After decades of maritime protectionism diverting Alaska-bound cruise ships (and tourist dollars) to Canadian ports, some measure of common sense may finally prevail. Earlier this week Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R‑AK) announced her forthcoming introduction of legislation to ease the burden of the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA) on Alaska. In so doing, Murkowski will become the second member of Alaska’s congressional delegation to target the PVSA in recent months, with Rep. Don Young putting forth a separate bill in July to loosen the law’s shackles.

It’s welcome news. Legislation to pare back the PVSA is long overdue, particularly for Alaska.

Passed in 1886, the PVSA restricts domestic waterborne passenger transport to vessels that are U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built, and mostly U.S. crewed and owned (essentially the Jones Act but for cruise vessels and ferries). But none of the large cruise ships that transport passengers to Alaska from the Lower 48 meet those conditions and must stop in a Canadian port—making the trip international rather than purely domestic—to avoid running afoul of the PVSA.

While a boon to Canada’s tourism industry, the PVSA comes at the expense of passengers who would rather spend their Alaska cruise actually visiting Alaska. The forced stops are also a missed opportunity for Alaska’s tourism sector as well as cruise ship operators who bear the expense of an otherwise unneeded port call. But earlier this year the law went from costly annoyance to grave threat when Canada closed its ports to cruise vessels through February 2022—a move that effectively slammed the door shut on visits to Alaska by large cruise ships suddenly unable to dock at a nearby foreign port.

To salvage the state’s cruise season the three members of Alaska’s congressional delegation introduced legislation—quickly signed into law—that effectively suspended the PVSA for Alaska voyages on large cruise ships until Canada’s ports are re-opened. Having now tasted the freedom of unimpeded cruise ship access between Alaska and other U.S. ports, Sen. Murkowski and Rep. Young have decided that the situation should be made permanent.

Sen. Murkowski’s apparent plan is to exempt Alaska cruise ships carrying more than 1,000 passengers from the PVSA. While Murkowski says the exemption would expire once a U.S.-built cruise ship enters the market, in practice it would likely be permanent given that no U.S. shipyard has delivered such a vessel since 1958.

Rep. Young’s bill, meanwhile, takes a different approach. Called the Tribal Tourism Sovereignty Act, it would grant foreign status to any port owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, either in Alaska or elsewhere in the country. Essentially, the bill would deem domestic voyages by foreign vessels to be PVSA-compliant so long as they include a stop at one of these ports.

Each bill has its pluses and minuses. One virtue of Murkowski’s bill is its simplicity: vessels carrying more than 1,000 passengers that visit Alaska are exempt from the PVSA’s restrictions. But the bill is scope is narrow, both in the types of vessels that it applies to as well as geographically. That’s unfortunate, as the PVSA is not only a problem for Alaska but the rest of the country as well. It means that cruises from California to Hawaii typically include a stop in Mexico. The law also makes it impossible for large cruise ships to offer purely U.S. itineraries along the East, West, and Gulf Coasts. It has even proved a headache for vessels on the Great Lakes.

Young’s bill, meanwhile, is more expansive but brings added complications that make its benefits less clear. How many Indian tribes control ports capable of accommodating cruise ships? And how many of those are located in areas of high demand for tourism?

Either measure, however, is preferable to the absurd status quo (Canadians feel differently). Beyond ludicrous outcomes such as the diversion of ships and passengers to Canada, the PVSA’s application to large cruise ships is protectionism for an industry that is nearly non-existent. The entire fleet of U.S.-flagged such vessels consists of a single ship, the Hawaii-based Pride of America. And that ship was delivered by a German shipyard and is only deemed PVSA-compliant due to a special waiver.

It’s regrettable that Congress was not spurred to action until the combination of a global pandemic and this ancient bit of protectionism nearly proved ruinous for Alaska’s tourism industry. But if COVID-19 and its ensuing fallout help ease the PVSA’s burden on Alaska, then it will have succeeded where basic logic has thus far fallen short.