U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D‑Conn.) claims that repealing the protectionist Jones Act would hollow out the country’s maritime strength. But the dire effects he warns of are exactly what the law has produced. The Jones Act is not only an economic burden but also a national security failure that has left a derelict and diminished maritime industry in its wake.

Passed in 1920, the Jones Act restricts water transportation within the United States to vessels that are U.S.-flagged, crewed by U.S. mariners, and constructed in American shipyards. Theoretically, this provides the country with plentiful ships, mariners, and shipyards to meet U.S. defense needs.

Reality, however, is quite different.

Insulated from competition by the Jones Act’s prohibition on foreign-built vessels, U.S. shipbuilders charge prices several times that of their foreign counterparts for equivalent vessels. The result? There is so little demand for U.S. shipyards’ offerings that they account for just 0.1 percent of global output. Little wonder a February government report stated that the industry has experienced a “near total collapse.”

The U.S. commercial fleet is in a similarly perilous state. Weighed down by the high cost of new vessels, the number of oceangoing ships that comply with the Jones Act has declined from 256 in 1980 to just 92 today.

Beyond depressing the fleet’s numbers, high replacement costs mean that Jones Act-compliant ships are also disproportionately old. Whereas international-flagged containerships average about 14 years of age, such vessels in the Jones Act fleet average 25. These aging vessels advance neither the country’s economic nor national security interests, but they do generate a steady stream of repair business for state-owned Chinese shipyards.

Given the Jones Act fleet’s aged and diminutive fleet, it’s probably a good thing that the U.S. Transportation Command has stated its lack of reliance on such vessels to meet military sea-lift needs.

That the Jones Act harms the economy of Connecticut and the country more broadly is well-established. Its failure to meet the country’s national security requirements, however, is yet another reason to scuttle this outdated, protectionist hulk.