[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10603-S10604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2076. A bill to increase economic benefits to the United States 
from the activities of cruise ships visiting Alaska; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        cruise ship legislation

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a very 
important measure--one that will unlock and open a door that Congress 
has kept barred for over 100 years.
  Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to 
hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to 
millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues. 
Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse 
impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest or on the 
environment, and it will cost the Government virtually nothing.
  There is no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. My 
bill merely allows United States ports to compete for the growing 
cruise ship trade to Alaska, and encourages the development of an all-
Alaska cruise business, as well.
  The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise 
ships to operate to and from Alaska, and between Alaska ports. However, 
it also very carefully protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by 
using a definition of ``cruise ships'' designed to exclude any foreign-
flag vessels that could conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.-
flag tour boats or ferries. Finally, it provides a mechamism to 
guarantee that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, 
steps will be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers.
  Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing 
problem, and it deserves the support of this body.
  Let us look at the facts. U.S. ports currently are precluded from 
competing for the Alaska cruise ship trade by the Passenger Service Act 
of 1886, which bars foreign vessels from carrying passengers on one-way 
voyages between U.S. ports. However, it isn't 1886 anymore. These days, 
no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of this type, and no one 
has built one in over 40 years.
  Because there are no U.S. vessels in this important trade, the only 
real effect of the Passenger Service Act is to force all the vessels 
sailing to Alaska to base their operations in an foreign port instead 
of a U.S. city.
  Mr. President, what we have here is an act of Congress prohibiting 
U.S. cities from competing for thousands of jobs and hundreds of 
millions in business dollars. That is worse than absurd--in light of 
our ever-popular election-year promises to help the economy, it belongs 
in Letterman's ``Top Ten Reasons Why Congress Doesn't Know What It's 
Doing.''
  How, Mr. President, can anyone argue with a straight face for the 
continuation of a policy that fails utterly to benefit any identifiable 
American interst, while actively discouraging economic growth.
  Mr. President, this is not the first time I have introduced this 
legislation. When I began, Alaska-bound cruise passengers totaled about 
200,000 per year. By last year, almost three times that many people--
most of them American citizens--were making that voyage. Almost 600,000 
people joined an Alaska bound vessel in 1995, and almost all those 
sailings originated in Vancouver, BC--not because Vancouver is 
necessarily a better port, but because our own foolish policy demands 
it.
  The cash flow generated by this trade is enormous. Most passengers 
fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington 
State, but because of the law, they spend little time there. Instead, 
they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a Vancouver hotel, at 
Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops. And when their 
vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel general supplies, repair and 
maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver vendors.
  According to some estimates the city of Vancouver receives benefits 
of well over $200 million per year. Others provide more modest 
estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the International Council 
of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992 alone, the Alaska cruise 
trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city of Vancouver, plus 
payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over $119 million. If 
that business had taken place inside the United States, it would have 
been worth additional Federal, State, and local tax revenues of 
approximately $60 million.
  In addition to the opportunities now being shunted to Vancouver, we 
are also missing an opportunity to create entirely new jobs and income 
through the potential to develop new cruising routes between Alaska 
ports. The city of Ketchikan, AK, was told a few years ago that two 
relatively small cruise ships were very interested in establishing 
short cruises within southeast Alaska. I'm told such a business could 
have contributed $2 million or more to that small community's economy, 
and created dozens of new jobs. But, because of the current policy, the 
opportunity simply evaporated.
  Why, Mr. President, do we allow this to happen? This is a market 
almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to see one of the United 
State's most spectacular places, and yet we force them to go to another 
country to do it. We are throwing away both money and jobs--and getting 
nothing whatsoever in return.
  Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not 
rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are 
those who argue that any change would weaken

[[Page S10604]]

U.S. maritime interests. I submit, Mr. President, that is not the case.
  For some inexplicable reason, paranoia runs deep among those who 
oppose this bill. They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service 
Act so that it makes sense for the United States would create a threat 
to Jones Act vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, 
there simply is no connection whatsoever between the two. I have 
repeatedly made clear that I have no intention of using this bill to 
create cracks in the Jones Act.
  This bill would actually enhance--not impede--opportunities for U.S. 
workers. Both shipyard workers and longshoremen--not to mention hotel 
and restaurant workers and many others--would have a great deal to gain 
from this legislation, and the bill has been carefully written to 
prevent the loss of any existing jobs in other trades.
  Finally, let me dispose of any suggestion that this bill might farm 
smaller U.S. tour or excursion boats. The industry featuring these 
smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply does not cater to the same 
client base as large cruise ships. For one thing, the tour boats 
operating in Alaska are all much smaller--under 1,000 tons compared to 
the 5,000 ton minimum for cruise ships in this bill. The larger vessels 
can offer unmatched luxury and personal service, on-board shopping, 
entertainment, and so forth. The smaller vessels offer more flexible 
routes, the ability to get closer to Alaska's natural attractions, and 
other benefits. There is no significant competition between the two 
types of vessel, because the passengers inclined to one are not likely 
to be inclined to the other.
  Mr. President, I cannot claim that this legislation would immediately 
lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say that it would 
allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored by a rule that 
is actively harmful to U.S. interests. It is, as I said at the 
beginning of this statement, only a way to open the door.
  We have heard a lot of talk about growing the economy and creating 
jobs during the last few years, and we are bound to keep hearing those 
phrases even more often over the next few months. But we all know, Mr. 
President, that such changes are easier to talk about than they are to 
accomplish. Well, Mr. President, here is a bill that opens the door to 
thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of new dollars, and does it 
without one red cent of taxpayer money.
  It has been 110 years since the current law was enacted, and it's 
time for a change.
                                 ______