The PVSA is Anachronistic, Counterproductive, and Stupid, and Should be Repealed!

[Mary229]

I think at this point it will take legal action since it appears political action is not working.   Really that is how it should be,  rulings examined, laws reconsidered not by political favor. 

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

Understandable but you are talking about an entire industry put on hold.

One industry vs one nation.

[iceman93]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

One industry vs one nation.

I disagree again.  I disagree that it is "one industry" as cruisers bring revenues to many other industries (lodging, airlines, restaurants, shops, drivers, tour guides, etc.), and I disagree that it's versus "one nation" because it's not like the American public are up in arms against leisure travel (quite the opposite, in fact).

[Mary229]

1 minute ago, iceman93 said:

I disagree again.  I disagree that it is "one industry" as cruisers bring revenues to many other industries (lodging, airlines, restaurants, shops, drivers, tour guides, etc.), and I disagree that it's versus "one nation" because it's not like the American public are up in arms against leisure travel (quite the opposite, in fact).

Thank you. 

[rkacruiser]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

I think at this point it will take legal action since it appears political action is not working.   Really that is how it should be,  rulings examined, laws reconsidered not by political favor. 

 

If the industry would have to seek legal remediation to resume cruising, it will take quite some time for that to occur.  Legal actions take much time to work there way through the system for a final decision to be rendered.  

 

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

One industry vs one nation.

 

I read a comment in the national media today about the ability of the Senate to handle their current responsibilities along with the new Impeachment Trial of the 45th President of the United States.  "The Senate does not multi-task well", it said.  That, I think, applies to much of the Federal government's agencies.  

[iceman93]

I'm not saying I agree with the approach or that it would be appropriate in this case, but the past few presidential administrations have seemed quite willing to use executive orders to circumvent whatever laws they found inconvenient.  As long as Congress gives them a free pass to do so, the incentive is there to continue that behavior.  President Biden could certainly sign an executive order temporarily overruling the PVSA and/or Jones Acts, enabling these kinds of cruises to happen soon.

 

My main point is that it wouldn't take a multi-year multiagency review process and the usual lawmaking process through Congress for the current restrictions to be changed.  It could happen with the swish of a pen.

[Shmoo here]

9 minutes ago, iceman93 said:

I'm not saying I agree with the approach or that it would be appropriate in this case, but the past few presidential administrations have seemed quite willing to use executive orders to circumvent whatever laws they found inconvenient.  As long as Congress gives them a free pass to do so, the incentive is there to continue that behavior.  President Biden could certainly sign an executive order temporarily overruling the PVSA and/or Jones Acts, enabling these kinds of cruises to happen soon.

 

My main point is that it wouldn't take a multi-year multiagency review process and the usual lawmaking process through Congress for the current restrictions to be changed.  It could happen with the swish of a pen.

Although Biden has already announced that he supports the Jones Act and the PVSA.  I don't see him changing either of them any time soon.

 

https://maritime-executive.com/article/biden-supports-jones-act-shipping-with-new-buy-american-order

[Horizon chaser 1957]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

Although Biden has already announced that he supports the Jones Act and the PVSA.  I don't see him changing either of them any time soon.

 

https://maritime-executive.com/article/biden-supports-jones-act-shipping-with-new-buy-american-order

A number of things have been either imposed or suspended on a temporary basis until the current health emergency has been declared over. The CDC orders regarding cruising are one example. The current border closures are another. Biden can support the Jones Act and the PVSA as long term measures yet still grant a temporary waiver to cruises from Seattle to Alaska until the health emergency is declared over. They aren’t mutually exclusive actions.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Horizon chaser 1957

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, iceman93 said:

I disagree again.  I disagree that it is "one industry" as cruisers bring revenues to many other industries (lodging, airlines, restaurants, shops, drivers, tour guides, etc.), and I disagree that it's versus "one nation" because it's not like the American public are up in arms against leisure travel (quite the opposite, in fact).

Sorry, in my attempt at brevity, I may have led to misunderstanding.  I'm not saying the US public are up in arms against the cruise industry, I am saying that the CDC can either focus on the cruise industry's needs or the nation's needs.  I think the nation's needs outweigh the cruise industry, and should have the bulk of the CDC resources assigned.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, Horizon chaser 1957 said:

A number of things have been either imposed or suspended on a temporary basis until the current health emergency has been declared over. The CDC orders regarding cruising are one example. The current border closures are another. Biden can support the Jones Act and the PVSA as long term measures yet still grant a temporary waiver to cruises from Seattle to Alaska until the health emergency is declared over. They aren’t mutually exclusive actions.

And I disagree that he can grant a temporary waiver.  From what I've read, an Executive Order can tell the agencies how to enforce a law, but cannot change the law.  Both laws involved (the PVSA and the Immigration acts that set the visa requirements and limits) grant specific authority to the President in these areas, and he cannot exceed this authority without Congressional approval.  The ability to grant PVSA waivers is limited, by statute, to situations where it is in the best interest of national security, and where there are no US flag services available.  Frankly, a case could be made that granting a waiver would be detrimental to national security, in that it could lead to further public health emergencies.

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, iceman93 said:

President Biden could certainly sign an executive order temporarily overruling the PVSA and/or Jones Acts, enabling these kinds of cruises to happen soon.

And, no he could not.  If he did, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel would tell him it was illegal, and the federal judiciary could review it and overturn it without even a case being brought concerning it.

[KirkNC]

59 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, in my attempt at brevity, I may have led to misunderstanding.  I'm not saying the US public are up in arms against the cruise industry, I am saying that the CDC can either focus on the cruise industry's needs or the nation's needs.  I think the nation's needs outweigh the cruise industry, and should have the bulk of the CDC resources assigned.

I agree but to be sure a little multi tasking is possible.

[KirkNC]

In all these discussions about PVSA, Jones Act and Canada keeping its borders closed, many continue to ignore the fact that even without these issue, the Alaska season would still be DOA.  

[cruisemom42]

9 hours ago, iceman93 said:

President Biden could certainly sign an executive order temporarily overruling the PVSA and/or Jones Acts, enabling these kinds of cruises to happen soon.

 

Sorry, an executive order cannot be used for that purpose.

[Lady Arwen]

Thank goodness for chengkp 75 and his vast knowledge of maritime law and the cruise industry as a whole.  So many members here are arm chair lawyers and wannabe  cruise experts offering  lots of misinformation and pie in the sky ideas on how to fix things to get what they want.  I think we’ve really beaten this dead horse to death and it’s time to move on.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Lady Arwen said:

Thank goodness for chengkp 75 and his vast knowledge of maritime law and the cruise industry as a whole.  So many members here are arm chair lawyers and wannabe  cruise experts offering  lots of misinformation and pie in the sky ideas on how to fix things to get what they want.  I think we’ve really beaten this dead horse to death and it’s time to move on.

Well, I have to admit to being an "armchair lawyer", but I think that anyone who spends 4 decades working in an industry as regulated as shipping, gets to know the laws, and having Google to assist with finding answers always helps.

[puppycanducruise]

1 hour ago, Lady Arwen said:

Thank goodness for chengkp 75 and his vast knowledge of maritime law and the cruise industry as a whole. 

Yes!

I learn so much from his posts.

Thank you @chengkp75.

[Shmoo here]

9 hours ago, puppycanducruise said:

Yes!

I learn so much from his posts.

Thank you @chengkp75.

I second this.  Thank you.

[rkacruiser]

13 hours ago, KirkNC said:

I agree but to be sure a little multi tasking is possible.

 

As I stated in a previous post: the United States Senate has much difficulty to multi-task as does other government entities.  

 

11 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Sorry, an executive order cannot be used for that purpose.

 

My opinion:  there has been by all of the recent Administrations excessive use of Executive Orders because both Houses of Congress fail to meet their responsibilities.  What is the point of President A signing an Executive Order to make a desired change when President A leaves office and President X enters the Oval Office and signs another Executive Order that cancels President A's Executive Order?  

[rkacruiser]

14 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I am saying that the CDC can either focus on the cruise industry's needs or the nation's needs.  I think the nation's needs outweigh the cruise industry, and should have the bulk of the CDC resources assigned.

 

I agree that the CDC ought to be most concerned about the health of our country.  

 

Why aren't the Departments of Commerce and Labor involved in assisting in making decisions that affect the travel/hospitality/cruise industries?

 

It seems to me that there are issues dealing with cessation of cruises that impact other companies that are not cruise companies.  

[KirkNC]

I bet taxi drivers, hotel workers and waiters in Fort Lauderdale have certainly been impacted.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

I second this.  Thank you.

I also second this. I hope we all appreciate the knowledge that  @chengkp75 shares with us.

[kazu]

22 hours ago, Lady Arwen said:

Thank goodness for chengkp 75 and his vast knowledge of maritime law and the cruise industry as a whole.  

 

+1. So agree with this.

[Himself]

On 2/7/2021 at 1:16 PM, jimdee3636 said:

Virtually every Cruise Critic thread that touches on Alaska and/or Eastern U.S. cruises always cites the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 ("PVSA") as the reason that, say, a cruise ship can't go from Seattle to Alaska without stopping in British Columbia along the way (or go from New York to Maine and back without a stop in Atlantic Canada or Quebec). What is the PVSA anyway, why does it exist, and what is it accomplishing?

 

From what I can tell, it's a typical piece of protectionist legislation that has long outlived whatever purposes it was meant to accomplish. The following L.A. Times link gives a good summary of why the Act is counterproductive and just plain stupid.

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-buchholz-pvsa-cruise-20170803-story.html

 

Those of us who are avid cruisers in the U.S. should let our elected representatives know that the PVSA should be repealed, and the cruise industry itself should be focusing its lobbying efforts on getting rid of this anachronistic and economically harmful legislation.

 

 

I agree!

[BJzink]

On 2/8/2021 at 7:33 AM, Hlitner said:

I think you underestimate the ability of regulators to regulate :).   I certainly would not propose allowing the Staten Island or any other ferry in US Waters to be reflagged.  I only brought up the ferry because it was an issue raised by somebody else in another post.  What I am saying is that there are times when a country does what is in its own best interests (in this case it is to amend or possibly waive part of the PVSA).  Despite you cries to the contrary I do not believe the sky will fall with some amendments.  I seem to recall some objections were raised a few years ago when the US Government decided that the FBI would get involved in cases involving US Citizens/Residents even when they happened on foreign flagged vessels operating outside US Waters.  While the ability of the FBI to get involved in cases does technically need the cooperation of the host country (assuming it happened in another countries waters) pressure is brought to bear and the investigation generally happens.  The US simply uses 18US Code as the basis of the FBI's intervention even when that is in technical conflict of certain other Marine laws.  I only mention this because it is a situation where the US Government acted to do what was in our own best interests with the knowledge that it might later cause some complicated situations which would need to be resolved at the time.

 

I think it can be the same with the PVSA.  This has now become a situation where Congress should act to do what is in our best interests, which might be to protect part of Alaska's economy.  If there are some nasty ramifications that will need to be handled through negotiations.   'While you point out that changes could create a problem with our own labor laws (i.e. crews would be subject to US minimum wage and other related labor laws), the same Congress that would amend the PVSA could also (if it chooses) make targeted changes to applicable labor laws.  It happens all the time in our government.  The truth about working in Government regulation (which I did for about forty years in the healthcare sector) is that regulations/statutes are routinely crafted to do what is in our own best interests.   There is another aspect of the PVSA for which I have my doubts.  I am wondering if President Biden (if he chooses) can simply issue an executive order waiving the necessary parts of the PVSA to simply allow cruises directly between the lower 48 and Alaska without any intervening stops.  Presidents (including Biden) routinely use EOs even when they are obviously contrary to law.   The EO takes effect immediately and then others, if they so choose, are welcome to fight it out in the courts which can often take years.  But meanwhile the EO reigns supreme.   In my career I promulgated several regulations (healthcare related) that were contrary to existing statutes but they were adopted pending later court challenges.  It is almost like somebody doing something in their own best interests and then saying, "if you don't like it....sue me."  Such regulations must be carefully crafted to have some basis in law, but this is usually pretty easy for skilled technocrats and attorneys.

 

Hank 

I have a relative who worked about 45+ years in government, mostly classified positions.  His opinion on elected positions was that their job was to be reelected, never mind what was best for the country or anything else.