would be, so Congress del- egated some of its tariff-making authority to the President in 1962 and 1974 trade legislation. Delegating tariff-making might have worked in the short run, but in the long run, it was both constitutionally dubious and ripe for abuse. That came to pass in 2018. The Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, invoked in 2018 against Canada, Europe, and other allies on national security grounds, raised car prices by an aver- age of $250 per vehicle and gave America the world’s highest steel prices. They also harmed the construction, canned food and beverage, and other metal-us- ing industries. While this may have benefited the steel industry itself, each steel job saved cost an average of $650,000 per year that had been taken from elsewhere in the econo- my.54 That is no way to strengthen American manufacturing. The New York Federal Reserve estimated in 2019 that the Section 301 China tariffs cost the average house- hold $831 per year,55 a figure that has likely increased with inflation. The new tariffs have a clear record of failure—as conservative economists almost unanimously warned would be the case. Job number one for the next Administration is to return to sensible trade policies and eliminate the destruc- tive Trump–Biden tariffs. Strengthening American Manufacturing. The decline of American manu- facturing is a common political trope in both parties, typically invoked before a call for more government intervention. This narrative has several problems. One is that

Trade

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 834-836AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly supports Project 2025's goal of repealing the Jones Act by exempting foreign-flag vessels from key Jones Act requirements in noncontiguous U.S. trade, thereby reducing protectionist barriers and increasing maritime trade flexibility."

Key themes:Jones Act repealmaritime trade liberalizationforeign vessel accessnoncontiguous traderegulatory burden reduction

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 645-647AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on amending maritime shipping regulations for noncontiguous trade, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes hiring American workers, combating visa fraud, and enforcing labor standards in international trade. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address citizen hiring priorities, visa fraud, or international labor enforcement mechanisms central to the policy."

Key themes:labor provisionsforeign tradeemployer regulations

— 613 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies l Congress must amend the law so that employers can again have the freedom to make hiring Americans a priority. Despite the significant advantages that preferring citizens over (work-authorized) aliens in hiring would provide to American workers, businesses, and the country at large, such a practice has been illegal since 1986.25 This makes no sense. Alternative View Some conservatives believe that the government has a duty to limit its spending in order to limit how much it takes from American families. This means that when the government spends money, it must find the most econom- ical and effective way to do so. Excessive government spending will be borne by American workers and families through reduced incomes and purchasing power. There may be good reasons to require a certain percentage of American workers on federal contracts, but those decisions should be based on economy and efficiency as opposed to arbitrary quotas. Visa Fraud. American businesses that commit visa fraud and hire illegal immi- grants should not be the beneficiaries of federal spending. But a 2020 report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) examined the depart- ment’s process for excluding employers who commit visa fraud and abuse from federal contracts and found much to be desired. l To protect the American workforce from unscrupulous immigration lawyers, employers, and labor brokers, the department must follow the recommendations of the OIG and institute more robust investigations for suspected visa fraud and speedier debarments for those found guilty. INTERNATIONAL LABOR POLICY Leveling the International Playing Field for Workers. As recent decades of intense import competition and offshoring have made clear, American workers suffer when the U.S. opens its markets to foreign nations’ minimal labor standards and exploitative conditions. While federal law already prohibits the importation of goods produced with forced labor, the prohibitions are toothless without effective means of enforcement and cover only the most basic of workers’ rights. The Trump Administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) took unprece- dented steps to redress the issue for workers. The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) contained the strongest and most far-reaching labor provisions of any free trade agreement (FTA), with protections and commitments to reduce labor abuses and raise wages. It also established new modes of enforcement. For future FTAs, the USTR should replicate the labor provisions of USMCA, especially the provisions to: — 614 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Eliminate all forms of forced or compulsory labor. l Protect workers’ rights to organize and participate voluntarily in a union without employer interference or discrimination. l Create a rapid-response mechanism to provide for an independent panel investigation of denial of labor rights at covered facilities. l Shift the burden of proof by presuming that an alleged violation affects trade and investment, unless otherwise demonstrated. For future authorizations of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the President should urge Congress to: l Create mechanisms for supply-chain transparency. l Institute a general prohibition on forced labor conditions. Investigate Foreign Labor Violations That Undermine American Work- ers. The United States’ embrace of globalization has exposed American workers to unfair competition from nations with cheap, abundant, and often exploited labor. American workers have, as a consequence, seen their earning power erode. While negotiating stronger trade agreements with robust labor provisions should be the primary tool with which to regulate international labor competition, the federal government can also take steps to identify the worst labor abuses and rule breakers. DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) plays a critical role in monitor- ing and enforcing the labor provisions of U.S. trade agreements and trade preference programs as well as investigating child labor and human trafficking violations. l The next Administration should focus ILAB investigations on foreign labor violations that do the most to damage American workers’ earning power, specifically regimes that engage in child and forced labor, fail to protect workers’ organizing rights, and permit hazardous or otherwise exploitative working conditions. Alternative/Additional View. Conservatives share a belief in protecting and pro- moting American workers and their families and orienting international policies with Americans’ interests first. Some conservatives believe that the best way to put Amer- ica first is by making America more attractive. In addition to restrictions imposed on other countries, removing existing barriers to American manufacturing, employ- ment, and commerce can help American workers, entrepreneurs, and families.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak

Vector: 60%

Pages: 440-442AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses maritime shipping exemptions for noncontiguous trade, while the Project 2025 policy focuses on FERC regulation of natural gas pipelines and LNG export facilities; both involve infrastructure and regulatory reform but target different sectors and objectives."

Key themes:infrastructureregulationtrade

— 407 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions New Policies FERC should: l Recommit itself to the NGA’s purpose of providing the American people with access to affordable and reliable natural gas. l Limit its NGA decision-making on natural gas pipeline certificates to the question of whether there is a need for the natural gas. l Limit its NEPA analysis to the impacts of the actual pipeline itself, not indirect upstream and downstream effects. In addition, Congress, the states, and FERC should consider how better to pro- tect and compensate property owners whose property is taken for the benefit of the public. FERC also needs to be mindful that natural gas pipelines and projects are important for domestic access to natural gas, including local natural gas utilities, natural gas–fired electric generation, and manufacturing, as well as for exports of liquefied natural gas. FERC: LNG EXPORT FACILITIES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of LNG export facilities.125 It does not authorize the export of natural gas; DOE exercises that authority. LNG export facilities are important for delivering natural gas to markets around the world and have become an important policy tool in limiting the ability of Russia and Middle Eastern countries to use energy as a tool in for- eign affairs. Needed Reforms LNG exports are opposed by climate activists. In addition, some domestic man- ufacturers argue that LNG exports decrease available U.S. supplies of natural gas and increase the domestic price, thereby harming the competitive advantages of U.S. manufacturers in world markets. Currently, most LNG export facilities are along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana.126 Attempts to build facilities on the west coast (Jordan Cove LNG127) and the east coast have not moved forward for a variety of reasons; delays and costs of litigation can cause developers to cancel projects. An Alaska facility was approved by FERC in 2020, and the Biden Administration has indicated its sup- port.128 An east coast facility in Pennsylvania (or nearby) would unlock Marcellus shale natural gas for export.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 437-439AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on maritime shipping exemptions for noncontiguous trade, while the Project 2025 policy addresses FERC electricity transmission planning, cost allocation, and natural gas pipeline approvals; there is no substantive thematic overlap."

Key themes:no overlapunrelated

— 405 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l End undue discrimination that allows subsidized resources to distort price formation in RTOs. l Affirm its commitment that states will decide whether to join an RTO instead of imposing RTOs on regions that do not want them. FERC should also consider allowing states to enter into non-RTO power pools with alternative structures for the sharing of resources and electric generation. FERC: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION Mission/Overview Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate electric transmission. (Pursuant to court cases, interstate transmission can be entirely within a state, although the part of Texas served by ERCOT is not under FERC transmission jurisdiction.) Needed Reforms FERC has been considering how to plan for and allocate costs for new trans- mission lines and how new generation resources will be interconnected to the transmission grid. (Transmission expansion and replacement decisions are usu- ally made by local utilities or by an RTO or regional planning entity). Through two major rulemakings,118 FERC is attempting to facilitate the building of more long-range transmission lines and to socialize more of the costs of transmission buildouts to more customers in order to make it cheaper for renewable develop- ers (primarily) to interconnect to the grid and sell their power. Socializing such costs is a form of subsidy for generators and will cause further price distortions in RTOs and ISOs that will make it less economical for reliable, dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas to stay operational and support reliability.119 Also, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, DOE and FERC are granted authority to site and permit high-priority transmission lines as National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs). The Inflation Reduction Act provides funding to DOE to support transmission expansion.120 These initiatives will undermine state input and decision-making. FERC will consider rules on how NIETC transmission applications are to be made. New Policies FERC should either change course on its existing transmission rulemakings (if still in progress) or issue a new rulemaking to: — 406 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that transmission planning and interconnection processes are resource neutral. l Prevent socializing costs for customers who do not benefit from the projects or justifying such cost shifts as advancing vague “societal benefits” such as climate change. l Stop cost allocation from becoming a subsidy for generators, such as renewables. With respect to NIETCs, FERC and the new DESAS should ensure that state interests are respected and not allow such NEITC transmission lines to be devel- oped as a mere subsidy to renewable developers. Furthermore, much of the transmission buildout (including its attendant costs) is being driven by renewable developers seeking market share. These projects are causing rates for customers to go up and hurting reliability. FERC needs to ensure that transmission buildouts are planned for the benefit of customers. FERC: NATURAL GAS PIPELINES Mission/Overview FERC permits, sites, and authorizes the construction and operation of inter- state natural gas pipelines.121 It also regulates the rates for the shipping of natural gas122 (but not the price of the natural gas commodity, which is market based). FERC is charged with ensuring that natural gas pipelines are approved if they are required by the “public convenience and necessity.”123 Pipeline permitting is sub- ject to environmental reviews under NEPA, and the rate for the pipeline and the shipping of the commodity is set by FERC under a just and reasonable standard. Once FERC approves a project, the holder of the certificate has the sovereign’s power of eminent domain. Needed Reforms Natural gas pipelines are vital for the economy, manufacturing, heating, and electric generation. Opposition from “Keep it in the ground” environmentalists has made it harder to gain approvals for natural gas pipelines. Under Democrat leadership, FERC has proposed official policies to consider upstream and down- stream GHG emissions from the use of the natural gas that would be shipped in the pipeline to be part of FERC’s public-interest determination when deciding whether to approve a pipeline. There is conflicting direction from the D.C. Circuit on the GHG issue, which also could be seen as a “major questions” issue under the U.S. Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.124

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Case, Ed

American Seabed Protection Act

119/hr/664

National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025

119/hr/4219

Hawai‘i National Cemetery Act

119/hr/6921

Back to All Bills

Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act of 2024