[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4003, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AND 
                     PROMOTIONAL REFORM ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 500

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4003) to authorize appropriations for 
     fiscal year 1995 for certain maritime programs of the 
     Department of Transportation, to amend the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936, as amended, to revitalize the United States-
     flag merchant marine, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour, with thirty minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and thirty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill and by the 
     amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
     modified, are waived. No amendment directly or indirectly 
     changing title II of the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, as modified, shall be in order except the 
     amendment printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. That amendment may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendment printed in part 2 of 
     the report are waived. At the conclusion of the 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand 
     a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
     the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 4003, the Clerk shall 
     insert the text of H.R. 2151, as passed by the House, as a 
     new title I and shall redesignate the succeeding titles 
     accordingly.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes, for 
purposes of debate only, to my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. All time yielded during the consideration of this 
resolution is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 500 makes in order the bill H.R. 4003, 
the Maritime Administration and Promotional Reform Act of 1994.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes divided 
and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and 30 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  The rule makes in order the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Amendment 
in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as original text. 
This text is modified by the amendment recommended by the Ways and 
Means Committee now printed in the bill and by the amendment printed in 
part 1 of the report accompanying this resolution.
  All points of order are waived against the Committee substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is open to amendment under the 5 minute rule, 
with the exception of title II, where only the amendment to be offered 
by Mr. Studds and printed in part 2 of the Rules Committee report is in 
order.
  All points of order are waived against this amendment. The rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, and 
directs the Clerk in the engrossment of H.R. 4003 to insert the text of 
H.R. 2151 as a new title I.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4003 represents the final step in the stretch run 
for maritime reform in the House of Representatives. For years our 
Nation's merchant marine has been in steady decline and little has been 
done to prevent that slide.
  Since the 1960's the U.S. oceangoing fleet has fallen from fourth in 
the world to 16th and our shipyards have seen their business seemingly 
vanish before their eyes with the continued downsizing of our Navy.
  The result has been massive job loss for our shipbuilders and for the 
men and women who make up the U.S. merchant marine.
  Mr. Speaker, the continuing demise of the U.S. merchant marine has 
also made our country almost entirely dependent on foreign-flagged 
ships for trade.
  In fact 96 percent of the trade through U.S. ports is carried on 
foreign-flagged ships.
  Not only are we dependent on these ships for trade, but in a time of 
war, without a fleet of U.S.-flagged ships or experienced U.S. crew, 
this country would be forced to turn to a foreign flagged fleet to help 
move troops and equipment to wherever the conflict may be.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a situation which I find to be completely 
unacceptable to the only remaining superpower in the world. Mr. 
Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill represents the final step in 
turning around the declining maritime industry in this country.
  In the first session of this Congress the House took the first step 
toward this goal by passing H.R. 2151, the Maritime Security and 
Competitiveness Act of 1993.
  Last year's bill authorized a new approach to reform which will serve 
as the foundation for the revival of the U.S. merchant fleet.
  However, at the time of its passage, the bill contained no mechanism 
to fund its new programs. H.R. 4003 contains the funding mechanism for 
H.R. 2151.
  The funding mechanism contained in title II of the bill, was reported 
out of both the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  These two committees developed two different strategies for arriving 
at the same goal. Real maritime reform.
  The Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee version of title II 
raises $1.7 billion over 10 years for the programs in H.R. 2151.
  Mr. Studds and his committee raised these revenues solely by 
increasing the tonnage tax on ships trading in U.S. ports to 53 cents 
per ton.
  The Ways and Means Committee version of title II, which is now in the 
base text of the bill, raised $1 billion for the programs in H.R. 2151.
  However, Mr. Gibbons and the Ways and Means Committee took a 
different tack in arriving at their funding.
  Ways and Means raised these revenues through a combination of fuel 
taxes, increased tonnage duties, and by increasing the departure tax 
for passengers on cruise ships leaving U.S. ports of call.
  The rule makes in order only one substitute amendment to title II, to 
be offered by Mr. Studds, which would raise $1.3 billion over 10 years 
through an increase in the tonnage duty.
  With this amendment in order the House will be able to choose between 
these two responsible approaches to maritime reform.
  I can think of no fairer way for the House to work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, this country desperately needs this legislation. We can 
no longer stand idly by and let our merchant fleet continue to decline 
toward a certain extinction.
  Mr. Studds and his committee, as well as the Ways and Means Committee 
and Mr. Gibbons, have worked diligently to give the House a sound bill 
which will mean that real aid will soon be available to rescue our 
country's merchant fleet.
  I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Moakley, has described the provisions of this rule. Normally I would be 
reluctant to support a rule providing a blanket waiver or restricting 
any portion of a bill for an amendment, but in this case a list of 
waivers was furnished to the Rules Committee and I do not object to 
these waivers.
  Under the rule, title II is restricted for amendments but the House 
will have the opportunity to choose between the financing provisions 
developed by the Ways and Means Committee or those developed by the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I think this is a fair and 
appropriate way to deal with this section of the bill.
  Other than this, Mr. Speaker, it is a completely open rule, and I 
urge adoption of this rule.
  Today this House finishes the work it began last November third and 
4th. Members will recall that on the third we considered and adopted 
the rule on H.R. 2151, the Maritime Security and Competitiveness Act of 
1993, and on November fourth we passed the bill by an overwhelming 347 
to 65 vote. H.R. 2151 is authorizing legislation to give the Secretary 
of Transportation the authority to provide assistance to American 
shipyards and to establish a fleet of active commercial vessels to 
``enhance sealift capabilities and maintain a separate presence in 
international commercial shipping of United States documented 
vessels.''
  Today this House is confronted with the question of whether or not it 
will live up to its responsibility to provide the means to the 
executive banch to protect the national economic security of the people 
of the United States by voting for the money to pay for the programs 
already authorized by the House.
  I venture to say that there is not one Member in this House who does 
not comprehend the necessity for the creation and maintenance of a 
fleet of U.S. built, U.S. flagged and U.S. crewed merchant vessels. At 
the risk of repeating myself, I say that there is not a Member of this 
House who does not understand the necessity for the creation and 
maintenance of the shipbuilding industrial base.
  We voted 347 to 65 to create a modern fleet of U.S. flag vessels. 
That same vote authorized the Secretary of Transportation to provide a 
modest incentive for the building of commercial vessels in the United 
States. Today we consider the bill, H.R. 4003, the bill before us, 
which originated in the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and 
was considered by Committee on Ways and Means and is to be considered 
by the House under a modified open rule approved by the Committee on 
Rules, of which I am a member.
  I am proud to say that I will vote yes on the rule which permits the 
Merchant Marine Committee amendment to be offered. I am proud to say I 
will vote yes on H.R. 4003, the Maritime Administration and Promotional 
Act of 1994.
  Let me say how pleased I am to support a bill which is the product of 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I take my hat off to 
the Chairman and the ranking member on the full committee and the 
chairman and ranking member on the Merchant Marine Subcommittee for 
their fine work. Your committee, gentlemen, is a model of how 
conflicting and potentially divisive issues can be ironed out in the 
interests of the national welfare.
  Under the rule which guides the actions of all Members of this House, 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries proposes to pay for the 
new fleet and the shipyard assistance with an increase in the tax 
levied on every vessel in the international trade which calls at an 
American port. Let us not forget that 96 percent of the international 
maritime trade of the United States is carried on foreign flag vessels. 
That tax is to be levied to provide money to the Treasury of the United 
States to pay for the numerous services from the U.S. Coast Guard which 
all vessels, regardless of registry, receive in U.S. waters. No tax 
will be levied on vessels in the inland maritime trade of the United 
States nor on vessels in the domestic and Canadian trade solely in the 
Great Lakes basin.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to the House that it 
is time that this Congress think about the Defense Department paying to 
build American bottoms, and if the Defense Department cannot absorb the 
cost, even though we are cutting billions out of the defense budget, 
then I think the Congress should bolster its efforts to provide the 
funds, because it is so important to have a merchant marine fleet.
  We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the invasion of 
Normandy. That invasion was made possible by the hundreds of thousands 
of men and women who built and manned our ships in World War II but it 
was action by the President and Congress in 1936, 8 years before D-day, 
which made the invasion a success. We passed the Merchant Marine Act of 
1936--during a period of relative tranquility--because America knew 
that a maritime industry, then perilously close to extinction could not 
be allowed to die.
  H.R. 2151 and its companion, H.R. 4003, are amendments to the 1936 
Merchant Marine Act. The 1936 act, like the bill before us today, was 
an insurance policy. Congress determined that expenditures to keep U.S. 
flag vessels on the high seas and to stimulate the building of new 
vessels in American yards was worth the price. That Congress considered 
the threat to our national and economic security which would follow 
from the collapse of the American maritime industry. That Congress 
appropriated the money to support our maritime industry by keeping U.S. 
flag vessels on the high seas and it appropriated money to build ships 
in U.S. shipyards.
  Our situation today is in many respects similar to 1936.

                              {time}  1310

  The world is a dangerous place, but we have peace at home. There are 
men of questionable sanity in control of the industrial and military 
power of strong nations. The horizon is clouded with the threat of 
anarchy, war, and famine and pestilence.
  Let us do what Congress did in 1936. Let us recognize the world is a 
dangerous place. Let us reassure the American people and purchase an 
insurance policy. Let us maintain an American maritime industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to adopt the rule so that we 
may consider the amendments to H.R. 4003. I urge my fellow Members to 
follow the leadership of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
and vote for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the 
statistics on open versus restrictive rules, as follows:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           84      23         27       61         73 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Aug. 1, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding 
me this time.
  Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me just thank the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules for putting this rule out on the floor. And, 
yes, it is a somewhat restrictive rule in that it does prohibit 
additional amendments beyond a Merchant Marine Committee substitute to 
one section of the bill. However, Republicans were polled. There is no 
need for other amendments to that section. Therefore, we support this 
rule very strongly.
  I also support the merchant marine substitute amendment I just 
mentioned, and the bill itself.
  You know, ladies and gentleman, it is a shame to see what has 
happened to the merchant marine in this country. Thirty years ago we 
had several thousand American flagships that could carry out the 
strategic interests and trade of our country. Today we do not have 
several thousand such ships. We have less than 400.
  Thirty years ago, just for example, the People's Republic of China, 
that is Communist China, only had a handful of ships flying the flag of 
their country. Today they have three times more than we do. They 
deliver all of their our goods, which helps to create the $24 billion 
trade surplus they hold against this country. They deliver all of their 
goods on their own flagships and none of ours. That is terrible.
  Ladies and gentleman, we were put into a situation back during Desert 
Storm where we were actually blackmailed by some of our allies who did 
not agree with our strategic interests in defending Kuwait. We cannot 
let that happen again. If we had to go to war in two theaters today, we 
could not maintain the strategic military interest of the United States 
of America. That is disgusting. That is why we need not only this bill, 
but we need the Merchant Marine Committee substitute amendment as well.
  I strongly support both of them. I hope the House will agree and will 
pass both.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this is basically an open rule, providing for 
consideration of amendments in a free and open process. It is also a 
fair rule.
  Each committee of jurisdiction is provided with equal time during 
general debate.
  The only section to which amendments have been restricted is title 
II, the financing section--and here we have an opportunity for a clear 
vote on two legitimate, but different, points of view.
  The base bill embodies the Ways and Means version, which involves 
three taxes--tonnnage fees, a passenger tax increase, and a new fuel 
tax--to raise about $1 billion over 10 years.
  The merchant marine substitute would rely entirely on tonnage fees, 
and would raise $1.3 billion over 10 years.
  Under the rule, Members are provided with a clear choice between 
these two financing proposals.
  I am normally opposed to any restrictions on amendments, but the 
Committee on Rules is not aware of any other amendments to title II.
  Our merchant marine performs vital economic and national defense 
functions; yet we have let this service decline to the point where it 
is a mere shadow of what it needs to be.
  During the gulf war, we were forced to contract out to foreign-
flagged vessels--a precarious arrangement at best. Luckily the problems 
with foreign-flagged shippers during this conflict were relatively 
minor, but there were conflicts, and there are no guarantees for the 
future. There are also non-wartime absurdities--such as renting cruise 
ships from the Ukrainians to be Haitian refugee processing centers.
  When the financing portion of H.R. 4003--title II--is considered, I 
urge support of the merchant marine amendment. It represents a 
reasonable compromise between the original bill, which called for $1.7 
billion in financing, and the $1 billion Ways and Means version.
  Supported by the bipartisan leadership of the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee, the substitute financing amendment is absolutely 
necessary to maintain the bare minimum of merchant marine service for 
our national interests.
  Please support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and indeed 
in favor of the legislation.
  Although entitled merchant marine legislation, indeed, today this 
House could be debating the same bill entitling it a National Security 
Act of 1994, or we could be calling it an Economic Security Act of 
1994, because in truth, it is both.
  In a single generation, we have seen the United States fall from one 
of the world's great maritime powers to indeed a nation unable to raise 
sufficient maritime forces to support our own troops in the field or to 
handle our own cargo in export.
  It is not simply a question of the nostalgia for an American power we 
used to have. It is a real and dangerous loss of influence and 
capability, more than in theory.
  In the Persian Gulf war, it is not simply, as the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon] suggested, that we were intimidated by some nations 
who did not want to help. We were threatened by some who would not 
help. American cargo arrived late for the Persian Gulf war. Merchant 
ships leased from other nations refused to enter the Persian Gulf under 
fire. American forces were without the support they needed at critical 
moments.
  Make no mistake about it, if in Korea the current conflict were to 
become an armed struggle, this Nation all by itself to defend our own 
interest is without the capability to bring the merchant forces to 
bear.
  And on the economic sphere, it is no different. A great economic 
power cannot be dependent for its own exports and its own imports to 
the tune of almost 70 percent of capability, cannot be dependent upon 
foreign flag carriers almost exclusively for some cargo on some routes. 
We need the competition. We need the domestic capability.
  After years of decline, an answer has finally been brought to this 
floor. For that, this body owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to take this 
stand. It will not bring us back the capability we once had. It will 
not give us the capability we need. But it will stop the continuing 
decline and the possible extinction of both our construction and our 
operating capabilities at this late date.
  I urge support of the rule and of the legislation.

                             {time}   1320

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding this time to 
me, and I certainly want to begin by associating myself with the 
remarks just made by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli]. 
They certainly mirror my own views.
  I think we must, as we approach the vote on this rule, which I 
wholeheartedly support, and the legislation that underpins it, the true 
dimensions of what we are dealing with today. We, unfortunately, have 
arrived at a juncture where our maritime community is going to 
disappear unless it receives the assistance that is calculated for it 
through H.R. 2151, which we passed overwhelmingly last year.
  The bill which we act upon today is that which gives the muscle to 
make possible the implementation of H.R. 2151. when we passed that, we 
did not operate on the basis of we must do something for the American-
flag liners that are still in existence; we did it for them, yes, and 
we realized then as we must realize even more today that if we do not, 
the American flag will disappear from the seas of the world.
  We did it not just for maritime labor, but maritime labor will 
disappear as a resource for manning American ships in times of crisis.
  We did not do it just for the American shipbuilding industry, but if 
you care about this Nation's ability to build naval combatant vessels 
in the future--and how dare we think in terms of our not being able to 
do so--if we care about our national security, we must assure the 
industrial base in America now and forever that has that capability. 
And that is what H.R. 2151 brought together, carefully crafted to 
protect all segments of the American merchant marine community, 
supported by all segments of the merchant marine community.
  I support this rule and especially its allowing the Merchant Marine 
Committee to offer an amendment that would make possible the $1.3 
billion level of revenue as opposed to the merely $1 billion in 
revenues over the next 10 years. That additional $300 million a year is 
critical to there being a shipbuilding component to this bill.
  The underpinning of the Ways and Means Committee proposal is that it 
eliminates revenue which would go to the shipbuilding initiative. That 
seals a death warrant for American shipbuilding. We will get into the 
details of the shipbuilding initiative that is crafted into H.R. 2151 
and will be supported by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee's 
version of the financing tool.
  To deny that throws out one of the three critical segments of the 
American merchant marine community.
  In 1781, one of the most monumental naval engagements in the history 
of the world took place off the Virginia capes when a fleet commanded 
by Comte de Grasse defeated a British fleet sent to relieve Lord 
Cornwallis at Yorktown. Because of that naval victory, the doom of 
Cornwallis was sealed and America won its freedom.
  then, dependent upon a foreign fleet, I do not see, colleagues, a 
future in which America's security would be protected by a foreign 
fleet. Our ability to build ships, our ability to carry our cargo in 
times of peace and most critically in times of war and our ability to 
man those ships by American merchant mariners is dependent upon the 
passage of this rule and the passage of the version of the financial 
tool which the Merchant Marine Committee offers to you.
  I wholeheartedly urge your support for both.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the Honorable Dan Rostenkowski.
  (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4003, the Maritime Administration and Promotional 
Reform Act of 1994.
  H.R. 4003 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means because it included a revenue measure to fund its underlying 
programs. As reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, the bill relied on an increase in tonnage fees to fund $1.7 
billion in programs over a 10-year period.
  Aftr careful consideration, the Members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means determined that it was not acceptable or appropriate to rely 
solely on tonnage fees to fund the underlying programs. Further, the 
committee determined that the amount of taxes raised in the merchant 
marine bill was greatly in excess of the amounts necessary to finance 
the program.
  Thus, the committee approved a carefully-crafted $1-billion package 
consisting of three revenue components: (1) a modification to current 
law tonnage fees, (2) an increase in the tax on water transportation 
with respect to certain voyages, and (3) a penny-per-gallon 
international shipping fuels tax.
  The rule would allow a Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
amendment to strike the revenue title that was crafted by the Members 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  This part of the rule is a dangerous break from the longstanding 
practice that the work-product of the Committee on Ways and Means be 
respected on the House floor.
  The Committee on Ways and Means is charged with the responsibility 
and the burden for making the difficult decisions as to how to raise 
revenues. it is not always easy or politically popular for our members 
to be in the position of raising revenue for our Government. However, 
we do our job.
  Just as the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has the 
expertise and responsibility for authorizing maritime programs, Members 
of the Committee on Ways and Means have the expertise and 
responsibility for revenue measures.
  I find it very troubling that the House would second-guess the 
revenue title that was developed by the committee of jurisdiction--Ways 
and means. This is more than an issue of how much tonnage fees should 
be increased.
  It raises the fundamental question of whether or not we will follow 
regular order and respect the deliberations of the House committees 
that are charged with these responsibilities. We ignore regular order 
at our own peril.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote against the rule.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule. It is extremely 
important that we pass this rule today, not only because the U.S. 
commercial shipbuilding industry is at stake, but because tens of 
thousands of industry jobs are at stake as well. By passing the rule, 
we would permit the distinguished chairman of the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee to offer an amendment that would significantly 
improve this legislation.
  Last November, this House overwhelmingly passed (347-65) the Maritime 
Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993--an extremely important bill 
because it sent the loud-and-clear signal that this body is committed 
to restoring this Nation's maritime greatness and protecting the jobs 
of the men and women who are its foundation. In this legislation, we 
have the opportunity to build upon the work this body started last 
November. But we only have one chance, and we've got to get it right.
  We have an obligation to help restore this Nation's commercial 
shipbuilding industry, especially those shipyards that have been 
heavily involved in Navy shipbuilding contracts--such as Bath Iron 
Works in my home State of Maine, which is the largest private employer 
in Maine. With the downsizing of our Armed Forces, and cutbacks on the 
number of new naval ships we will build, it is our responsibility to 
help our private shipyards become competitive again in the world 
shipbuilding market. It is simply not good enough to provide a safety 
net * * * we must provide a desperately needed leg-up as well.
  Just a few short decades ago, the U.S. was the world's greatest 
shipbuilding nation. But today we have fallen to around 24th in the 
world. In 1981, the United States eliminated its direct subsidy for the 
shipbuilding industry. Since that time, the industry has lost 40 
shipyards and about 120,000 jobs. Of the 22 largest American shipyards 
in business in 1980, only 8 remain today. And the decline in Navy 
construction threatens to shut down the entire industry and force the 
loss of more than 180,000 jobs within the next 5 years unless American 
shipyards can transition successfully to commercial work.

  One of the biggest reasons for the decline of the U.S. shipbuilding 
industry is the billions and billions of dollars in unfair shipbuilding 
subsidies that foreign countries pump into their commercial shipyards. 
These foreign subsidies have given foreign-built ships a tremendously 
unfair advantage over similar ships built in American shipyards.
  Nobody knows better the challenges facing our commercial shipyards 
than the distinguished chairman of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee. By passing this rule, we will give him the opportunity to 
offer an amendment already approved by the Rules Committee that would 
give our commercial shipyards the financial ability to compete in the 
international marketplace. I am speaking of the series transition 
payments to help finance new commercial ship construction that this 
House overwhelming endorsed and authorized with its passage of H.R. 
2151. (347-65)
  Now, opponents will contend that financing for the series transition 
payments are not necessary because last month a trade agreement was 
signed in Paris between the United States and the major industrialized 
nations that would phase-out all shipbuilding subsidies by 1999. While 
that agreement, on the surface, appears to be a good one, it is far 
from perfect. In fact, it is seriously flawed.
  Under that agreement, between now and January 1, 1996, existing 
foreign shipbuilding subsidies can continue with no budget ceilings. 
Moreover, any foreign subsides approved before that date can be carried 
over until January 1, 1999.
  This means that those nations currently subsidizing their shipyards 
will have at least another 4 years to flood the world marketplace with 
their subsidized ships. In trying to help our private shipyards for the 
long term, we have put them at a significant competitive disadvantage 
over the short term. The playing field will be a level one in 1999, but 
unless we do something today to help our shipyards, there will not be 
very many of them around to compete on that level playing field in 
1999. It is about as fair as ensuring an evenly-matched baseball game 
between teams only to find when the first inning starts that you've 
sent Team USA out to the plate with broken bats.
  The new shipbuilding subsidy agreement provides a long-term solution 
to the problem of foreign subsidies. But in the meantime it has created 
a significant short-term one--one which threatens the very existence of 
our shipbuilding industry.
  The answer to this short-term problem is first to pass the rule, and 
then pass the amendment that will be offered by the chairman of the 
Merchant Marine Committee. Let's make a good bill a much better one. 
Support the rule. Then support the chairman of the Merchant Marine 
Committee's important amendment. By supporting both, this House will be 
giving a critical industry a second chance.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the American people 
could view the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I serve on 
three major committees, and there is no committee that I have 
witnessed, or testified before, or worked for, or with, with the 
chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], that works in such a 
bipartisan way. It not only get things done, but it has responsibility, 
it has accountability, and it offers hope for the American people. I 
would ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski], the chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, to learn from it. They are not 
power builders, they are not committee power builders, but their one 
agenda is for the American people, and I cannot tell my colleagues that 
coming here in the 102d Congress, and all the malarkey that we have to 
go through, what a pleasure it is to come to Chairman Studds' committee 
because they work together and join together for the American people, 
and they not only do it in rhetoric, and it is not just for unions, it 
is not just for small business, but it is for both. It is for all 
Americans.
  In addition I want to tell my colleagues that this bill is a fair 
bill, and it does a lot of different things.
  The merchant marine fleet and the industry have been devastated. As 
my colleagues have heard, during Desert Storm we had Russian hulls 
carrying our cargo overseas. In Los Angeles and other ports many of 
those ships had to be loaded and off loaded. That meant time, and time 
in combat means life or death. Billions of dollars of tie-down 
materials and cargo shipping materials were just lost when these ships 
went in. They were never recovered, and that means taxpayer dollars as 
well.
  So, the committee is accountable, accountable to the American 
taxpayers.
  Some of these ships did not even go in to deliver the equipment. 
Foreign countries have primarily killed the industry through foreign 
subsidies. Our committee is where the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] work to save jobs 
that have been lost, and the skills that have been lost over a hundred 
years, Mr. Speaker, are going away. Just take a look at the east and 
the west coasts. We used to have hundreds of ship builders and hundreds 
of ship repair facilities. They are nearly gone. There is only one left 
on the west coast. Those are not just union jobs. Those are union and 
small business jobs.
  I only wish the other committees could learn from it, the 
infrastructure, the lost revenue that we have, and, yes, even the 
education programs. This bill and this committee provides for the 
Merchant Marine Academy, and I would also like to thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller] for helping and being the driving force to 
get a training ship for the Merchant Marine Academy, not in this bill, 
but it was also important.
  Let me give my colleagues some names:
  NASCO.
  Southwest Marine.
  Continental Marine.
  Pacific Ship.
  Campbell's.
  Bay City.
  None of these are in my district, Mr. Speaker, but they create 
American jobs, and that is what the chairman and the ranking member 
work for. If we lose these facilities, they are going to go into condos 
or other things, and we are never going to get it back.
  During the surge of national emergency we tried, even during Desert 
Storm, to go back in our bone pile of ships and regenerate old steam 
ships. We could not even find enough people to operate them. That is 
why we needed to use foreign hulls. This bill helps with that, loan 
guarantees. Let us build our ships in America, not let Taiwan, Japan, 
and other countries take our jobs because those dollars, even though it 
might be cheaper because of the subsidies, those dollars go into their 
tax accounts and tax rolls and do not regenerate jobs within this 
country. Let us let them be sailed by American sailors.
  The dual-hulled tankers; OPA-90 requires that we build dual-hulled 
tankers. Guess what? There is no money to do it. This bill provides a 
startup for that with $1.7 billion. I think that will be cut, but at 
least it is paid for. OPA regulations with dual-hulled tankers would 
prevent things like Valdez and the ships going along that are leaking 
oil on the east and west coast and on our beaches. Yes, it even helps 
the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, we are responsible, we have compassion in the committee, 
and it is hopeful for an industry that has died, and I say to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Studds, except for the tuna 
bill, I want to thank you. It's been very, very, pleasurable coming and 
working in the committee.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I think that much that has been said here 
this afternoon has been said several times. But this issue does cause a 
great deal of concern for Members who have been associated with the 
subject, with the issue, for one reason or another. I, maybe, enjoy, if 
my colleagues will, a couple of special kinds of circumstances that 
have brought this issue into focus for me over the years because my 
home is just a few miles from the northern terminus of the 80-mile trek 
from the Delaware River down to the Atlantic Ocean from Philadelphia to 
Cape May, and, as a result of being in that location over a number of 
years, I have had opportunity to observe ships coming and going. If one 
take advantage of those opportunities, we see ships from Norway, and 
Great Britain, Uruguay, and Brazil, Kuwait, and Turkey, and every once 
in a while we see an American flag on a ship, and that is because 97 
percent of the ships that visit ports like the ports of Philadelphia 
and Camden, 97 percent fly foreign flags, and anyone, I think, would 
agree that that is reason for concern.
  Recently I watched a short videotape about the revisiting, 
revisitation, of the Normandy invasion, and I was reminded that at that 
time this country sailed under American flags 6,000 ships and that 
those ships were so vital in making it possible for us to get our 
people, men and women, and munitions and stores for those troops into 
the proper place at the proper time. Today that 6,000 ship fleet has 
shrunk to just 300 ships.
  How do we restore this? That is the question that we are here to 
discuss today, and it just seems to me that we ought to be very 
realistic and look at this bill as one way to do that.
  There was an article in the Washington Post this morning for those 
who, maybe, are thinking we ought to do this out of the defense budget, 
and the headline in the Post was: ``Defense Costs Underestimated, GAO 
Says.'' The first paragraph of this article says the Defense Department 
is underestimating by more than $150 billion the cost of funding the 
military for the next 5 years according to a key congressional report 
released yesterday. If accurate, the General Accounting Office estimate 
would mean that either much larger appropriations are needed for 
defense, a virtual impossibility politically they insert, or deep new 
reductions in military programs will be required despite President 
Clinton's declaration that the Pentagon programs already have been 
reduced enough.
  This bill, in a way, is a self-help bill. It is an answer to the 
question how do we begin to solve this problem.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this self-help bill, as modest as it is 
in terms of its approach over a full decade to come, I hope this 
approach will pass today. I hope we vote for the rule and then support 
the bill.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
rule to accompany H.R. 4003, the Maritime Administration Authorization 
Act. This rule has been reported by a bipartisan majority of the Rules 
Committee and it provides for equitable consideration of this important 
legislation.
  The bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries requested this rule in order to provide the House of 
Representatives an opportunity to vote on an alternative funding 
amendment that is vital to our Nation's economic well-being. Last 
November, the House overwhelmingly authorized the revitalization 
programs that are funded by this legislation. The Merchant Marine 
Committee's amendment would finance these important revitalization 
efforts in a manner that relieves the burden on U.S. taxpayers.
  As representatives of the committee which has principal jurisdiction 
in this important area, the bipartisan leadership of Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries deserves an opportunity to offer their very balanced and 
sensible amendment. This is a matter of simple fairness to the 
membership of the committee, the membership of the House and most 
importantly, the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, a ``yes'' vote on the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee's financing amendment and 
finally, a ``yes'' vote on final passage of H.R. 4003.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], chairman of the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and 
all the members of the various committees who have had such kind things 
to say about the ranking member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries and the way in which we run our committee. We are very proud 
of it.
  I rise only to make one clarification. I have no intention of 
prolonging the debate on the rule. There is some misunderstanding, I 
believe, with regard to the amendment made in order under the rule to 
be offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and on behalf of 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The gentleman from 
Illinois, speaking for the Committee on Ways and Means, just 
characterized that amendment or the making of it in order as somehow a 
violation of the regular order and an invasion of the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  No one has more respect, in fact verging on awe, for the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Ways and Means than this Member. Let me just 
observe that the bill as introduced, H.R. 4003, was referred initially 
solely to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. We are the 
committee of principal jurisdiction. We are the committee of sole 
jurisdiction, with the exception of title II, the funding title, and on 
that title the Committee on Ways and Means requested and received a 
limited and sequential referral.
  With the funding mechanism as it was originally in the bill reported 
by our committee, based solely on tonnage duties, that is a matter over 
which the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries exercises 
principal primary jurisdiction. That is a shared jurisdiction with the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and they were entirely correct in 
requesting that sequential referral.
  It is true that the version supported by the Committee on Ways and 
Means adds two other components of funding, both of which are within 
the exclusive jurisdiction of that committee, and that is the excise 
tax on diesel fuel and the increase in tax on tickets paid by 
passengers on cruise vessels. Those two components are indeed solely 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and they 
comprise two-thirds of the package reported by that committee. The 
remaining third is the tonnage duties.
  It is the entirety of those tonnage duties of the package recommended 
by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, both in the bill and 
in the amendment, which we have requested be made in order. So with 
regard to our amendment, it is very much within the primary 
jurisdiction of our committee and does not, I submit respectfully, 
constitute in any way an invasion of the regular order or a lack of 
respect for the jurisdiction, the very real and very awesome 
jurisdiction, of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  I also would like to take this opportunity to thank that committee, 
all of its members and particularly its acting chairman, 
notwithstanding the fact that, as Members have seen and will see in a 
while, we have a disagreement on the best way of achieving the goals 
which I think most of us share. They have been remarkably open and 
cordial as we have attempted in the last few weeks to work out these 
differences.
  Members of our committee have been invited to a caucus of the 
Committee on Ways and Means to present our view of this matter, which, 
so far as I know, is without precedent. Members of our staff were 
invited to sit in on the actual markup of that committee. We are 
profoundly grateful for the civility and the cordialness with which the 
two committees have dealt with one another.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I once again thank and commend 
everybody who should be thanked and commended.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 4003, the Maritime Administration and Promotional 
Reform Act. This bill would greatly benefit our national maritime 
industry, increasing both the competitiveness and efficiency of our 
American shipyards.
  The bill provides funds for increased shipbuilding, additional 
national defense reserve, and improved maritime education. While many 
of these programs were established in H.R. 2151, the Maritime Security 
and Competitiveness Act, the means by which the financial requirements 
of the various programs would be met were not addressed.
  Enacting this legislation would generate nearly $250 million in 
fiscal year 1995 for Maritime Administration [MarAd] authorization 
national security programs, benefiting both the Ready Reserve force and 
national defense reserve fleet. Furthermore, our Nation's maritime 
education program would be helped by granting funds to the U.S. 
Merchant Marine Academy at King's Point, NY. As a New Yorker, I know 
about the fine training provided at this institution. The bill also 
succeeds in offering assistance to six additional State-sponsored 
maritime academies as well as subsidizing training support needs at 
State academies and at the Federal Academy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and H.R. 4003. This 
bill is crucial to ensuring that the United States remains a leader in 
international trade.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 336, 
nays 77, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               YEAS--336

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--77

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Canady
     Cardin
     Collins (IL)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Grandy
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Packard
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rostenkowski
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Stump
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Waters
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Ford (TN)
     Gutierrez
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Laughlin
     Montgomery
     Olver
     Owens
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Torres
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1406

  Mr. HASTERT and Mr. COSTELLO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________