[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 74 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2343-S2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 593

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 593 and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to; the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we talked a lot about the pandemic 
and all that it has brought. I would like to take just a few moments 
here, at the outset, before I ask for full consideration, to share with 
colleagues, very briefly, what we have faced in the State of Alaska 
with regard to our State's economy. We have probably taken a greater 
hit than any State in the country.
  We saw a 32-percent drop in revenue last year, 10 percent higher than 
any other State in the Nation. We are starting to see a light at the 
end of the tunnel, and that is good, but we are also facing the 
prospect of another devastating tourist season.
  Back home, right now, people are not talking about the season for 
2021 coming up. The motto is ``Get through to `22.'' That is an awful 
way to be approaching our situation so they have asked for help. They 
realize that anything that we can do to try to salvage even a few weeks 
of the tourist season is going to be important to us.
  So Senator Sullivan and I have been working on behalf of hundreds of 
small businesses that rely on this essential income just so they can 
scrape by for another year. A lot of people don't think about cruise 
ships as being an essential activity during a pandemic but, let me tell 
you, in our State, where so much of our economy is based on tourism, it 
is an imperative. It is jobs; it is livelihoods; and it really is what 
allows our small communities to keep their doors open.
  In 2019, before the pandemic was upon us, we were looking at 1.33 
million tourists who came to the State of Alaska by way of cruise ship. 
That is pretty significant. In 2020, there were 48 passengers. That is 
48 passengers. That is not 48,000. So, in other words, you had an 
economy that was looking pretty strong and pretty good, and it 
absolutely went into a free fall.
  Normally, the tourism industry generates more than $214 million in 
State and municipal revenue, more than $1.4 billion in payroll, $2.2 
billion in visitor spending, and the prospect was doing nothing but 
going up until we were hit in 2020. The vastly diminished cruise season 
contributed to statewide unemployment rising from 6.2 percent to 11 
percent. Southeast Alaska had greater unemployment, which increased 
from 4.7 to 11.3--17 percent of all jobs in the region impacted.
  This kind of unemployment and this kind of stress is an extraordinary 
challenge. So Alaskans are trying to figure out is there a way to 
salvage there, and there are two points here.
  We are ready to welcome visitors back in the State. We are leading 
the country in vaccination rates. Half of

[[Page S2344]]

all Alaskans have had their first dose. So 43 percent are fully 
vaccinated, but we have got two issues that we are facing here; first 
is, the Centers for Disease Control has their no sail order for the 
cruise industry in place. We actually got some very encouraging news 
just last evening. CDC has acknowledged these changing circumstances 
with regard to vaccination. They updated their guidance for how to 
safely resume cruising, so that is good. That is a positive.
  But we have got a second issue, and that second issue is that Canada 
has a ban on allowing passenger vessels to depart from or transit 
through their waters. We are dealing with a law that is controlling so 
much of this because, in the United States, we only allow domestically 
built, owned, and crewed vessels to operate on solely domestic trips. 
This is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, the PVSA.
  So we have got a situation that without a stop in Canada, a cruise to 
Alaska is a domestic ship. Canada has effectively been available to 
cruise companies that offer voyages to Alaska--not built in the United 
States, not crewed by U.S. citizens, not permitted to sail in Alaska 
without making a stop in a foreign country because otherwise this 
violates the PVSA. So what we are trying to do, we are trying to work 
with the Canadians to resolve this issue. It has been tough making 
headway because Canada is in a different spot when it comes to their 
vaccines.
  We have turned to a legislative fix, a temporary legislative fix. 
There are a lot of different opinions on PVSA and the Jones Act. I am 
not here to debate them today, but what I am trying to offer, along 
with Senator Sullivan, is a temporary fix that will allow the cruise 
ships to travel between Washington State and Alaska because what we are 
trying to do here--I am not trying to save the cruise companies; I am 
trying to save communities that are so dependent on these vessels that 
bring these passengers up.

  For them, it is critical. If we can't get some level of relief, and 
we can't get folks north, they are not going to--they have been on hold 
now since last year. So 14 months until we get into 2022, on top of 
what we have already seen, these businesses won't be there.
  What we are doing is we temporarily deemed that a voyage to Alaska 
from Washington State without a stop in Canada is, by law, a foreign 
voyage. So PVSA is not going to hold us back. I have worked with 
Senator Cantwell, and I have worked with Senator Blumenthal to address 
some of the issues that they have raised, and I thank them both for 
their efforts to work with me.
  We have incorporated, in this amendment, three simple requirements--
two of which the industry already adheres to--requiring defibrillators 
on ships, making sure that the passengers' bill of rights is publicly 
available, and we asked the Secretary to consider a rulemaking on how 
to safely return human remains in the tragic event that someone passes 
away on a cruise. These are simple, commonsense changes that ensure 
cruises are safe for passengers and the crew.
  Along with Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young, I would ask the 
Senate to consider and pass the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act so that 
cruises can gain some semblance--some semblance--of opportunity in 
Alaska, as they have for so long.
  So, again, I will restate my motion here asking unanimous consent 
that Murkowski amendment No. 593 be called up and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, 
Senators Murkowski and Sullivan have ably represented the very serious 
plight of the people of Alaska. I am very sympathetic to the economic 
and humanitarian situation that prompts this effort, the Alaska Tourism 
Recovery Act.
  But I must say that the cruise line industry has a very 
inconsistent--that is a nice way of putting it--and deeply inadequate 
record on consumer protection and worker safety. We worked out a number 
of amendments that are incorporated into this measure. They are basic 
protections during the pandemic and a negotiated compromise, and I 
thank my colleagues from Alaska for doing it in a way that really is a 
win-win for everyone, and that is the measure that is before us now.
  So I will offer no objection. I understand that our colleague Senator 
Lee has an objection--I am not sure what they are at this point, but if 
he does, I look forward to working over the recess with my Alaska 
colleagues to see if we can reach agreement with Senator Lee and 
resolve his objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, it would be 
a gross understatement to say that Alaska tourism and, indeed, tourism 
around the country is suffering and has been throughout the pandemic.
  The cruise industry, which accounts for more than 50 percent of all 
tourists visiting Alaska every year, has been particularly decimated 
not only due to the pandemic but also because of an arcane law passed 
by Congress back in 1886.
  This law, known as the Passenger Vessel Services Act, or PVSA, states 
that no ship that is foreign built, foreign owned, foreign flagged, or 
foreign crewed may transport passengers between two U.S. ports or 
places. So instead of operating continuously in U.S. waters, ships and 
cruise operators departing from the United States are forced to make 
stops in foreign ports in order to remain in compliance with this 130-
year-old law.
  In other words, we are literally shipping our tourism and our 
economic activity abroad to other countries and, in the process, we are 
destroying countless opportunities for our own coastal cities, States, 
and towns.
  Now, you don't have to take my word for it. You can google this and 
see it for yourself. Cruises from the United States, if they leave from 
the United States, must make stops in Canada, Mexico, or Pacific Island 
States in order to avoid incurring the wrath and the heavy penalties of 
the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Instead of welcoming tourists and 
the dollars they spend into American ports, we drive them to Canada, to 
Mexico, and to Pacific Island States.
  Does this law even succeed on its own protectionist terms? Does this 
law protect American shipbuilders? It decidedly does not. It decidedly 
does neither, in fact. Just to be clear, this is a point of 
differentiation here. I have made no secret about the fact that I don't 
like the Jones Act. The Jones Act is a separate beast from this. They 
are both beasts. I dislike both of them intensely. I would repeal both 
of them today if I had the chance. I understand, at least, with respect 
to the Jones Act, what the arguments are as to why we would want to 
keep them intact. I strongly disagree with them, and I believe U.S. 
consumers pay for them dearly, especially in places like Puerto Rico 
and in places like Hawaii, in parts of New England, and in other places 
where they have more limited access to the goods that they might 
otherwise have access to in the absence of the Jones Act.

  There is a big difference between the PVSA and the Jones Act. At 
least with respect to the Jones Act, there are other considerations, 
and those considerations do not exist with respect to the PVSA.
  Now, it is important to keep in mind, again, the difference between 
the Jones Act and the PVSA, which is that with the PVSA, we are dealing 
specifically with passenger vehicles, passenger vessels. I am directing 
my remarks today to those passenger vessels in the large passenger 
vessel category; that is, those with at least 800 passenger berths or 
more.
  With respect to those, this is very significant because the United 
States has not built a single large cruise ship in over 60 years--not 
one, not a single one. With respect to large passenger vessels, this 
law is literally protecting no one.
  At least with respect to the Jones Act, people can point out: Well, 
perhaps it is helping to nurture the U.S. shipbuilding industry. Again, 
I think that argument overlooks the fact that we are laying that burden 
on the backs of poor middle-class Americans in places like Puerto Rico 
and Hawaii and New England and Alaska and other

[[Page S2345]]

parts of the country. But at least I understand that, when there is an 
industry at issue there. It is an industry that is being greedy, and it 
is an industry that, really, is engaging in crony capitalism. But I 
understand the argument.
  With respect to the PVSA, we are not protecting anything because we 
do not make large passenger vessels in this country and haven't for 
over half a century. And so by taking away opportunities for American 
jobs in dockside maintenance and repair, in ports and coastal cities, 
in hotels and restaurants, and in the travel support sector, this law, 
the PVSA, as applied to large passenger vessels, harms American 
workers, and it redirects the demand elsewhere.
  It also harms consumers who have fewer options--fewer cruises that 
they can take, higher prices for those cruises that are offered. And as 
we have seen during the pandemic, it has left us subject to the will 
and whim of foreign powers.
  Make no mistake, the PVSA is not ``America first.'' This is the 
encapsulation of ``special interests first'' or even, you might say, 
``Canada first.'' Perhaps this is the reason that the Canadian 
Government lobbies Congress to keep the PVSA in place. Think about that 
for a minute.
  This unfortunate situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic, 
during which Canada has closed its ports to cruise ships, making it, 
effectively, impossible for Alaskan cruises to carry on. But the only 
reason why Canada wields this tremendous authority over us is because 
of our own law--our own law that they are lobbying us to keep in place 
because they benefit from it, but they are shutting it down, making it 
impossible for Alaskan cruises for the time being.
  Without the necessary foreign port call, cruises simply cannot travel 
to Alaska. Without relief, the Alaskan tourism industry will evaporate, 
harming Alaskan dock workers, repairmen, those in the hospitality 
services, and more.
  Just the same, think about all the jobs that aren't created that 
could otherwise exist, that could exist tomorrow if we just got rid of 
this 130-year-old law that serves no purpose--the jobs, the vacation 
opportunities, especially in port States, not just Alaska but Florida, 
Louisiana, Texas, New York, and many, many others, places where cruise 
ships already depart but are severely hobbled as to their itineraries 
because of this law, the PVSA, that serves no one--no one, perhaps, 
except these foreign powers.
  The CDC's outdated no-sail order has made these matters so much 
worse, and we have to address those as well.
  Alaska already lost last summer's season. That is tragic. I can't 
imagine Congress would force them to lose yet another season now. Yet 
that might already be the case, you see, because unless they start 
moving those ships up there right now, there can't be any cruise ship 
season for Alaska this summer.
  Now, my two colleagues from Alaska, thankfully, introduced a bill to 
help correct the issue by exempting certain Alaskan cruise lines from 
the PVSA for the duration of Canada's border closure, a bill that I was 
happy to support in order to provide short-term relief for Alaska, even 
if it didn't provide the reform needed for the long term, as we 
desperately need.
  Unfortunately, the bill that is now before us has deviated from that 
purpose. It now has poison pill provisions that add duplicative, 
unnecessary, and unrelated regulations that will harm, not help, the 
cruise industry.
  Look, I remain ready, willing, and eager to negotiate the terms of 
this, but we have to provide relief. It is not just about an industry. 
It is not just about any one State. It is about the access the American 
people have through their businesses or their own travel interests. We 
should be able to do this. It makes no sense to anyone. No one could 
plan a road trip and say that we can't go to a neighboring State unless 
we can touch back to a foreign country in the meantime. Nobody would 
fly to an adjacent State or across the country if, in the process, they 
had to fly to a third-party country merely in order to comply with some 
arcane Federal law--no one, except, of course, the very wealthy, who 
could still afford it. Most Americans can't.
  And the Americans who can least afford this law--this law that serves 
no one, perhaps, except the foreign interests I mentioned, including, 
but not limited to Canada--the people who really suffer for that, are 
America's workers. Shame on us if we don't fix that.
  Look, I remain hopeful, optimistic, and ever-willing to negotiate 
this. I have lots of amendments to offer up. In deference to my 
colleagues from Alaska, I am going to hold off on counterproposing 
those right now. But I am filing them, and they are ready to go. I hope 
we can negotiate our way through this. If we can't, shame on us. The 
PVSA is bad. It is bad news. We need to let it go.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The objection is heard
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, Madam President, my colleague Senator 
Murkowski did a good job of explaining some of the economic 
challenges--actually, the dramatic economic challenges--facing our 
State: small businesses, families, workers by the thousands who are 
really hurting right now because we lost the tourism season last year 
due to the pandemic and are on the verge, possibly, of losing another 
one, which could be devastating. That is the purpose of our 
legislation, to focus on lifting the challenge and bringing relief so 
that we can bring tourism back to Alaska. We are open for business.
  You know, we have been able, in Alaska, to weather the health impacts 
of this virus in a way that we are proud of in Alaska, with one of the 
lowest death rates per capita--any death, of course, is horrible--but 
one of the lowest death rates, one of the highest testing rates per 
capita with regard to this vaccine, the highest vaccination rates per 
capita, which is a minimiracle if you look at how big our State is. But 
the economic impacts have been devastating, as Senator Murkowski laid 
out. Our commercial fishing industry, our oil and gas industry, our 
tourism industry--these sectors of the Alaska economy, which are 
critical, have lost thousands of jobs.
  So this bill, the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act, is something that is 
very narrowly focused. It is very narrowly focused. It is to give our 
State a fighting chance this summer with regard to our tourism sector.
  Now, I very much appreciate Senator Blumenthal and Senator Lee, with 
regard to their passion and focus on the issues that they have raised 
tonight. Some of the safety regulations on cruise ships, the PVSA Act--
these are issues that they feel very passionate about, and I appreciate 
that.
  As they know, what we are trying to do here, Senator Murkowski and I, 
is not tackle those issues so much as to tackle the issue directly 
before Alaskans, and that is how to salvage a summer tourism season.
  So despite what you have witnessed here on the Senate floor, I want 
to say I appreciate their willingness to continue to work with us. The 
clock is ticking, but we do have Senator Blumenthal's and Senator Lee's 
strong commitments to work with us to resolve these issues--both the 
ones that they care about and, certainly, the ones that matter to 
Alaskans--very soon.
  To our fellow Alaskans, my message is, don't give up right now. Here 
on the Senate floor, despite what you have seen, there has actually 
been momentum and movement, and I am confident we can get there, and 
even with the CDC--even with the CDC.
  Some of you might recall that I was here on the floor last week with 
Senator Scott of Florida, trying to move our legislation relating to 
the CDC's role here. We are starting to see progress with them. So we 
are going to continue to fight and continue to try to move this.
  Do not give up, Alaska, on our summer tourism. We haven't. To the 
contrary, we have made progress. We are not there yet.
  Finally, to our Canadian friends, we are going to continue to work 
with all of you as well. You can be part of the solution to help 
Alaska, to help Canada, in a cooperative spirit, as you are seeing here 
on the Senate floor from all of you on a number of these issues. It 
would be very much appreciated.
  I anticipate and look forward to reaching out to my colleague and

[[Page S2346]]

friend, the Minister of Transportation, and others in the Canadian 
Government to try to make sure we can get this spirit of cooperation 
that will benefit both our State, our country, and your country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I just want to make clear after 
Senator Lee's statement, No. 1, that I appreciate my colleagues from 
Alaska being as cooperative as they have been.
  These issues are a matter of vital consumer protection and worker 
safety. We are talking here about defibrillators and a requirement that 
there be certain minimum numbers on these ships. We are talking about 
bodies, tragically, having to be returned if there is a death on one of 
these ships. We are talking about some rights for consumers that the 
industry itself has approved and that we are just incorporating into 
this amendment and enabling the Department of Transportation to 
enforce. So I want to make clear that these are reasonable and, in 
fact, in my view, very minimal protections--a first-step, another step.
  I appreciate the agreement that we have been able to reach with our 
colleagues from Alaska on them, and I am disappointed that our 
colleague from Utah has objected. But I will do my best to work with 
them in trying to resolve Senator Lee's objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, to just wrap up this discussion, I 
really appreciate the comments from my colleague Senator Sullivan 
because I think you have really keyed in on where we are today.
  The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act is such a narrowly defined in 
scope initiative to, again, create this very brief period of time to 
allow for what is left or what will remain of a tourist season to 
proceed. But we are faced with bigger issues, and these issues clearly 
evoke great passion and debate, whether it is consumer protection or to 
Senator Lee's concerns that he has raised overall about Jones Act and 
PVSA.
  So those are significant issues that will be debated in committees as 
we move forward and further debated on the floor. But I think, at this 
point in time, the recognition from our colleagues from Connecticut and 
from Utah that this effort that we are trying to make in Alaska to 
redeem a small segment of our tourist season--those who come to us by 
cruise ship--that just perhaps the strength of cooperation you see here 
today will be that level of encouragement for the ships to start coming 
north in anticipation of clearer and more beneficial guidance, working 
with CDC.
  It has been a lot of pieces to knit together. It hasn't been 
particularly easy or pretty, but I would like to think that the folks 
in southeastern Alaska and throughout the State will see the benefits 
of this in the weeks and months ahead.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.