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

[Lumine]

Perhaps it is just me, but leaving debate behind for the sake of ramming bills through just because one believes the result of said conversation might be predictable seems like an interesting philosophy to concieve and run the Senate. It should make one wonder whether we are actually doing our job by merely assuming what it is to happen without further thought.

If debate is ended, I will vote against this bill because it is an irresponsible piece of legislation on many aspects and not because of a predictably reductionist argument that suggests this is just about handouts to corporations (hint: it's not). And if debate continues, as I happen to believe it should, the least I can do is to to offer amendments to see how Senate opinion develops. As a Senator, I would have to state that going through with scrutiny is sort of what one should do.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If debate is ended, I will vote against this bill because it is an irresponsible piece of legislation on many aspects and not because of a predictably reductionist argument that suggests this is just about handouts to corporations

Up to now, all you've said was

Nay, cloture is rather unwarranted when there's debate to be had.

Is it really that bad that some programs exist to aid people in this context when it comes to boats? I would hardly describe them as completely unnecessary or even vital for pragmatic deficit reduction.

Adding to that, I see no reason for currently removing certain powers from the federal government when they may become necessary in case of an emergency as Sestak pointed out.

Arguing "what's the big deal" and "why bother" really doesn't speak to this being a reckless or irresponsible bill with many objectionable parts.

Realistically, what other amendments are you considering other than changing the combination of programs that get saved vs eliminated?

[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

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment. 24 hrs to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[wxtransit]

Nay on cloture.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment Passes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[Lumine]

Amendment offered:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I would recommend the Senate vote not keep the Jones Act on the books.  It is an ineffective form of protectionism, and it disproportionately impacts commerce, as well as disaster relief aid, for states and territories not connected to the mainland like Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.  (In fact, it was Hurricane Maria, which caused catastrophic damage to Puerto Rico and the ensuing delayed relief aid, which jumpstarted this debate in the first place.)  I must urge the Senate to object and vote no on the above amendment.

[_]

At the recommendation of Speaker Scott, and my agreement with his argument, I object to the Amendment.

[YE]

I only support revoking the Jones Act for Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories (it is necessary to preserve in order to preserve the already declining maritime industry in the Pacific Northwest), and urge the senate to do the same. I am generally opposed to free trade, although I see good reason to Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico to not be included as such since it slows disaster relief due to their isolation.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I would support exempting the Jones Act for those areas as a compromise.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment objected to. Vote on the amendment is now open.

[_]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Wells]

Nay.

[Lumine]

Aye.

[_]

Wouldn't it be time to end voting on the Amendment?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment fails. 1-3-0; 2 NV.

[_]

I believe that we should follow YE's suggestion and amend the bill so that only Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have the Jones Act revoked for them.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I would prefer we didn't but if you offer an amendment we can vote on it.

[_]

Amendment to the Jones Act Section.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hostile.

Voting is now open.

[_]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Lumine]

Aye.