[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S


Vol. 140


WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1994

No. 145--Part II


House of Representatives

REQUEST FOR DISCHARGE OF COMMITTEE ON, AND IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF, 
                     H.R. 4852, OCEANS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries be discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4852) to provide congressional approval 
of a governing international fishery agreement, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I 
would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], chairman of 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, for an explanation of 
this bill.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, on dozens of occasions this Congress, the 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has brought to this House 
carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation and asked for your support. 
Jack Fields and I are extraordinarily proud of the fact that we have 
never been turned down.
  Today, we bring before you--in one package--many of these same bills. 
As is our practice, the contents of this package have been worked out 
with Members on both sides of the aisle, and in consultation with our 
sister committee in the Senate.
  Suffice it to say that re-passing this legislation is, at this late 
date, the only way these bills will ever be considered by the Senate 
and the only way they will ever be enacted into law.
  So, while the title of this bill--officially--is providing for 
congressional approval of a Governing International Fishery Agreement 
with Lithuania, it contains more. Much, much, more.
  At the end of my statement, I will include for the Record a list of 
the bills incorporated into this package and their accompanying 
reports.
  The first six titles deal with fisheries issues. Title I implements 
an international treaty to require fishing vessels on the high seas to 
comply with conservation and management measures. Title II authorizes 
U.S. participation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 
Title III is the stated purpose of this bill, approval of a fishing 
agreement with Lithuania. Title IV takes care of our Atlantic bluefin 
tuna stocks by amending the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act and directing 
the U.S. to seek greater international cooperation in conserving 
bluefin. Title V amends the Fishermen's Protective Act to allow 
American fishermen to be compensated for an illegal transit fee charged 
earlier this year by Canada. Title VI is dear to the heart of my friend 
from Alaska in that it implements a treaty for managing fisheries in 
the Sea of Okhotsk--otherwise known as the Peanut Hole.
  Titles VII through XV embody provisions of the fiscal year 1995 
authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard which passed the House on 
September 22. These include strong recreational boating safety 
requirements with specific new protections for children, the 
elimination of burdensome and duplicative Coast Guard regulations, 
incentives to jump-start a U.S.-flag passenger cruise ship industry and 
help U.S. shipyards, a stable source of funding for the Coast Guard's 
state boating safety grant program, and a significant improvement in 
the safety of our towing industry--including requirements for more 
rigorous crew licensing and the carriage of navigational equipment.
  In addition, we have added in Title XVI provisions sponsored by Mr. 
Tauzin which define offshore supply vessel.
  Title XVII grants authority to convey ownership of a number of Coast 
Guard properties.
  Title XVIII incorporates a House-passed bill offered by Mr. Lipinski 
to help keep critters like zebra mussels out of our waters.
  Title XIX is the fiscal year 1995 authorization for the ``wet'' 
programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  Title XX includes a variety of miscellaneous Coast Guard provisions 
ranging from the treatment of vegetable oil spills to a study of how to 
keep ships from hitting endangered right whales.
  Title XXI is House-passed legislation to stimulate the promising, 
field of marine biotechnology research. Title XXII would provide a flag 
and burial benefits for World War II merchant marine veterans.
  And last but not least, title XXIII includes a number of coastwise 
trade endorsements for vessels.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing that much of this package has in common 
is the shared jurisdiction of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee. It is diverse, it represents good, sound, public policy, and 
it deserves the support of this House.

                    Legislative History of H.R. 4852

       Title I--H.R. 4760, High Seas Fisheries Licensing Act.
       Title II--H.R. 3058, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries 
     Convention Act, passed House as part of H.R. 3188, November 
     2, 1993, House Report 103-316.
       Title III--H.R. 4852, Governing International Fishery 
     Agreement with Lithuania.
       Title IV--H.R. 779, Amendments to the Atlantic Tunas 
     Convention Act; H. Con. Res. 295, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 
     Resolution, passed House October 5, 1994.
       Title V--H.R. 3817, Amendments to the Fishermen's 
     Protective Act, House Report 103-585, passed House July 12, 
     1994.
       Title VI--H.R. 3188, Fisheries Enforcement in the Sea of 
     Okhotsk, House Report 103-316, passed House November 2, 1993.
       Title VII-X--H.R. 4422, Coast Guard Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995, House Report 103-706, passed House 
     September 22, 1994, see Congressional Record that date for 
     legislative history of floor amendments beginning at page 
     H9504.
       Title XI--H.R. 3786, Recreational Boating Safety 
     Improvement Act, House Report 103-445, passed House March 21, 
     1994; also incorporated into H.R. 4422.
       Title XII--H.R. 4959, Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Act, 
     passed House as part of H.R. 4422.
       Title XIII--H.R. 3821, United States Passenger Vessel 
     Development Act, passed House as part of H.R. 4422.
       Title XIV--H.R. 4477, Boating Improvement Act, passed House 
     as part of H.R. 4422.
       Title XV--H.R. 3282, Towing Vessel Navigational Safety Act, 
     passed House as part of H.R. 4422.
       Title XVI--H.R. 5136, Offshore Supply Vessel Construction 
     and Development Act.
       Title XVII--Miscellaneous Coast Guard property transfers 
     most of which were included in H.R. 4422.
       Title XVIII--H.R. 3360, Ballast Water Control Act, House 
     Report 103-440, passed House March 21, 1994.
       Title XIX--H.R. 4008, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Authorization Act, House Report 103-583, 
     passed House September 26, 1994; also included in H.R. 4008: 
     H.R. 3807, Convey the National Marine Fisheries Service 
     Laboratory to Gloucester, MA; H.R. 3886, to amend the 
     boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine 
     Sanctuary; and, H.R. 4236, National Undersea Research Program 
     Act.
       Title XX--Miscellaneous Coast Guard provisions most of 
     which were included in H.R. 4422.
       Title XXI--H.R. 1916, Marine Biotechnology Investment Act, 
     House Report 103-170, passed House July 13, 1993.
       Title XXII--H.R. 44, Merchant Mariner Benefits, passed 
     House as part of H.R. 4422 and as part of H.R. 2150 on July 
     30, 1993.
       Title XXIII--Miscellaneous waivers of the Jones Act, 
     virtually all of which were included in H.R. 4422.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
object, I rise in support of the H.R. 4852, the Oceans Act of 1994, as 
amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this is bipartisan legislation developed by the Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries Committee. It includes several important 
international fisheries provisions, which will allow the United States 
to remain a leader in conservation and management.
  We have included in this legislation provisions to: implement the 
recommendations of the United Nation's Conference of the Food and 
Agriculture Organization to establish a licensing and reporting system 
for U.S. fishing vessels which engage in fishing operations on the high 
seas; implement the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in 
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and allow the United States to 
participate in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization; approve 
the governing international fishery agreement between the United States 
and the Republic of Lithuania; require a report to Congress on the 
status of monitoring and research programs to support the conservation 
and management of Atlantic bluefin tuna and other highly migratory 
species; reauthorize and expand the ability of the Fishermen's 
Protective Act to reimburse fishermen for the loss of their vessels and 
catch if seized illegally by a foreign government or to reimburse them 
if they are forced to pay an illegal transit fee by a foreign 
government; and require that the U.S. fishermen comply with 
international fishery agreements that govern fisheries management in 
the Central Sea of Okhotsk.
  Title VII of this bill authorizes funds for the Coast Guard for 
fiscal year 1995 at the level requested by the President, plus $13 
million to fund the bridge administration program, and an additional 
$21 million for drug interdiction activities. Title VIII through X 
contain important provisions to improve vessel and navigation safety 
and improve Coast Guard personnel management.
  Title XI of this bill contains the text of H.R. 3786, the 
Recreational Boating Safety Improvement Act of 1994. This bill is one 
of my highest priorities, and I am pleased that the most important 
requirements of my bill, H.R. 2812, are incorporated into the bill. 
This legislation will save lives and reduce the number of injuries that 
occur on America's waterways each year.
  Title XII, the Coast Guard Regulatory Reform Act of 1993, is intended 
to simplify U.S. construction requirements to reduce the regulatory 
burden on the U.S. maritime industry without compromising safety. These 
provisions were developed by the Coast Guard, industry representatives, 
and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. They will streamline 
shipbuilding requirements for all the U.S. maritime industry and allow 
it to become more competitive internationally.
  Title XIII, the United States Passenger Vessel Development Act, is 
designed to promote the construction and operation of domestic 
passenger ships that will operate out of U.S. ports and cater to 
Americans.
  Title XIV contains the provisions of the Boating Improvement Act of 
1994, to establish a reasonable, stable funding method for the State 
boating safety program. The Boating Improvement Act is supported by all 
the affected groups, including the National Association of Boating Law 
Administrators, the American League of Anglers and Boaters, and the 
Boat Owners Association the United States.
  I also support the remaining titles of this bill, which will improve 
towing vessel safety and offshore supply vessel shipbuilding 
opportunities, and address various miscellaneous problems. I am pleased 
that title XX of this bill contains my amendments to maintain the 
President's proposed level of Coast Guard drug interdiction and to 
require a complete cost accounting of Coast Guard expenses related to 
Haiti.
  Title XIX of this bill contains an authorization for the ocean and 
coastal programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
[NOAA] for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. In addition to NOAA's national 
ocean service programs, ocean and Great Lakes research, selected 
fisheries programs, and general administrative support, the title also 
improves the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program; encourages dual use of 
military oceanographic assets; amends the boundary of the Flower Garden 
Banks National Marine Sanctuary; improves congressional oversight of 
NOAA's fleet modernization activities; and authorizes the National 
Undersea Research Program.
  These programs contribute to America's understanding and wise use of 
the greatest resource of the Earth--our oceans. I note that through the 
outstanding leadership of Oceanography Subcommittee Chairman Solomon 
Ortiz that the Gulf of Mexico finally receives its due in this bill. 
The authorization of a National Undersea Research Program Center for 
the Gulf, a study using satellites to help pinpoint sea turtles, and 
the consideration of an offshore platform as a research facility in the 
only Gulf national marine sanctuary are all a result of his tireless 
work. Chairman Ortiz has also been extremely responsive to the views of 
all members of the Merchant Marine Committee, on NOAA matters.
  I also want to commend Oceanography Subcommittee Ranking Republican 
Member Curt Weldon for his efforts on behalf of NOAA, especially his 
work on the use of military resources for civilian oceanographic 
research. This is a new but potentially fruitful avenue for the 
committee. Finally, Committee Chairman Studds has helped steer our 
course to the floor to ensure NOAA's future.
  The Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee had completed action in a 
fair, bipartisan manner, on matters that are extremely important to our 
maritime industry and to the safety of our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly enact H.R. 4852 and express my 
highest compliments to our distinguished chairman, Gerry Studds, for 
his outstanding leadership on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to my 
friend, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman 
for his hard work on this bill, and make a few observations about its 
contents.
  This bill contains several measures which have previously passed the 
House of Representatives, including the Coast Guard authorization, the 
NOAA authorization, and several miscellaneous fisheries measures. The 
bill has been thoroughly cleared by both the majority and minority in 
the House. The bill provides necessary reauthorizations for a number of 
different programs including fisheries management, enforcement of 
various laws and treaties, and Coast Guard search and rescue.
  There is one item that is not included in the bill because, while it 
affects commercial vessels under our jurisdiction, it also involves the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. This concerns a 
decision by the U.S. Customs Service to collect a tax on passengers 
multiple times within a one cruise voyage. This means they will be 
taxed every time they enter a U.S. port, even if the cruise is from 
point to point within the United States. The decision was reflected in 
a letter sent to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee by the 
Customs Service.
  I believe that this interpretation by the Customs Service is 
incorrect. Congress has increased the amount of tax that cruise vessel 
passengers should pay, but clearly did not intend that they pay the tax 
multiple times, such as when traveling from Juneau, AK, to Sitka, AK, 
and then again when traveling from Sitka, AK, to Ketchikan, AK. The 
clear intent of Congress was to only assess the tax once during each 
voyage.
  My colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, has indicated to me that he is sympathetic to my concerns 
and will attempt to address these issues in the proper form in the next 
Congress. I want to thank him for his offer to take a fair look at this 
issue.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I will not object to this bill. It is a good 
piece of legislation that represents all of the hard work our committee 
has done this year and I urge its passage.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of 
objection, I think this is a good piece of legislation that should be 
accepted. If it is not accepted at this point, this authorization will 
not occur this term.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdrew my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will 
object, and I want to point out that this bill has been indeed worked 
out with some Members of this House. It has not been worked out with 
many Members of this House, including the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Coast Guard and Navigation, to which most of the amendments will 
address.
  More importantly, there are five Members of the Senate prepared to 
put a hold on this bill the moment it arrives in the Senate for the 
very reason it contains a bill that has passed this House and rejected 
repeatedly in the Senate dealing with the documentation of Merchant 
Mariners.
  This bill, which is now contained in this bill, has been rejected by 
the Senate for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the 
Coast Guard opposes it, does not believe it should be required, will 
not inure to the safety of programs in the Foreign Vessel Navigational 
Safety Act.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill that are contained 
in this unanimous consent on Merchant Mariner documents surprisingly 
contains an exemption for one State, the State of Alaska.
  Now, I contend and the Coast Guard contends that this is not a 
necessary safety element within this bill. In fact, it is only 
paperwork and bureaucracy that should not be imposed upon the industry.
  But let us assume for purposes of argument that the proponents of 
this bill who have been defeated repeatedly in the Senate are correct, 
that this is some kind of a safety measure. Why on earth would we want 
to exempt the State of Alaska, Exxon-Valdez, Prince William Sound?
  Mr. Speaker, the point is that this provision in the bill will be 
objected to in the Senate. The Senate is now trying to put together a 
similar package without these provisions in it.
  The chairman of our full committee stated during committee markup of 
this bill that he did not intend to see this bill sink on this one 
provision. I hope those words are correct.
  When the Senate reports the bill, as I believe it will, without these 
provisions in it, we will have another opportunity to enact all of 
these good programs that are otherwise contained in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, and I mean 
that with all sincerity, my friend, I take issue with the point that 
this was not done in a bipartisan fashion. I will be the first to admit 
not everyone agrees with everything in this bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
did not say that there was not some bipartisan negotiations. Obviously, 
when the State of Alaska got exempted, there were clearly some 
bipartisan negotiations. What I am telling the gentleman is that very 
many of us in this body were not negotiated with personally, although 
there were staff discussions.
  More importantly, we did not have the kind of Member-to-Member 
consultation we should have had on this bill.
  But even more importantly, this is not agreed in the Senate, and five 
Senators are prepared to put a hold on this bill if this provision is 
insisted upon. And for that reason, this gentleman intends to object to 
this unanimous consent.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, what I was going to say to my friend, just so the House will 
know, we voted on the Merchant Mariner document, which is the point of 
controversy. It passed our full committee 30 to 15. The House of 
Representatives passed the full bill, which contained that provision, 
408 to 7.
  I am not aware that the Senate has yet acted upon this provision.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed the bill, it did not 
contain an exemption for Prince William Sound in Alaska. The committee 
rejected that exemption. The gentleman and I know what is happening 
here.
  More importantly, the Senate has refused to take up this bill for 
many sessions now because it objects to it. Five Members are prepared 
to reject this whole package on the basis of that. I know that, and the 
gentleman knows that. It is ridiculous for us to proceed with this bill 
to the Senate.
  My suggestion is that we give the Senate a chance to bring us a bill 
without this provision in it.
  It was my understanding, when this bill began to be worked out 
through whatever staff consultations occurred, that if there were 
controversial provisions, those controversial provisions would be 
dropped.
  I had one of those. I had a controversial provision that restated the 
current law. The Coast Guard is about to build some motorized 
lifeboats, the kind of boats that can flip over in the surf and save 
people's lives. That is under a small business contract setaside. But 
there is one company in this country that used its influence in this 
House to put a provision in the appropriations bill to change the law 
and, indeed, open that up to big company bidding.
  I included a provision to give the Coast Guard the authority in this 
bill to follow the small business setaside law. That has been deleted, 
because some Senators objected to following the current law.
  Mr. TAYLOR from our committee had an amendment dealing with cruises 
to nowhere. A Senator objected. That provision I understand has been 
deleted because it was controversial.
  There is no more controversial provision than these mariner document 
provisions. It is so controversial that my friend from Alaska has 
worked day and night, after voting for it, to then exempt his State 
from it. I understand that. It is so controversial that five Senators 
on the Senate side are prepared to put a hold on this bill to kill the 
entire bill over it. And yet it is in this package.
  I am confused as to why some controversial provisions are deleted 
when we support them and other controversial provisions are continued.
  Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
to me.
  When we say this on the floor many times it is not meant with 
sincerity, ``My good friend,'' when under our breath we are saying 
other things.
  In this case, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is a good 
friend of mine.
  He has mentioned two things about the Alaska exemption. The first he 
knows it does not affect the Prince William Sound. He knows that good 
and well. This is the waterways, riverways, and his objection has 
nothing to do with it. Every vessel that goes into the Prince William 
Sound, every crewman already has documents. So please do not stretch 
the truth and bring up Exxon-Valdez. This is riverways.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman deserves something I am going 
to extend to him. It does not apply to Prince William Sound, but it 
applies to the inland waterways, that spill in the Prince William 
Sound.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, this is riverways, and he and I know that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. It applies to towing on inland waterways and inland 
waterways, to my recollection, do in fact leave waters in the Prince 
William Sound.
  Let me make the point, I am not at all taking umbrage with my good 
friend from Alaska. He represents his State as well as I have ever seen 
any State represented in this body. In fact, I am often in awe of his 
capacities and his abilities to represent his State, certainly in awe 
of his ability to win this exemption after it was denied him in the 
committee and denied him on the floor.
  I am in awe of his abilities. I am only saying that when one State 
gets exempted, it kind of tells us that maybe we ought not to have this 
bill in effect for the entire 49 other States.
  I am telling the gentleman that the Senate will not approve it. It is 
foolish for us to move forward with this provision when we ought to 
object.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the 
Alaska exemption. Would he lift his objection, if I were to move to 
remove the Alaskan exemption.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, no. I would not at that point fail to 
object.
  I want to make it clear, the principal reason I object is that it 
does not belong in this bill, because it is a controversial matter that 
will sink this bill on the Senate side. It does not belong in the bill. 
The Senate is prepared to report us a bill that does not contain this 
controversial provision, but my friend from Alaska knows what I speak 
when I say, if it is so repugnant to my friend from Alaska and the 
State of Alaska that they need this special exemption from it, then the 
whole thing ought to come out for the benefit of the other 49 States 
and for the benefit of the Coast Guard which opposes it and for an 
industry which is prepared to indeed live by the very important other 
safety precautions that the bill contains.

                              {time}  1320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Mazzoli). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
just wanted to make the point that I understand the gentleman's 
concerns. I want to point out that there are other concerns. I have 
found, for instance, that title 19 was placed in this bill. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] did not mention that one of 
the jurisdictions in this bill is that of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology. Title 19 is partially within our jurisdiction. 
We were not consulted with, at least on the minority side, about 
provisions in that particular part of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have deep concerns about some things that were dropped 
out that we think are important, and I would not want to see this bill 
go forward as long as title 19 was a part of it, because we have not 
been given the courtesy of being able to review these matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, have some concerns here that there was not the 
kind of consultation that I think should have taken place with regard 
to the measures in the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], he is correct, there are some items in that title which are of 
joint jurisdiction. I had been advised by staff that it had been 
cleared with the staff of the committee. If it has not been, I 
apologize. There is not, I do not think, any major controversy there. 
If I have the opportunity, and I just have a feeling from what the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has said that I would not, I 
would ask unanimous consent to strike those provisions which the 
gentleman feels have been the subject of inadequate consultation. That 
was not our intention
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the chairman of the 
committee has said. I was under the impression that these provisions 
had been worked out. I hope we can work out something before the end of 
this session. This is a good bill, and I hope we can work it out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. It is not my intention 
to engage in a lengthy debate with the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, the matter to which he objects, as he has alluded to 
quite clearly, is the towing safety provisions; most specifically, the 
merchant mariner document qualifications. That is the matter that he 
says is sufficiently controversial to sink the bill in the Senate. That 
is a matter which was, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz] has 
pointed out, debated and voted on overwhelmingly both in the committee 
and in the House. It is the House position, substantially. It was my 
information, as of about an hour ago, that as of this moment, miracle 
of miracles, there were no holds in the Senate. Heaven only knows what 
will happen between now and when they have the good sense to go away.
  However, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman that certainly it 
is his prerogative to do this. At this time of year we are acting sort 
of as a Senate for a time, where any single Member can interpose his or 
her will against the totality of the House.
  If indeed the gentleman is correct, that there are Members of the 
Senate disposed to sink this bill, I would have preferred that the 
glory be the Senate's and the credit be the Senate's for having sunk 
the bill, but the gentleman is certainly within his right.
  I hope he does not do it, but he may do as he wishes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
thank the gentleman. Let me point out that the chairman of the 
committee is correct, that there is no hold currently. There can be no 
hold until this bill gets over there. The Senate uses a system called 
the hot wire system. When a bill hits, it is not wired to all offices. 
We have been informed that five Senators are prepared, the moment that 
hot wire listing occurs on this bill, to put a hold on the bill.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair hears an objection.

                          ____________________