[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT 
                           IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. STEVENS. The State of Alaska has an interest in resolving a 
question which has arisen regarding implementation of a statutory 
change made last year in connection with NAFTA. Section 521 of the 
North American Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law No. 
103-182, amended 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5) to impose a $6.50 fee for the 
arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or aircraft from 
outside the customs territory of the United States. The reason for this 
change was to recover a portion of the revenue lost as a result of the 
elimination of a series of duties and tariffs under NAFTA.
  NAFTA imposed a new fee of $6.50 for cruise passengers arriving in 
the United States from the Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada. Previously, 
such passengers were exempt from the Customs user fee. The law also 
raised the fee for both air and sea passengers arriving from other 
foreign destinations from $5 to $6.50.
  As a result of the wording of the NAFTA implementing legislation 
enacted by Congress last year, the Customs Service is claiming 
authority to collect the Customs user fee multiple times during the 
course of the same voyage. Substituting the phrase ``from outside the 
customs territory of the United States'' for the phrase ``from a place 
outside the United States'', had this unintended consequence.
  This point is particularly important to cruise passengers in Alaska 
where this interpretation could require the Customs user fee to be 
assessed more than once in a single voyage. For example, during the 
course of an Alaska voyage when the vessel may call in Ketchikan, 
Juneau, Valdez, Seward, and Sitka and may sail outside the Customs 
territory of the United States between each of those Alaskan ports as 
part of one continuous cruise voyage, under the Customs Service 
interpretation the fee would be collected three, four, or even five 
times. This was not Congress' intention. Could the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana please clarify if it was the intent of Congress 
to require multiple collection of the $6.50 Customs user fee?
  Mr. BREAUX. No, it as not the intent of Congress to assess the $6.50 
Customs user fee multiple times during the course of a single voyage as 
in the Alaska situation. A similar result would apply in certain 
Caribbean cruises where, during the course of a single voyage, the 
vessel stops at two or more United States ports and travels outside the 
Customs territory of the United States between those American ports. In 
both of these situations, multiple fees should not be collected. The 
Customs user fee should only be collected once per voyage.
  As the distinguished Senator from Alaska stated, the statutory change 
made last year in the NAFTA implementing legislation replaced the 
phrase ``from a place outside the United States'' with the phrase 
``from outside the Customs territory of the United States''. The intent 
of this language change, which has given rise to this discussion, was 
to make it clear that the Customs user fee would be applied to 
passengers on so-called cruises to nowhere. These cruises are not 
traditional voyages with multiport itineraries, rather they simply 
leave a U.S. port, go outside the Customs territory of the United 
States and then return to same port with no stops at any intervening 
ports. Again, the purpose of this language change was to apply the fee 
to these cruises to nowhere passengers and not to enable the Customs 
Service to assess the fee multiple times during the same cruise voyage.
  In addition, the existing statute provides that passengers are not 
subject to the fee unless they are provided Customs inspectional 
services. With respect to the port calls at intervening U.S. ports, 
Customs inspections are not required.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator believe Congress needs to enact a 
clarifying technical amendment in order to limit the collection of this 
fee to once per voyage?
  Mr. BREAUX. Since it was not the intent of Congress to impose the fee 
multiple times, no new law should be required. If the Customs Service 
should, however, attempt to collect this fee multiple times, I would be 
happy to work with the senior Senator from Alaska in a bipartisan 
fashion to enact clarifying legislation during the next session. 
However, I urge the Customs Service to resolve this issue 
administratively in accordance with congressional intent, so that 
legislation will not be necessary.

                          ____________________