SB 2018-203: Bringing Order to Aquatic Transportation Act (Passed)

[Wells]

Nay, I think that there's still some stuff to be discussed here.

I personally don't see a problem with helping people buy/build/repair/upgrade boats. Most of the things this bill gets rid of seem like helpful programs.

So after doing research, it appears that at least part of the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program goes to making the boats more environmentally friendly and just helps the industry in general. (From here.) (CCF also looks the same way to me.)

I'm pretty neutral on the buyback elimination, the quick research I've done showed that it was intended to boost profitablity in the fishing industry but the success varies. I also think the Jones Act part would benefit Atlasia.

Overall I have mixed feelings but would like some more debate, or at least a response to these concerns. I'd vote nay on the actual bill right now.

[Wells]

I think it is a little odd that these programs are both "socialist" and "crony capitalism." Though the one point about the programs that directly conflict is a decent one. I'm just hesitant of getting rid of things which may be positive for Atlasia. I wouldn't be against getting rid of the buyback program. I am opposed to getting rid of the Guaranteed Loan Program. (And to a lesser extent the Fishing Capital Construction.)

So I think I'll introduce another amendment today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Wells]

Aye

[Wells]

I still have concerns about the reactionary nature of this bill. (The federal government no longer being able to do anything resembling these programs at all seems a little much.) But I think everything has been said, except for a few notes about the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program which I'll say now.

That program is the only program of its type run by the government and in the private sector. If we are getting rid of it, then perhaps we should make sure that wouldn't cause issues. And there are a definitely good things about the program. It's largely aimed at making sure that United States shipping is competitive globally. There are some obvious benefits (job creation, efficient transport), and a few not as obvious ones (more shipping means less highway congestion). (Source for this info is here. It's a bit out of date but the info I mentioned is good at any time. Note how cost-effective it is.)

I'll vote nay on the bill. It seems like it would be too harmful for American shipping. There were a few good parts too.


aye on cloture

[Wells]

Nay.

[Wells]

Aye

[Wells]

aye