[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]

 
       MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTIONAL REFORM ACT OF 1994

  The committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Fields], for yielding this time to me. I want to take even a part 
of this precious 2 minutes to express my appreciation and admiration 
for the chairman of our committee and the chairman of the subcommittee 
who made it possible for us to bring this totally bipartisan effort to 
the floor.
  It is not an overstatement to suggest that unless we fund H.R. 2151, 
which we overwhelmingly passed last year, the last American-flag vessel 
will disappear from the seas of the world. That is not a theory, that 
is a fact. And with the last American-flag vessel we will lose the 
capability in the future to man American ships to haul our 
international commerce, especially to look after our national security 
concerns in the future.
  Without funding all of H.R. 2151, including the series transition 
payment to shipbuilders, American shipbuilding will not be able to get 
on that so-called competitive level playing field after 1999.
  Let me emphasize to my colleagues in the House that we have not 
signed an international agreement. The agreement has not even been 
reduced to writing and ready for signature. It is not contemplated that 
anyone will sign it until after October.
  Even if signed in the form in which it has been negotiated, as 
discussed with me by the principal American negotiator, it protects the 
subsidies of other nations who have, and for some time and continue 
now, in their authority to continued subsidy practices in practical 
terms until 1999.
  For the American shipbuilding industry we ask only a very modest 
pittance for a transition program that would end before any agreement 
comes into effect which will permit American shipbuilders to be 
competitive in that international marketplace.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 
minute.
  I think it is important for my colleagues to ask themselves what is 
at stake here, what is this debate really all about? You can 
crystallize the debate fairly simple: It is about 250,000 jobs, jobs 
that both operate ships and jobs that build ships. We are talking about 
closed shipyards if this particular piece of legislation is not passed; 
we are talking about diminished national security; we are talking about 
whether this country can move commerce.
  We are talking about what I think is a fundamental question, and that 
is whether we as a country will continue to have control over our own 
destiny? I do not think there is a more fundamental question that can 
be put to this House, and I encourage my colleagues to support not only 
the legislation but the amendment that is brought in the nature of a 
substitute by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend all those who have spoken. This is a 
very, very important matter. I think members understand that.
  I would insist, however, that this really is a debate, among other 
things, about national security, and anyone who doubts that should 
really contemplate the very real possibility of the next century 
dawning with this Nation as the only superpower on Earth having no 
ships in foreign commerce flying our flag, none. The principal 
operators have already notified us of their intention to go foreign 
flag within a year if we do not enact the legislation before us. And at 
the same time, this Nation being without the capacity to build such a 
vessel, even, will have diminished our capacity to do the one thing, 
one thing we do know how to do, which is build naval vessels for 
military purposes. It is fundamentally a question of national security.
  Nor is it simply a question of the basic law of economics. Every 
other shipbuilding nation in the world--and, hopefully, this agreement 
will change that--but to date it subsidizes their vessels in the 
shipbuilding industry.

                              {time}  1500

  There are consequences that flow from that, and there are jobs at 
stake, lots of very good jobs, jobs in operating vessels, jobs in 
building vessels. There is a lot at stake here.
  One final observation:
  This is not an uncapped entitlement as was suggested. We are strictly 
PAYGO here. Nothing is spent that is not paid for by this bill. It is 
not an open-ended entitlement. It is terribly important, and once again 
I want to commend especially the members of our committee who have in a 
bipartisan fashion done themselves, all of us, I think, proud in this 
House.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, our maritime industries are fast becoming 
likely candidates for top spots on the endangered species list, and our 
actions today can reverse this rush to extinction. And that is the 
clear choice before us today--extinction or survival. But we can--and 
should--change that right now. And it is a change that is necessary not 
only for our shipyards, but for the industry, for American jobs, and 
even for our national security.
  To those who might doubt the severity of decline of our commercial 
shipbuilding industry, I offer a quick lesson in the facts.
  Consider that, in 1960, the United States privately owned, oceangoing 
fleet ranked fourth in the world with over 1,000 ships. In 1993, our 
fleet consisted of only 384 ships and is ranked 16th in the world and 
behind such nations as Malta, Panama, Liberia, and China.
  Consider that in 1981 our Nation's shipyards employed 186,700 men and 
women. Ten years later, 50 of those shipyards have vanished and 
shipyard jobs have fallen to 129,300, and total job loss by 1998 will 
be almost 160,000.
  Consider that between 1965 and 1992, the number of jobs on privately 
owned, large oceangoing American vessels decreased from about 51,000 to 
just over 9,150.
  To be successful in our national security interest, we must be--as a 
nation--successful in our commercial shipbuilding capabilities as well. 
The two are clearly dependent on one another. For example, a March 
1994, DOD report on the adequacy of our shipbuilding industry 
identified a clear, long-term national security benefit from the 
successful reentry of the global commercial shipbuilding market by 
American shipbuilders, and it stated that ``the best long-term solution 
to maintain a robust shipbuilding industrial base is to obtain a 
respectable percentage of the global commercial shipbuilding market.''
  And to do this, the commercial shipyards of the United States must be 
able to rely on the support of the U.S. Government. And that means 
adequate subsidies.
  The Gibbons bill contains maritime subsidies--but only for shipping 
lines, and not for our shipyards. Isn't it important that, 5 years from 
now, we are able to ensure that there is a fair and equitable amount of 
American-made commercial ships traveling on those shipping lines?
  By providing subsidies for the ship lines and not our shipyards, the 
Gibbons bill would have the same effect of providing funds to build and 
maintain miles and miles of American roads, but doing nothing to help 
ensure that American cars travel those roads.
  Certainly, no one is questioning the merits of a level playing field 
for commercial shipbuilding between major industrialized nations: 
according to the Paris agreement, all government subsidies are to cease 
on January 1, 1999. After that time, the commercial shipbuilding 
industries of the signatories will operate on the same basis.
  What we must take a good, hard look at is what occurs in the years 
between 1994 to 1999. Mr. Speaker, it is the next 5 years that will in 
effect determine whether our commercial shipbuilding industry even 
survives economically to be able to compete after the year 1999. That 
is the issue here today. So, while foreign governments heavily 
subsidize their shipbuilding industries, American shipyards will remain 
shutout and in danger of being shutdown. In Spain alone, new subsidy 
aid will be permitted to the extent of $1.4 billion even before the 
1999 cutoff date. Is that a sign of a fair agreement?
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell you from personal experience that this bill 
and this issue are critically important to my State. Bath Iron Works is 
the largest private employer in the State of Maine. It is over 100 
years old and it is currently the Navy's lead shipyard for the 
construction of Aegis destroyers. For decades, BIW has proven that it 
can build the world's best warships.
  Now BIW has embarked on an ambitious 5-year plan to turn its skills 
and resources toward building world-class merchant ships at world 
prices. But it, and shipyards like it, need our help to make their plan 
a success.
  There is a large international shipbuilding market which is projected 
to grow at a modest rate in the next 5 to 10 years. But world 
shipbuilding capacity is potentially greater than this market demand, 
thus only the most efficient shipyards will prosper in the long run--
BIW intends to be one of those shipyards.
  BIW has made a commitment to invest in the technologies and process 
needed to compete in the next century's international shipbuilding 
market. But what BIW needs most is a level playing field in the 
international market.
  But because of the flaws in the new international subsidy agreement, 
that level playing field won't materialize until 1999. We must provide 
BIW, and other shipyards dependent on naval construction, with the 
assistance necessary to survive and prosper when that level playing 
field arrives.
  Mr. Chairman, that's what it comes down to--extinction or survival. 
We need to act today to take our shipyards and other maritime 
industries off the endangered species list and place them squarely on 
the road to survival.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot stress too strongly how essential 
H.R. 4003 is to the future well-being of our country. For more than 200 
years, from before the birth of the United States of America, an active 
merchant fleet has been a necessary component of our economy and 
national security. In wars large and small, in the peacetime commerce 
of our farms and factories, U.S.-flag commercial shipping has 
represented a reliable and cost-effective means of transport.
  Today, we are in great danger of losing this national treasure. Most 
of our maritime promotional programs have either ended or are slated 
for extinction. So far, nothing has been produced to fill the void, 
thereby throwing the domestic registry into chaos. Without a stable 
economic environment, private investors are understandably hesitant 
about making the huge capital investments that new shipping assets 
entail.
  As for existing assets, they too will disappear. The two largest 
U.S.-flag liner operators, Sea-Land Service and American President 
Lines, have applied to reflag a substantial number of their ships under 
a foreign registry. There is no reason to think that this is an 
isolated action. On the contrary, we can reasonably expect a wholesale 
flight from the U.S. flag; that is, if we in the Congress are unwilling 
to provide our citizens with the tools they need to compete against the 
unfair trading practices and substandard manning and safety regulations 
of the foreign flags.
  H.R. 4003 is a wake-up call to our Nation. It reconfirms our 
commitment to providing for a merchant marine of sufficient strength to 
serve as a strategic asset during times of war, and as a source of jobs 
and prosperity during times of peace. It is a step back from the 
precipice to which our past inaction has brought us. It is our last, 
best chance of saving an essential piece of America. I urge my 
colleagues in joining me in support of the merchant marine panel's 
amendment to H.R. 4003.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, often overlooked in the debate over 
maritime policy is what it means to average citizens, who despite low-
interest rates are hesitant to buy a new car or a home. They all know 
someone, a relative or a friend, who recently lost a job, and they are 
afraid that next time it will be their turn. With the economic recovery 
sluggish at best, Members need to ask themselves whether we can afford 
to lose yet another major industry.
  For lose it we will if we fail to act to support full funding for 
maritime reform. Already, U.S.-flag operators are poised to register 
their vessels offshore. An entire generation of skilled labor is being 
lost, perhaps forever.
  What is going to happen to the port communities along our thousands 
of miles of coastline and inland waters? What are we going to do with 
the tens of thousands of workers who will be cast aside by a 
disappearing maritime industry? What about factory workers whose plants 
need dependable waterborne transportation to get raw materials and to 
ship finished goods to market?
  While we quibble about the cost of a new maritime program, we ignore 
the enormous social cost of inaction. I, for one, would prefer to help 
keep shipboard workers actively employed, rather than incur the revenue 
losses and welfare costs of giving them a pink slip.
  Yes, by all means, let us support maritime reform for its role in 
national defense. But let us not forget that the jobs of our 
constituents also hang in the balance. A vote for final passage of H.R. 
4003 are votes cast for them.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for the way in which he worked 
with the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on this important 
piece of legislation. I also wish to commend Chairman Studds, Chairman 
Lipinski, and the ranking minority member of the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee, Jack Fields, for their tireless work to bring 
maritime reform legislation to the floor.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to support the rule and the Studds/
Fields amendment that will be offered later this afternoon. I do so 
because the fate of the amendment will spell the difference between 
whether our domestic maritime industry will get a huge boost or only a 
slight nudge in the right direction.
  The case for meaningful maritime reform legislation and for the 
Studds/Fields amendment can best be made by keeping in mind a few 
telling statistics:
  Two thousand American-flagged vessels plied international waters 50 
years ago, while less than 200 do so today.
  Fifty years ago, if you measure by total tonnage, we were the leading 
shipping nation in the world. Today we are ninth.
  Fifty years ago our ocean going vessels provided 250 thousand 
American jobs, today only one-tenth of those jobs remain.
  Fifty years ago, 1.5 million Americans received pay checks working in 
our shipyards. Today, our yards employ 125,000.
  Our final statistic makes the need for the Studds/Fields amendment 
and for maritime reform abundantly clear. Today, only 4 percent of 
American goods shipped abroad go on vessels flying an American flag. 
I'll repeat that--only 4 percent of goods produced in our country and 
sent overseas on ships go on U.S.-flag vessels.
  Today, our economy is growing again. Yet despite progress and 
significant growth in gross national product, unemployment rates remain 
frustratingly high. That's not new. We've been faced with unacceptably 
high unemployment rates too long. With that in mind, no one should be 
cavalier about the significance of preserving American jobs in American 
shipyards, on American vessels, and at American ports.
  Maritime reform is also about national security. They may not be as 
glamorous as the newest stealth technology, but without the basic 
ability to get our troops, equipment and supplies where they need to be 
in an emergency, we're sunk. It is a never ending frustration that some 
people are so enamored of new high-priced weaponry that they disregard 
the nuts and bolts of security. We dare not take this vital security 
resource for granted.
  If this body does the right thing and passes the Studds/Fields 
amendment, it will provide the means to allow twice as many ocean-going 
ships to fly the U.S. flag. That means more jobs for our workers and 
greater security for our country. It will also mean that maritime 
reform will have smoother sailing from here on it. If we fail to adopt 
the Studds/Fields amendment the maritime reform effort may end up on 
the rocks and we will have missed our last best chance to save the 
American merchant marine.
  Make no mistake, whether we enact real maritime reform legislation 
this year is crucial. Without it we will lose well-paying jobs and much 
of the remaining infrastructure needed to build and repair ships. 
Without it, the last remnants of our ocean-going maritime fleet will 
likely vanish and we will be left to go shopping at ``rent a fleet'' 
the next time a national security emergency erupts.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Studds/Fields amendment and then 
to pass H.R. 4003.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries printed 
in the bill, modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means printed in the bill, and by the amendment printed in 
part 1 of House Report 103-646, is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4003

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Administration and 
     Promotional Reform Act of 1994''.
                    TITLE I--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Maritime Administration 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995''.

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Authorizations.--For fiscal year 1995, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for use for the Maritime Administration the 
     following amounts:
       (1) Any amounts necessary to liquidate obligations under 
     operating-differential subsidy contracts for the fiscal year 
     1995 portion of the total contract authority.
       (2) $43,076,000 for expenses related to manpower, 
     education, and training, including--
       (A) $30,701,000 for maritime training at the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York;
       (B) $10,525,000 for assistance to the State maritime 
     academies (including reimbursement of fuel costs associated 
     with the operation of training vessels), of which $1,200,000 
     may be used for training simulators for the State maritime 
     academies; and
       (C) $1,850,000 for manpower and additional training.
       (3) $35,124,000 for operating programs, including--
       (A) $20,866,000 for general administration;
       (B) $9,216,000 for development and use of water 
     transportation systems;
       (C) $3,627,000 for research, technology, and analysis; and
       (D) $1,415,000 for national security support capabilities.
       (4)(A) $248,800,000 for the National Defense Reserve Fleet 
     (including the Ready Reserve Force component of that fleet), 
     including--
       (i) $228,448,000 for maintenance and operations in support 
     of the Ready Reserve Force;
       (ii) $6,352,000 for maintenance and operations in support 
     of the National Defense Reserve Fleet;
       (iii) $4,000,000 for facilities; and
       (iv) $10,000,000 to repair and convert the vessel T-AGS 39 
     MAURY for use as a training vessel at the California Maritime 
     Academy.
       (B) As a condition of making any payment from amounts 
     appropriated under subparagraph (A)(iv), the Secretary shall 
     require that the California Maritime Academy agree to make 
     the T-AGS 39 MAURY available to the Ready Reserve Force of 
     the National Defense Reserve Fleet upon request by the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of Defense.
       (5) $4,000,000 to pay administrative costs related to new 
     loan guarantee commitments under title XI of the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), relating to 
     Federal ship mortgage insurance.
       (6) $50,000,000 for costs (as that term is defined in 
     section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 
     U.S.C. 661a)) of new loan guarantee commitments under title 
     XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Use of Proceeds of Sales.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of Transportation may use 
     proceeds derived from the sale or disposal of National 
     Defense Reserve Fleet vessels, that are currently collected 
     and retained by the Maritime Administration, as follows:
       (1) For facility and ship maintenance, modernization and 
     repair, acquisition of equipment, training simulators, and 
     fuel costs necessary to maintain training at the United 
     States Merchant Marine Academy and the State maritime 
     academies.
       (2) The Secretary shall pay from those proceeds $4,000,000 
     to the California Maritime Academy to repair and convert the 
     vessel T-AGS 39 MAURY for use as a training vessel at the 
     Academy.
       (3) The Secretary shall pay from those proceeds up to 
     $50,000 to the Great Lakes Maritime Academy for operation of 
     the training vessel of the Academy.

     SEC. 103. REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN FEES BY STATE MARITIME 
                   ACADEMIES.

       (a) Condition of Assistance.--Section 1304(d) of the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1295(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an agreement under 
     this subsection shall require a State maritime academy to 
     reimburse each qualified individual for any fee or charge for 
     which the individual is liable to the United States for--
       ``(i) the issuance of an entry level license under chapter 
     71 of title 46, United States Code;
       ``(ii) the first issuance of a merchant mariner's document 
     under chapter 73 of that title;
       ``(iii) an evaluation or examination for such a license or 
     merchant mariner's document conducted before the end of the 
     period described in subparagraph (D)(ii); or
       ``(iv) an application for such a license, merchant 
     mariner's document, evaluation, or examination.
       ``(B) A State maritime academy shall reimburse qualified 
     individuals under subparagraph (A) to the extent amounts are 
     available under subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) In addition to annual payments under paragraph (1)(A) 
     and subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary shall pay annually to each State maritime academy 
     that enters into an agreement under paragraph (1) amounts to 
     reimburse qualified individuals under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) In this paragraph, the term `qualified individual' 
     means an individual who--
       ``(i) is attending or is a graduate of a State maritime 
     academy;
       ``(ii) fulfills the requirements for a license or merchant 
     mariner's document described in subparagraph (A) not later 
     than 3 months after the date the individual graduates from a 
     State maritime academy; and
       ``(iii) is liable for a fee or charge described in 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     is effective October 1, 1994.
       (c) Amendment of Existing Agreements.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall amend agreements under 
     section 1304(d) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. 
     U.S.C. 1295c(d)) pursuant to the amendment made by subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Additional Appropriations Authorized.--In addition to 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated in section 102 for 
     assistance to State maritime academies, there is authorized 
     to be appropriated $300,000 for fiscal year 1995 to reimburse 
     qualified individuals pursuant to the amendment made by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. TERMINATION OF CONDITION FOR STATE MARITIME ACADEMY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1304(f)(1) of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c(f)(1)) is amended to read as 
     if section 3 of the Act of October 13, 1989 (Public Law 101-
     115; 103 Stat. 692), had not been enacted.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective October 13, 1989.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3 of the Act of October 13, 1989 (Public Law 
     101-115; 103 Stat. 692), is repealed.
       (2) Section 706 of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     Authorization Act of 1990 (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c note) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 105. MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE RESERVE 
                   FLEET VESSELS.

       The Secretary of Transportation may enter into a contract 
     for the maintenance of the National Defense Reserve Fleet, 
     including the Ready Reserve Force, only for--
       (1) the repair, activation, operation, berthing, towing, or 
     lay-up of a vessel;
       (2) a vessel used by a State maritime academy; or
       (3) obtaining maintenance technical services when--
       (A) the technical expertise required for that service is 
     beyond the capabilities of the Fleet staff or when the Fleet 
     has insufficient personnel resources to adequately maintain 
     the Fleet; and
       (B) the contract does not result in reducing employment at 
     the Fleet site.

     SEC. 106. MAINTENANCE OF READY RESERVE FORCE VESSELS IN 
                   REDUCED OPERATING STATUS.

       The Secretary shall, during fiscal year 1995, maintain in a 
     reduced operating status--
       (1) at least 29 vessels in the Ready Reserve Force 
     component of the National Defense Reserve Fleet, or
       (2) a lesser number of those vessels that the Secretary 
     determines to be practicable based on the appropriations 
     available for that fiscal year for maintenance of vessels in 
     that force.

     SEC. 107. VESSEL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     conduct a pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of using 
     long-term contracts for the maintenance and repair of 
     outported vessels in the Ready Reserve Force to enhance the 
     readiness of those vessels. Under the pilot program, the 
     Secretary, subject to the availability of appropriations and 
     within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     shall award 9 contracts for this purpose.
       (b) Use of Various Contracting Arrangements.--In conducting 
     a pilot program under this section, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall use contracting arrangements similar to 
     those used by the Department of Defense for procuring 
     maintenance and repair of its vessels.
       (c) Contract Requirements.--Each contract with a shipyard 
     under this section shall--
       (1) subject to subsection (d), provide for the procurement 
     from the shipyard of all repair and maintenance (including 
     activation, deactivation, and drydocking) for 1 vessel in the 
     Ready Reserve Force that is outported in the geographical 
     vicinity of the shipyard; and
       (2) be effective for 3 years.
       (d) Limitation of Work Under Contracts.--A contract under 
     this section may not provide for the procurement of operation 
     or manning for a vessel that may be procured under another 
     contract for the vessel to which section 11(d)(2) of the 
     Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 App. U.S.C. 1774(d)(2)) 
     applies.
       (e) Geographic Distribution.--The Secretary shall seek to 
     distribute contract awards under this section to shipyards 
     located throughout the United States.
       (f) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress--
       (1) an interim report on the effectiveness of each contract 
     under this section in providing for economic and efficient 
     repair and maintenance of the vessel covered by the contract, 
     no later than 20 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (2) a final report on that effectiveness no later than 6 
     months after the termination of all contracts awarded 
     pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 108. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COAST GUARD MARITIME ACADEMY 
                   RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) Naval Reserve Status.--Section 1304(g)(2) of the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c(g)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     unless the individual participates in the Coast Guard 
     Maritime Academy Reserve Training Program''.
       (b) Reserve Service Obligation.--Section 1304(g)(3)(D) of 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c(g)(3)(D)) 
     is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(i)'' after ``commissioned officer'';
       (2) inserting ``(except as provided in clause (ii))'' after 
     ``the United States Coast Guard Reserve''; and
       (3) inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``; or (ii) in the United States Coast Guard 
     Reserve for such period following that date of graduation as 
     may be established by the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating, in the case of an 
     individual that participates in the Coast Guard Maritime 
     Academy Reserve Training Program''.
       (c) Penalties for Failure To Fulfill Incentive Payment 
     Agreement.--Section 1304(g) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``, except as provided in 
     paragraph (8),'' after ``such individual may'';
       (2) in paragraph (5) by inserting ``, except as provided in 
     paragraph (8),'' after ``such individual may''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) Paragraphs (4) and (5) shall not apply to a 
     failure to fulfill a part of an agreement, by an individual 
     who--
       ``(i) is enlisted in the United States Coast Guard Reserve; 
     and
       ``(ii) participates in the Coast Guard Maritime Academy 
     Reserve Training Program.
       ``(B) If the Secretary determines that an individual 
     described in subparagraph (A) has failed to fulfill any part 
     of the agreement (required by paragraph (1)) described in 
     paragraph (3), the individual may be ordered to active duty 
     in the Coast Guard to serve for a period of time determined 
     by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, not to exceed 2 years. 
     In cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary may waive this subparagraph.''.
       (d) Coast Guard Maritime Academy Reserve Training Program 
     Defined.--Section 1304(g) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 1295c(g)), as amended by this section, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) In this subsection, the term `Coast Guard Maritime 
     Academy Reserve Training Program' means that program 
     established by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of the Maritime 
     Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.''.

     SEC. 109. MERCHANT SHIP SALES ACT OF 1946 AMENDMENT.

       Section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 App. 
     U.S.C. 1744) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (b)(2) by striking ``Secretary of the 
     Navy,'' and inserting ``Secretary of Defense,''.
       (2) By striking subsection (c) and redesignating subsection 
     (d) as subsection (c).

     SEC. 110. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN MERCHANT SEAMEN.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 
     (46 App. U.S.C. 1131) is amended by inserting after section 
     301 the following new section:
       ``Sec. 302. (a) An individual who is certified by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under subsection (c) shall be 
     entitled to reemployment rights and other benefits 
     substantially equivalent to the rights and benefits provided 
     for by chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, for any 
     member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States who is ordered to active duty.
       ``(b) An individual may submit an application for 
     certification under subsection (c) to the Secretary of 
     Transportation not later than 45 days after the date the 
     individual completes a period of employment described in 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to which the application is 
     submitted.
       ``(c) Not later than 20 days after the date the Secretary 
     of Transportation receives from an individual an application 
     for certification under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) determine whether or not the individual--
       ``(A) was employed in the activation or operation of a 
     vessel--
       ``(i) in the National Defense Reserve Fleet maintained 
     under section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, in a 
     period in which that vessel was in use or being activated for 
     use under subsection (b) of that section;
       ``(ii) that is requisitioned or purchased under section 902 
     of this Act; or
       ``(iii) that is owned, chartered, or controlled by the 
     United States and used by the United States for a war, armed 
     conflict, national emergency, or maritime mobilization need 
     (including for training purposes or testing for readiness and 
     suitability for mission performance); and
       ``(B) during the period of that employment, possessed a 
     valid license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's 
     document issued under chapter 71 or chapter 73 (as 
     applicable) of title 46, United States Code; and
       ``(2) if the Secretary makes affirmative determinations 
     under paragraph (1) (A) and (B), certify that individual 
     under this subsection.
       ``(d) For purposes of reemployment rights and benefits 
     provided by this section, a certification under subsection 
     (c) shall be considered to be the equivalent of a certificate 
     referred to in paragraph (1) of section 4301(a) of title 38, 
     United States Code.''.
       (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to employment described in section 302(c)(1)(A) 
     of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended by subsection 
     (a), occurring after August 2, 1990.
       (c) Employment Ending Before Enactment.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b) of section 302 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936, as amended by this Act, an individual who, in the 
     period beginning August 2, 1990, and ending on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, completed a period of employment 
     described in subsection (c)(1)(A) of that section may submit 
     an application for certification under subsection (c) of that 
     section with respect to that employment not later than 45 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Regulation.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall issue regulations implementing this section.

     SEC. 111. PILOT PROGRAM ON SEALIFT TRAINING.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall establish, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations in addition to the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 102(a)(2), a 3-
     year period pilot program for Sealift Training at the 
     Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

     SEC. 112. MASSACHUSETTS CENTER FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   PROTECTION.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall pay, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations in addition to the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 102, $242,000 to 
     the Massachusetts Maritime Academy for assistance to the 
     Massachusetts Center for Marine Environmental Protection.

     SEC. 113. REPORT ON SEALIFT MANPOWER MOBILIZATION PROGRAM.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit a 
     report to the Congress on--
       (1) the feasibility of conducting on Ready Reserve Force 
     vessels a program to familiarize civilian merchant mariners 
     with the operation of those vessels, for the purpose of 
     facilitating national defense mobilizations involving those 
     vessels; and
       (2) the ability of the Coast Guard to track the 
     availability of qualified civilian merchant mariners for 
     service on those vessels during those mobilizations.

     SEC. 114. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 12108 of title 46, United States 
     Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate 
     of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment 
     in the fisheries for the vessel ABORIGINAL (United States 
     official number 942118).

     SEC. 115. MARITIME POLICY REPORT.

       (a) Report.--The Secretary of Transportation shall transmit 
     to the Congress a report setting forth the Department of 
     Transportation's policies for the 5-year period beginning 
     October 1, 1994, with respect to--
       (1) fostering and maintaining a United States merchant 
     marine capable of meeting economic and national security 
     requirements;
       (2) improving the vitality and competitiveness of the 
     United States merchant marine and the maritime industrial 
     base, including ship repairers, shipbuilders, ship manning, 
     ship operators, and ship suppliers;
       (3) reversing the precipitous decrease in the number of 
     ships in the United States-flag fleet and the Nation's 
     shipyard and repair capability;
       (4) stabilizing and eventually increasing the number of 
     mariners available to crew United States merchant vessels;
       (5) achieving adequate manning of merchant vessels for 
     national security needs during a mobilization;
       (6) ensuring that sufficient civil maritime resources will 
     be available to meet defense deployment and essential 
     economic requirements in support of our national security 
     strategy;
       (7) ensuring that the United States maintains the 
     capability to respond unilaterally to security threats in 
     geographic areas not covered by alliance commitments and 
     otherwise meets sealift requirements in the event of crisis 
     or war;
       (8) ensuring that international agreements and practices do 
     not place United States maritime industries at an unfair 
     competitive disadvantage in world markets;
       (9) ensuring that Federal agencies promote, through 
     efficient application of laws and regulations, the readiness 
     of the United States merchant marine and supporting 
     industries; and
       (10) any other relevant maritime policies.
       (b) Date of Transmittal.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be transmitted along with the 
     President's budget submission, pursuant to section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 116. TITLE XI LOAN GUARANTEES.

       Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 
     1271 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 1101(b), by striking ``owned by citizens of 
     the United States'';
       (2) in section 1104B(a), in the material preceding 
     paragraph (1), by striking ``owned by citizens of the United 
     States''; and
       (3) in section 1110(a), by striking ``owned by citizens of 
     the United States''.

     SEC. 117. STUDY OF FEASIBILITY OF SHIP REPAIR DIFFERENTIAL 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
     study of the feasibility of establishing a program of 
     financial assistance to qualified ship repair yards, to make 
     those yards more competitive in international ship repair 
     markets by paying to those yards the difference between the 
     cost of repairing vessels in those yards and the cost of 
     repairing vessels in foreign ship repair yards.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Transportation shall submit 
     to the Congress by not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act a report on the findings and 
     recommendations of the study required by subsection (a).
       (c) Qualified Ship Repair Yard Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``qualified ship repair yard'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 118(d).

     SEC. 118. QUALIFIED SHIP REPAIR YARD MODERNIZATION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
     use available amounts to make grants to qualified ship repair 
     yards to pay 75 percent of the cost of acquiring advanced 
     ship repair technology and modern ship repair technology.
       (b) Condition of Assistance.--As a condition of receiving a 
     grant under this section, the Secretary shall require that a 
     qualified ship repair yard provide, in cash contributions, 25 
     percent of the costs incurred in acquiring advanced ship 
     repair technology and modern ship repair technology with the 
     grant.
       (c) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to qualified ship repair yards 
     for which assistance under this section will permit the 
     performance of ship repairs more efficiently and in a manner 
     that is more competitive with foreign ship repair yards.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Advanced ship repair technology.--The term ``advanced 
     ship repair technology'' includes--
       (A) numerically controlled machine tools, robots, automated 
     process control equipment, computerized flexible 
     manufacturing systems, associated computer software, and 
     other technology for improving ship repair and related 
     industrial production which advance the state-of-the-art; and
       (B) novel techniques and processes designed to improve ship 
     repair quality, productivity, and practice, and to promote 
     sustainable development, including engineering design, 
     quality assurance, concurrent engineering, continuous process 
     production technology, energy efficiency, waste minimization, 
     design for recyclability or parts reuse, inventory 
     management, upgraded worker skills, and communications with 
     customers and suppliers.
       (2) Modern ship repair technology.--The term ``modern ship 
     repair technology'' means the best available proven 
     technology, techniques, and processes appropriate to 
     enhancing the productivity of ship repair yards.
       (3) Qualified ship repair yard defined.--The term 
     ``qualified ship repair yard'' means a shipyard located in 
     the United States that meets the eligibility qualification 
     requirements for obtaining and retaining a Master Ship Repair 
     Agreement with the United States Navy.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For grants under this 
     section there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Transportation $17,500,000 for fiscal year 1995, 
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 119. GREAT LAKES ENDORSEMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Great Lakes Endorsement.--
       (1) Section 12107 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (2) The analysis at the beginning of chapter 121 of title 
     46, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 12107.
       (3) Section 12101(b)(3) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4370(a) of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (46 App. U.S.C. 316(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``or 12107''.
       (c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2793 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (46 App. U.S.C. 111, 123) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``coastwise, Great Lakes endorsement'' and 
     all that follows through ``foreign ports,'' and inserting 
     ``registry endorsement, engaged in foreign trade on the Great 
     Lakes or their tributary or connecting waters in trade with 
     Canada,''; and
       (B) by striking ``, as if from or to foreign ports''.
       (2) The Act of March 8, 1910 (46 App. U.S.C. 132; 32 Stat. 
     234, chapter 86), is amended by striking ``shall be exempt'' 
     and all that follows through the end of the section and 
     inserting ``shall be exempt from section 36(a) of the Act of 
     August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 111).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect October 1, 1994.
                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS
                       Subtitle A--Tonnage Duties

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Coast Guard--
       (A) will spend over $400,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 
     conducting search and rescue operations far into the Atlantic 
     and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico to protect life and 
     property on United States and foreign-flag vessels;
       (B) inspects vessels of all nations to ensure their 
     compliance with international treaties and conventions;
       (C) will spend over $470,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 
     providing navigational aids to vessels from around the world 
     through the operation of--
       (i) LORAN, OMEGA, and the Differential Global Positioning 
     System; and
       (ii) over 46,000 lighthouses, buoys, daybeacons, fog 
     signals, radar reflectors and Vessel Traffic Service systems; 
     and
       (D) will spend over $86,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 
     providing icebreaking services for vessels from all nations.
       (2) It is reasonable for vessel owners of all nations that 
     benefit from these services, including owners of United 
     States-flag vessels, to pay tonnage duties to help offset the 
     cost of providing these services.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to increase 
     the tonnage duties imposed on vessels entering the United 
     States to help offset the cost of providing Coast Guard 
     services to those vessels.

     SEC. 202. INCREASE IN TONNAGE DUTIES.

       (a) Increased Duties.--Section 36 of the Act of August 5, 
     1909 (46 App. U.S.C. 121, 36 Stat. 111), is amended--
       (1) by designating the first paragraph as subsection (a) 
     and amending it to read as follows:
       ``(a) Tonnage Duty Imposed on Certain Entries.--
       ``(1) Duty imposed.--There is imposed on a vessel making an 
     entry described in paragraph (2) before fiscal year 2005 a 
     duty of 22 cents per ton, except that the duty for a vessel 
     under this paragraph shall not exceed in the aggregate $2.64 
     per ton in any 12-month period.
       ``(2) Entry described.--An entry referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is any of the following:
       ``(A) Formal entry from foreign port or place.--A formal 
     entry in any port of the United States from any foreign port 
     or place, other than an entry by a vessel that is in distress 
     or is not engaged in trade.
       ``(B) Other entry.--An entry by a vessel that departs a 
     United States port or place and returns to the same port or 
     place without being entered in the United States from another 
     port or place, other than--
       ``(i) an entry by a vessel of the United States, a 
     recreational vessel, or a barge (as those terms are defined 
     in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code); and
       ``(ii) an entry by a vessel that is in distress or is not 
     engaged in trade.
       ``(3) Offsetting receipts of coast guard.--Amounts received 
     by the United States as duty imposed under this subsection 
     shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating and ascribed to Coast Guard activities.''; 
     and
       (2) by designating the remainder of the section as 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect October 1, 1994.
                  Subtitle B--Other Revenue Provisions

     SEC. 211. INCREASE IN PER PASSENGER TAX ON TRANSPORTATION BY 
                   WATER.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 4471 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax 
     on transportation by water) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``If the value (as determined 
     under section 4462(a)(5)(B)) of the covered voyage is $150 or 
     more, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting 
     `$5' for `$3'.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to voyages beginning after December 31, 1994.

     SEC. 212. TAX ON FUEL USED IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL WATER 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 31 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to retail excise taxes) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4043. FUEL USED IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL WATER 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--There is hereby imposed a tax on any 
     liquid--
       ``(1) sold in the United States by any person to an owner, 
     lessee, or other operator of a taxable commercial vessel for 
     use as a fuel in such vessel, or
       ``(2) purchased in the United States and used by any person 
     as a fuel in such a vessel during foreign transportation 
     unless there was a taxable sale of such fuel under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Rate of Tax.--The rate of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall be 1 cent per gallon.
       ``(c) Exemption From Tax for Vessels Not Engaged in 
     International Shipping.--
       ``(1) Exemption where tax imposed at time fuel loaded in 
     vessel.--In the case of fuel which is loaded into the bunker 
     of a vessel at the time of the sale on which tax is imposed 
     by subsection (a), if the purchaser reasonably estimates the 
     amount of fuel to be used in foreign transportation before 
     the next purchase of fuel for such vessel, the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall apply only to fuel purchased at such 
     time in the amount certified by the purchaser to the seller 
     as being equal to the excess of such estimate over the fuel 
     in the bunker at such time on which tax was imposed by 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Other cases.--In any case in which tax is imposed by 
     subsection (a) before the time referred to in paragraph (1), 
     a rule similar to the rule of paragraph (1) shall apply under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Ordering rule on fuel use.--For purposes of 
     determining, at the time of purchase of fuel, the amount of 
     tax-paid fuel which is in the bunker of the vessel, the 
     vessel shall be treated as having used tax-paid fuel (to the 
     extent thereof) when in foreign transportation.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Foreign transportation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `foreign transportation' means 
     transportation by water--
       ``(i) from any point within the United States,
       ``(ii) to any point outside the United States where 
     passengers or cargo are loaded or unloaded, and
       ``(iii) to any point thereafter (whether or not outside the 
     United States).
       ``(B) Inclusion of certain transportation between 2 points 
     within the United States.--The term `foreign transportation' 
     includes transportation between 2 points within the United 
     States if any of the passengers or cargo being transported by 
     the vessel between such 2 points is to be transported by such 
     vessel in foreign transportation (as defined in subparagraph 
     (A)).
       ``(C) Exclusion for transportation exclusively within the 
     great lakes.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the 
     term `foreign transportation' does not include transportation 
     exclusively within the Great Lakes.
       ``(2) Taxable commercial vessel.--The term `taxable 
     commercial vessel' means any commercial vessel (as defined in 
     section 4462(a)(4)) which is designed primarily for use on 
     the high seas and which has a draft of more than 12 feet.
       ``(3) United States.--The term `United States' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 4612(a)(4)(A).
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Treatment of offshore fueling.--For purposes of this 
     section, the delivery of fuel into the bunker of a vessel by 
     pipeline or another vessel shall be treated as occurring in 
     the United States if such fuel was removed from the United 
     States for such delivery.
       ``(2) No penalty for sale of dyed fuel.--Section 6715 shall 
     not apply to any liquid on which tax is imposed by this 
     section.''
       (b) Credit or Refund for Tax-Paid Fuel Not Used in 
     International Commercial Water Transportation.--Subchapter B 
     of chapter 65 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6428. FUEL NOT USED IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL WATER 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--If tax has been imposed by section 4043 
     on the sale of any fuel and the purchaser establishes to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that such fuel was not used in 
     foreign transportation (as defined in section 4043(d)), the 
     Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the purchaser an 
     amount equal to the tax imposed by section 4043 on such fuel.
       ``(b) Applicable Laws.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     section 6427(j) shall apply for purposes of this section, and 
     any reference in subtitle F to such section shall be treated 
     as including a reference to this subsection.''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 6675 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``or'' before ``6427'' and by inserting after 
     ``purposes)'' the following ``or 6428 (relating to fuel not 
     used in international commercial water transportation)''.
       (2) Subsection (b) of section 6675 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``or 6427'' and inserting ``6427, or 6428''.
       (3) The section 6714 of such Code added by section 13242 of 
     Public Law 103-66 is redesignated as section 6715.
       (4) The table of sections for part I of subchapter B of 
     chapter 68 of such Code is amended by redesignating the item 
     relating to the section 6714 that was added by such section 
     13242 as relating to section 6715.
       (5) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 31 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 4043. Fuel used in international commercial water 
              transportation.''

       (6) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 6428. Fuel not used in international commercial water 
              transportation.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel sold on or after January 1, 1995.

     SEC. 213. LIMITATION ON CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Limitation on Contract Authority.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation may not obligate more than $1,000,000,000 in 
     total contracts under the Maritime Security and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1993 or this Act between October 1, 
     1994, and September 30, 2004.
       (b) Limitation on Outlays.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall not enter into any agreements under the Maritime 
     Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993 or this Act that 
     would result in total payments under such agreements for any 
     fiscal year in excess of the limitations in the following 
     table.

                                                         The limitation
                                                      (in millions) is:
    1995..........................................................$56  
    1996..........................................................$70  
    1997..........................................................$70  
    1998..........................................................$72  
    1999.........................................................$121  
    2000.........................................................$123  
    2001.........................................................$124  
    2002.........................................................$124  
    2003.........................................................$126  
    2004........................................................$126.  

       (c) Coordination With Title III.--Subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall apply notwithstanding title III of this Act; except 
     that such subsections shall not apply to the extent 
     additional amounts are provided by appropriation laws 
     (including section 302 of this Act).
          TITLE III--FUNDING FOR MARITIME PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall expeditiously enter 
     into agreements under the Maritime Security and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1993. However, the Secretary may not 
     obligate more than $1,700,000,000 in total contracts between 
     October 1, 1994, and September 30, 2004, except to the extent 
     additional amounts are provided by appropriations laws 
     (including section 302).

     SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to amounts otherwise available, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation such amounts as may be necessary for entering 
     into and making payments under agreements under the Maritime 
     Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993.

     SEC. 303. CONTINUING AVAILABILITY.

       Amounts available or authorized to be appropriated under 
     this title shall remain available until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment directly or indirectly changing title II 
of the substitute, as modified, is in order except the amendment 
printed in part 2 of House Report 103-646. That amendment may be 
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
as read, shall be debatable by the time specified in the report, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  Are there amendments to the bill?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new section:

     SEC.   . PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased with funds made available in this Act 
     should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. All this talk about a superpower. There are no 
superpowers that continue to use trade deficit, my colleagues, and I do 
not know what our program is around here, but it sure, as hell, is not 
helping my district. I do not even see any common sense in what we do 
as a Congress at all, at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to just turn the damn budget over to 
Japan who keeps our products out, and we have people here that laugh on 
these committees with jurisdiction.
  I think it is getting to be a joke.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], 
for the bill, for their willingness to stand up in their committee of 
jurisdiction, do what they have to do to finance a program and a 
mechanism that will ensure there will be a few American flags flying 
once again in the oceans of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan to support the bill even though I had my 
reservations pursuant to the arguments made by the fine gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer]. We are in one tough mess. My amendment does not go 
far enough, and with this new GATT business, Mr. Chairman, it will even 
throw out some of this. We do not even recommend any more consumers buy 
American products. The crime bill, because of one Senator, is going to 
throw out a fraudulent label provision for the first time in our 
history.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress does not govern. Congress meets and sends out 
press releases. I say, you have a small group of conferees that draft 
all our laws, and we sit here, and we wallow in a quagmire of grayness 
and not even know where we are going, and the trade deficit with Japan 
keeps going. We drive the dollar down, and it is so low it could walk 
under a closed door with a top hat on.
  Nothing is happening. I wish my colleagues would accept the 
amendment.
  That speech is long enough, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant]. We have examined the amendment, and we are perfectly 
prepared to accept it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity to 
examine the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant]. We have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bateman

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bateman: Section 102(a)(6) is 
     amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$200,000,000''.

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my colleagues aware 
that the thrust of this amendment is to increase the authorization 
level for funding for the title XI loan guarantee program. This is a 
program which is worked with some modest success. It has, 
unfortunately, been a very modest success, but it does have the 
potential, if utilized, to assist us in staying alive in the ship 
building industry.
  There are pending before the Maritime Administration more requests 
for loan guarantees than the amount of money that is presently 
authorized would permit. The purpose of this amendment is to increase 
that amount as an incentive and as a hope that we will again begin to 
build ships in american shipyards.
  Mr. Chairman, reference has been made to the fact that we in the 
United States have not subsidized ship building since 1981, and that is 
indeed the case, and I think it fair to point out that since we no 
longer subsidize ships after 1981, a total of three contracts for the 
construction of merchant ocean-going vessels have been constructed in 
American shipyards, only three, and those all for our Jones Act or our 
internal trade within our coastal waters, nothing for international 
commerce. Certainly, if we are going to purport to remain a maritime 
power, we cannot let American ship building die. It needs this 
assistance, and I would urge the approval of this amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], and I indicate to him that we support his amendment. I 
hesitate to elaborate too much on that because it may pain the 
gentleman in the way in which I support it.
  Let me just observe, if the gentleman will allow, that in the event 
that the gentleman from Florida is correct, that an international 
agreement should come into effect which precludes the STP ship building 
subsidy program which we had hoped to do, at the very least we would 
have the alternative and, to date, very successful method of the title 
XI loan guarantee program by the Maritime Administration. As the 
gentleman may know, very substantial contracts have been announced 
pursuant to that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is doing precisely the right 
thing. We fully support it.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Studds], and let me comment briefly within the remaining time I 
have that I believe he is correct. I do not believe, and I want to make 
it clear, that, by offering this amendment, I do not offer it in the 
sense that it makes unnecessary the serious transition payments which 
is the program which American ship builders look to as their brightest 
and best hope for survival to play on that level playing field.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a proper step. I hope the amendment will be 
adopted, but not at the sacrifice of the serious transition program.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of 
the gentleman's efforts and point out to the House that he and others, 
and particularly this gentleman, have been in the forefront of the 
efforts to revitalize ship construction in this country, and I think 
the gentleman is to be complimented, and I also want to take the time 
to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for the way in which they 
worked with the gentleman from Virginia and others in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields] for his comments, and I would hope the amendment would be 
accepted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, last night the rock group the Rolling 
Stones were in Washington, DC, and they have a song, a popular song, in 
which they sing the words: ``You can't always get what you want, but, 
if you try, sometimes you just may find that you get what you need.''
  Well, my colleagues, for the past several years the shipbuilders in 
this country have not been able to get what they want, a level playing 
field, a chance to compete fairly with competitors around the world. 
But there is one thing that those shipbuilders need. They need a 
government that is on their side. They need a Congress that is on their 
side. They need an administration that is on their side so that they 
can get what they want, a fair chance to take advantage of the 
tremendous opportunities that we are looking at right now in this 
country, and that is the promise of shipbuilding contracts to meet the 
demands of a potential explosion of orders to meet this tremendous 
opportunity of international trade.
  The fact of the matter is, my colleagues, that we have watched the 
elimination of 120,000 good-paying shipbuilding jobs in this country 
over the last 10 years because the shipbuilders of this country have 
not had a government on their side willing to stand firm with them and 
for them to give them the chance to compete fairly.

                              {time}  1510

  As a result, we have lost good paying jobs to our competitor nations 
overseas. And despite the fact that we are looking at the promise of 
new opportunities and new shipbuilding orders that could create good 
paying jobs in this country, we understand that some are projecting a 
further loss of 180,000 more jobs unless we are able to turn this 
unacceptable situation around.
  Some analysts have projected a $356 billion commercial shipbuilding 
trade opportunity over the course of the next 10 years. We have to 
decide in this Congress whether or not we are going to give our 
shipbuilders what they need, a fair opportunity to compete for that 
market. And if we are serious about giving them what they need, then we 
have got to give them a lot more than a bunch of political platitudes 
and hot air in the halls of Congress. We have got to give them the 
resources to do the job. We have got to stand up and say yes, we are 
going to provide you with the loan guarantees that will make you 
competitive; we are going to stand up and help you to modernize your 
shipyards so that you can be competitive; we are going to be willing to 
provide you with the tools and the resources and the investment that 
you need in order to compete on a level playing field now that we are 
finally making progress and leveling the international trade playing 
field across this planet.
  The shipbuilders of this country are not asking for a lot. They are 
asking for fairness. They are pointing to their competitors, and their 
competitor nations, that have been on their side for the last 12 years, 
who have been on their side with unfair subsidies and investments, who 
have been on their side taking away our jobs. And all our shipbuilders 
are asking is for their government, our government, to be on their side 
as well, to give them the chance to compete, to give them the chance to 
succeed, to give them the chance to have good paying jobs not only 
remain in this country, but grow in this country, to be able to take 
market share, and be able to build first class ships with innovative 
designs and technology to meet this growing demand internationally.
  Is that too much to ask? Is that too much to ask? I do not think so.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that when we finally cast our votes on this very 
important issue that we will be willing to go to the wall and do what 
needs to be done to provide our shipbuilders with what they need, a 
Congress that is on their side, and with what they want, a fair chance 
to compete.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take 5 minutes. I wanted to, 
nevertheless, go on record in strong support of the effort of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, which I think has really 
been extraordinary and truly bipartisan in nature due to its leadership 
on both sides of the aisle. I am grateful both to the chairman of the 
committee and the subcommittee, as well as the ranking members, for the 
way in which they have made the work of this committee truly inclusive.
  I think that this legislation, obviously any analysis of the status 
of our Merchant Marine, will bring us to the conclusion that it is 
truly in a crisis, and that the trend must be reversed.
  I think it is very important when we get to the issue of deciding on 
which of the proposals before us today we embark on, that we focus upon 
the strengths of the Studds-Fields amendment to this legislation, H.R. 
4003. It provides twice as many ships as the other plan that we could 
decide on today, and would help American shipyards compete, and 
strictly meets the pay-go requirements, as well as being consistent 
with all international agreements.
  I think this is a very serious effort. So I am in support of this 
legislation, as hopefully it will be amended by the Studds-Fields 
amendment.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, later today, the House will consider title II of H.R. 
4003, legislation to provide emergency assistance for a critically ill 
industry.
  At that time, we will hear about pay-go Graham-Rudman, and the Ways 
and Means text. All of this discussion should not obscure the most 
critical fact--that the Ways and Means funding language will only 
ensure a merchant fleet of 26 vessels. The Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee bill will guarantee a fleet of 52 liner vessels--
twice as many as Ways and Means.
  While some of my colleagues are concerned about the cost of H.R. 
4003, I urge them to not look on this as discretionary spending. If we 
could delay passage of this legislation until we get the deficit under 
control, I would support that approach; however, that is not the case. 
This is an emergency that can no more wait for an appropriate response 
than an injured accident victim. Perhaps the accident victim's family 
cannot afford medical care, but they cannot accept the option of doing 
nothing. The U.S. maritime and shipbuilding industries are in a 
critical state and failure to act could kill these essential industries 
and the thousands of jobs they generate.
  These key industries are confronted by foreign competitors which 
receive extensive government subsidies and hire cheap foreign labor. 
The special problems facing our maritime and shipbuilding industries 
were recognized long before any of us came to Congress and our national 
response was to create an assistance program that is currently embodied 
in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.
  As we prepared for World War II, Congress and the President 
recognized that a nation which depends on foreign ships is at the mercy 
of others. Without a viable U.S. Merchant Marine, we would have to rely 
on foreign vessels to transport our troops in time of war and 
industrial and consumer goods in peacetime.
  In regard to the role of the merchant marine in war, we need look no 
further back than Operation Desert Storm. That victory was a victory of 
logistics and quick response.
  The U.S.-flag fleet moved the equivalent of a midsize city to Saudi 
Arabia in a matter of weeks. True, we had to rely on some foreign 
vessels, but could we have relied totally on foreign vessels? Do we 
want to rely on foreign traders who might not share our goals?
  As for the merchant marine's peacetime mission, we all know that 
competition benefits the consumer. Our merchant fleet provides the 
competition to foreign fleets that helps keep shipping costs down. 
Ocean shipping costs are a fraction of the costs of U.S. imports and 
exports and that is in large part due to the competition among 
carriers. Eliminate the U.S. fleet and shipping costs will go through 
the ceiling.
  Regrettably, during the early 1980's in an attempt to reduce 
government spending, Congress unfortunately allowed the elimination of 
shipyard assistance programs. This action cost jobs and turned 
taxpaying workers into wards of the state.
  We also allowed the U.S. fleet to decline to historically low 
levels--less than 400 vessels.
  Now is the time to correct the mistakes of the past. Title II will 
fund the emergency assistance needed for these important industries, 
maintain jobs and lead to a more efficient and streamlined Merchant 
Marine.
  Chairmen Studds and Lipinski are to be commended for their fine work 
on this important issue.
  I strongly urge a yes vote on this important measure and support for 
the proposed advanced by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
Maritime Administration and Promotion Reform Act and the Merchant 
Marine Committee language. These provisions would levy tonnage fees on 
ships that call at U.S. ports and use the money to rebuild America's 
merchant marine fleet--as directed by the vital maritime reform 
measures passed overwhelmingly by this Congress last year.
  America must act quickly and decisively to rebuild its merchant 
fleet. The percentage of America's international oceanborne commerce 
carried on U.S.-flag ships has decreased from 42.6 percent in 1950 to 
only 4 percent today. Since 1981, 50 American shipyards have closed; 
today we have only 16 shipyards capable of building oceangoing vessels.
  This steady decline of U.S. shipping and shipbuilding has put our 
Nation's security at risk. We must act now or face the prospect of 
losing forever the skills and industrial infrastructure necessary to 
make the United States a major maritime power again.
  But for maritime reform to happen, Congress must also pass a budget 
offset that meets pay-as-you-go requirements. The Studds-Fields 
amendment gives us a solution that provides the money necessary to 
rebuild America's merchant fleet. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
4003 and the Studds-Fields amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just returned from the White House where the 
President announced a $22.8 million loan guarantee to the National 
Steel & Shipbuilding Co. in my San Diego district.
  NASSCO and the other shipyards will use these loans to invest in 
advanced shipbuilding technologies, the first time in recent memory 
this has occurred
  Mr. Chairman, we were once a great commercial shipbuilding nation, 
but for over a decade this critical industry was allowed to languish as 
it was starved for new capital. So much so, that since 1988 this 
country completed only one commercial ship--only one.
  Meanwhile, our foreign competitors were subsidizing and modernizing 
and building ships.
  The significance of the shipbuilding industry to our national 
security and to our economic security, is beyond reasonable question.
  Shipbuilding may not capture the imagination as does the space 
program, but it is as vital to fulfilling the American dream of the 
next century as it was to the last.
  If our country is going to retain its leadership in building fighting 
vessels and regain its leadership in building commercial vessels, we 
need to expand program, such as title XI Mr. Bateman's amendment would 
do just that, and I commend him for bringing it to the floor the title 
XI shipyard program is proving more successful than anyone envisioned 
when this Congress approved it last year. The number of innovative 
proposals for improving ship and shipyard technology coming to the 
Maritime Administration exceeds all expectations. This a program that 
is working. Let us give it our support.
  But our Nation's shipyards need support beyond the title XI program, 
and that is why I urge my colleagues to also support the Studds-Fields 
amendment coming up later this afternoon. Since 1980, 50 U.S. shipyards 
have closed. Only 16 yards are still capable of building the large 
ocean-going commercial vessels on which world trade depends. Only one 
such yard remains on the west coast. The decline of our shipbuilding 
industry threatens our national security, as Navy orders decline, the 
only way for our Nation to retain the skills necessary to build the new 
vessels for the military we will someday require is to build commercial 
vessels of peace and compete in the international market.
  Fifty-seven other maritime nations support their shipbuilding 
industries with subsidies. All of our competitors have shipbuilding 
subsidies today. We were told that they have promised to give them up, 
but the seed is not the fruit. We have not as yet even seen the 
language of this OECD agreement, and some nations are openly 
antagonistic to it.
  My motto is to hope for the best but plan for the worse. There is 
nothing in the OECD agreement to prohibit our support for our 
shipbuilding industry between now and the agreement's final 
implementation. In 1999 if our competitors give up their subsidies, 
that's great. But they are not going to drop their subsidies between 
now and 1999, why should we not be prepared if the OECD agreement falls 
apart.
  Last fall, this House passed the first real comprehensive maritime 
reform bill since 1936. Today we are called on to find the funds to 
implement that reform. The Ways and Means language fails adequately to 
meet that challenge. With the Studds-Fields amendment we can live up to 
the promises we made last year. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Studds-Fields financing amendment as it did the Bateman amendment on 
title XI authorization.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and to speak today 
in favor of this bill that has been presented by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and those on the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries. As chairman of the Maritime Task Force, industry 
task force, we have spent many hours deliberating the needs. We have 
discovered the needs, and we have discovered the fact that the U.S. 
shipyards can be competitive if we play on a level field. This presents 
an opportunity for us to play on a level field.
  There is no one today that has come before this committee and said 
that there is no need for this bill. There are some that argue there 
might be a better way. But I submit to my colleagues that the task 
force that I chair and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
have done yeomen work in this effort. This is the best route to take at 
this time.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, to 
revitalize the shipbuilding industry in America, and to make this a 
stronger country and a needed, needed Navy force that some day may 
arise.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my 
colleagues to support a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4003, 
the Maritime Administration and Promotional Reform Act of 1994 by 
voting and supporting the Studds-Fields amendment.
  The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has worked hard to 
prepare a bill that has bipartisan support. The Studds-Fields amendment 
not only has bipartisan support but is also supported by a variety of 
groups, such as labor organizations and businesses in the shipbuilding 
industry.
  I ask members of the Texas Delegation to support the amendment our 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] is offering, along 
with Chairman Studds. Southern States stand to benefit from the Studds-
Fields amendment because of the significance the shipbuilding industry 
has in these States. Since 1981, 50 American ship- yards have closed; 
today there are only 16 yards capable of building oceangoing vessels. 
This amendment helps American shipyards compete and most importantly 
includes programs for ship construction and support for ship repair.
  We know our maritime industry has suffered tremendously, H.R. 4003 
will restore and strengthen our American maritime industry. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to support the Studds-Fields amendment.
  We must have a strong domestic merchant marine fleet employing U.S. 
seamen.


                    amendment offered by mr. studds

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment printed in part 2 of 
House Report 103-646.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Studds: Strike title II and title 
     III and insert the following:

                        TITLE II--TONNAGE DUTIES

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Coast Guard--
       (A) will spend over $400,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 
     conducting search and rescue operations far into the Atlantic 
     and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico to protect life and 
     property on United States and foreign-flag vessels;
       (B) inspects vessels of all nations to ensure their 
     compliance with international treaties and conventions;
       (C) will spend over $470,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 
     providing navigational aids to vessels from around the world 
     through the operation of--
     (i) LORAN, OMEGA, and the Differential Global Positioning 
     System; and
     (ii) over 46,000 lighthouses, buoys, daybeacons, fog signals, 
     radar reflectors and Vessel Traffic Service systems; and
       (D) will spend over $86,000,0000 in fiscal year 1995 
     providing icebreaking services for vessels from all nations.
       (2) It is reasonable for vessel owners of all nations that 
     benefit from these services, including owners of United 
     States-flag vessels, to pay tonnage duties to help offset the 
     cost of providing these services.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to increase the 
     tonnage duties imposed on vessels entering the United States 
     to help offset the cost of providing Coast Guard services to 
     those vessels.

     SEC. 202. INCREASE IN TONNAGE DUTIES.

       (a) Increased Duties.--Section 36 of the Act of August 5, 
     1909 (46 App. U.S.C. 121, 36 Stat. 111), is amended--
       (1) by designating the first paragraph as subsection (a) 
     and amending it to read as follows:
       ``(a) Tonnage Duty Imposed on Certain Entries.--
       ``(1) Duty imposed.--There is imposed on a vessel making an 
     entry described in paragraph (2) before fiscal year 2005 a 
     duty of 38 cents per ton, except that for any vessel the duty 
     under this paragraph shall not apply with respect to more 
     than 25 entries by the vessel in any 12-month period.
       ``(2) Entry described.--An entry referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is any of the following:
       ``(A) Formal entry from foreign port or place.--A formal 
     entry in any port of the United States from any foreign port 
     or place, other than an entry by a vessel that is in distress 
     or is not engaged in trade.
       ``(B) Other entry.--An entry by a vessel that departs a 
     United States port or place and returns to the same port or 
     place without being entered in the United States from another 
     port or place, other than--
     ``(i) an entry by a vessel of the United States, a 
     recreational vessel, or a barge (as those terms are defined 
     in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code); and
     ``(ii) an entry by a vessel that is in distress or is not 
     engaged in trade.
       ``(3) Offsetting receipts of coast guard.--Amounts received 
     by the United States as duty imposed under this subsection 
     shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts of the department in which the Coast 
     Guard is operating and ascribed to Coast Guard activities.''; 
     and
       (2) by designating the remainder of the section as 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect October 1, 1994.

     SEC. 203. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Requirement to Enter Agreements.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall expeditiously enter into agreements 
     under the Maritime Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993. 
     However, the Secretary of Transportation may not obligate 
     more than $1,350,000,000 in total contracts under the 
     Maritime Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993 or this Act 
     between October 1, 1994, and September 30, 2004.
       (b) Limitation on Outlays.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall not enter into any agreements under the Maritime 
     Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993 or this Act that 
     would result in total payments under such agreements for any 
     fiscal year in excess of the limitations in the following 
     table.

The limitation (in millions) is:
  1995.............................................................$105
  1996.............................................................$105
  1997.............................................................$105
  1998.............................................................$105
  1999.............................................................$155
  2000.............................................................$155
  2001.............................................................$155
  2002.............................................................$155
  2003.............................................................$155
  2004............................................................$155.

       (c) Limitation on Application.--Subsections (a) and (b) do 
     not apply to the extent additional amounts are provided by 
     appropriation laws.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to amounts otherwise available, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation such amounts as may be necessary for entering 
     into and making payments under agreements under the Maritime 
     Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993.

     SEC. 205. CONTINUING AVAILABILITY.

       Amounts available or authorized to be appropriated under 
     this title shall remain available until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment is not subject to 
amendment.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will be recognized for 
15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of the bipartisan 
leadership of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee.
  The Studds-Fields amendment asks for a total of $1.3 billion over 10 
years, exclusively through an increase in fees paid by vessels calling 
at U.S. ports.
  The Studds-Fields amendment represents a compromise between the 
funding levels approved by the two committees. As reported from our 
committee, the bill would raise $1.7 billion solely from an increase in 
tonnage fees; as reported from the Ways and Means Committee, it would 
raise only $1 billion through a combination of tonnage fees, a new 
penny-a-gallon diesel fuel tax on ships, and an increase in the cruise 
ship passenger departure tax.
  The Studds-Fields committee amendment accomplishes several important 
goals, two of which need to be emphasized.
  First, it provides the bare minimum required to retain the current 
size fleet of 52 U.S.-flag carriers which need Government assistance to 
compete with subsidized foreign fleets.
  As a result of the mysteries of the budget bean counting process, the 
provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee would allow only 26 
ships to participate in the new Maritime Security Fleet Program. 
Clearly not enough in anyone's mind.
  Second, it provides the opportunity to make some help available to 
American shipyards as they make the transition from building military 
to commercial vessels.
  Last year, when the House approved H.R. 2151 and 3 months ago, when 
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee approved this funding 
mechanism, the international commercial shipbuilding world was a much 
different place. It was heavily subsidized and just to get our yards in 
the game, we proposed our own program.
  Today, we are on the brink--we hope--of a new international 
shipbuilding age. An age of ships built without subsidy, without the 
financial assistance of their governments. The agreement negotiated by 
the United States and every other shipbuilding nation in the world to 
end subsidies, is a long-sought, long-necessary change in policy.
  While the agreement is still under review and not yet signed, if what 
we believe is true is in fact true, it is not our intent, nor will it 
be our result, to include in our final maritime reform package any 
program which would violate either the spirit or the letter of that 
agreement.
  If we cannot provide the assistance envisioned by our original Series 
Transition Program, we can still help shipyards modernize and compete 
through the title XI loan guarantee program. The availability of $100 
million in loan guarantees would translate into $1 billion in ship 
construction. Every dollar we add to the pool of money available to 
maritime reform is worth tenfold when it is applied to the title XI 
program.
  Passage of the Studds-Fields amendment, to this bill, this session, 
is possibly the only hope we have to ensure that this Nation has the 
ships, the trained merchant mariners, the shipyards, and the skilled 
shipyard workers we need to protect our national and economic security.
  Anything less than the funds provided by the Studds-Fields committee 
amendment will send U.S.-flag ships to foreign registries, and close 
the doors on even more American shipyards.
  Don't let it happen. Support our American maritime industries. Vote 
for the bipartisan Studds-Fields Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski].
  (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, like any Member in this Chamber, I 
favor a strong domestic maritime security fleet and a competitive U.S. 
maritime industry. And no one would accuse me of ducking the tough 
votes when it comes time to either cut spending or raise the revenues 
necessary to pay for worthy programs.
  The merchant marine and fisheries bill, however, lacks any sense of 
balance and fairness. The original proposal--a tripling of the tonnage 
tax in order to subsidize roughly 52 U.S.-flag cargo vessels--imposes a 
tremendous financial burden on many regions of the country, especially 
the port of Chicago and the Great Lakes ports. Indeed, even though 
there are no U.S.-flag ocean-going vessels providing services to the 
Great Lakes, these ports would see their taxes tripled in order to 
support these services.
  For example, according to the Federal Marine Terminals in Chicago, a 
vessel calling at this facility currently pays $22,887. Under the 
merchant marine and fisheries original bill, this same vessels would be 
forced to pay $95,146 in annual taxes.
  Because such an increase would have a devastating impact on the 
region, costing jobs, reducing competition and ultimately increasing 
prices to American industries and consumers, the Committee on Ways and 
Means crafted an alternative funding mechanism. This compromise sought 
to maintain a viable ready defense fleet while spreading its cost more 
fairly among beneficiaries.
  The Studds amendment before us now continues to impose significant 
hardship on the port of Chicago and the Great Lakes ports. More than 
any other region, the Great Lakes faces significant trade diversion to 
Canada. United States and Canadian Great Lakes ports are fiercely 
competitive. To use the Chicago terminal example again, a vessel 
calling at this facility currently pays $22,887. Under the Studds 
amendment, this same vessel would see its annual taxes raised to 
$68,218.
  An increase of this amount in the tonnage tax will increase the cost 
of U.S. goods sold competitively in international trade. Most of the 
Great Lakes trade is in bulk or heavy cargoes such as grain. Price 
increases of a few cents a ton can make the difference as to who gets 
the sale--a U.S. supplier or a foreign supplier. Lost sales of U.S. 
export products will lead to lost jobs in many U.S. industries.
  Furthermore, Canadian ports, which impose no tonnage tax, provide an 
easily accessible alternative to the port of Chicago for shipment of 
United States products. This amendment gives our Canadian neighbors our 
business and related port and longshore jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Studds amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Fields] be allowed to manage one-half of my time, 7\1/
2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the request is granted.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would note that the gentleman had 11 minutes 
remaining, which would mean that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for granting me the time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Studds-Fields 
bipartisan committee substitute amendment.
  As we have heard today, the House authorized the most comprehensive 
maritime reform program last fall when we overwhelmingly passed H.R. 
2151. Today, we consider the method of funding that program. In our 
opinion, this compromise amendment to title II of H.R. 4003 would 
provide the fairest, most reasonable method of raising the revenues 
necessary to fund that program.
  Our substitute amendment acknowledges the concerns raised by many 
that our original tonnage fee proposal would have imposed hardships on 
various maritime sectors. This substitute would establish a flat 
tonnage fee of 38 cents per net registered ton. In addition, it would 
increase from 5 to 25 the number of transits, or calls, to U.S. ports 
when the fees would be collected.
  This proposal would raise approximately $1.3 billion over 10 years, 
which is $400 million less than our original measure, and $300 million 
more than the alternative suggested by the Committee on Ways and Means.

  Approval of our substitute amendment will provide adequate funding 
for a maritime reform program that will ensure that essential military 
equipment is carried on U.S.-flag vessels; that trained seafarers will 
be available, not only for the private sector commercial fleet, but 
also for the Government's Ready Reserve Force ships; and that we have 
shipbuilding capability in the United States.
  The decision to support this increase in tonnage fees did not come 
easily. However, I believe that without this maritime program, the 
future of this Nation's maritime might is in serious jeopardy. We have 
crafted this fee so that the predominant users of our Coast Guard's 
services--foreign-flag shipping--pay the bill. That is only fair.
  Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time in this Congress to make the 
difficult decisions that need to be made if the United States is to 
retain its status in the world as a major maritime power. If we do not 
approve this amendment, and this bill, America will lose it U.S.-flag 
containership fleet and the ability to construct, and repair, 
oceangoing commercial vessels, as well as naval combatant vessels.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of our colleagues in this House to join us 
in support of our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would also remark that the Chair 
misunderstood the request by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] began with 7\1/2\ 
minutes, instead of 5\1/2\ minutes. He gained 2 minutes.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means in strong opposition to the Studds substitute, which in 
my opinion makes a bad bill far worse. The amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] would seriously harm American 
exports, particularly grain, coal, and fertilizer, anything that is a 
bulk item with a low-unit value.

                              {time}  1540

  Based on estimates prepared by the National Coal Association, the 
Studds amendment would increase coal prices by 3 to 14 cents per ton on 
export. By other estimates, prices for American grains would rise by 8 
to 10 cents per ton. These commodities are extraordinarily competitive 
on the world markets where a fraction of a cent can make a difference 
in the sale. It is not surprising that American exporters solidly 
oppose the 38-cent tonnage tax rates proposed in the amendment of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. It could very well price 
them right out of the market.
  When the Committee on Ways and Means took up the original merchant 
marine bill, it was abundantly clear to nearly all that a 53-cent 
tonnage tax was unacceptable. The Committee on Ways and Means 
recommended instead a 22-cent a ton tonnage tax which many of us 
opposed even at that level.
  Now the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] is back asking the 
House to approve an amendment which supposedly represents a compromise 
of 38 cents. That is not a compromise, Mr. Chairman. It is a big tax 
increase for a big new entitlement spending program not governed by 
caps under the Budget Act. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank the chairman 
for yielding some time to this Member from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, for I come before you to support the Studds amendment that is 
pending before the House.
  Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here today is not whether or not we 
should increase the tonnage tax. At issue is what level that increase 
should be pegged at. Another issue before the committee is whether or 
not we should provide funds for shipbuilding subsidies in this country. 
On that question, the answer that I come up with after talking to the 
experts from the committee, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the answer to that is yes. In fact, in a 
conversation I had with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], he 
indicated to me about a week and a half ago that the question on 
shipbuilding subsidies is not to level the playing field, it is to 
bring us onto the field. Even though the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], indicates 
that a treaty is pending, there is no guarantee that that treaty will 
be adopted. In fact, I am already told that France is objecting very 
strenuously to it and the chances are it might be rejected. However, in 
the window that we have between now and 1999, I think it is time to 
worry about American jobs and American industry, and so when the bill 
was before the committee, I tried to provide an alternative which would 
provide the necessary funds for the shipbuilding subsidies. That 
amendment was to the committee amendment and it would have the effect 
of increasing the diesel tax an extra cent. The committee saw fit not 
to support that and so now we are down to the question of how do we 
best support the shipbuilding subsidies.
  I look at the amendment from the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] which takes that tonnage to 38 cents, an additional per ton 
charge, and I say to you that is reasonable. Looking at where we have 
been, the administration came forth with a tonnage increase for ocean-
going vessels to the tune of the highest rate being 71 cents. The 
committee's version was 53 cents. As a Great Lakes legislator, I think 
the 38 cents is a pretty decent compromise looking at the other 
options.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe].
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Studds 
Amendment to H.R. 4003, the Maritime Administration and Promotional 
Reform Act of 1994. I commend the chairman of the Merchant Marine 
Committee for his commitment to this critical industry and for bringing 
his amendment to the floor of the House.
  This amendment is critical to the future of this Nation's commercial 
shipbuilding industry as well as our national economic interests and 
our national security interests. In fact, the fate of the Studds 
amendment will determine nothing less than the survival of the American 
shipbuilding industry. Most importantly, the Studds amendment would 
provide our domestic shipbuilders with a much-needed chance to compete 
on the world marketplace--a marketplace that has been dominated for too 
long by our heavily subsidized foreign competitors.
  And it is because our competitors have been playing the field with 
the overwhelming advantage of being subsidized that our industry has 
been devastated. There is no doubt that we have paid the price: In the 
1950's this country was the world's greatest shipbuilding nation. but 
today the United States ranks around 24th in the world in shipbuilding. 
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. With the decline in Navy 
construction, thousands of more good-paying shipbuilding jobs are at 
risk. And, of the 22 largest U.S. shipyards in business in 1980, only 8 
remain today.
  The real culprit for this decline in the U.S. shipbuilding industry 
is not the high cost of American labor or expensive equipment. The 
culprit is billions and billions of dollars in unfair foreign 
shipbuilding subsidies--subsidies that give a foreign-built ship a 
tremendously unfair advantage over similar ships built in American 
shipyards.
  Just consider the average level of subsidies that other major 
industrialized nations provide to their shipyards, and it becomes 
crystal clear that we are sending our commercial shipbuilding industry 
into the global marketplace with both hands tied behind our back: South 
Korea--$2.4 billion per year. Germany--$2.3 billion per year. Japan--
$1.9 billion per year. Italy--$940 million per year. Spain--$897 
million per year. And when was the last time any commercial U.S. 
shipyard received any subsidies? In 1981, 13 long years ago.
  But opponents of this amendment casually dismiss the facts and these 
numbers and instead point to a trade agreement that was signed in Paris 
last month between the United States and the major industrialized 
nations that would phase out their shipbuilding subsidy practices. 
Signing this agreement were representatives from the United States, 
Japan, South Korea, and virtually all of the major industrialized 
nations of Europe. It took 5 hard years of negotiating to bring about 
that agreement, but as a result our shipbuilding competitors have 
pledged to end their subsidies by 1999.
  But the harsh reality is that this agreement to end these foreign 
subsidies is far from perfect. In fact, between now and January 1, 
1996, existing foreign shipbuilding subsidy programs can continue with 
no budget ceilings. In addition, foreign subsidies approved before that 
date can be carried over until January 1, 1999. What this means is that 
those nations that are currently subsidizing their shipyards will have 
at least another 4 years to flood the world marketplace with their 
subsidized ships. But our commercial shipyards can't afford to play 
catch up in 5 years because they won't have the time or the resources 
to be able to play catch up. In trying to help our private shipyards 
for long term, we have potentially put them at a competitive 
disadvantage over the short term.
  Mr. Chairman, one only has to look to such shipyards as Bath Iron 
Works in my home state of Maine to see the challenges that daunt our 
shipbuilding industry. Just recently, after visiting this shipyard that 
is the largest private employer in Maine with a tradition for 
excellence in quality and craftsmanship, I was briefed on BIW's 5-year 
plan for competitive commercial shipbuilding. The success of this plan 
is essential to maintaining BIW's workforce levels and to their very 
survival as a shipyard--a shipyard that has existed for over 100 years.
  Ironically, under the terms of the Paris agreement BIW's 5-year plan 
falls within the time frame when our shipyards will be competing empty 
handed with the highly efficient, highly subsidized, modern shipyards 
of our competitors. How can we close BIW's window of opportunity at 
such a critical time? How can we turn our backs on BIW's workers when 
they need us most? We cannot, and we must not.

  The answer to this short-term problem is to pass the Studds 
amendment. This amendment provides financing for the series transition 
payments that would provide much-needed financial aid to U.S. 
shipyards. These payments were authorized last year and will help our 
shipyards compete with foreign shipyards until the foreign shipbuilding 
subsidies are phased out in 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, last November this body passed by a wide margin of 347-
65, H.R. 2151, the Maritime Security and Competitiveness Act of 1993 
which first authorized the series transition payments. The House's 
overwhelming passage of H.R. 2151 sent the unmistakable signal that we 
are committed to helping our shipyards become competitive in the world 
marketplace. And by passing the Studds amendment this body would be 
living up to that commitment, meeting the expectations of our 
shipbuilding industry, and fulfilling the intentions of our actions 
last November. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say that I have the greatest 
respect and admiration for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski]. In fact it was he who put me on this committee almost 12 
years ago when he said to me, ``I would like you to go on the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to try to do something about the Port 
of Chicago, try to help it out.'' I have steadfastly tried to do that 
over the course of the last 12 years. But we come here today and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] and I have a difference of 
opinion on figures. According to the figures I have from the Maritime 
Administration, it is only going to cost the vessels on the Great Lakes 
$260,000 a year with the increase in the tonnage fees.
  No. 2. Right now they pay $2,050 per ship per year. Underneath our 
amendment, they will pay $3,078 per year. That to me is $1,028 per 
vessel per year. Eighty percent of all commerce on the Great Lakes is 
exempt from this tonnage tax. Consequently, I have to say, I do not 
believe that the Port of Chicago, the Great Lakes harbors, the Great 
Lakes vessels, are going to be unduly impacted by this amendment or by 
this piece of legislation. All areas of the country will have to give 
up a little bit to save the American maritime industry, the operating 
industry and the shipbuilding industry.
  My colleagues, it has been said countless times on the floor today, 
``If you want to have American commercial vessels, if you want to have 
an American shipbuilding industry creating jobs, creating economic 
development, vote for the Studds-Fields amendment and vote for this 
bill.''

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is much more to be said about this 
than I have time to say. Let me emphasize two points.
  On the question of structuring of the tax, fuel tax, passenger tax 
versus all tonnage tax, it is not so simple I would say to those who 
are talking about the impact of these different measures on particular 
lay interests. If we take the fuel tax which is paid on every ship that 
departs the port without limit, and add it to the tonnage tax proposed 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, we will have some shippers paying 
more tax that way than they will under the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee bill.
  Let me suggest that the real essence of this argument and the real 
logic that I hear is do not fund anything for the U.S. shipbuilding 
industry where as many as 180,000 jobs are involved, not even to the 
tune of $300 million over a 10-year period that we know is going to be 
more nearly 5 or less years, do not do that, but we do not object to $1 
billion to save a fraction of that number of jobs. I am for saving 
those jobs that the $1 billion will save. But is it not preposterous to 
say that we cannot expend $30 billion a year to save the American 
shipbuilding industry and 180,000 jobs?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Rules I spoke about 
fairness, I talked about a committee that works for the betterment of 
the American people, and I really believed that talk and I still do. 
When I said a shipbuilding industry that is dying, I should have said 
industries. It is not just shipbuilding and ship repair, but it is the 
union workers, the small business workers that are working for 
contracts, it is the title X problems we have. And I understand the 
President just announced that we would have some title XI moneys which 
are going to San Diego.
  We are trying to solve a problem, and it is in the best interest of 
the American people to do it in the way that Chairman Studds has come 
forward with. We look at something as to how we do not increase 
spending and that is budget neutral. We look at a way in which we can 
solve the problems of education, of maritime and our national security 
with our defense and the lack of the merchant marine itself, and it is 
not asking too much to set aside turf battles between the two 
committees and work for the American people.
  For one of the first times in history since I have been here for 3 
years this is a bipartisan bill that is working toward the American 
people and for the American people, not for committee strength, not for 
political power of a party, but for the American people. I ask Members' 
support and ask support for Chairman Studds and the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Jack Fields, on this amendment. Very seldom do we do 
something like this, and I ask for the support of the Members.


        Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi moves that the Committee rise and 
     report the bill back to the House with the recommendation 
     that the enacting clause be stricken out.

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in a few moments this House 
will make a decision about one of the most important industries not 
only in this Nation but every nation. Since the time of Christ, the 
great nations of the world have always been great maritime powers. That 
is not lost on our international trading partners.
  This morning I had the opportunity to visit with one of our U.S. 
Senators, and we discussed the bill. He told me how fervently he was 
against subsidies. And I said to that Senator, ``Well, I guess you 
think we ought to be like the Japanese?'' And he said, ``Absolutely, we 
should be like the Japanese.''
  I said, ``Well, perchance we should fund our maritime industry, 
shipbuilding industry to the tune of $1.8 billion a year, just like the 
Japanese?'' and he was dumbfounded. As a matter of fact, that Senator 
from a Midwestern State did not know that the Germans also subsidize 
their shipbuilding industry to the tune of $1.5 billion a year.
  I went on to remind him that we give foreign aid to 16 nations that 
build more ships than we do. Last year the nation of Vietnam built more 
ships than we did. They built one.
  This committee has now come up with a very modest proposal. Yes, it 
costs some money, and yes, we will ask those people who use our ports, 
because 95 percent of all of the vessels that enter our ports are 
foreign flag, 99 percent of all of the cruise ships that enter our 
ports are foreign flag, we are going to ask them to give something back 
to the American taxpayer that spends $4.3 billion a year making sure 
that there is a Coast Guard there for them should they catch on fire or 
start to sink or need their LORAN coordinates given to them or global 
positioning coordinates given to them or need a lighthouse or a buoy.
  The American taxpayer has been borrowing money to make our ports 
available to our foreign competitors. Today the Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee is just asking those same people who have benefited 
from this, who now have over a $100 billion trade surplus at our 
expense, to just give a little bit of it back.
  The Ways and Means Committee says oh, we cannot do that. The same 
committee that just put a 22-cent-a-gallon tax on American recreational 
boaters who happen to have a diesel engine, the same committee that 
passed the recreational boat users fee, who said they have to pay their 
own way, would not even consider asking our foreign competitors to pay 
their own way.
  Who are we running this country for? Who are we running it for? If we 
cannot ask those people the same things we ask of our own people, then 
what the heck are we doing being paid rather large sums of money to 
represent the people of this country?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not like new taxes. No one in this body likes new 
taxes. I am particularly pleased to see tough guys like the gentleman 
from California, Duke Cunningham, and many of my Republican colleagues 
lining up and saying yes, we have no alternative, we have to pay for 
this. We have a $4 trillion debt for which we are paying $800 million a 
day in interest on that debt, and we cannot pretend the money to 
revitalize the American shipbuilding industry is going to fall from the 
sky. So we are going to ask those people who benefited from America's 
ports to give a little bit of it back.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Studds-Fields 
plan. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Committee on Ways and 
Means that yes, you have a tough job to do. You have to finance this 
country. But if you are so willing to tax Americans, just this once let 
us tax our foreign competitors who get the benefit of our ports and 
industries.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. I have 
no intention of using all the time. I simply want to commend the 
gentleman from Mississippi for his passion. No member of our committee, 
I think it would be safe to say, has had a more passionate commitment 
to trying to see to it that this Nation does not lose this industry. I 
commend the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  The preferential motion was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time remaining is as follows: The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields] has 30 seconds, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] has 7 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds], with the right to close, has 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, particularly my Republican 
colleagues, to focus on one word as they contemplate their vote on the 
merchant marine substitute, and that is destiny, the destiny of this 
country, both in terms of international commerce and in terms of being 
able to domestically build in our shipyards. To me that word is 
important. It is foundational. It is important to point out our 
particular version does not authorize any new taxes. It authorizes only 
tonnage fees.
  Ninety-six percent of those tonnage fees are going to be paid by 
ships flying a foreign flag. So it is important to support the Studds-
Fields substitute.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in closing. I think all people who 
realize how the market system works realize that the fees or taxes 
levied here will be paid out of the proceeds of goods that are sold in 
this market or exported to a foreign market. Yes, they will be 
collected from people who fly a foreign flag, but they will be paid by 
us, or they will be paid in the competitive marketplace in the price of 
our products as they move overseas.
  As I said in the beginning, I support the bill, but if it is amended 
as the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries wishes to amend it, I 
cannot support it. I think the tonnage tax that their amendment would 
levy is excessive. The Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment would 
increase the tonnage tax to 38 cents per ton, as opposed to 22 cents 
per ton in the bill as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
result of this amendment would be to increase the maximum yearly amount 
of tonnage fees from $2.64 per ton in the bill as reported by the 
Committee on Ways and Means to $9.50 per ton under the Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries amendment. That is a substantial increase to be borne by 
American products, particularly when some of these products sell for 
only $20 a ton.
  Mr. Chairman, we export products from my area that sell for $20 a 
ton. There also are many tons of coal exported from the United States. 
I cannot give you the exact price quote, but I realize that coal sells 
in the international market, and that the price of a quarter of a cent 
per ton is a market breaker in getting coal contracts.
  So miners in Alabama and West Virginia and other places around the 
United States could be adversely affected by this rather rapid increase 
in the tonnage tax.
  We think that the Ways and Means revenue title was more carefully 
crafted. In fact, I heard of no opposition to the revenue title as we 
crafted it, but I have heard a lot of opposition to the straight 
tonnage fee increase here.
  Let me say, in conclusion, that it has been a pleasure to work with 
Chairman Studds, the ranking minority member, and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] on the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. They are all highly motivated gentlemen and did an excellent 
job in presenting their case. We wish them well in the jurisdiction 
that they control.
  We would like to see the American merchant marine prosper.
  As for the tax that would be to the shipbuilding subsidy, I would 
just like to point out that we will be the first country of all of the 
shipbuilding countries to violate the standstill arrangement that we 
entered into when we agreed to this shipbuilding subsidy. It is kind of 
a travesty. We have been the country who pushed the rest of the world 
into getting rid of shipbuilding subsidies, and now we would be the 
first country to violate the agreement into which we urged all other 
countries to enter.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I return the collegial salute of the acting chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. It has been a pleasure for all of us 
to work with him and with his staff.
  Mr. Chairman, last fall we made a commitment to the American people 
in enacting the Maritime Competitiveness Act. We come here today to 
keep that commitment.
  As Members contemplate their vote, I invite them to consider the 
extraordinary diversity of this House that has risen to speak with one 
voice on this question, and I quite frankly challenge you to think of 
any other subject matter in which the diversity of views, however you 
want to describe them, from right to left, conservative to liberal, 
moderate to vegetarian, we have spoken from all corners of this 
country; Members who rarely speak together on a matter of consequence 
and a matter, as you have heard, with some controversy, with one voice: 
It is the national security of the country. It is the economic security 
of the country. It is a very important thing we are about to do.
  I urge your support for the bipartisan committee amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 153, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               AYES--268

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Condit
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--153

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Michel
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Valentine
     Walker
     Williams
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Ford (TN)
     Inhofe
     Laughlin
     Montgomery
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1627

  Messrs. HEFLEY, SKELTON, BARTLETT of Maryland, SHAW, and McINNIS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. McDADE, BARCIA of Michigan, HASTINGS, and HEFNER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, the question is on 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as 
amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Fields of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Wise, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 500, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 294, 
nays 122, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               AYES--294

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     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
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--122

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Walker
     Williams
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Carr
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Dingell
     Ford (TN)
     Inhofe
     Laughlin
     McCrery
     Montgomery
     Santorum
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Washington
     Wheat

                              {time}  1648

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________