Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to address these comments to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], with whom I have worked many, many years on Coast Guard matters and for whom I have the deepest personal high regards. I wanted to first of all commend him for recognizing the serious problem and for his commitment to work with me and others to see if we cannot address it in this or some other forum. This bill is not finished. It goes to the Senate. It goes through a conference, and there may be an opportunity somewhere along the way for us to fix this mess. It may be that we have to do it in some other bill. I want to commend the gentleman for working with me. I would encourage him to hold a hearing so we can hear from people around the country about the real effects of this fee schedule.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides for capping the fees that are assessed for inspecting small vessels at of inspecting these small vessels, and requiring the Coast Guard instead to assess, whenever the money is required to cap, these fees on the larger foreign cruise ships. The problem is, of course, a budget one. We cannot put a cap on the fees on the low end unless we provide for collection of those same amounts on the high end of the scale. The problem is that there is a tax in this bill. The tax is on the small boat owners. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out two things to you: The first is that under the current fee schedule small boat owners are being ripped apart. In many cases the cost of inspection bears no relationship whatsoever to the time spent by the Coast Guard in inspecting those vessels. Let me illustrate for you. In Louisiana, Mr. and Mrs. Torres operate a small swamp tour boat, 25 feet in length. It is a small boat. They take passengers out to look at alligators. Twenty-five in length. The Coast Guard says that they are charging $87 an hour to inspect the vessels. But the Torreses, who went through an inspection that took less than an hour, it should not have taken more than that, were billed for $545 of expenses for that inspection under this fee schedule. In Galliano, LA, Mr. Jimmy Martin has three boats 85 feet in length. One of those boats was inspected for a total of one hour. He was not charged $87; he was charged $1,135. A similar case with Mr. Earl Griffin of Larose, LA, one of three boats inspected, each one 110 feet in length; the inspection took a little over 2 hours, $1,135. If there is a tax in this bill, it is a horrible confiscatory tax on small boat owners. But that is not the only problem. The other problem is that recently the Coast Guard initiated a program called streamlined inspections. Now, under that program, if you have a great safety record, if your record in the boat business is so spotless, you are allowed to self-inspect and to self-certify to the Coast Guard that you meet all these criteria. That is a new program initiated to save people money, to save the Coast Guard the trouble and time of inspection, to just inspect the boats that need inspection, in effect. Guess what? The Coast Guard is charging those boat owners the same price they charge other boat owners who they have to go out and inspect. They are calling it a cost of overseeing the self-inspection program. This is a mess, Mr. Chairman. The Coast Guard user fee is using people all right. It is using them to death. And I suggest this amendment is vital and needs to get passed. The gentleman says we are raising a tax by reallocating these user fees. We are not raising a tax. All we are doing is stopping this awful confiscatory tax on the smaller boat owners. What this amendment says is that the inspection fees ought to be capped at something reasonably related to the real cost and the time of inspection: $300 for a boat under 65 feet, $600 for a boat over 65 fee. That makes sense. For the Coast Guard to assess a $1,135 fee for less than an hour's worth of inspection, to assess a fee on those who self-inspected under a good- faith streamlined policy provision we adopted last year, is ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, we ought to pass this amendment. You ought to rule against this point of order if for no other reason than the amendment makes such good sense.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Let me first acknowledge that for the several Congresses we have just come through I have had the extraordinary privilege of chairing the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and so I know the awesome task and the difficult job that my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Howard Coble, has now in shepherding this bill and dealing with these very complex and controversial issues, particularly at a time of deep budget strain and stress. cuts around here. I do a lot more of that than many of the Members do, and we have a lot more of that coming, but part of the process by which we make budget cuts, and we reach toward that incredibly difficult goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002, is a process called prioritizing. It is a process by which in the various budgets and the various moneys that we collect from the American public and spend back for their benefit, we hope, that we list and indeed fund first those things which are most critical to the function of a given agency, to the function of a given department of our Government. If there is one function that is most central to the operation of the U.S. Coast Guard, it is the function of search and rescue. If there is one function above all else that I would rank as the No. 1 priority of the U.S. Coast Guard, it is to be the guardians of the sea. We, as previous speakers have pointed out, lump enormous responsibilities upon the Coast Guard. Every year we seem to find something new for them to do. Every year, as we peel back some responsibility on some other agency, we give it to the U.S. Coast Guard. They have become, as someone pointed out, environmental agents for the Nation now. They are now part of the fisheries enforcement apparatus of America. They are in many cases called upon, as I said, to do things we had not envisioned the Coast Guard doing when we first appointed and placed in service the men and women of this incredible branch of the U.S. Government. With fewer men and women serving than those who serve in the New York Metropolitan Police Department, we carry out these enormous functions for our country. However, what are we doing today? What are we doing today in debating seriously a Coast Guard attempt to shut down its most important function first, instead of maybe dealing with all the other things it does that perhaps we ought to be talking about curtaining or somehow cutting down? What are we doing discussing closing the small boat stations of America that provide the ready access to relief and search and rescue in cases where American boaters are put at risk, and sometimes their lives are at stake? There is no greater honor bestowed upon a Coast Guard man or women than the honor of being a lifesaver. There is nothing that Coast Guard men and women speak more proudly of than the number of lives they save each year, and they save a ton of lives each year. They do a tremendous job for us. Why would we even be considering, in whatever budget cuts or whatever curtailments of expenditures we want to make here, stopping the most important function of the U.S. Coast Guard; in fact, imperiling lives on some kind of an arbitrary formula that does not take into account very dangerous entrances and exits and storm conditions, temperatures of water; getting a formula that closes Coast Guard stations based upon some arithmetic calculation made here in Washington, DC? I challenge Members, please, let us support this amendment. Let us make sure that in this and every budget we do what we are supposed to do, prioritize. The function, indeed, of saving lives ought to be No. 1 within the Coast Guard. We ought to make it No. 1 in this Chamber. We ought to tell the American public we are prepared to make tough cuts, but we are also prepared to do the most important thing Government is supposed to do, and that is protect lives, protect liberty, and protect property in America.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact that for over 70 years, the propane gas industry has been making significant contributions to American life with remarkable degrees of dependability, efficiency, and above all safety. To highlight the industry's sincere concern with safety, the National Propane Gas Association sponsors National Propane Safety Week, which is being held this year from May 1-5. The Safety Awareness Week will include safety demonstrations and anti-tampering messages as well as helpful tips on using gas grills, handling cylinders for recreational vehicles, what to do if a homeowner smells gas, and how to handle a pilot light that won't light. All across the country, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors regularly help in educating the over 60 million consumers of propane on the sage use of this gas. Consumers use this common fuel to heat their homes, and barns, dry their crops, and fuel their vehicles and machinery. National Propane Safety Week will play an important role in reinforcing the safety education of those who already have access to this pertinent information, as well as in making it available to those who do not. A home safety audit, called Gas Check, is another initiative strongly recommended by the National Propane Gas Association throughout Safety Week. Celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, Gas Check stresses consumer education, and after a thorough examination of operation of propane appliances. This kind of attention to the safety needs of consumers should not go unrecognized or unappreciated. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress my support for all of the propane dealers in my district who put safety first, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I would also like to personally commend the National Propane Gas Association and its constituent dealers for their efforts to promote public awareness about propane safety issues through their sponsorship of and participation in National Propane Safety Week.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support efforts to cut unnecessary programs out of the Federal budget but I believe funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and our local PBS stations certainly doesn't fall in that category. I think of Federal funding for Louisiana Public Broadcasting as an investment, not a subsidy; 75 percent of the CPB money goes back to the local PBS stations and networks like LPB. Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting also helps public stations to generate more money from viewers and other sources. Every weekday, LPB provides 8\1/2\ hours of commercial-free, nonviolent educational programming for children to help them learn how to count, write, and get along with each other. Since more than 600,000 homes in my State do not have cable television, LPB is the only source of quality programming available to 40 percent of the households in the State. Louisiana Public Broadcasting is also an invaluable educational resource for teachers. Not only does LPB provide instructional television shows which teachers can incorporate into their lesson plans, it has also set up satellite receiving stations in all 64 parishes so that school systems can broaden their curriculum through distance learning. Through LPB satellite courses, teachers can become certified to teach adult education, special education, environmental science, and English, as a second language, classes. LPB is one of only 25 PBS stations and networks in the country taking part in PBS Mathline, a nationwide effort by public television stations to improve math instruction in schools. Stephanie Fournier and Roslyn Dempster, two teachers from Terrebonne Parish, are part of the mathline project. They sent me a letter detailing what LPB and Public Broadcasting has meant to them. Public Broadcasting has opened a communication network between teachers through Mathline, not just here in Louisiana but throughout the United States, that we could not have entered otherwise. Teachers have a wealth of information but very limited resources for sharing with others. Mathline has allowed new and innovative teaching ideas to be available to teachers at the touch of a button. Representative Tauzin, there is so much we can say about the mathline project. If PBS funds are cut, and the mathline project could not be continued, it would be a great loss to Louisiana, the United States and the entire educational community. We strongly support PBS and we strongly urge Congress to continue funding. It is signed ``Sincerely in Support of PBS.'' Roslyn Dempster and Stephanie Fournier''. I would also like to read an excerpt from a letter sent by Felicia Harry, another one of my constituents. LPB is the State's only television network with a community-based educational mission. LPB makes it easier for our children to learn, easier for parents to allow their children to watch television, and easier for all citizens to be better informed and entertained. Federal funding also allows LPB to provide programs to help adults get their GED, improve their literacy level and take college courses at home. In a State with alarmingly high dropout and illiteracy rates, damaging one of the few public entities making a difference in the fight to educate our population would be counterproductive. Let us not do something that we are going to regret after irreversible damage has been already done. Let's keep funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and local public television stations in the budget.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would allow the propane industry to establish an industry-funded checkoff program for propane gas, an environmentally sound and economical energy source relied on each year by some 60 million Americans. Last Congress, I introduced similar legislation; H.R. 3546, that was cosponsored by 124 members and formally acted upon the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Commerce. Final action on the measure could not be completed before the 103d Congress adjourned. The legislation I am introducing today has been modified to address issues raised during consideration of the bill last Congress. These changes have made the bill better and as I introduced the measure today, I am not aware of any likely opposition. Propane is one of this Nation's most versatile energy sources, supplying 3 to 4 percent of our total need for energy. Since it is distributed in liquefied form by trucks, not carried in pipelines, propane is the fuel of choice in residential areas outside of the natural gas distribution system. Propane is also used by farmers to dry crops, power tractors, or warm greenhouses, by millions of recreational vehicle owners and camping enthusiasts, and by the construction and other industries as a source of heat and power. wholesale price of a product is set aside and forwarded to a specially created checkoff board. The propane board, which would be known as the Propane Education and Research Council, would use those pooled funds for a variety of activities that would benefit the propane consumer, the propane industry, and the public. The Propane Education and Research Council would undertake specific activities including: First, research and development of more efficient, cleaner burning appliances; second, research and training in safety for both the industry and the public; third, education in regulatory compliance and cooperative activities with States; and fourth, cooperative activities with State associations and builder outreach efforts. All of these activities will provide substantial benefits to propane consumers and the public. There are currently more than 150 Federal and State checkoff programs. They operate primarily in agricultural industries, which benefit from checkoffs for beef, eggs, cotton, milk, and soybeans. There are some similar programs in energy industries, however, such as the Gas Research Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Texas Railroad Commission propane checkoff and similar State programs in Louisiana, Missouri, and Alabama. Oil producers in Oklahoma have recently created the Oklahoma Energy Resource Board. The Gas Research Institute [GRI], for example, boasts a 400-percent return for each dollar collected and invested. While GRI's work primarily benefits urban and suburban natural gas consumers, the propane checkoff would benefit rural and agricultural users of propane, as well as urban and suburban propane consumers. The agricultural industry, for example, which accounts for 7 to 8 percent of all propane consumed in the United States, will see substantial benefits from the propane checkoff. Much of the large industrial and agricultural equipment now in use is not as efficient as residential and commercial equipment. The propane checkoff will permit research and development into better, more efficient equipment for the industry. With even marginal increases in equipment efficiency, the agriculture industry would reap great returns. Obviously, better and more efficient utilization of propane would benefit other industries, such as construction, in still other ways, further increasing the value of the return. A checkoff program is particularly needed for propane because, unlike all other major forms of energy and many minor energy sources, propane receives virtually no Federal support for research, development, education, or other activities. Rather than turn to the Federal Government for support in a period of deficit spending and tight funding restrictions, the propane industry has developed this self-help proposal to help ensure that propane is most effectively and efficiently utilized. While this program is paid for by the propane industry, propane consumers and the public will be primary beneficiaries. This legislation only provides the propane industry with the opportunity to establish this program. The legislation I am proposing would not actually establish the propane checkoff. Instead, it calls upon the propane industry, propane producers, and retail marketers, to hold a referendum among themselves to authorize establishment of the checkoff before it can go into effect. If the experience with the program is not as positive as the industry projects and experience with checkoff programs suggests, it could be terminated by a majority vote of both classes, or a two-thirds vote by a single one. It is the propane industry's own request that we would help provide it with this coordinated opportunity to voluntarily pool its resources. This bill is an important self-help measure for the propane industry based on a proven legislative precedent from other industries. Moreover, as a self-help measure, rather than a request for direct Government funding, this measure may well become a model for future legislation in many fields. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. We went through a very elaborate debate on this floor regarding regulatory reform. The extraordinary effort this House has made to change the way in which agencies of this Government regulate businesses historic. I hope, indeed, that before this session gets too much older, we can see a conference report on those regulatory reform bills. They are critical to the future success of this country and to a new relationship between the Government and those people in this country who created it and who expect their Government to start serving them again instead of being their master. Paperwork reduction is a key component of that. Reauthorizing this act, improving it, strengthening it, giving the OMB additional authorities to cut down on the level of paperwork required in business and industry and small business and by individuals in our society is a key element of regulatory reform. More and more people in small business tell me it's not so much the regulation, it's not so much having to comply, it's the enormous paperwork, the reporting we have to do, not to one agency but to 5, 6, 7, 10 agencies on the same activity. The load of paperwork, the load of extra, unproductive work done in a small business to comply with regulations just in paperwork is crippling our productivity. This conference report will give us a chance to complete, if you will, that effort in regulatory reform, not only to change the way in which regulations are made in this country but hopefully one day to lower the level of reports and paperwork required of small businesses and individuals in our society. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate a college basketball program in my district that, for the first time ever, has been invited to the NCAA tournament. Nicholls State University with a record of 24-5 drew a No. 13 seed and will play Virginia today. After winning 17 of 18 conference games, the Colonels swept the Southland Conference Tournament beating Northeast Louisiana in the final game 98 to 87. Senior Reggie Jackson was named tournament most valuable player, and Coach Ricky Broussard was named conference coach of the year. Of the Colonels 5 losses throughout the season, 3 were to teams also invited to the NCAA tournament. This shows just how much they deserved a bid. This opportunity will do wonders not only for this outstanding basketball program, but also the great university they represent. I want to congratulate Coach Broussard and all his coaching and support staff on a magnificent season. And to all the young men on that team, congratulations. Now it's on to the tournament to face the Cavalier. I and my staff wish the Colonels all the very best. Good luck--go Colonels.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank my dear friend the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. I want to congratulate all who have played a role in bringing this conference committee forward. When we announced the formation of our little band of conservative Democrats called the Coalition, we promised America two things. We promised America that we would stand to do the right thing regardless of party or partisanship. We also promised we would try to deliver big bipartisan support for issues of importance to the American public. We delivered on this promise. This bill is hugely supprted--360 Members of this House voted for it, 91 Members of the Senate voted for the conference report. Why? Because it is good and right for the country. While we are not worried about who gets particular credit for it, it is important today to remember that it was one of our members, in fact one of our officers in the coalition, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] who first created this notion that Congress ought to speak very clearly, that unfunded mandates are wrong, and that we ought to avoid them in the future if we are to have the right kind of relationship between Federal, State, and local governments. It was the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] who put together the caucus in this House of Democrats and Republicans who brought this issue to the point where it has come today, where the President of the United States has announced publicly he is ready to sign this bill into law. To the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and to all of the members of that caucus, Democrat and Republican, to all who have joined in this House to make this a huge bipartisan victory for the American public, I think this is a day of celebration and cheer. I again want to congratulate our friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], for having the courage years ago before anyone was ready to rally behind this cause to make this his No. 1 cause in the Congress and to bring us to this point of victory in the House, in the Senate and eventually as I said with the Presidential signature for the American people.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that this amendment is intended only to preempt the State laws in a small minority of jurisdictions that impose unlimited financial liability on owners of motor vehicles for harm caused by the permissive users of their vehicles, and that nothing in this amendment should be construed to excuse any motor vehicle owner from meeting the minimum financial responsibility laws required by each State.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that when we talk about punitive damages, we are talking about quasi-fines. Quasi-fines. It is one thing to say that you are going to fine somebody for doing something wrong. It is another thing to say that we are going to first authorize you to do it as a Government agency and then allow you to be fined for doing it even though we said it is OK to do it. That is the issue in this debate. The FDA goes through an extraordinary process of approving drugs for the American public. It is a lengthy, complicated process. Once they approve something for us, they put their stamp of approval on it, should we as a government say now we are going to allow somebody to sue you and collect a fine after we have authorized you to sell that particular drug or product to the American public? It seem a bit ludicrous. I suggest to Members that if the speed limit says you can go 35, you ought not have to pay a fine if you have stayed under that speed limit. That is essentially what this argument is all about. I urge Members to adopt the amendment and make this bill a better bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TAUZIN. No, you are actually extending this law for 3 years applied to new claims. So it is not an extension of the statute of limitations, is it?

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further so I may make one final point, just to clarify it, the gentleman is saying this statute of limitations will apply to new claims that might arise during the 3 years. The gentleman is not saying you are extending the statute of limitations for claims that already exist, are you?

Mr. TAUZIN. It exempts the city in all of its suits. So if the city, county, or pension board wants to bring a suit against a small company, under this amendment they would be exempted from this bill, would they not be?

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to commend the gentleman for that comment. It is time that we stopped impugning motives to either side in this debate. Our effort ought to be to build a good legal system. If we concentrate on that, perhaps the American public will appreciate this a lot better.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we live in an age when attorneys are not very popular. That was evident when the movie ``Jurassic Park'' was such a big hit, and the only person eaten by that monster in ``Jurassic Park'' was a lawyer, and audiences stood and cheered. I was in one of the movie theaters and witnessed that awesome event. Having been schooled in the law myself at LSU Law School in Baton Rouge, and having a deep love and appreciation for the art of lawmaking and the general artistry of well-crafted laws and how they can help order our society and make our lives better when they work right, I want to quickly report that there are many lawyers in this body who do support product liability reform, and I am one of them. When I was a young state legislator in Louisiana, we had a proposition then before the States called no-fault insurance. I and several other young attorney legislators lead the fight for the adoption of a no-fault insurance bill in our State, a bill opposed generally by the Bar Association and the Lawyers Association of our State. We passed it out of the House; 17 of the 31 attorneys in the House voted for it, a majority. It died in the Senate on a tie vote; never became law. But nevertheless, it illustrated that an attorney can be and should be the most interested in making sure legal systems work. If anybody has a stake in improving the legal systems of our country certainly those who have been trained in the law, who have come to learn to love it and appreciate it as a working instrument of good in our society, have a major responsibility in correcting bad legal systems and making good legal systems out of them. That is what this effort is all about, and so I rise again tonight in strong support of reforms in our legal system and certainly in product liability reforms, such as we produced in 1988 and such as we are trying to produce on the floor of the House this week. But I also rise to sound a note of alarm and concern about some of the amendments that will be offered in this debate tomorrow, amendments that would extend so-called fair-share liability and establish a cap on noneconomic damages to all lawsuits, not just product liability suits. The combination of those two ideas can be lethal. When you think about a young person, a woman who is a homemaker who does not have economic losses in a lawsuit, or an elderly citizen who is on a fixed retirement income and who gets injured and therefore suffers no real economic losses other than restoration of their medical losses, when you consider the fact that under one of those amendments that person would be limited to several liability to restore their losses for noneconomic damages, and in addition may face a cap on those same damages, you get this kind of a situation. You get a situation where they have not covered any economic losses because they had none, but they have been severely damaged, perhaps incapacitated for the rest of their lives. They may suffer severely both pain and mental distress from a disability for the rest of their lives and yet maybe there is only one defendant standing who may be responsible for only 10 percent, and so they can only collect 10 percent of those damages for pain and suffering and disabilities. On top of that, an amendment would come forward to put a cap on those damages, so it would be 10 percent of a capped amount. I would hope my friends on the other side would think very seriously before the combination of those two amendments are adopted. We have adopted a cap on noneconomic losses in our State for medical malpractice, but we allow joint and several liability to make sure that persons can collect the amount of that cap when they have suffered real and severe extended disabilities and pain and suffering and mental distress, and perhaps had no other economic losses. To combine the loss of joint and several liability with a cap on those noneconomic losses may, indeed, create some real injustice in our society. I would hope my friends on the other side would strongly consider before we adopt those two amendments in tandem. In short, before we extend these very valuable reforms in product liability to all tort law in America, we ought to think very carefully, and we certainly ought to think about caps and the new system of liability together.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the honorable gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, would it be useful for the Chairman to summarize how much time remains for each of the parties?