Alaska Congresman Introduces Legislation Allowing the 2021 Cruise Season to Safely Commence

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Ken the cruiser said:

So just because the cruise lines are temporarily allowed to not stop at a Canadian port because Canada has closed their ports because of COVID to allow Alaska a tourist season, everyone is going to come out of the woodwork to try to block it? To me that's just wrong. But, you know us over in the peanut gallery, what do we know.

No, it is the bypassing of visa and income tax requirements.

 

The law looks like it was CBP to ignore visa requirements for cruise ship crew members that would otherwise require US work visas.  So anyone that has incurred expense having to comply with those requirements.  It may also allow the cruise lines and the workers to ignore corporate and personal income tax on money earned fully within the US, which those cruises would be.

 

Lots of other groups would like the same ignore US work visa requirements, as well as avoiding US income tax.  

 

If it was a do not enforce the PVSA requirement but keep the visa requirements and taxes there would be less to object to.  But the cruise lines would choose not to sail under those requirements, just as they will not do cruises to nowhere that they can do legally, but choose not to.

 

It is basically a bridge to far in what it is asking for.

Edited February 26, 2021 by nocl

[nocl]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

 

Yes. Probably.

 

This is the problem with living in the Beltway, Ken. First, there is no Senate companion bill. Second, there are no (opposite party) co-sponsors from Washington. Either of those would make this a serious legislative effort. So it's really not serious.

 

The PVSA prohibits transportation of passengers between US ports; it arguably doesn't even apply to a round trip from Seattle. The foreign stop allows the cruise line to claim it's not operating in the United States for immigration and tax purposes. If the cruise wholly operates within the US, even if this legislation suspends the coastwise endorsement requirements, then the crew can no longer travel on a crew visa; they're working in the US. The types of visa theoretically available (H-2B) have caps, and you have to demonstrate that US citizens and permanent residents can't fill those jobs; they probably can't do that. Visas are issued by the State Department; the title of the bill addresses DHS only (haven't seen the text). There are plenty of US citizen engineers, navigators, etc., who could fill those jobs. There are also plenty of US citizens (unemployed, probably in Washington) who could fill the service jobs (food service, housekeeping, etc.), so getting legislation passed that would grant some sort of special immigration status, even temporarily, to allow the current crew to work in the US on a crew visa is almost certainly not going to happen, and without that legislation, the cruise lines would have to hire US citizens or permanent residents for the Alaska cruise season.

 

Also, because they theoretically are operating internationally (same as US flight crew flying to Europe or Asia, BTW), the crew (other than US citizens) are not subject to US income tax; as soon as you change things to allow non-citizens to work "in the United States", they're subject to US income tax, and probably other taxes.

 

Another interesting tidbit is the "distant foreign port" is not in the PVSA (actually 46 U.S. Code § 55103.Transportation of passengers) either. That's based on an Attorney General ruling from I think 1910 in regards to a round the world cruise where the Attorney General held that purpose of the cruise that as I recall transported passengers from New York to San Francisco, was recreation, not transport. Apparently that's never been challenged.

 

The bill has one sponsor, and has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Do you remember the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark...

 

 

Not even other members of the Alaska delegation.  PR at its best.  As long as the bill exists the cruise lines can point at it and say there is still a chance so they are not cancelling.

 

Would be interesting to see the campaign contributions from the cruise industry.

[grandgeezer]

3 hours ago, deadzone1003 said:

How many people have died who gotten sick on cruise ships since cruising resumed in Europe and Singapore?

How many people have actually been on the cruises? It’s only a few ships and they are selling with drastically reduced passengers numbers.

[Ken the cruiser]

@markeband @nocl, I keep hearing the term "technical stop", but I'm not quite sure of its feasibility since Canada has initially said no to those as well. But, if the applicable ship itineraries were changed to sail out of a WA or AK port and the CLIA was able to successfully negotiate with Canada to allow a cruise ship to do a "technical stop" in their waters where no one was allowed to disembark, would that potentially satisfy the PVSA requirements? 

[nocl]

40 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

@markeband @nocl, I keep hearing the term "technical stop", but I'm not quite sure of its feasibility since Canada has initially said no to those as well. But, if the applicable ship itineraries were changed to sail out of a WA or AK port and the CLIA was able to successfully negotiate with Canada to allow a cruise ship to do a "technical stop" in their waters where no one was allowed to disembark, would that potentially satisfy the PVSA requirements? 

Technical stops have not been allowed to meet the requirements for several years. A port stop must include passengers being able to disembark.

 

I believe CBP tightened that the same time they tightened the visa requirements for cruises to nowhere.

 

By tightened I mean determined that prior allowances were not current under the law.

[Ken the cruiser]

4 minutes ago, nocl said:

Technical stops have not been allowed to meet the requirements for several years. A port stop must include passengers being able to disembark.

 

I believe CBP tightened that the same time they tightened the visa requirements for cruises to nowhere.

 

By tightened I mean determined that prior allowances were not current under the law.

Oh well, it was a thought. Thanks.

[Fouremco]

35 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

@markeband @nocl, I keep hearing the term "technical stop", but I'm not quite sure of its feasibility since Canada has initially said no to those as well. But, if the applicable ship itineraries were changed to sail out of a WA or AK port and the CLIA was able to successfully negotiate with Canada to allow a cruise ship to do a "technical stop" in their waters where no one was allowed to disembark, would that potentially satisfy the PVSA requirements? 

The CLIA would have to first negotiate with US authorities, as the PVSA no longer considers technical stops as meeting the foreign port requirement. If the CLIA is going to attempt to do that, they might as well attempt to negotiate a temporary exemption from the foreign stop altogether, then they wouldn't need to negotiate with Canada. The latter went from a port ban last year to a ban from its territorial waters this year, so the chances of the Canadian government changing its mind to help the CLIA do an end run on existing US legislation are nil IMO.

[Alakegirl]

Without support from fellow congressmen and senators, this bill is as dead in the water as Alaska cruising is

[Ken the cruiser]

Whelp, that's that then. Moving on to looking forward to Caribbean cruises in July! 🙃

[markeb]

48 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

@markeband @nocl, I keep hearing the term "technical stop", but I'm not quite sure of its feasibility since Canada has initially said no to those as well. But, if the applicable ship itineraries were changed to sail out of a WA or AK port and the CLIA was able to successfully negotiate with Canada to allow a cruise ship to do a "technical stop" in their waters where no one was allowed to disembark, would that potentially satisfy the PVSA requirements? 

 

Pretty much what was just posted.

 

I'm not an attorney, and if I was, this isn't an area I'd specialize in!  This gets convoluted in a hurry. The PVSA is pretty simple: 

 

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not transport passengers between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel— 

 

The rest goes into ownership, and the need for coastwise endorsement. The law itself only applies to transportation from one US port to another. It doesn't apply to a closed loop cruise. The foreign port requirements as I recall are in the Code of Federal Regulations, and I'd argue they're all together there just for simplicity (or everyone deferred to CBP or its predecessors to write the rules). And the distant foreign port requirement directly contradicts the law based on some pretty slim 100+ year old legal opinions...

 

The problem with cruises to nowhere, and closed loop cruises without a foreign stop is immigration and taxation of the ship and crew. It has nothing to do with coastwise transportation of passengers. When CBP issued guidance several years ago on cruises to nowhere, they were citing immigration and tax law. I'd think a technical stop (maybe if the crew could actually get off?) wouldn't meet the immigration and tax requirements (the vessel never "touched" a foreign port).

 

Even the presser that came with this bill, and most of the industry press, lump everything related to this into the PVSA; the actual PVSA is incredibly simple, and focused. The details we all discuss aren't in the law, and most of them derive from other legal authorities than the PVSA.

[jagoffee]

11 hours ago, nocl said:

Not even other members of the Alaska delegation.  PR at its best.  As long as the bill exists the cruise lines can point at it and say there is still a chance so they are not cancelling.

 

Would be interesting to see the campaign contributions from the cruise industry.

Although I doubt whether his proposal will be be given any serious consideration, I would think any elected Alaska official that did not support the congressman would have a hard time getting re-elected.  

[chengkp75]

One of the problems with this bill is the definition of "international voyage" included in 46 CFR 42.05-45, which refers to the International Convention on Load Lines, so getting to change the definition of a voyage from one US port to another as "international" (which is the legal term, Congressman, not "foreign"), would require repudiating the Load Line Convention, which brings about another whole basket of snakes that the Congressman fails to address.

[ECCruise]

9 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

Although I doubt whether his proposal will be be given any serious consideration, I would think any elected Alaska official that did not support the congressman would have a hard time getting re-elected.  

Perhaps.

But that assumes that a majority of all Alaskans are in favor of cruises (and the level of cruise visits).  I have not seen any surveys of sentiment so not sure how that would poll.

But we do know how Key West voted when it was put on a ballot.

 

[Charles4515]

16 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Just curious, who would challenge it in court?

 

The Seafarers Union.

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

 

The Seafarers Union.

There are several maritime unions in the US.  Also, Unite Local 878, which is an Alaskan hotel and restaurant union.  And, any company that has had to obtain a work visa for any worker in the US.

[sfaaa]

By the time this is litigated and decided in court, 2021 Alaska cruise season will be over and snow starts to fall in Juneau again.

[JRG]

15 hours ago, nocl said:

PR at its best.  As long as the bill exists the cruise lines can point at it and say there is still a chance so they are not cancelling.

 

Then you are describing a Red Herring,  And are you suggesting that the cruiselines and Alaskan politicians are in cahoots just to help the cruiseline keep the sailings afloat ?.....I don't think so......

 

A more likely scenario is that Canada re-opens it ports as soon as the bill starts getting traction on the floor and Lucy once again yanks the football from Charlie Brown's FGA.    

 

If Alaskan politicians or Travel Juneau or their support staff are reading this then they should consider introducing  the carbon footprint differential then squeeze the act into the next wave of global climate laws that may come under consideration.     

 

Also,  the poster who recognized that re-election hopes will foster unification made a good point that should not be overlooked.     

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by JRG

[nocl]

12 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Then you are describing a Red Herring,  And are you suggesting that the cruiselines and Alaskan politicians are in cahoots just to help the cruiseline keep the sailings afloat ?.....I don't think so......

 

A more likely scenario is that Canada re-opens it ports as soon as the bill starts getting traction on the floor and Lucy once again yanks the football from Charlie Brown's FGA.    

 

If Alaskan politicians or Travel Juneau or their support staff are reading this then they should consider introducing  the carbon footprint differential then squeeze the act into the next wave of global climate laws that may come under consideration.     

 

Also,  the poster who recognized that re-election hopes will foster unification made a good point that should not be overlooked.     

 

 

 

Dream on.  The bill will not get traction.  Will not even make it out of committee, if it even gets a vote in committee.  But as long as it exists and not killed the cruise lines can say there is a chance and not cancel, as they have the Canadian port departures.

 

They won't put it into the climate change laws because that would assume party leadership would support it.  It would be hysterical to see how the environmental lobby would react to a global warmer bill working to get cruise ships (a major source of pollution and CO2) sailing.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, nocl said:

They won't put it into the climate change laws because that would assume party leadership would support it.  It would be hysterical to see how the environmental lobby would react to a global warmer bill working to get cruise ships (a major source of pollution and CO2) sailing.

His particular hobby horse is that removing the foreign port call would reduce CO2 emissions, but he fails to understand geography, where the Canadian ports are on the way between Alaska and the West Coast.  SMH.

[nocl]

4 hours ago, markeb said:

 

Pretty much what was just posted.

 

I'm not an attorney, and if I was, this isn't an area I'd specialize in!  This gets convoluted in a hurry. The PVSA is pretty simple: 

 

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or chapter 121 of this title, a vessel may not transport passengers between ports or places in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port, unless the vessel— 

 

The rest goes into ownership, and the need for coastwise endorsement. The law itself only applies to transportation from one US port to another. It doesn't apply to a closed loop cruise. The foreign port requirements as I recall are in the Code of Federal Regulations, and I'd argue they're all together there just for simplicity (or everyone deferred to CBP or its predecessors to write the rules). And the distant foreign port requirement directly contradicts the law based on some pretty slim 100+ year old legal opinions...

 

The problem with cruises to nowhere, and closed loop cruises without a foreign stop is immigration and taxation of the ship and crew. It has nothing to do with coastwise transportation of passengers. When CBP issued guidance several years ago on cruises to nowhere, they were citing immigration and tax law. I'd think a technical stop (maybe if the crew could actually get off?) wouldn't meet the immigration and tax requirements (the vessel never "touched" a foreign port).

 

Even the presser that came with this bill, and most of the industry press, lump everything related to this into the PVSA; the actual PVSA is incredibly simple, and focused. The details we all discuss aren't in the law, and most of them derive from other legal authorities than the PVSA.

Keep in mind that it the past whenever the cruise lines have brought up PVSA the restrictions have tended to tighten not loosen.  Like the time NCL tried challenging the west coast to Hawaii loop cruises with their one port stop in Mexico.  At that time there was some discussion that closed loop cruises should spend the majority of their port time in port ports (think what that would do to Alaska cruises).  NCL  dropped the challenge.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

Keep in mind that it the past whenever the cruise lines have brought up PVSA the restrictions have tended to tighten not loosen.  Like the time NCL tried challenging the west coast to Hawaii loop cruises with their one port stop in Mexico.  At that time there was some discussion that closed loop cruises should spend the majority of their port time in port ports (think what that would do to Alaska cruises).  NCL  dropped the challenge.

Actually, NCL did not drop the challenge, they just requested that CBP walk back their decision about the majority of port time, to the original request to stop "technical port calls", and they obtained that change.

[Arizona Wildcat]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Then you are describing a Red Herring,  And are you suggesting that the cruiselines and Alaskan politicians are in cahoots just to help the cruiseline keep the sailings afloat ?.....I don't think so......

 

A more likely scenario is that Canada re-opens it ports as soon as the bill starts getting traction on the floor and Lucy once again yanks the football from Charlie Brown's FGA.    

 

If Alaskan politicians or Travel Juneau or their support staff are reading this then they should consider introducing  the carbon footprint differential then squeeze the act into the next wave of global climate laws that may come under consideration.     

 

Also,  the poster who recognized that re-election hopes will foster unification made a good point that should not be overlooked.     

 

 

 

This bill getting traction in Congress.  Isn't this the same bunch who have argued about a COVID relief bill for a month?  They can't even pass the portions like unemployment that are supported by both parties.

[JRG]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

His particular hobby horse is that removing the foreign port call would reduce CO2 emissions, but he fails to understand geography, where the Canadian ports are on the way between Alaska and the West Coast.  SMH.

 

Thank you for the perfect description of the carbon footprint differential, sort of.

 

So a Cruise that goes from Hawaii to San Diego would produce less CO2  than....

a Cruise that goes from Hawaii to Ensenada to San Diego (to be PVSA compliant)

 

conclusion----PVSA compliance produces a carbon footprint differential

 

or more importantly,  look at the 'opportunity cost' if some Vancouver sailings offload to Seattle.

 

So a Cruise from LA to Seattle would produce less CO2 than....

A Cruise that goes from LA to Vancouver because it is a shorter distance.

 

conclusion----PVSA compliance produces a carbon footprint differential because US sailings have to visit Canada.

 

The carbon footprint is not a hobby horse,  it's a trojan horse for opponents and special interest groups who oppose PVSA waivers or exemptions.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by JRG

[chengkp75]

And cruises between LA and Seattle, and Hawaii to San Diego apply to Alaska cruises, how?  You're trying to insert the "carbon footprint" as a way to get the PVSA waived for Alaska cruises?

 

You want to take out the foreign port call requirement of the PVSA on environmental grounds?  Fine, but tell me why we should allow foreign ships to do this?  What is your basis?  If they want the privilege of sailing between US ports, they should adhere to US law.  All US law.

Edited February 26, 2021 by chengkp75

[Jeremiah1212]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

Also,  the poster who recognized that re-election hopes will foster unification made a good point that should not be overlooked.    

 

He's a politician. He survives on optics. He's also 87 years old and has been in congress 5 decades. Since Nixon. Not to say he couldn't be ousted, but I imagine he's pretty comfortable in his chair.