Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008. Among the many important provisions of this bill is one that is particularly needed to help ensure that our coastwise laws are properly and promptly enforced.

Section 220 of the manager's amendment recognizes the importance of vigorous enforcement of our Nation's coastwise laws by expanding the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement authority to include the Coast Guard in addition to Customs and Border Protection.

In keeping with this important objective we hope that the Administration will make good on the effort that was begun last November with the publication of a proposed interpretive rule designed to address evasion by foreign cruise lines of one of our coastwise laws, the Passenger Vessel Services Act.

I have written to Secretary Michael Chertoff urging prompt implementation of a modified rule that addresses concerns raised during the comment process while ensuring that the coastwise laws are properly enforced. My letter details the frustration of important Congressional objectives that will result if the rule is not implemented and I ask that a copy be included in the RECORD.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, March 31, 2007.
Re Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises (USCBP-2007-0098)

Hon. Michael Chertoff,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') proposed an interpretive rule regarding ``Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises'' on November 21, 2007. Since issuing the notice and accepting comments on the proposal, no final action has been taken to protect the only oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships in operation from unfair foreign competition. As a result, it has been announced that a second U.S.-flag cruise ship will be leaving Hawaii service and the U.S. registry in May 2008. I write today to urge the Department to immediately adopt a Hawaii specific rule in order to ensure that the remaining U.S.-flag cruise ship does not have the same fate.

On December 21, 2007, I joined the Hawai'i Congressional delegation and also offered separate comments of my own with respect to the proposed criteria to be used by CBP to determine whether non-coastwise-qualified passenger vessels are in violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act (``PVSA'') (46 U.S.C. 55103) and the Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative enacted in 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7) when engaging in Hawaii cruise itineraries that include a ``sham'' foreign port stop of as little as an hour in the middle of the night to cleanse the voyage and avoid the application of U.S. laws.

As the preamble to the interpretive rule accurately states, ``The intent of the maritime cabotage laws, including the PVSA, was to provide a `legal structure that guarantees a coastwise monopol to American shipping and thereby promotes development of the American merchant marine' ''. I strongly support the PVSA, and was a primary sponsor of the subsequently enacted 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. I also strongly believe that CBP must take steps to vigorously enforce the PVSA, including adoption of the proposed interpretive rule for Hawaii. But I am concerned that CBP's effort to do so may unnecessarily slow implementation of the interpretive rule by needlessly trying to apply it broadly to all U.S. ports, where no oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships operate in regular service.

CBP's proposed interpretive rule is unnecessarily expansive. It goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the economic and national security policy objective of the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative. In fact, I believe a reasonable interpretation under those laws would limit the scope of proposed interpretation to Hawaii because it would further those important public policy goals.

Indeed, the vast majority of the opposition to CBP's proposed interpretation is based on the far reaching nature of the proposal. As a result, comments have been received from interested parties as far away from Hawaii as Maine and Florida who have understandably expressed concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on foreign cruise ships operating in areas where no oceangoing U.S. flag ships call. MARAD and CBP identified a specific and intentional effort to circumvent the PVSA on Hawaii cruises. Under the authorities provided by the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative, the final remedy proposed by CBP should be limited to addressing that specific issue in the Hawaii market where U.S. flag ships operate.

Moreover, the 2003 Hawai'i Cruise Ship Initiative requires that the affected U.S. flag ships identified in this proposed interpretation be in ``regular service'' in Hawai'i and explicitly prohibits their operation in coastwise service in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, areas where interested parties have raised concerns about the application of the proposal. For these reasons, I strongly recommend that CBP issue a proposed PVSA interpretation limited to Hawai'i as follows:

CBP interprets a Hawai'i cruise itinerary to be ``solely to one or more coastwise ports'' even where it stops at a foreign port, unless the stop at the foreign port is a legitimate object of the cruise. CBP will assume that a stop at a foreign port is not a legitimate object of the cruise unless:

1. The amount of time at the foreign port is more than 50 percent of the total amount of time at the Hawai'i ports of call; and

2. The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at the foreign port.

Accordingly, CBP proposes to adopt an interpretive rule under which it will presume that any Hawai'i cruise itinerary that does not include a foreign port of call that satisfies each of these two criteria constitutes coastwise transportation of passengers in violation of 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(1).

Thank you for considering my views on this important matter. I firmly believe that if CBP acts on the proposed rule as I have recommended, many of the concerns expressed by commenters in this docket will be alleviated, while at the same time ensuring the protection of the very oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships intended by the PVSA and the 2003 Hawaii Cruise Ship Initiative.

Sincerely,

Neil Abercrombie,
Member of Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source