[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15650-15653]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1515
                       CLEAN BOATING ACT OF 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2766) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
to address certain discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
recreational vessel.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 2766

       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 ``Clean Boating Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF 
                   RECREATIONAL VESSELS.

       Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of 
     Recreational Vessels.--No permit shall be required under this 
     Act by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit 
     program approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of 
     any graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck 
     runoff, oil water separator effluent, or effluent from 
     properly functioning marine engines, or any other discharge 
     that is incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, if 
     the discharge is from a recreational vessel.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

       Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) Recreational vessel.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `recreational vessel' means any 
     vessel that is--
       ``(i) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure; or
       ``(ii) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the 
     pleasure of that person.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `recreational vessel' does not 
     include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection 
     and that--
       ``(i) is engaged in commercial use; or
       ``(ii) carries paying passengers.''.

     SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RECREATIONAL VESSELS.

       Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1322) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Management Practices for Recreational Vessels.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--This subsection applies to any 
     discharge, other than a discharge of sewage, from a 
     recreational vessel that is--
       ``(A) incidental to the normal operation of the vessel; and
       ``(B) exempt from permitting requirements under section 
     402(r).
       ``(2) Determination of discharges subject to management 
     practices.--
       ``(A) Determination.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating, the Secretary of Commerce, and interested States, 
     shall determine the discharges incidental to the normal 
     operation of a recreational vessel for which it is reasonable 
     and practicable to develop management practices to mitigate 
     adverse impacts on the waters of the United States.
       ``(ii) Promulgation.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     the determinations under clause (i) in accordance with 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(iii) Management practices.--The Administrator shall 
     develop management practices for recreational vessels in any 
     case in which the Administrator determines that the use of 
     those practices is reasonable and practicable.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In making a determination under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(i) the nature of the discharge;
       ``(ii) the environmental effects of the discharge;
       ``(iii) the practicability of using a management practice;
       ``(iv) the effect that the use of a management practice 
     would have on the operation, operational capability, or 
     safety of the vessel;
       ``(v) applicable Federal and State law;
       ``(vi) applicable international standards; and
       ``(vii) the economic costs of the use of the management 
     practice.
       ``(C) Timing.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(i) make the initial determinations under subparagraph 
     (A) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) every 5 years thereafter--

       ``(I) review the determinations; and
       ``(II) if necessary, revise the determinations based on any 
     new information available to the Administrator.

       ``(3) Performance standards for management practices.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each discharge for which a 
     management practice is developed under paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, other interested Federal agencies, and 
     interested States, shall promulgate, in accordance with 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code, Federal standards 
     of performance for each management practice required with 
     respect to the discharge.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In promulgating standards under this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall take into account the 
     considerations described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(C) Classes, types, and sizes of vessels.--The standards 
     promulgated under this paragraph may--
       ``(i) distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of 
     vessels;
       ``(ii) distinguish between new and existing vessels; and
       ``(iii) provide for a waiver of the applicability of the 
     standards as necessary or appropriate to a particular class, 
     type, age, or size of vessel.
       ``(D) Timing.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(i) promulgate standards of performance for a management 
     practice under subparagraph (A) not later than 1 year after 
     the date of a determination under paragraph (2) that the 
     management practice is reasonable and practicable; and
       ``(ii) every 5 years thereafter--

       ``(I) review the standards; and
       ``(II) if necessary, revise the standards, in accordance 
     with subparagraph (B) and based on any new information 
     available to the Administrator.

       ``(4) Regulations for the use of management practices.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate such 
     regulations governing the design, construction, installation, 
     and use of management practices for recreational vessels as 
     are necessary to meet the standards of performance 
     promulgated under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Regulations.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate the 
     regulations under this paragraph as soon as practicable after 
     the Administrator promulgates standards with respect to the 
     practice under paragraph (3), but not later than 1 year after 
     the date on which the Administrator promulgates the 
     standards.
       ``(ii) Effective date.--The regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary under this paragraph shall be effective upon 
     promulgation unless another effective date is specified in 
     the regulations.
       ``(iii) Consideration of time.--In determining the 
     effective date of a regulation promulgated under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall consider the period of time 
     necessary to communicate the existence of the regulation to 
     persons affected by the regulation.
       ``(5) Effect of other laws.--This subsection shall not 
     affect the application of section 311 to discharges 
     incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel.
       ``(6) Prohibition relating to recreational vessels.--After 
     the effective date of the regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating under paragraph (4), the owner or operator of a 
     recreational vessel shall neither operate in nor discharge 
     any discharge incidental to the normal operation of the 
     vessel into, the waters of the United States or the waters of 
     the contiguous zone, if the owner or operator of the vessel 
     is not using any applicable management practice meeting 
     standards established under this subsection.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill, S. 2766.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are. We started on this journey with this 
legislation in subcommittee and full committee on the initiative of Mr. 
Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. LaTourette of Ohio, Mr. LoBiondo of New 
Jersey, Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin, a whole host of Members who live along 
the water, whose districts encompass water-based recreational activity, 
alarmed by constituents that something serious was

[[Page 15651]]

about to happen as a result of a decision of the U.S. District Court of 
the Northern District of California, that guys and women with little 
motor boats are going to have to go through a ballast water discharge 
system.
  Well, the ramifications would have brought forward a regulatory 
scheme that would have been extraordinarily and unnecessarily 
burdensome on weekend recreational boaters. Every weekend I travel 
throughout my district, and I look longingly out on the lakes at those 
who are using their boats and wish I could be out there with them. I am 
doing other things, most of them meetings indoors.
  I know from hearing from my constituents, as the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette) has, that incidental discharges, as covered by the 
court ruling, deck runoffs, laundry, shower and galley waste from 13 
million State-registered recreational boats could wreak havoc in this 
sector that is a multi-billion dollar part of our national economy and 
vital specifically to local economies and vital to individuals who seek 
respite from their workaday life by getting out on a boat on the 
weekend and kicking back and enjoying the water and the water 
environment.
  In the aftermath of the court case, Northwest Environmental 
Advocates, our committee closely reviewed the issue of discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, to use the technical 
term, including the implications of both recreational vessel discharges 
and commercial vessel discharges, and we decided it was appropriate to 
retain a limited exclusion from the national pollutant discharge 
elimination system that will allow requirements for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel. We restore 
the status quo in this legislation that existed prior to the California 
court decision.
  Just one word of explanation for the procedure here. We were ready to 
bring our bill weeks ago. We got a message from our counterparts in the 
other body to wait and give the other body time to move its legislation 
because with all of the procedural limitations and hoops they have to 
jump through in the other body, wait until they could move a bill. And 
we waited and we waited and we waited. We were ready to move our own 
bill. I said this is it, we will bring it to the floor this week. We 
aren't going to wait any longer. Well, I won't characterize any further 
the other body. It might go beyond the decorum of the House in this 
matter.
  And suddenly, the trigger went off and the other body moved with its 
bill and brought it to the floor. If we act today on this legislation, 
we can just send these bills directly to the President for his 
signature, and that is what we ought to do in the best interest of 
boating and in the best interest of comity between the bodies.
  I express great appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio for his 
patience and for his cooperation and participation, and to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for also being very patient on 
the issue. And for all of my other colleagues who have wanted us to 
take this action, we are doing it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Oberstar, and I will have a little more to say about the 
body on the other side and how it contrasts with how Mr. Oberstar and 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on this side operates.
  I also thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for his 
dogged pursuit of this, and all of the other Members that Mr. Oberstar 
mentioned; and in addition one who he by oversight forgot, Candice 
Miller of Michigan, who was in the boat business before she came to 
Congress. And like most of us who live up on the Great Lakes, when she 
goes home, she hears about this.
  I actually saw a couple of boaters the weekend before last, and they 
said that with all that is going on with fuel prices, they paid $500 to 
fill up their tanks to go out and boat, and they certainly didn't need 
an incidental discharge permit authorized by the Environmental 
Protection Agency to go out walleye fishing.
  Relative to the way the two bodies work, when this matter was brought 
to the chairman's attention, he immediately said well, draft a piece of 
legislation, put it in, let's find out everybody that is interested. We 
will have hearings. We did in the subcommittee and the full committee. 
We had a markup, we prepared the bill, and then we waited and we waited 
and we waited.
  Then today, I know some people who may keep track of the schedule of 
the House of Representatives may have seen the schedule for today's 
suspension calendar printed, and it said we would be considering H.R. 
5949, and I just would ask people to not adjust their television sets, 
it is not a mistake, we are in fact doing the Senate bill because the 
great slumbering dinosaur that is the august body on the other side of 
the Capitol awoke from that slumber earlier this morning and in fact 
passed Senate 2766, which I am happy to say is identical word for word 
with the House bill and so we are going to consider the Senate bill 
because unlike others, we have no pride of authorship, we are more 
interested in getting this bill to the President for his signature to 
help alleviate the pain that some 13 million, 14 million boaters would 
have.
  The original House bill was introduced to exempt recreational boaters 
from having to obtain an EPA permit for incidental discharges that are 
determined to be normal to the operation of the vehicle. The House 
passage today will prevent 16 million recreational boaters from being 
subject to Federal fines of up to $32,500. And let me repeat that, 
$32,500 a day for a guy who owns a 19-foot Starcraft that has an 
incidental discharge in Lake Erie.
  What is an incidental discharge? An incidental discharge is if it 
rains and water pours off the deck of your boat; if you are out fishing 
and you have a cooler and you want to dump the melted ice over the side 
of the boat, that is an incidental discharge. In my part of the Great 
Lakes basin, we are a little heartier and maybe a little cruder than 
others, and sometimes we will go out with a cooler filled with liquid 
refreshments while we walleye fish, and sometimes that leads to a call 
of nature. That is an incidental discharge from a recreational boat 
that would have been subject to this discharge permit because of this 
judge in California.
  And the Congress had to act because the judge indicated that these 
regulations go into effect in September. The EPA has already drafted 
model regulations so they were ready to go. And although the matter is 
on appeal, if we don't take action and get the President to sign it, it 
is going to be a big problem.
  So again, I am very, very thankful to Mr. Oberstar and the other 
members of our committee. I am very thankful for the prompt action of 
the House of Representatives and thankful for the action of the United 
States Senate earlier today. I urge everybody to support this piece of 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on 
this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 
to a distinguished Member of the House from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 
such time as he may consume.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
congratulations to Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and 
Members LaTourette and Taylor.
  I rise in support of H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, which would 
exempt recreational boats from a permit requirement for normal 
operational discharges of ballast water.
  In September of 2006, a U.S. District Court decision overturned the 
Environmental Protection Agency's authority to exempt recreational 
boats from having to obtain a permit for operational discharges. As a 
result, the EPA is required to develop and implement a permitting 
system for all boats by September 30, 2008. Under this new rule, all 
boaters will be required to apply for pollution permits regulating 
ballast

[[Page 15652]]

water, which includes deck runoff, engine cooling water, gray water and 
bilge water from engines, laundries, showers and sinks.
  While I believe large quantities of ballast water, primarily from 
commercial ships, adversely affect marine habitat, runoff from 
recreational vehicles does not come close to posing the same water 
pollution challenges.
  The Clean Boating Act defines recreational vessels as those used 
primarily for pleasure, or those leased, rented or chartered to a 
person for recreational purposes. Under H.R. 5949, these vessels would 
be exempt from the new permit requirement, just as they had been before 
the U.S. District Court decision.
  Recreational boating plays an important role in many of the 
communities in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, and I have 
found many boaters to be among the most concerned for our marine 
ecosystems. Boating is an important factor in tourism and the 
prosperity of local economies all along our coastline.
  I urge support of the Clean Boating Act to exempt recreational 
boaters from this necessary permitting process.
  Our laws should be logical, workable, and fair. Requiring all boats 
to obtain permits for normal discharge of ballast water is not logical, 
workable, or fair.
  H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, ensures pollution permits 
regulating ballast water will cover those vessels that it should apply 
to, commercial boats, and not those vessels that it shouldn't apply to, 
recreational boats.
  Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill out and making 
sure that we don't have to go to conference so we can send it directly 
to President. Congratulations to both of you.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
for the purpose of closing on our side.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank Chairman Oberstar. This again is 
an example of how our committee works in a bipartisan way to deal with 
real issues affecting real Americans.
  Just a couple of statistics for the purpose of the Record. In just 
the State of Ohio, there are over 415,000 recreational boats registered 
with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. One in every five boats 
registered in Ohio are located within the seven counties that I 
represent in northeastern Ohio. The Clean Water Act amendments that the 
court was allegedly interpreting were designed to deal with ballast 
water and to prevent the additional scourge of invasive species coming 
into our waterways, which those of us in the Great Lakes and the 
coastal regions know, the zebra mussels, the round goby, the sea 
lamprey, the Asian carp, we are all familiar with how terrible it is 
when something foreign to our ecosystem is introduced.
  But the fallacy of the court's decision is that 99 percent of 
recreational boats don't have any ballast water so it would be tough 
for an invasive species to sneak into something that didn't exist. And, 
in fact, this court ruling would have even covered a kayak. If you, Mr. 
Speaker, wanted to go kayaking on the Cuyahoga River, you would have 
needed an EPA discharge permit for the purpose of your kayak.
  Clearly it made no sense. There is no body or plethora of science 
that indicates that invasive species have hitched into inland water on 
kayaks or pontoon boats. This is a ruling that didn't make sense. And, 
sadly, it is taking congressional action, and I am glad that in this 
instance congressional action has taken place in both bodies and the 
President hopefully will soon sign this legislation. Again, my thanks 
to all who were involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time for 
the purpose of closing.
  I also want to include in the list of distinguished Members who 
supported this legislation, and, from the outset, Mrs. Miller from 
Michigan. Candice Miller has been a strong advocate for this 
legislation.
  The gentleman from Ohio referenced the other body arising from its 
slumber. I think that is a passage from scripture, from the Old 
Testament, that concludes, in the last stanza, ``A new day is 
dawning.'' This is a new day of dawning, for boating, for recreational 
boaters.
  As I was up the north shore of Lake Superior on Saturday dedicating a 
new McQuade Road Harbor of refuge, there was, indeed, an open water 
kayak, a 20-foot kayak that put into the Harbor of Refuge. I thought of 
this legislation, and I told the folks gathered that we are going to 
make boating safe and easy, comfortable again, thanks to a partnership. 
Although there wasn't a boat in the carload, for the gentleman from 
Ohio, I brought his name up saying it's wonderful to have this kind of 
partnership and participation in legislation for the common good and 
common interest.
  I will observe further that today is the gentleman's birthday, and I 
promise not to break into song, but I do promise that we deliver to the 
gentleman an appropriate remembrance of his day in the form of this 
legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of S. 2766, the ``Clean Boating Act of 2008,'' which provides a 
targeted Clean Water Act exemption for discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a recreational vessel.
  This legislation is in response to a 2005 Federal district court 
decision, which struck down a decades-old exemption for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.
  Although the focus of the 2005 court decision was the discharge of 
ballast water, the implications of this decision are likely to affect 
the more than 13 million recreational boaters in the United States.
  The committee believes that the discharge of pollutants from 
recreational vessels is likely to pose a minimal adverse impact on 
water quality and the environment, even on a cumulative basis.
  Accordingly, it is appropriate to reaffirm a limited exclusion from 
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, 
requirements of the Clean Water Act for discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a recreational vessel, such as graywater, bilge 
water, and weather deck runoff.
   S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act, would amend the Clean Water Act to 
provide a limited statutory exemption for discharges from recreational 
vessels, which would be clearly defined in the statute.
  In addition, the scope of coverage for ``discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a recreational vessel'' is intended to mirror those 
discharges that were included in the EPA regulatory exclusion, found at 
40 CFR 122.3(a).
  However, in order to further minimize any potential adverse impact to 
water quality and the environment, the Administrator must further 
examine the potential adverse impacts of discharges incidental to the 
normal operation of a recreational vessel, and develop appropriate 
management practices to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the 
waters of the United States.
  Accordingly, S. 2766 also amends section 312 of the Clean Water Act 
to establish management practices for any discharges from a 
recreational vessel that would be excluded by this act, other than the 
discharge of sewage regulated under section 312 of the act).
  This provision directs the Administrator to develop ``reasonable and 
practicable'' management practices to mitigate the adverse impacts that 
may result from discharges from a recreational vessel excluded by this 
act.
  Under this provision, the Administrator must complete its evaluation 
of management practices for discharges excluded by this act within 1 
year of the date of enactment, and review its evaluation, and revise, 
if necessary, every 5 years thereafter.
  S. 2766 also requires the Administrator, in consultation with the 
Coast Guard, the Department of Commence, and other interested Federal 
agencies, to develop performance standards for management practices 
based on the class, type, and size of the vessel, and directs the Coast 
Guard to conduct a rulemaking governing the design, construction, 
installation, and use of management practices for recreational vessels 
as are necessary to meet these performance standards.
  Finally, this legislation includes a savings clause to ensure that 
this act does not affect existing Clean Water Act prohibitions against 
discharges of oil or hazardous substances under section 311 of the act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this targeted legislative proposal to 
properly address discharges from recreational vessels.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 
2766, the Clean Boating

[[Page 15653]]

Act of 2008, and to applaud my good friend and the bill's lead sponsor, 
Senator Nelson, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue for 
Florida's recreational boaters.
  I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee 
and my good friend from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, for fulfilling a 
promise he made on the House floor when we considered the Coast Guard 
bill back in April. He promised then to take up this issue on behalf of 
recreational boaters before the September 30th deadline, and once 
again, the distinguished Chairman has proven that he is one of the 
truly great leaders of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, in a mere 70 days, the nation's 73 million recreational 
boaters will face a huge and unreasonable regulatory burden as a result 
of a recent U.S. District Court decision. The underlying decision dealt 
primarily with halting the spread of invasive species through 
commercial ballast water--an effort I support, having seen firsthand 
the ravages of invasive species on Florida's environmental treasure: 
the Everglades. The U.S. District Court, however, did not limit its 
decision only to ballast water. Instead, it struck down a longstanding 
exemption for recreational boaters from obtaining a permit for 
incidental discharges.
  As a result, 73 million boaters will be forced to obtain permits from 
the EPA or face fines as high as $32,500. To be frank, this is a 
ridiculous scenario. We don't need a new DMV for our recreational 
boaters, especially since the EPA feels ill-equipped to handle this new 
regulatory responsibility.
  We must also not forget that this new permitting system will hurt an 
industry that is already suffering as a result of our country's 
economic downturn. In particular, the marine industry is a major 
economic force in my home state of Florida, responsible for over $18 
billion of revenues and 220,000 jobs statewide. It's critical to note 
that $13 billion of the economic impact and 162,000 of those jobs as 
well as almost half of the industry's gross sales come from the tri-
county region, much of which is in my Congressional district.
  But this great industry is not without its own perils. People don't 
need boats, and they generally buy them when they are comfortable with 
the necessities of life. The industry is also affected by high interest 
rates, record insurance costs and rising property taxes, particularly 
for those on the waterfront. We must not add to their troubles this new 
regulatory burden that could prevent potential boaters from buying or 
using a boat. That's why I cosponsored the House version of the Clean 
Boating Act and have supported its swift passage.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate already has acted earlier this morning by 
passing S. 2766 and the next bill up for debate, S. 3298. I strongly 
support that bill as well because it provides a two-year moratorium for 
certain small commercial vessels and all fishing vessels from the 
regulatory permits. I urge my colleagues to follow suit and adopt both 
bills so we can stop this logistical and regulatory nightmare.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2766.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________