[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S9640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CRUISE SHIP REVITALIZATION ACT

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on this, the last day of Senate 
action before the long August break, I want to speak about a matter of 
great importance to a key sector of the California economy--the cruise 
ship industry.
  On the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 
138, to amend a law passed by the 102d Congress that allowed gambling 
on U.S.-flag cruise ships and allowed States to permit or prohibit 
gambling on ships involved in intrastate cruises only. Representatives 
Bilbray and Harmon introduced identical language in the House. Our 
bills, titled the California Cruise Ship Revitalization Act, would lift 
the ban on gaming on cruise ships traveling between consecutive 
California ports.
  The cruise ship bill is now part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 1995, S. 1004, which passed the Senate last November. The House has 
passed its version of the Coast Guard Act with an identical California 
cruise ship provision. However, controversy over other provisions 
attached to the Coast Guard bill in the House delayed the appointment 
of conferees and now threatens to sink the entire bill.
  The Coast Guard Revitalization Act has strong bipartisan support and 
no opposition. Only the State of California would be affected, and the 
California State Legislature has approved a joint resolution in favor 
of this bill.
  The bill corrects a problem that occurred when California took 
advantage of a 1992 amendment to the Johnson Act that permitted States 
to prohibit gambling on intrastate cruises, the infamous ``cruises to 
nowhere.'' Unfortunately, California's law was drafted in such a way 
that it also prohibited ships on international cruises from making 
multiple ports of call within the state.
  My bill simply amends the Johnson Act to exclude State regulation of 
gaming aboard vessels so long as the ship's itinerary is an 
international cruise.
  This bill is essential to restoring California's cruise ship 
industry, which has lost hundreds of jobs and more than $300 million in 
tourist revenue since the 1992 law was enacted. Many cruise ship 
companies have bypassed second and third ports of call within 
California. Ships that used to call at Catalina and San Diego after 
departing Los Angeles en route to Mexico no longer make those interim 
stops. According to the Port of San Diego, that port alone has lost $90 
million in economic impact, hundreds of jobs, and over 400 cruise ship 
calls--more than two-thirds of the port's cruise ship business.
  Neighboring ports have experienced similar losses. In Los Angeles, 
the estimated loss of port revenue through 1995 was $3 million. Beyond 
the port, the economic impact to the city amounted to $14 million in 
tourism and $26 million in retail sales. The total impact estimated by 
the Port of Los Angeles was an estimated $159 million and 2,400 direct 
and indirect jobs.
  The State's share of the global cruise ship business has dropped from 
10 to 7 percent at the same time that growth in the cruise ship 
business overall has climbed 10 percent a year. Our lost market share 
has gone not to other States but to foreign countries along the Pacific 
Coast.
  For a State still recovering from an economic recession, defense 
downsizing, and back-to-back natural disasters, a blow to one of our 
leading industries--tourism--is unfathomable.
  The cruise ship industry books its ports of calls well in advance of 
the season. Therefore, action on this cruise ship provision this fall 
is crucial to our State if we are going to prevent another season of 
lost business--lost jobs--to my State.
  Mr. President, I want to assure the supporters of the California 
Cruise Ship Revitalization Act that I will continue to press for final 
enactment of this legislation. When the Congress returns next month I 
will do everything in my power to ensure that we do not lose another 
year without this correction in law.

                          ____________________