Once again in a case where on Blue Cat 1 readings the employee made himself out an ambiguous-amphibious seaman, Mike Hooks, Inc. v. Pena, 5 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 696, 1963 A.M.C. 355, against the employer, TVA, we confess a certain bewilderment as to how the plain language of the 1949 amendment 2 to FECA cuts off substantial rights recognized under the maritime law vis-a-vis a seaman employee and a governmental agency having a very relaxed sovereign immunity, Gulfspray I: Gulf Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 24, 1969 A.M.C. 1; Gulfspray III: Gulf Oil Corp. v. Panama Canal Co., 5 Cir., 1973, 481 F.2d 561, 1973 A.M.C. *613 1582 [1973]. Nevertheless, assuming the broadest congressional waiver of sovereign immunity by TYA, we find no meaningful distinction between TVA and other governmental agencies as to whom we have held that the claim of such a real or pseudo seaman strands on 5 U.S.C.A. § 8116(c). Johnson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 778, cert, denied, 1969, 394 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1195, 22 L.Ed.2d 459; Petition of United States, E.D.La., 1962, 212 F.Supp. 214, aff’d sub nom. Jarvis v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 342 F.2d 799, cert.. denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 70, 15 L.Ed.2d 75. Nothing new has been added, nothing new need be stated. So nothing new need be ordained.

Affirmed.