Senate passes the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act

[ontheweb]

48 minutes ago, igraf said:

 

Recovering the economy from a pandemic is not "willy nilly".  In fact, I would say that making a convenience stop in a foreign country just to satisfy an archaic law qualifies as willy nilly.

 

igraf

 

1. The cruise industry is a very small part of the harm that the pandemic has done to the economy.

 

2. If the PVSA is so harmful to cruise lines, why have we not heard them lobby to get rid of it well before the pandemic started.

 

3. You did not even debate what I said concerning we are a party to international treaties.

 

4. If you do some research on these boards, you could find some of the positives that come out of the PVSA such as protecting American jobs on ferries.

[kelleherdl]

18 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

 

 

2. If the PVSA is so harmful to cruise lines, why have we not heard them lobby to get rid of it well before the pandemic started.

 

 

Because it’s not good business to openly oppose bureaucrats and lawmakers who control your business’ very existence.  I believe if the cruise lines were convinced that large numbers of PVSA non-compliant cruises could markedly alter their profitability they would certainly lobby to get changes.  Until COVID they were doing quite nicely without rocking the boat.
 

Some have raised a similar line about the cruise lines ‘not joining’ the Florida/Alaska/Texas et al lawsuit against HHS/CDC as somehow they opposed that move.  Do you really believe that?
 

Dennis

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

Because it’s not good business to openly oppose bureaucrats and lawmakers who control your business’ very existence.  I believe if the cruise lines were convinced that large numbers of PVSA non-compliant cruises could markedly alter their profitability they would certainly lobby to get changes.  Until COVID they were doing quite nicely without rocking the boat.
 

Some have raised a similar line about the cruise lines ‘not joining’ the Florida/Alaska/Texas et al lawsuit against HHS/CDC as somehow they opposed that move.  Do you really believe that?
 

Dennis

The reason the cruise lines have not lobbied for change/repeal of the PVSA, is that they have determined that there is little to no benefit to their bottom line, and possible harm.  CLIA lobbied for 10 years to get a PVSA exemption for Puerto Rico, and only one cruise line decided to offer the one way cruises between PR and the mainland US, and this service only lasted for a year due to low demand.  They know that domestic cruises are of major interest to lots of folks on CC, but not so much to the general cruising public.  They also know that if they were to be allowed to sail on domestic cruises, the "small" problem of work visas for the crew (and this is outside the PVSA, it is an immigration statute), would significantly degrade their bottom line (H2-B work visas require paying comparable US wages, and meeting US labor laws).  They would also lose their duty free status, where they can bring anything to be used on the ship into the US without paying any customs duty, due to the fact it is going to a foreign flag ship engaged in foreign commerce (they would not be in foreign commerce anymore).  And, in getting a waiver/exemption to the PVSA, they would become "coastwise compliant" vessels, and as such subject to USCG regulations, which are stricter (and hence more costly) than the cruise ships meet today.  All of these detriments to their bottom line are not part of the PVSA, so further laws would need to change in order for them to continue business as usual in domestic voyages.

[rkacruiser]

22 hours ago, Hlitner said:

There was a lot of logic to the CDC's rapid change on masks.  The CDC hearings (on Wednesday) made Dr Walensky look somewhat like a mute fool since she did not have a good answer to some of the questions regarding masking on some other related issues.  One of my favorite was when a Senator asked if the CDC had documented a single case of a fully vaccinated person spreading COVID in the Washington D. C. area.  The answer was essentially that we do not gather that kind of data.  But. last year, Congress (and many State governments) had allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for what they called "contact tracing."  Funny thing about all that "contact tracing."  Where are the results?  or perhaps the results did not support the current agenda?  

 

Hank

 

Surely, that Committee hearing was not Dr. Walensky's "finest hour".  But, who among us have not had such moments as that at times?  In my opinion, Dr. Walensky remains a more believable and trusted person than the gentleman whom she replaced.  

 

The CDC, itself, is an agency that needs some "shaping up", I believe.  Starved for funds for some time because of the mantra "taxes need to be cut" has brought the CDC, along with so many other Federal and State agencies,  that we find ourselves now where we are.  It's not a "pretty picture" from my perspective.  

 

I do not put any responsibility  on the dedicated employees of the CDC for the failure of their leadership.  Those employees do the very best that they can do, I truly believe.  I put responsibility on those placed in charge and for the failure of our Congress to properly fund a vital Agency that impacts the well-being of the American people.

 

I have inquired from my Member of the House of Representatives the legislative status of the passed SB 593 and the introduced HR 1318.  My phone from Mr. Turner's office has not rung.  My e-mail in-box from his office is empty.    

[igraf]

26 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The reason the cruise lines have not lobbied for change/repeal of the PVSA, is that they have determined that there is little to no benefit to their bottom line, and possible harm.  .....

 

I would expand on this by saying that stopping at Victoria on the way to Alaska was a convenient and attractive port for the passengers, so there was no point in rocking the boat (so to speak...).  Most other cruises from the USA are heading to foreign destinations anyway, so again no point in raising a fuss.  Nevertheless, there are benefits in avoiding the required stop.  Ensenada comes to mind....

 

Cruises with US crews will not work well for middle class passengers, so why push the protection?  Read the reviews on the Pride of America.  It is a good thing that all the port stops are in Hawaii, because the ship and crew are not the main attraction!

 

igraf

 

 

 

 

[TiogaCruiser]

6 hours ago, ontheweb said:

If that is the criterion, shouldn't they ask for her to get tested?

That depends on several things. If this was towards the beginning, very few tests were available and were being used to guide treatment for the severely ill. 
 

If she was observing quarantine properly, she would be having NO contact with anyone, so not passing it on. And a negative test is essentially “point data”. It would not rule out covid. She would still need to complete quarantine. 

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, kelleherdl said:

Because it’s not good business to openly oppose bureaucrats and lawmakers who control your business’ very existence.  I believe if the cruise lines were convinced that large numbers of PVSA non-compliant cruises could markedly alter their profitability they would certainly lobby to get changes.  Until COVID they were doing quite nicely without rocking the boat.
 

Some have raised a similar line about the cruise lines ‘not joining’ the Florida/Alaska/Texas et al lawsuit against HHS/CDC as somehow they opposed that move.  Do you really believe that?
 

Dennis

I made 4 points, and you responded to only 1 of them. And the very next post simply destroyed your argument against my point.

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The reason the cruise lines have not lobbied for change/repeal of the PVSA, is that they have determined that there is little to no benefit to their bottom line, and possible harm.  CLIA lobbied for 10 years to get a PVSA exemption for Puerto Rico, and only one cruise line decided to offer the one way cruises between PR and the mainland US, and this service only lasted for a year due to low demand.  They know that domestic cruises are of major interest to lots of folks on CC, but not so much to the general cruising public.  They also know that if they were to be allowed to sail on domestic cruises, the "small" problem of work visas for the crew (and this is outside the PVSA, it is an immigration statute), would significantly degrade their bottom line (H2-B work visas require paying comparable US wages, and meeting US labor laws).  They would also lose their duty free status, where they can bring anything to be used on the ship into the US without paying any customs duty, due to the fact it is going to a foreign flag ship engaged in foreign commerce (they would not be in foreign commerce anymore).  And, in getting a waiver/exemption to the PVSA, they would become "coastwise compliant" vessels, and as such subject to USCG regulations, which are stricter (and hence more costly) than the cruise ships meet today.  All of these detriments to their bottom line are not part of the PVSA, so further laws would need to change in order for them to continue business as usual in domestic voyages.

There you go again giving facts to counter misconceptions.

[KirkNC]

11 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Surely, that Committee hearing was not Dr. Walensky's "finest hour".  But, who among us have not had such moments as that at times?  In my opinion, Dr. Walensky remains a more believable and trusted person than the gentleman whom she replaced.  

 

The CDC, itself, is an agency that needs some "shaping up", I believe.  Starved for funds for some time because of the mantra "taxes need to be cut" has brought the CDC, along with so many other Federal and State agencies,  that we find ourselves now where we are.  It's not a "pretty picture" from my perspective.  

 

I do not put any responsibility  on the dedicated employees of the CDC for the failure of their leadership.  Those employees do the very best that they can do, I truly believe.  I put responsibility on those placed in charge and for the failure of our Congress to properly fund a vital Agency that impacts the well-being of the American people.

 

I have inquired from my Member of the House of Representatives the legislative status of the passed SB 593 and the introduced HR 1318.  My phone from Mr. Turner's office has not rung.  My e-mail in-box from his office is empty.    

The only thing I can find on the house version is that it was referred to the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Committee on Feb 25th.  That’s not good….

 

 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1318/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

[cruisingrob21]

3 hours ago, KirkNC said:

The only thing I can find on the house version is that it was referred to the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Committee on Feb 25th.  That’s not good….

 

 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1318/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

You have to find the Senate version (S.593).  It's currently "held at desk" - whatever that means.  Looks like it made the long and arduous journey across the capital building to the House yesterday - which took 4 days (more if you count weekends).  Sheesh, it could have done a booze cruise to Ensenada in that time 🙂

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/593/all-actions?r=3&overview=closed&s=2#tabs

[KirkNC]

48 minutes ago, cruisingrob21 said:

You have to find the Senate version (S.593).  It's currently "held at desk" - whatever that means.  Looks like it made the long and arduous journey across the capital building to the House yesterday - which took 4 days (more if you count weekends).  Sheesh, it could have done a booze cruise to Ensenada in that time 🙂

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/593/all-actions?r=3&overview=closed&s=2#tabs

Got to love it!

[nocl]

3 hours ago, cruisingrob21 said:

You have to find the Senate version (S.593).  It's currently "held at desk" - whatever that means.  Looks like it made the long and arduous journey across the capital building to the House yesterday - which took 4 days (more if you count weekends).  Sheesh, it could have done a booze cruise to Ensenada in that time 🙂

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/593/all-actions?r=3&overview=closed&s=2#tabs

"A maneuver reserving the right of action on a measure to the full Chamber, rather than to a committee. A bill held at the desk is available for immediate consideration. Since it is not referred to a committee, the bill has no hearings or committee reports accompanying it from that Chamber. A bill passed by one Chamber and referred to the second Chamber often is held at the desk in the second Chamber, particularly when the second Chamber already is working on similar legislation."

[d9704011]

1 minute ago, nocl said:

"A maneuver reserving the right of action on a measure to the full Chamber, rather than to a committee. A bill held at the desk is available for immediate consideration. Since it is not referred to a committee, the bill has no hearings or committee reports accompanying it from that Chamber. A bill passed by one Chamber and referred to the second Chamber often is held at the desk in the second Chamber, particularly when the second Chamber already is working on similar legislation."

And my understanding is that the Bill was already with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

And my understanding is that the Bill was already with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

It has been there since the day after it was created.

[d9704011]

9 minutes ago, nocl said:

It has been there since the day after it was created.

Hence, the Held at Desk (House).  Waiting on the (sub) committee report.

[CruiserBruce]

We are confusing the already existing bill, created in the House, which is in Committee, and the Senate Bill, which is being held.

[nocl]

59 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Hence, the Held at Desk (House).  Waiting on the (sub) committee report.

No. the bill from and approved by  the Senate is held at desk

 

The bill that started in the House is in sub committee.

 

two different bills, two different statuses.

 

Held at desk is a status that would allow consideration of the Senate bill by the full house without having to wait for the house bill to get voted out of committee.

[JRG]

2 hours ago, nocl said:

Held at desk

 

Hopefully the next status report is something like "Held for Rubber Stamping"

 

This poor little bill has been through a lot.

[rkacruiser]

5 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

We are confusing the already existing bill, created in the House, which is in Committee, and the Senate Bill, which is being held.

 

4 hours ago, nocl said:

No. the bill from and approved by  the Senate is held at desk

 

The bill that started in the House is in sub committee.

 

two different bills, two different statuses.

 

Held at desk is a status that would allow consideration of the Senate bill by the full house without having to wait for the house bill to get voted out of committee.

 

That is my understanding as well.  A Conference Committee may be needed if the two Bills differ after the House passes whatever they do.  But, that action does not mean a long delay in the passage of the Bill that arises from such a Committee by both of the Houses of Congress.  

 

24 hours after I contacted the office of my Representative, Michael Turner, about this issue, I have heard nothing from his office.   But, that is not unusual.  

[DCGuy64]

The House just passed the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act earlier today with no opposition. Looking good for Alaska tourism, folks.

https://www.adn.com/politics/2021/05/20/us-house-passes-measure-allowing-large-cruise-ships-to-visit-alaska-this-summer/

Bipartisanship seems rare sometimes, but this is a good example of it.

 

 

[Cruise Suzy]

WOO HOO!!!!!!!

[aliaschief]

Today is a  great day for cruise lines and they should be able to salvage some of the Alaskan season and resume European cruises with vaccinated passengers and crew.⚓️🛳👏🏻

[zelker]

11 minutes ago, Cruise Suzy said:

WOO HOO!!!!!!!

I'll second that!!!  👍

[chengkp75]

Unbelievable.  They cater to the cruise lines and give them a huge concession without any quid pro quo.  The foreign flag ships can still import any supplies and spare parts they need without paying customs duty on them (even though it is now a domestic voyage), liquor is still duty free for the cruise lines, and while the passengers are not leaving the US, the crew are "deemed" to be entering Canada, so they don't have to adhere to any US labor laws.  If they wanted to give this to the cruise lines, they should have at least required some compensation, not just given the store away.

[1ANGELCAT]

Just sent this to my travel agent. Again, to all you naysayers, I’ll have a Wang Wang for you😀🚢🍾🎉