In 1992, the House added a provision to the Oceans Act of 1992... to limit a claimant's right to a trial in any court of competent jurisdiction. While it is perfectly legitimate for the Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision within the bounds of the Constitution, we do not believe such changes should be made without notification to, and careful consideration by, the Members of Congress responsible for enactment of the legislation. As part of this consideration, we believe that the interested parties should have an opportunity to comment on any changes. At no time prior to the passage of the Oceans Act of 1992 was legislation introduced or did the House or Senate hold hearings on the cruise ship venue concern addressed by section 3006 of the Oceans Act. It is for this reason that the Senate supported a provision in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 to restore section 4283B to the wording as it read prior to the passage of the Oceans Act of 1992.
John B. Breaux: “In 1992, the House added a provision to the Oceans Act of 1992... to limit a claimant's right to a trial in any court of…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses legislative changes related to cruise ship operators and the right to trial.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
It's certainly not a newsworthy item that someone has found out that there's a Federal program in Washington that could be subject to waste, fraud, and abuse.
My opinion is that in order to ever reach an agreement between the two parties, Congress is going to have to combine the best of what government can do with the best of what the private sector can do and put the two together.
I will even go along with saying you can bring it back at 5 percent, if you are going to use it for job creation or research and development, for capital expenditures. And If you are going to use it to rebuild your pension fund for…