Three bills just introduced to repeal and reform the PVSA

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Remember that the bill passed UNANIMOUSLY in both the house and senate.

 

Imagine the difficult task that awaits the Special Interest Groups who will oppose the bills.   How do they even start to get support when all US representatives and Senators voted in unison.   I don't see that happening.   

 

Ask yourself,  where would you start if you were opposing this law change,   there is no traction to get ahold of.     

 

The risk to the cruising industry has been exposed by the PVSA and CLIA and the cruiselines will do everything they can now to mitigate the risk against business interruption.    

 

Why even bother posting a prediction or trying to tell us how it works,  just sit back and watch.

 

 

They voted for an exception because of unusual circumstances that has a termination date. You are dreaming if you think that the politicians are going to do the same for a permenent change. 

[twodjs]

 

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

The law that allows the Pride of America to be an exception to the PSVA only allows that exception for the ship  to cruise in Hawaii. 

The Pride of America is the ONLY large U.S. flagged cruise ship and is in compliance with the PVSA, not an exception to the rule. However, because it is subject to U.S. taxes and U.S. wages, the price for an Alaska cruise would increase significantly. And without a casino on board, a major income stream is lost. So probably not a profitable option for NCL.

[Charles4515]

16 minutes ago, twodjs said:

 

The Pride of America is the ONLY large U.S. flagged cruise ship and is in compliance with the PVSA, not an exception to the rule. However, because it is subject to U.S. taxes and U.S. wages, the price for an Alaska cruise would increase significantly. And without a casino on board, a major income stream is lost. So probably not a profitable option for NCL.

 

They are an exception and are only allowed to cruise the Hawaiian Islands without a foreign port stop. 

[CruiserRob]

I think NCL would try to fight this.  They have the only ship allowed to do cruises around the Hawaiian Islands without a foreign port and I believe that they would like to protect that monopoly.  

[JRG]

On 6/11/2021 at 8:52 AM, Charles4515 said:

You are dreaming if you think that the politicians are going to do the same for a permenent change.

 

Seriously Charles?.   This thread is about politicians who just introduced 3 bills for a permanent change.

 

Who is dreaming and who is sleeping?

Edited June 15, 2021 by JRG

[Fouremco]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Seriously Charles?.   This thread is about politicians who just introduced 3 bills for a permanent change.

 

Who is dreaming and who is sleeping?

Introducing bills and having them passed are two very different things. Dream on! 😇

[JRG]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

Introducing bills and having them passed are two very different things. Dream on! 😇

 

Yeah but 3 bills so quickly after ATRA,   somebody is not wasting any time are they?

Doesn't it make you wonder when they acting so fast,   like perhaps they are trying to beat the expiration date and keep the momentum moving.    

 

I think the 'Herd" here on CC is getting ready to vote with their feet and who knows what kind of unimaginable good consequences could be forthcoming.   

 

 

 

     

 

[JRG]

1 hour ago, Fouremco said:

Introducing bills and having them passed are two very different things.

 

Also,  it would be premature to speculate about passage.   The thread is only talking about the introduction of the act.   

 

When it comes time to discuss the barriers to passage,   I would like to suggest that transparency should be the protocol,   not confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fouremco]

14 minutes ago, JRG said:

 

Also,  it would be premature to speculate about passage.   The thread is only talking about the introduction of the act.   

 

When it comes time to discuss the barriers to passage,   I would like to suggest that transparency should be the protocol,   not confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are free to limit your posts to the introduction of the bills, should you choose to do so, but the rest of us are following the OP's lead when he very clearly asks about the chances of bills' passage in post #1:

 

So, what are the chances these 3 bills get signed into law? Should make for interesting discussions. 😎

 

 

 

[JamieLogical]

Curious what "special interests" you think would fight these bills. Who currently actually benefits from the PVSA? The only beneficiary I can even think of is NCL with its current monopoly on Hawaiian sailings, but even they might happily give that up to not have to be in compliance with the PVSA on all their other ships and itineraries.

[markeb]

19 minutes ago, JamieLogical said:

Curious what "special interests" you think would fight these bills. Who currently actually benefits from the PVSA? The only beneficiary I can even think of is NCL with its current monopoly on Hawaiian sailings, but even they might happily give that up to not have to be in compliance with the PVSA on all their other ships and itineraries.

 

I'm about to be accused of being a naysayer, but I really don't care.

 

The PVSA, the actual law, only relates to transporting passengers from one US port to another, with or without a foreign stop. The adoption in the '80s of language allowing a distant foreign stop is an evolution from earlier language that had time limits on stops, that derives from an US Attorney General's opinion and a single court case upholding it. Those both come from a challenge to an around the world cruise in the the late 19th Century that decided the primary purpose of the cruise was recreation, not transportation.

 

The near foreign stop language is NOT in the PVSA; it is in the same Code of Federal Regulation entry as the distant foreign stop rules, but it relates to immigration and taxation. From a practical standpoint, the foreign stop allows the cruiselines to operate with crew visas and not be subject to US labor laws or income tax on the crew. So repealing the PVSA for cruise ships without addressing immigration and taxation by some method (the Alaska law declares the crew and vessel to have departed the US by emailing Canada...), then the primary impact would be to one way cruises from Alaska to Washington or California (no longer originating in Canada),  or Hawaii to California without a distant foreign stop.

 

Without an international stop, the crew would need US work visas, or a change in immigration law. There currently is no category of work visa they'd qualify for, so that would require an expansion as well. There are millions of US Citizen service industry workers. Far more than there are cruisers. So there's no real way to claim you need new visas when US citizens can perform the work. Just not for what's currently being paid. The right would object to an expansion of visas as part of general opposition to immigration. The left would object to expansion of visas because of support for workers. And the cruiselines would just as soon make a foreign stop and avoid all of it. And that's before we even talk about highly skilled but not executive level (probably are visas they'd qualify for) engineers, navigators, etc., which are also available in sufficient numbers in the US to crew cruise ships. It's far more than "special interests".  

 

And cruisers don't want to pay for the additional labor costs. Whether they want to admit it or not. And the general lack of understanding of a series of related but totally different laws and regulations benefits the cruise lines who blame everything on the PVSA, without having to explain that they actually benefit from the current circumstances. Everywhere, not just in Hawaii.

Edited June 15, 2021 by markeb

[JamieLogical]

@markeb So if I am understanding correctly, were it not for the PVSA, cruise lines would be subject to US taxation and labor laws? The PVSA actually gives them an "out"? Then I think the final version of these bills would need to address that in some way to have the intended effect. The intent seems to be to allow cruise lines to transport American passengers between US ports without a foreign port stop (or distant foreign port in the event of a non-closed-circuit sailing) or requiring US built/flagged vessels. Thereby allowing ships to stop in more US ports, enhancing the economies of those port cities. It sounds to me like you are saying that repealing the PVSA doesn't actually accomplish that, because then cruise lines will still be running afoul of labor and taxation laws?

[Host Jazzbeau]

14 minutes ago, markeb said:

So repealing the PVSA for cruise ships without addressing immigration and taxation by some method

This is the crux of your entire post.  You assume that this wouldn't be part of the changes to the PVSA.  Since the drafters realized they had to deal with it for the Alaska bill, why don't you think they would include that issue on the permanent bill?

[markeb]

Just now, Host Jazzbeau said:

This is the crux of your entire post.  You assume that this wouldn't be part of the changes to the PVSA.  Since the drafters realized they had to deal with it for the Alaska bill, why don't you think they would include that issue on the permanent bill?

Because the sponsor of the legislation is pretty much against all immigration…

 

And I’m not assuming they won’t, I’m saying they have to in some fashion. And the Alaska language may or may not work. I suspect it would attract much more attention in a broader bill. Let it get into committee and rewrites and see what support it has. 

[B_A_H]

On 6/10/2021 at 4:48 PM, Ken the cruiser said:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced three bills to repeal and reform the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA), an outdated, protectionist law that harms American jobs and American tourism.

It was enacted to prevent harm to American jobs by mandating cruises only stopping at U.S. ports be staffed by U.S. citizens (the only reason NCL's Pride of America exists).  So now we don't care about staff onboard's nationality because we're more concerned about lost shore side revenue?  I'm not taking a position on the bill but the fact that Lee is using why it was enacted as its harm is kind of funny. 

 

[JamieLogical]

5 minutes ago, B_A_H said:

It was enacted to prevent harm to American jobs by mandating cruises only stopping at U.S. ports be staffed by U.S. citizens (the only reason NCL's Pride of America exists).  So now we don't care about staff onboard's nationality because we're more concerned about lost shore side revenue?  I'm not taking a position on the bill but the fact that Lee is using why it was enacted as its harm is kind of funny. 

 

 

Well, he's not wrong. The idea behind the bill was to protect US workers, but it hasn't actually done that, now has it? We have one ship from one major cruise line that was "built" in the US. It actually wasn't built in the US and it took an act of congress to get it certified as such. None of the major cruise lines employ any significant number of Americans onboard. None  of the major cruise lines are flagged in the US. So the current law is definitely not helping support the US economy and American workers. By at least removing the restrictions, cruises (which are already sailing anyway with non-US flags and non-US crew) could at least stop in more US ports and boost the economies of those port cities.

Edited June 15, 2021 by JamieLogical

[markeb]

54 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

This is the crux of your entire post.  You assume that this wouldn't be part of the changes to the PVSA.  Since the drafters realized they had to deal with it for the Alaska bill, why don't you think they would include that issue on the permanent bill?

 

Wrote too fast on my reply. I was actually replying to a question of who are the special interests. And they probably change depending on how far they really go. When I looked before, there was no text for any of the three bills.

 

Honestly, I'd suggest they didn't deal with it in the Alaska bill; they found an ingenious short term work around. That passed by unanimous non-objection, not a unanimous vote. All we know is no one in either house cared enough to miss their Friday fundraiser to object to unanimous consent.

 

At least some of what's in the presser makes sense. There effectively is no industry in the US to build cruise ships. So requiring US built vessels for coastwise qualification for that is probably outdated. The ban on transportation of passengers creates crazy things like bus trips from Mexico to San Diego. If they can figure out a way to carve that out and only apply it to cruise ships (actually probably a good precedent in the Alaska law by naming the vessels; if they can figure out a way for cruise lines to periodically name their vessels maybe?). You can do all that by changing the PVSA's ban on transporting passengers between US ports, and probably redefining cabotage for those vessels (which could eliminate the need that they be US manned; we'll see how controversial that is). And if that's all that happens, it should work. But that wouldn't automatically mean cruising from Honolulu to LA without a stop in Mexico. Or Anchorage to Seattle without a stop in Canada. But it might encourage a repositioning cruise from Boston to Miami by way of one of the northern islands in the Bahamas. 

 

And those wouldn't actually require immigration changes.

 

Let's see. 

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, JamieLogical said:

 

Well, he's not wrong. The idea behind the bill was to protect US workers, but it hasn't actually done that, now has it? We have one ship from one major cruise line that was "built" in the US. It actually wasn't built in the US and it took an act of congress to get it certified as such. None of the major cruise lines employ any significant number of Americans onboard. None  of the major cruise lines are flagged in the US. So the current law is definitely not helping support the US economy and American workers. By at least removing the restrictions, cruises (which are already sailing anyway with non-US flags and non-US crew) could at least stop in more US ports and boost the economies of those port cities.

 

I don't disagree with your thinking and I have advocated that the PSVA should be modified...... but modified carefully so there are not unintended consequences. Don't hand companies that foreign flag their ships so they don't have to follow US laws or evade US taxes any easy pass. What I don't think is that we should think like JRG seems think that it will be some kind of easy win getting the PVSA modified. There are many interests that will oppose changes. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Charles4515

[Ken the cruiser]

We just hope one day we'll be able to book a B2B cruise from NY or Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to Ft Lauderdale, without having to worry that the PVSA would prevent that from happening. Also, having to stop in Cartagena, Colombia when cruising through the Panama Canal from a Florida port to a California port or vice versa is kind of corny as well, especially since we would have already stopped at a variety of countries along the way. 

[nocl]

14 hours ago, CruiserRob said:

I think NCL would try to fight this.  They have the only ship allowed to do cruises around the Hawaiian Islands without a foreign port and I believe that they would like to protect that monopoly.  

Yep the monopoly is so wonderful that they have gone from 3 ships to 1.

 

If this passed and no changes were made to visa, tax, labor laws there would be absolutely no change because none of the other lines would make any changes, they would still call on foreign ports to get the benefits from the foreign cruise designation.

 

If changes were made to those areas and cruise lines could keep their current visa, tax and labor advantages then NCL would fire their current employees, get rid of their US registered ship and take the same path as the other cruise lines with the same advantages.

[nocl]

7 hours ago, JamieLogical said:

@markeb So if I am understanding correctly, were it not for the PVSA, cruise lines would be subject to US taxation and labor laws? The PVSA actually gives them an "out"? Then I think the final version of these bills would need to address that in some way to have the intended effect. The intent seems to be to allow cruise lines to transport American passengers between US ports without a foreign port stop (or distant foreign port in the event of a non-closed-circuit sailing) or requiring US built/flagged vessels. Thereby allowing ships to stop in more US ports, enhancing the economies of those port cities. It sounds to me like you are saying that repealing the PVSA doesn't actually accomplish that, because then cruise lines will still be running afoul of labor and taxation laws?

It is a call on at least 1 foreign port that gives them an out, since that makes the cruise a foreign cruise, instead of a domestic cruise where US taxes, labor laws, different visa requirements, and more Coast Guard impact on ship operations.

[nocl]

6 hours ago, markeb said:

 

Wrote too fast on my reply. I was actually replying to a question of who are the special interests. And they probably change depending on how far they really go. When I looked before, there was no text for any of the three bills.

 

Honestly, I'd suggest they didn't deal with it in the Alaska bill; they found an ingenious short term work around. That passed by unanimous non-objection, not a unanimous vote. All we know is no one in either house cared enough to miss their Friday fundraiser to object to unanimous consent.

 

At least some of what's in the presser makes sense. There effectively is no industry in the US to build cruise ships. So requiring US built vessels for coastwise qualification for that is probably outdated. The ban on transportation of passengers creates crazy things like bus trips from Mexico to San Diego. If they can figure out a way to carve that out and only apply it to cruise ships (actually probably a good precedent in the Alaska law by naming the vessels; if they can figure out a way for cruise lines to periodically name their vessels maybe?). You can do all that by changing the PVSA's ban on transporting passengers between US ports, and probably redefining cabotage for those vessels (which could eliminate the need that they be US manned; we'll see how controversial that is). And if that's all that happens, it should work. But that wouldn't automatically mean cruising from Honolulu to LA without a stop in Mexico. Or Anchorage to Seattle without a stop in Canada. But it might encourage a repositioning cruise from Boston to Miami by way of one of the northern islands in the Bahamas. 

 

And those wouldn't actually require immigration changes.

 

Let's see. 

A more practical approach would be to allow transport from one US city to another provided at least 1 foreign port is visited.  That would solve many of the PVSA problems, would not impact most of the internal US marine industry (ferries, tour boats, charters, etc).It would still keep cruises foreign so no impact on the cost structures.  You would still need the one foreign port but it eliminates the b2b conflicts with PVSA that arise. It would also allow LA or SF or Seattle to Hawaii one way cruises with a call on a foreign port.

[NMTraveller]

The advantages of these bills are many fold.  They would multiply the money brought in at cruise ports and create many more along the east and west coasts.   I would do an all USA East coast cruise or all USA west coast cruise.  You could also go to Alaska and have an extra day there.  More cruise ships in Hawaii circling the islands and going back and forth.  A great boost to our economy.

 

Regarding the special interests most refer to the labor unions.  However the labor unions are rather small in this case.  We are not talking about the teacher's union which has extreme influence.  Some of the current cruise stops are only technical stops as they stop in a foreign port for only 3 hours.

[Ken the cruiser]

9 hours ago, nocl said:

A more practical approach would be to allow transport from one US city to another provided at least 1 foreign port is visited.  That would solve many of the PVSA problems, would not impact most of the internal US marine industry (ferries, tour boats, charters, etc).It would still keep cruises foreign so no impact on the cost structures.  You would still need the one foreign port but it eliminates the b2b conflicts with PVSA that arise. It would also allow LA or SF or Seattle to Hawaii one way cruises with a call on a foreign port.

Would your approach also change the "distant foreign port" requirement to "any foreign port" when traveling between different US ports? If so, that would seem then to allow a B2B cruise from NY or Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to Ft Lauderdale as well as not having to stop in Cartagena, Colombia, a non NA port, when cruising through the Panama Canal from Florida to California port or vice versa. 

 

If so, that solves my issue. 😎

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[nocl]

24 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Would your approach also change the "distant foreign port" requirement to "any foreign port" when traveling between different US ports? If so, that would seem then to allow a B2B cruise from NY or Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to Ft Lauderdale as well as not having to stop in Cartagena, Colombia, a non NA port, when cruising through the Panama Canal from Florida to California port or vice versa. 

 

If so, that solves my issue. 😎

 

yes