Three bills just introduced to repeal and reform the PVSA

[Ken the cruiser]

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

 

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 Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced three bills to repeal and reform the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (PVSA), an outdated, protectionist law that harms American jobs and American tourism.

 

'The PVSA is bad news,' said Sen. Lee. 'This arcane law benefits Canada, Mexico, and other countries who receive increased maritime traffic, at the expense of American workers in our coastal cities, towns, and ports. Reducing demand for jobs and travel opportunities here in the U.S. is the opposite of 'America First.' And in the context of ocean liners, this 'protectionist' law is literally protecting no one, as there hasn't been a cruise ship built domestically in over half a century. The PVSA is bad economics and bad law, and it's far past time that Congress reconsider it.'

 

Mike Lee (via Public) / Sen. Lee Introduces Bills to Repeal, Reform PVSA (publicnow.com)

Edited June 10, 2021 by Ken the cruiser

[AbbyCruiser45]

Very interesting, would be neat to see considering they have momentum. Hopefully he can get a co-sponsor from a coastal state that would actually benefit from this. I’m not sure Utah has a lot to gain lol 

[tserface]

I think they may be pushing the envelope too much.  A variance/extension is one thing, but repealing it altogether may be more difficult.

 

That said, if this does happen then Canada might be sorry the were unrelenting in their border closing.  They could ultimately lose a lot of business if cruise ships are not required to go there (on both coasts).

 

Tom

[Ken the cruiser]

Just imagine being able to go a RT cruise between a US port and Hawaii without stopping in Mexico, or going on a cruise originating in Hawaii and disembarking at a US port rather than disembarking in Vancouver. Mind blowing!

[jalves]

Very little chance of these bills passing.  There are large US maritime interests that will work against them.  Keep in mind that PVSA pertains to much more than just cruise ships.  

[deliver42]

I think the  is just for passenger vessels. The Jones Act, which is for commercial vessels is something different , and is in no threat of being overturned.

[K.T.B.]

41 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Just imagine being able to go a RT cruise between a US port and Hawaii without stopping in Mexico, or going on a cruise originating in Hawaii and disembarking at a US port rather than disembarking in Vancouver. Mind blowing!

 

Imagine a 21 day cruise that begins in Seattle, goes to Alaska, then Hawaii, ending in, say, San Diego.  With zero Canadian or Mexican ports.

 

Rather than introduce a new bill, just make the current waiver permanent. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by K.T.B.

[markeb]

When the Alaska bill was originally introduced, I got curious for a little while. The actual PVSA specifically prohibits exactly what's routinely done with "distant foreign stops". If you read the law, it's hard to make it apply to closed loop cruises at all. The "distant foreign stop" aspect comes into play in 1984 when US jurisdictions (Alaska, as I recall) became concerned with the existing language that revolved around  time in port. And that exception derives from an Attorney General's option, upheld in apparently one court case (in 100 years), that a cruise involving a foreign flagged ship that made two US port stops wasn't actually engaged in transporting passengers, but the real intent of the cruise was recreation. Codifying that concept for cruise ships would address the PVSA aspect of this question. What's somewhat elegant about the Alaska law is that it lumped all the issues, except maybe taxation, into a definition of an international cruise, so all the immigration and visa and related issues kind of went away. Repealing the PVSA without addressing those issues is smoke and mirrors, IMHO.

[Ken the cruiser]

38 minutes ago, markeb said:

When the Alaska bill was originally introduced, I got curious for a little while. The actual PVSA specifically prohibits exactly what's routinely done with "distant foreign stops". If you read the law, it's hard to make it apply to closed loop cruises at all. The "distant foreign stop" aspect comes into play in 1984 when US jurisdictions (Alaska, as I recall) became concerned with the existing language that revolved around  time in port. And that exception derives from an Attorney General's option, upheld in apparently one court case (in 100 years), that a cruise involving a foreign flagged ship that made two US port stops wasn't actually engaged in transporting passengers, but the real intent of the cruise was recreation. Codifying that concept for cruise ships would address the PVSA aspect of this question. What's somewhat elegant about the Alaska law is that it lumped all the issues, except maybe taxation, into a definition of an international cruise, so all the immigration and visa and related issues kind of went away. Repealing the PVSA without addressing those issues is smoke and mirrors, IMHO.

When I saw the article talking about these three bills, I immediately wondered what your view was going to be. It will be interesting to see if Senator Lee will be able to rally enough support to get them passed.

 

Here is a summary of the 3 Acts:

 

Open America's Ports Act

 

Would repeal the PVSA and adjust cabotage requirements accordingly, allowing all ships that qualify under the laws of the United States to transport passengers from U.S. port to U.S. port.

 

Safeguarding American Tourism Act

 

Would exempt large passenger vessels ('vessels with 800 or more passenger berths') from PVSA requirements, and adjust cabotage requirements accordingly, allowing these ships to transport passengers from U.S. port to U.S. port.

This targeted approach would not affect or harm any existing industry, as there hasn't been a cruise ship built in the U.S. (and which would therefore meet the PVSA's high bar) since 1958.

 

Protecting Jobs in American Ports Act

 

Would repeal the 'U.S.-built' requirement for passenger vessels operating between U.S. ports, thereby incentivizing American companies to develop voyages that increase traffic and economic activity - and opportunities for port workers - in American coastal cities and towns.

 

[Fouremco]

3 hours ago, tserface said:

I think they may be pushing the envelope too much.  A variance/extension is one thing, but repealing it altogether may be more difficult.

 

That said, if this does happen then Canada might be sorry the were unrelenting in their border closing.  They could ultimately lose a lot of business if cruise ships are not required to go there (on both coasts).

 

Tom

The PVSA didn't create the demand for cruises from Vancouver, and I doubt that cruise lines would simply abandon Vancouver if the PVSA was repealed.  Whether cruises out of Seattle would choose to  continue stopping in Victoria I don't know.

[Ken the cruiser]

5 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

The PVSA didn't create the demand for cruises from Vancouver, and I doubt that cruise lines would simply abandon Vancouver if the PVSA was repealed.  Whether cruises out of Seattle would choose to  continue stopping in Victoria I don't know.

But by eliminating the PVSA, it would allow cruise lines to be more creative with their itineraries when it comes to booking cruises between two different US ports without always having to include a "distant foreign port". That sample itinerary @K.T.B.mentioned above sounded pretty cool!

[markeb]

41 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

When I saw the article talking about these three bills, I immediately wondered what your view was going to be. It will be interesting to see if Senator Lee will be able to rally enough support to get them passed.

 

 

I guess I'm not holding my breath, but who knows. The original Alaska bill didn't look much like the final version. The bluster here from a very far inland Senator probably won't help much, but you never know...

 

The brilliance of the Alaska bill (thank some poor 20 something staffer living 6 deep in a 2 bedroom apartment...) is defining a cruise from Washington to Seattle as foreign (the correct word should have been international, but it worked) for almost all purposes, by simply emailing an office that has no incentive to acknowledge your email. And, there's a limited time period, and a limited scope, etc. 

 

In this case, you've apparently got three different bills. That just tripled the risk. We'll have to read the language to see how severable they are. I'd actually expect a committee to roll them all together, if they get a hearing, if they're really that closely interrelated.

 

Changing the PVSA, since in spite of the bluster, there isn't a US cruise ship industry, could get consideration. To make it work the way people on this board want it to work, you need either an visa exemption, or a new category or non-immigrant work visas, or play shenanigans with the definition of an international voyage. Protecting jobs in US ports (are there any ports on the Great Salt Lake?), sounds great, but to maintain some semblance of the current cruise industry, and its price structure, you have to sacrifice US service industry jobs, as well as technical jobs in actual vessel operations. There are US citizens who could perform those functions, but not at current cruise pricing. And that's likely to be the issue to long term change. If you gave the cruise lines relief from the PVSA requirements (again, that only really deals with cruises between US ports, such as Honolulu to Seattle), and didn't give them immigration relief, the cruise lines will likely CHOOSE to stop in Mexico to have an international voyage and not have to deal with immigration and taxes...

 

Let's see. I really think a permanent change to the Alaska sailings is much more doable than this.

[cruisingguy007]

It's a great idea. I'd love to take cruises up and down the west coast or visit other states on the US perimeter. Sure I've been to some of the places but I still enjoy them and would absolutely cruise on a voyage that only hits US ports.  

Edited June 11, 2021 by cruisingguy007

[Bruin Steve]

Vancouver and Victoria wouldn't lose that much...They are still going to be popular destinations for cruisers...But, yes, Victoria will lose those "few hours in the evening" stops on Seattle itineraries...And Vancouver would lose the Hawaii cruises...

 

Ensenada would be a bigger loser...It's never been the favorite port of many...

 

Hawaii cruises would skip the foreign ports and only go from one of the California ports.  Most likely Los Angeles, but, perhaps also San Francisco or San Diego.  Cruise lines would jump at the shorter distances, more flights in and larger local population to draw from.

 

The other winner would be California and Pacific Coastal cruises...You could run round trip from LA  for Catalina, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Francisco...,or one way to/from Seattle with a stop at Astoria... without bothering to go out of the way to Ensenada...Gives you more time in port or more ports...

 

n the East Coast, it may not make that much of a difference--There's some potential for Easter Seaboard  "repositioning" cruises between NYC and Florida, stopping along the way in places like the Carolinas or Savannah...but, most people in the East seem to want to head down to some Caribbean Island or at least the Bahamas, so it's hard to see them cutting out those destinations on too many cruises.  You MIGHT get some short, 3 or 4 nighters from New Your or Boston heading to Newport or Bar Harbor or such...taking advantage of the large Northeastern population looking for quick weekend getaways...but those could become "party cruises" like those undesirable 3 nighters to Ensenada on Carnival...so, not really worth hoping for...

 

The other markets I could see opening up would be 7 night RT Hawaii cruises out of Honolulu...or 7 night Alaska round trips out of Seward--which might allow some different Alaska variations--and, more importantly to the cruise lines, the potential to market BOTH pre- and post cruise interior land trips in Alaska...

 

But the bread and butter for the cruise lines in North America is still going to be cruises south to tropical ports in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America...Lots of cruisers still cruise for sun, beaches and warmth...

[taznremmy]

When sailing from LAX or San Diego, I really don't consider Ensenada a "distant foreign port".

[DallasGuy75219]

11 minutes ago, taznremmy said:

When sailing from LAX or San Diego, I really don't consider Ensenada a "distant foreign port".

It's not a distant foreign port for PVSA purposes.

 

A closed loop cruise from a US port on a foreign flagged vessel only has to stop in any foreign port. A one way cruise on a foreign flagged vessel starting in one US port and ending in other must (with an exception for Puerto Rico) stop in a distant foreign port.

[AdoraBelle]

15 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced three bills to repeal and reform the Passenger Vessel Services Act

 

Cool. I'm pretty stoked to cruise out of Utah. 

[Ken the cruiser]

9 hours ago, markeb said:

 

I guess I'm not holding my breath, but who knows. The original Alaska bill didn't look much like the final version. The bluster here from a very far inland Senator probably won't help much, but you never know...

 

The brilliance of the Alaska bill (thank some poor 20 something staffer living 6 deep in a 2 bedroom apartment...) is defining a cruise from Washington to Seattle as foreign (the correct word should have been international, but it worked) for almost all purposes, by simply emailing an office that has no incentive to acknowledge your email. And, there's a limited time period, and a limited scope, etc. 

 

In this case, you've apparently got three different bills. That just tripled the risk. We'll have to read the language to see how severable they are. I'd actually expect a committee to roll them all together, if they get a hearing, if they're really that closely interrelated.

 

Changing the PVSA, since in spite of the bluster, there isn't a US cruise ship industry, could get consideration. To make it work the way people on this board want it to work, you need either an visa exemption, or a new category or non-immigrant work visas, or play shenanigans with the definition of an international voyage. Protecting jobs in US ports (are there any ports on the Great Salt Lake?), sounds great, but to maintain some semblance of the current cruise industry, and its price structure, you have to sacrifice US service industry jobs, as well as technical jobs in actual vessel operations. There are US citizens who could perform those functions, but not at current cruise pricing. And that's likely to be the issue to long term change. If you gave the cruise lines relief from the PVSA requirements (again, that only really deals with cruises between US ports, such as Honolulu to Seattle), and didn't give them immigration relief, the cruise lines will likely CHOOSE to stop in Mexico to have an international voyage and not have to deal with immigration and taxes...

 

Let's see. I really think a permanent change to the Alaska sailings is much more doable than this.

Thanks! As always, your thoughts make a lot of sense. It will be interesting to see how far these 3 bills get.

 

Just to understand the issues you're referring to, does the NCL Pride of America ship that sails around the Hawaii Islands currently comply with all the US immigration, employment and taxation issues you're referring to that would need to be accommodated by the other applicable cruise lines if these Acts were signed into law?

[WestLakeGirl]

As I understand it, NCL is in compliance

[Ken the cruiser]

8 minutes ago, WestLakeGirl said:

As I understand it, NCL is in compliance

So, in theory, if the Pride of America got all of the applicable CDC and US port approvals, it could have offered Alaska cruises out of Seattle when Canada closed its borders without the "Alaska Law" being passed. I always wondered if NCL considered that option.

[WestLakeGirl]

i don’t know if they ever considered moving their ship to Seattle.
 

I think they would have pretty quickly run into the seven-day restriction if they had tried to go between Hawaii and Alaska.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by WestLakeGirl

[Ken the cruiser]

Just now, WestLakeGirl said:

I think they would have pretty quickly run into the seven-day restriction if they had tried to go between Hawaii and Alaska.

No, I was actually referring to the Pride of America temporarily changing its home port to Seattle and then heading back to Hawaii once the summer Alaska season was over.

[Charles4515]

Just now, Ken the cruiser said:

No, I was actually referring to the Pride of America temporarily changing its home port to Seattle and then heading back to Hawaii once the summer Alaska season was over.

 

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. 

[JRG]

11 hours ago, markeb said:

In this case, you've apparently got three different bills. That just tripled the risk. We'll have to read the language to see how severable they are. I'd actually expect a committee to roll them all together, if they get a hearing, if they're really that closely interrelated.

 

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.

 

[K.T.B.]

18 minutes 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.

 

 

It's all about the money.  What will the politicians find more enticing?  Money for the country and its residents (much like what is going to happen with this year's Alaskan cruises) or getting some cash from the special interest groups?