[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1993

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that a 
statement made by our House colleagues in the Congressional Record 
misinterpreted a Senate amendment to H.R. 2150, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-206, passed during the last 
Congressional session. Section 309 of the Senate substitute to H.R. 
2150 amended section 4283B of the Revised Statutes--46 App. U.S.C. 
183c--to allow the use of forum-selection clauses in cruise ship 
passenger contracts as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Carnival 
Cruise Lines v. Shute  499 U.S. 585 (1991). A statement on the House 
floor which appeared in the November 22, 1993, Congressional Record 
contradicted our intent with regard to section 309, and I believe we 
should clarify the meaning of section 309 today. Mr. President, I ask 
Senator Breaux, can he provide background information about section 
309?
  Mr. BREAUX. Yes. In 1992, the House added a provision to the Oceans 
Act of 1992--Public Law 102-587--which amended clause (2) of section 
4283B of the Revised Statutes--46 App. U.S.C. 183c--and added the word 
``any'' immediately before the words ``court of competent 
jurisdiction.'' This provision, section 3006 of the Oceans Act, 
apparently was intended by the House to overturn the Supreme Court 
decision in Shute by making it unlawful for cruise ship operators to 
use provisions in passenger contracts to limit a claimant's right to a 
trial in any court of competent jurisdiction.
  While it is perfectly legitimate for the Congress to overturn a 
Supreme Court decision within the bounds of the Constitution, we do not 
believe such changes should be made without notification to, and 
careful consideration by, the Members of Congress responsible for 
enactment of the legislation. As part of this consideration, we believe 
that the interested parties should have an opportunity to comment on 
any changes. At no time prior to the passage of the Oceans Act of 1992 
was legislation introduced or did the House or Senate hold hearings on 
the cruise ship venue concern addressed by section 3006 of the Oceans 
Act. It is for this reason that the Senate supported a provision in the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 to restore section 4283B to the 
wording as it read prior to the passage of the Oceans Act of 1992. 
Section 309 reinstates the Supreme Court decision in the Shute case as 
the applicable law for interpreting forum selection clauses.
  Mr. STEVENS. The House section-by-section analysis of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act states that ``Section 309 of H.R. 2150 should not be 
construed to mean that a vessel owner may enforce a forum selection 
clause in a passenger ticket.'' This statement contradicts what we 
intended. Our intent was that section 309 should be interpreted to 
allow vessels to enforce such clauses, as upheld by the Supreme Court 
in the Shute case. I ask Senator Hollings, does he agree with my 
interpretation?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Absolutely. As both Senator Stevens and Senator Breaux 
have stated, the intent of the Senate amendment made in section 309 of 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 was to reverse the action 
taken by Congress in section 3006 of the Oceans Act of 1992. By passing 
section 309, Congress has reinstated the decision in the Shute case, 
carefully recognizing that, in doing so, vessel owners may enforce a 
forum selection clause in a passenger ticket subject to the standards 
enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shute.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have one further clarification. The 
House section-by-section analysis stated that by not restoring the term 
``a'' prior to the word ``court'' in section 4283B, we did not intend 
to restore the standard set forth in the Shute decision. This comment 
is not only wrong with regard to our intent, but also incorrect with 
regard to the statute prior to the amendment in the Oceans Act of 1992. 
I ask Senator Hollings, is this his understanding as well?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. The other distinguished body made a mistake with 
regard to the statute. The word ``a'' never appeared before the word 
``court'' in section 4283B of the Revised Statutes. The language in the 
Senate amendment restores the statute to exactly how it appeared prior 
to the Oceans Act of 1992.
  It is unfortunate that the House included an explanation of the 
Senate amendment, section 309, that differs so greatly from what we 
intended and from the clear meaning of the provision. We disagree with 
the November 22, 1993, statement made by the House regarding section 
309 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993.

                          ____________________